Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The friendly epistle in Russian poetry: A history of the genre
(USC Thesis Other)
The friendly epistle in Russian poetry: A history of the genre
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE FRIENDLY EPISTLE IN RUSSIAN POETRY: A HISTORY OF THE GENRE by Romy E. Taylor A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (SLAVIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES) May 2002 Copyright 2002 Romy E. Taylor R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3073855 ___ ® UMI UMI Microform 3073855 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by Romy Elyse Taylor under the direction of h..?L...... Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY of Graduate Studies Date ...M a y ..io ? ...2002..................... DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chau R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents List of Charts and Tables...............................................................................................iv Abstract........................................................................................................................viii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................... x Chapter One: Introduction I. Genre Studies........................................................................................................ 1 H. Friendly Epistles in the West...............................................................................7 HI. Scholarship on Russian Friendly Epistles..........................................................11 Notes..................................................................................................................19 Chapter Two: Methodology I. Defining the Russian Friendly Epistle.............................................................. 20 II. The Dissertation’s Computer Database............................................................ 35 A. Database Design B. Description of Categories C. Case Study III. Sources for Texts...............................................................................................49 Notes..................................................................................................................54 Chapter Three: Early Russian Friendly Epistles, -1700-1801 I. Overview.............................................................................................................56 n. Early Russian Verse Letters to Friends and the First Russian Friendly Epistles, -1700-1790........................................................................................76 III. The First Major Wave of Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-7..........................96 IV. The Waning of the First Wave, 1797-1801.................................................... 122 Notes................................................................................................................126 ii R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter Four: The Heyday of Russian Friendly Epistles, 1802-1815 I. Overview..........................................................................................................129 II. A Heterogeneous Group of Friendly Epistles, 1802-1810.............................160 III. 1810-5: Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty,” Precursors, Answers, Imitations, and Parodies................................................................................................... 175 IV. 1810-5: The Friendly Epistle as Critical Forum and Poetic Laboratory 212 Notes.............................................................................................................. 245 Chapter Five: The Waning of the Russian Friendly Epistle Genre, 1816-1830 I. Overview......................................................................................................... 250 E. Friendly Epistles, 1816-1830..........................................................................270 HI. Other Genres Borrow From, and Negate, Friendly Epistles; Conclusion...296 Notes.............................................................................................................. 317 Works Cited...............................................................................................................319 Index: Russian Friendly Epistles Catalogued in Database, 1770-1830....................328 iii R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Charts and Tables Chapter 2: 2.1.1 Friendly Epistles Mentioned by Both M. Gasparov and Tomashevskii......... 25 2.1.2 Friendly Epistles Mentioned by Either M. Gasparov or Tomashevskii......... 26 2.1.3 Poems Identified as Epistles, or as Friendly Epistles, by M. Gasparov......... 28 2.2.1 The Database Entry Form................................................................................46 Chapter 3: 3.1.1 Krylov's "Pis'mo o pol'ze strastei" and Other Friendly Epistles, 1780-1809, by Decade..................................................................................... 63 3.1.2 (a) - (c): Krylov's "Pis'mo o pol'ze strastei" and Other 1790's Friendly Epistles, by Total Lines................................................................................... 64 3.1.3 Friendly Epistles, 1770-1801, by Number of Poems......................................66 3.1.4 Friendly Epistles, 1770-1801, by Total Lines.................................................67 3.1.5 Friendly Epistles Set in Mixed Iambs and Other Meters, 1770-1801............ 68 3.1.6 Friendly Epistles Set in Iambic Tetrameter and Other Meters, 1770-1801...69 3.1.7 Rhyming Patterns in Friendly Epistles, 1770-1801.........................................70 3.1.8 Friendly Epistles Set in Irregular Verse Paragraphs vs. Stanzas, 1770-1801.........................................................................................................71 3.1.9 Friendly Epistles Exchanged Between Derzhavin and L’vov, Karamzin and Dmitriev, 1785-1801................................................................................. 73 3.2.1 Friendly Epistles by Murav’ev and Other Poets, 1770-1801......................... 89 3.2.2 Friendly Epistles Addressed to Women or to a Group of Mixed Gender, 1780-1800, by Author....................................................................... 91 iv R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.3.1 Russian Friendly Epistles, 1780-1801..............................................................96 3.3.2 Russian Friendly Epistles According to Political Timeline, 1780-1801........ 99 3.3.3 Friendly Epistles by Karamzin and Other Poets, 1780-1810........................ 102 3.3.4 Friendly Epistles Written in the 1790’s: Published by Karamzin, or Other............................................................................................................102 3.3.5 Friendly Epistles Written in the 1790’s by Krylov and Other Authors.........110 3.3.6 Friendly Epistles Written in the 1790’s: Published by Krylov, or Other....111 3.3.7 Friendly Epistles by L’vov and Other Authors, 1785-1801..........................116 3.4.1 Publication of Friendly Epistles Composed in the 1790’s, by Year of Publication, 1790-1808..................................................................................125 Chapter 4: 4.1.1 Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-1815, by Number of Poems.......................131 4.1.2 Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-1815, by Total Lines.................................. 131 4.1.3 Friendly Epistles Written between 1770-1801 and 1802-1815, by Total Poems.................................................................................................... 132 4.1.4 Friendly Epistles Written between 1770-1801 and 1802-1815, by Total Lines................................................................................................................132 4.1.5 Average and Median Length of Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-1815......133 4.1.6 Friendly Epistles Set in Irregular Verse Paragraphs vs. Stanzas, 1802- 1815....................................7.......................................................................... 135 4.1.7 Friendly Epistle Lines by Type of Rhyme, 1770-1801 and 1802-1815......135 4.1.8 Friendly Epistles Written 1800-20 and Published in Author’s Lifetime, by Year of Publication (1800-32).................................................. 153 4.1.9 Friendly Epistles by Batiushkov and Other Authors, 1802-15.................... 157 V R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.1.10 Friendly Epistles by Zhukovskii, A. S. Pushkin and Other Authors, 1802-15..........................................................................................................158 4.2.1 (a) and (b): Russian Friendly Epistles, 1780-1809, by Decade.................... 160 4.3.1 Friendly Epistles, 1785-1811, in Iambic Trimeter (13) and Other Meters, with “Moi penaty” Highlighted........................................................179 4.3.2 Friendly Epistles, 1810-25, in Iambic Trimeter (13) and Other Meters, with “Moi penaty” Highlighted........................................................180 4.3.3 Friendly Epistles, 1810-25, in Iambic Trimeter (13), with “Moi penaty” Highlighted............................................................................. 180 4.3.4 Friendly Epistles, 1800-25, in “Anacreontic” Meters Iambic Trimeter (13) and Trochaic Tetrameter (T4), with “Moi penaty” Highlighted............181 4.3.5 “Moi penaty,” Its Replies and Replies to the Replies Set in Iambic Trimeter, 1810-5.............................................................................................189 4.3.6 (a) and (b): Friendly Epistles Exchanged between Batiushkov, Zhukovskii and Viazemskii, in All Meters, 1808-17................................... 190 4.3.7 Batiushkov’s Friendly Epistles, 1804-18, by Meter.....................................192 4.3.8 Friendly Epistles in Iambic Trimeter, 1810-1815, According to Author.... 194 4.3.9 Iambic Trimeter Friendly Epistles Published 1800-14, by Year of Publication......................................................................................................195 4.3.10 Friendly Epistles Published 1800-25, in Iambic Trimeter and Other Meters, by Year of Publication........................................................... 208 4.4.1 Friendly Epistles Set in Iambic Trimeter vs. All Other Meters, 1810-1815...................................................................................................... 213 4.4.2 Friendly Epistles Set in the Top Three Meters After Iambic Trimeter, 1810-1815...................................................................................................... 214 4.4.3 Zhukovskii’s Friendly Epistles, 1808-1815..................................................225 4.4.4 Friendly Epistles by Zhukovskii and Other Authors, 1803-1815................226 vi R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.4.5 Friendly Epistles Published between 1810 and 1815, by Publication Venue..............................................................................................................242 4.4.6 Friendly Epistles Published between 1810 and 1815, in Rossiiskii muzeum (RM) and Other Venues, by Year of Publication..........................243 Chapter 5: 5.1.1 Russian Friendly Epistles Written During So-Called “Peak” vs. “Decline” Years, 1800-30, by Number of Poems....................................... 252 5.1.2 Russian Friendly Epistles Written During So-Called “Peak” vs. “Decline” Years, 1800-30, by Total Lines....................................................252 5.1.3 Friendly Epistle Lines Set in Irregular Verse Paragraphs vs. Stanzas, 1810-30...........................................................................................................254 5.1.4 Rhyming Patterns in Friendly Epistles, 1810-30..........................................254 5.1.5 Friendly Epistles Set in Iambic Tetrameter (14) vs. Other Meters, 1810-30...........................................................................................................255 5.1.6 Zhukovskii’s Friendly Epistles Designating the Addressee Formally (“Vy”) vs. Informally (“Ty”), 1810-23........................................................259 5.1.7 Formal Address (“Vy”) in Friendly Epistles by Zhukovskii and Others, 1810-30..........................................................................................................259 5.1.8 Friendly Epistles by Members of Arzamas and Zelenaia lampa, 1812-22...........................................................................................................261 5.1.9 (a) and (b): Friendly Epistles by Pushkin vs. Other Authors, 1816-30...... 263 5.1.10 (a) and (b): Favorite Publication Venues for Friendly Epistles Written 1816-30, by Year of Publication...................................................................265 5.2.1 Typical Word-Combinations in Iakov Tolstoi’s 1819-21 Friendly Epistles...........................................................................................................272 vii R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT This dissertation sketches the history of the genre known as the friendly epistle, which thrived in Russia between 1790 and 1825. This genre, which can be defined most simply as a letter written in a friendly tone to a friend in verse, is something of a cross between familiar prose letters and elegies. As such, friendly epistles bridged the gap between everyday and poetic lexicon, and between spontaneously composed letters and polished, organized verse. The friendly epistle was one of the most popular and important Golden Age genres, serving as the literary corollary to the sociocultural phenomenon of the cult of friendship, and as a venue for metageneric discussion and friendly literary criticism, the development of dialogic devices, and the “prosaicizing” of the Russian poetic language. The conversational style, metaliterary asides and mix of high and low that characterize Pushkin’s poetry of the 1820’s are all borrowings from friendly epistles. Further, friendly epistles brought the Russian language down from the heights of neoclassical Parnassus to tom tablecloths, puddles, and similarly concrete lexicon that paved the way for Russian realist prose. In writing the history of this enigmatic genre, a computer database was used to organize salient information about each text, such as its author, length, and year of composition. This allowed the generation of graphs tracking the friendly epistle’s popularity, and to elucidate more complicated aspects of the genre and its evolution, such as formal characteristics (average length, common meters) and publication patterns (the percentage of texts published and favored venues). The dissertation viii R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. also correlates formal textual data with biographical and cultural evidence, allowing the evaluation of individual poets’ contributions to the genre and the reasons production increased or decreased in particular years. This dissertation represents an addition to current scholarship in that it covers the genre’s entire history (rather that focusing on the most typical epistles or on those written by Pushkin) in chronological detail (year-by-year, as opposed to decades). It also represents a contribution to poetics methodology generally, both in its discussion of genre and its application of computer-assisted statistical methods, a promising tool for future research on poetry of other genres and traditions. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the University of Southern California for generously granting me an all-University Pre-Dissertation Fellowship, which supported a year of research in Russian libraries, as well as an Ahmanson Foundation Dissertation Fellowship, which supported final write-up of this dissertation. I am also grateful to the Eurasia Program of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), which granted me a Dissertation Fellowship for 1999-2000 with funds provided by the State Department under the Program for Research and Training on Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the former Soviet Union (Title VIII). I am very grateful to Sarah Pratt and Marcus Levitt, on both personal and professional levels, first as my teachers, and then as dedicated advisors who were always willing to field questions on methodology and to read multiple versions of each chapter, providing extremely helpful and timely feedback. To Emily Klenin, for her “Poetics” course and the example set by her own research; to Michael Wachtel, for initially suggesting this topic and thereby sentencing himself to field many questions along the way, and for keeping me up-to-date on new scholarship. To Jenifer Presto, for her skill as a reader, and to Mikhail L. Gasparov, for meeting with me several times to discuss this project. To Lidiia I. Sazonova, for her helpful suggestions on early Russian epistolary discourse, and to scholars in Pushkin House’s 18th century group, for their suggestions on a paper derived from the third chapter of this dissertation. x R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. My thanks also go to Tatiana V. Evdokimova, formerly of Pushkin House (IRLI) in St. Petersburg, to Nikita L. Eliseev and Evgenii A. Gollerbakh, head bibliographer and researcher, respectively, of the State Public Library in St. Petersburg, and to Ruth Wallach, a head librarian at the University of Southern California, for generously sharing their time and expertise. To Gregory Nisnevich, for help with Access and Excel; and finally, to my parents and to Sally, Slava, Julia and Max, for faith and patience. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter One: Introduction Literary genres have their own fate. Some of them are destined to disappear almost without a trace, leaving in our memory their depleted name, deprived of its old, often significant, rich and diverse meaning. (Grossman, “Iskusstvo,” 45) It is well known that history and theory present the chicken-egg problem of genre studies: how does one know the genre without knowing the record of its manifestations; how does one know the genre’s history without knowing what to look for in the first place? (Todd, 5) I. Genre Studies II. Friendly Epistles in the West ID. Scholarship on Russian Friendly Epistles I. Genre Studies Not all genres are created equal. Some are linked to a universal human need: for example, the need to ritualize mourning inspired the epitaph and lament. It is likely that oral genres such as folk tales, myths and anecdotes have existed in every culture, at every stage in human existence. But it is a far cry from these “universal” genres to extremely time- and culture-sensitive poetic genres, most of which are tied to cultural conventions and are less easily adapted to other settings. For example, ceremonial odes are only generated in a highly particular setting. Sketching the history of another short-lived poetic genre, which likewise depended on a juncture of specific cultural and literary conventions, is the subject of this dissertation. 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sometimes, a minor genre can spark the imagination of poets in such a way that all other genres are temporarily abandoned. This is only a slight exaggeration of what happened in Russian poetry between 1790 and 1825, when the familiar letter in verse (friendly epistle) began consuming poets’ attention. During the Napoleonic wars, the need for Russians to distance themselves from French influence became urgent. Russian friendly epistles reflected a spirit of unity and marked poets’ departure from imitations of French genres: in friendly epistles, the poets’ own voices came across with remarkable clarity. Friendly epistles functioned as arbiters of literary taste; exchanges of epistles loosely defined groups of poets and indicated the acceptance of new poets. However, friendly epistles soon lost popularity. This dissertation proposes surveying the corpus of Russian friendly epistles according to formal criteria, to be explained in more detail in chapter 2, with the aim being to sketch the course of the genre’s development chronologically, which is done in the remaining chapters. Discussion covers the most important friendly epistles and their influence on the poetic tradition, as well as some of the more interesting texts; the main authors of friendly epistles and idiosyncrasies in their application of the genre; publication patterns and favorite venues for publishing friendly epistles; and the friendly epistle’s relations with, and influence on, other genres. How can friendly epistles be identified? Though common features can be described, criteria based on form are difficult to establish, since friendly epistles were amenable to many meters and enjoyed a wide range of length, paragraph or stanzaic form, tones and themes. In fact, the only factors definitely 2 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. distinguishing a friendly epistle are implied in its name: “friendliness,” not only to the addressee but also to the world at large, and epistolary function to one degree or another. In other words, a friendly epistle is a friendly letter to a friend. But when we try to define the genre with sufficient detail to cover borderline cases, problems arise. Tzvetan Todorov advocates a solution: to distinguish one genre from another based on the metageneric discourse of readers and writers contemporary to the genre: One can always find a property common to two texts, and therefore put them together in one class. But is there any point in calling the result of such a union a ‘genre’? I think that it would be in accord with the current usage of the word and at the same time provide a convenient and operant notion if we agreed to call ‘genres’ only those classes of texts that have been perceived as such in the course of history. The accounts of this perception are found most often in the discourse on genres (the metadiscursive discourse) and, in a sporadic and indirect fashion, in the texts themselves. (Todorov, 162) Thus, when Zhukovskii writes, in an 1815 letter to Viazemskii, that “[Pushkin] wrote me an epistle, which he handed me in person - a beautiful epistle!” (Zhukovskii 1959-60, IV: 565), we have evidence that the “epistle” was perceived as a genre. When Zhukovskii writes about epistles in the body of a poem that is itself called an epistle, we have evidence of “metadiscursive discourse... in the texts themselves”: Ho yxo 3ayxo, 3y6 3a 3y6, roBopsrr, Ccbuiaacb H a IlfrcaHbe; A h T e6 e cicaxcy: nocjiaHbe 3a nocjiaHbe!.. [«IlocjiaHne k njiemeeBy» 1812] [An ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth is what they say, referring to Holy Scriptures; but I'll say instead: an epistle for an epistle! (“Epistle to Pleshcheev” 1812)]i 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In fact, Todorov’s method is well suited to the self-analytic friendly epistle genre. Friendly epistles certainly name themselves: Pushkin mentions “Bacchic epistles” and “fleeting epistles” (“Moemu Aristarkhu,” 1815). They also show a clear penchant for discussing themselves: “how this poem is being written,” “how you [the addressee] might respond to what I am writing.” Metaliterary remarks grow rare as the genre declines, in the 1820’s: perhaps authors were loath to explicitly identify their poems with a genre in decline. But by then, the friendly epistle genre had become sufficiently well established in the minds and genre repertory of poets and readers that Todorov’s requirement had surely been fulfilled. Identifying a historical genre is merely the first step: the subsequent step, defining the genre and identifying its members, is fraught -with complications. Jacques Derrida’s 1980 article “The Law of Genre” takes issue with genre studies attempting to develop a taxonomy of texts according to rigid definitions. Instead, Derrida cites examples from a novel by Maurice Blanchot, which actively questions its own generic status, as an example of the futility of such taxonomies, and of the productiveness of mixing genres. Derrida’s insistence that generating innovative texts involves transgression against the previous norm (“invagination”) is important to keep in mind: an innovative text may reject some components that are commonly associated with a genre, or may add new components that are commonly associated with a different genre. Some degree of transgression against previous norms should be anticipated, as Vsevolod Grekhnev also argues that we accept 4 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the inevitability of mixing generic norms. Otherwise, a genre would quickly stagnate in despondent repetition... (55)" The innovations that transgressions produced may be brought into the definition of genre as an evolving, rather than static, form. Borderline cases can then be resolved, as Todd writes, by considering them members of the genre “if it can be demonstrated that they have a significant number of features in common" with more typical members of the genre (12). The approach to genre studies taken in this dissertation may have been set forth most eloquently in a 1999 article by Dirk de Geest and Henrik van Gorp. In their article, the authors discuss the “discrepancy between basic intuitive competence” of most readers (we know whether we are reading a tax form or an advertisement), as opposed to critics’ limited ability to elucidate genre distinctions or to form a “flexible theory of genre” (34-5). Instead of taxonomies that force texts of mixed genre into one or another category, de Geest and van Gorp propose taking advantage of “prototype theory,” which allows that “some variants of red are somehow ‘redder’ than others,” so that “[membership of a category is... primarily a matter of degree” (40). In order to do this, the authors reject “yes/no” statements about a text’s genre, and instead allude to the possibility of covering “not only the borderline cases 0 and 1 [yes or no], but all possible values in between as well” (40). This dissertation depends heavily on analysis of formal elements done with the aid of a computer database. Such calculations would become oppressively complex were the authors’ proposal to be implemented. Indeed, de Geest and 5 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. van Gorp do not themselves attempt a mathematical analysis of “1/2 of a sonnet” or “2/3 of a picaresque novel,” but carry out their model by analyzing prototypical cases alongside borderline cases in a more traditional manner. But even if the mathematical analysis is presented in the abstract alone, its greater value may be that it serves as a metaphor, explaining how we are able to identify which variant of red is ‘redder,’ or which friendly epistles are more representative. In this dissertation, readers’ intuitive sense about which texts belong to the friendly epistle category has provided a base from which mandatory components, and other common characteristics, could be identified, thus allowing for the categorization of other poems and somewhat circumventing the “chicken-and- egg” problem of genre studies. At the same time, while we are drawing up a definition of the genre, it may behoove us to remember that the definition should not be rigid, and should remain based on the poetic evidence. Genres, after all, reserve the right to contradict themselves, to parody earlier representations, to merge with and influence other genres, to evolve beyond recognition or simply disappear. To set this in the context of the scholarship just surveyed, we have identified texts according to metadiscursive references, as per Todorov, fully conscious of the fact that friendly epistles are constantly evolving, as per Derrida. We have pinned the texts down just long enough to examine them, but not long enough to allow for rigidity in our definition, as per de Geest and van Gorp. Finally, we set before us the project of responding to Heather Dubrow’s 1982 suggestions for new approaches in genre studies: 6 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One of the most fruitful ways to examine the nature of particular periods and the changes from one era to another is to study why certain literary forms... flourish during some ages and not others and how a particular genre interacts with the other literary forms and aesthetic attitudes of its day. (113-4) Thus we embark on our sketch of a fleeting, yet enigmatic, genre, one that spread like wildfire through private correspondence, journals and almanacs in the 1790’s, 1810’sand 1820’s. n . Friendly Epistles in the West The friendly epistle genre represents an international phenomenon, and has appeared in many poetic traditions, including Latin, French, German, Dutch, and English. In all cases, the genre appeared at a time when familiar prose letters, as well as many types of verse, were popular. Certain cultural institutions are also associated with the appearance of friendly epistles, such as networks between poets, and ties to supportive readers, who were often literary patrons and the hosts of symposia or salons. Friendly epistles may also reach a wider readership than the addressee and his or her circle of friends. Often, a friendly epistle was published back-to-back with its reply, so that the entire poetic conversation was bared for the reading public. The very popularity of such publishing practices, however, may have helped to trigger the genre’s demise. It was not unheard of for publishers with low ethical standards (e.g. Russia’s Voeikov) to publish epistles meant to remain unpublished, or to 7 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. publish epistles in fuller form than the author intended. Such questionable publishing practices, even if they reflect practical editorial or financial questions in the publishing world at the time, could take a toll on the “friendly” literary atmosphere required for friendly epistles to thrive. Letters are usually private, and the fact that friendly verse epistle exchanges were published and widely read shows a blurring of the boundary between public and private spheres. The notion that “private” letters are worthy of public attention is common to eras of emerging national consciousness. Such national consciousness, and concurrent self-consciousness, motivates concentrated development and reform of the language, interest in and support for all areas of art. Associated developments often include increased book trade and readership, as well as interest in writing the nation’s history. A widespread spirit of generosity towards art fosters a friendly literary atmosphere, respects poets as figures of national importance, and supports them through patronage or publishing. Such an atmosphere may encourage poets to form literary groups, such as “pleiads,” or “brotherhoods.” In a period of national consciousness, friendly epistles fill an important function in highlighting the extent of the nation’s cultural development. Not only does our poetry flourish, the genre seems to argue, but our private correspondence is effortlessly dashed off in technically accomplished verse, and is worthy of public attention. Ancient Greek and Latin literature boasts a rich epistolary tradition in prose, including philosophical and moral epistles, as well as treatises on rhetoric and 8 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. specifically on the composition of letters, and a satirical epistle tradition had existed in Latin poetry for a century before Horace. However, it is Horace who wrote the first extant friendly epistles. Most of Horace’s epistles were addressed to non-poets, which may explain why no replies are extant, and may also explain why the genre never became widespread in Augustan Rome. As far as the privacy of the letter genre goes, Horace’s epistles were certainly written with public readership in mind: one of the epistles is addressed to Augustus, one to Augustus’ stepson Tiberius, and all were published by Horace soon after their composition. How did Horace influence later appearances of verse epistles? It would probably be safe to say that where Horace’s popularity coincided with an era of neoclassicism, didacticism and satire were emphasized in epistles; where Horace's popularity coincided with a cult of friendship or sentimentalism, the tone of the epistles tended to be friendlier. Since Horace was important to European neoclassical poets and their immediate successors, verse epistles were doubly significant in showing that one’s language and poetic tradition had achieved classical standards, and were ripe for imitations of Horace, or original treatment of Horace’s genres. The friendly epistle genre, in fact, can advantageously showcase originality, perhaps because a letter to a friend is expected to be unique in a way that a poem of another genre might not be. The French poetic tradition from Boileau to Voltaire was enormously influenced by Horatian epistles. Most French epistles were not friendly in tone, and followed instead didactic, satirical, or formal strains. However, the epistles 9 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of the eighteenth-century poet Jean-Baptiste Louis Gresset are exceptional in their friendliness. Moreover, the tone, basic themes and progression of themes in his 1733-5 “La Chartreuse: Epistre a m. D.D.N.” served as something of a prototype for many Russian friendly epistles, whose authors often mention Gresset and “La Chartreuse” specifically in their own poems. Verse epistles also appeared in English poetry, and included formal, didactic, panegyric, and satirical epistles; from the early seventeenth century, a philosophical epistle tradition took root (e.g., the metaphysical epistles of Donne). There also arose in England a strong tradition of women involved in epistle exchanges, such as Anne Finch, Countess of Winchilsea, who published verse epistles addressed to both men and women in 1713; prominent male poets such as Pope also addressed epistles to women. Pope’s epistles to women are like those addressed to men in many ways, but they are marked every so often by devices common to madrigals, such as compliments to the addressee’s beauty. (This is also true of Russian friendly epistle exchanges involving women.) Nevertheless, the mere fact that women were writing and receiving epistles marks the English epistolary tradition as different from the exclusively masculine tradition of Horace. Friendly epistles tend to appear when a spirit of friendliness coincides with the waning of a more formal epistolary tradition. Yet, regardless of favorable conditions leading to a spate of friendly epistles, the genre is universally short-lived and does not usually thrive for more than a quarter of a century. According to Savely Senderovich, friendly epistles celebrating poetic symposia yield 10 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. naturally to elegies, which mourn the symposia’s loss. This explains not only why the development of friendly epistles often leads to the emergence of elegies, but also why waves of friendly epistles disperse in the presence of elegiac genres appearing in their wake. m. Scholarship on Russian Friendly Epistles In one sense, Russian friendly epistles follow the patterns of European friendly epistles: they appeared when prose letters, Horatian odes and epistles were popular, and when book trade and literacy were increasing. They also coincided with an increase in national consciousness manifested by language reform and interest in history. Yet there is something unique in degree of friendliness in Russian friendly epistles. Senderovich argues that the Russian cult of friendship was singularly friendly (94); this also explains why Grekhnev could describe a “choir principle” (“khorovoe nachalo”) at work in Russian friendly epistles. In other words, despite the presence of multi-voiced dialogues, the author and addressee are presented as more or less in agreement, if not in harmony, with one another. This choir principle may be best illustrated in Boris Fedorov’s 1822 parody of friendly epistles by Kiukhel’beker (“Tevtonov”), Del’vig (“Surkov”) and Baratynskii (“the third friend”): TeBTOHOBa CypKOB b nocjiaHbax BocxBajuui: O renuu na ece podvi! TeBTOHOB ace k HeMy B3biBaji: O 6ajioeeHb npupodbi! 11 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A TperHH apyr, B 03BbICHB nyx, K p h h h t: ebi SanoeH U n p u p o d b i! A Te eMy: o Tenuu Ha ece podbi! [Surkov praised Teutonov in his epistles: “O Genius in all genres!” Teutonov cried in answer: “O nature’s favorite!” And the third friend, having raised his voice, yells: “You are [both] nature’s favorites!” And they answer him: “O Genius in all genres!”] Such a “unison voice” does not last long, according to Grekhnev, and indeed, how could it, in the face of such parodies? Russian friendly epistles have been addressed in scholarship, although scholars have had more to say on related genres such as the prose letter and the elegy. William Todd’s 1976 book The Familiar Letter in the Age o f Pushkin covers many of the same writers and some of the same literary devices as this dissertation, but his subject is the familiar letter in prose, rather than in verse. Todd may have been simply unaware of the prose letters of women like Elagina, which have been written on only recently (Bernstein). However, Todd must have made deliberate choices when he excluded women who corresponded with Arzamasians, such as Kern and Viazemskaia, from his discussion. Prose letters to these women, and their replies, are full of the same playfully self-consciousness literary games and devices as the letters covered by Todd. Lidiia Ginzburg, in her study of the elegy (O lirike), sets friendly epistles of the 1810’s mid-way between eighteenth-centuiy style poems that include everyday realia (e.g., carpets, beehives, and mushrooms in late Derzhavin) and elegies, whose abstraction forces out such concrete things. Along these lines, Ginzburg 1 2 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. credits friendly epistles with filling out the Russian literary language with lexicon from everyday realia, which was an essential precursor for realist prose. Ginzburg also identifies set word-signals or word-combinations (ustoichivye signaly) as an integral component of friendly epistles, and her discussion prepares the way for our treatment of word-combinations in friendly epistles. In the last quarter-century, scholars have agreed that friendly verse epistles deserve more attention, although investigators of the genre have often remained unaware of one another. For example, James E. Brown’s 1983 dissertation on Pushkin’s verse epistles is nearly unknown to international scholars.1 1 1 In his dissertation, Brown defines the verse epistle in Pushkin’s poetry and divides Pushkin’s verse epistles among three sub-genres: the friendly epistle, the formal epistle, and the personal epistle. Brown concludes that Pushkin wrote very few friendly epistles, and none after 1817, when Pushkin switched to writing personal epistles. Brown distinguishes sub-genres by form and tone: for example, friendly epistles may range from 200-300 lines, but personal epistles are much shorter (20-45 lines). Further, while Pushkin’s friendly epistles assume narrative “masks,” such as that of a riotous epicurean, his personal epistles are marked by an intimate and candid tone, and are more grounded in everyday life (Brown, 17). A classification system like Brown’s is valuable, for he u:es tangible elements, such as number of lines, along with more complicated criteria, such as the candor of the lyrical hero’s voice. However, Brown’s classification system is based on a closed set of texts - the extant verse epistles of a single poet - so that his 1 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. formal criteria cannot be applied to describe or classify all Russian friendly epistles. Classifying Pushkin’s verse epistles, as it turns out, is only the tip of the iceberg. Friendly epistles toy with their own form to the extent that defining characteristics become effaced. Thus, the problem of defining a friendly epistle is a thorny one: should the definition cover only those epistles that share a clear set of unifying formal characteristics? How should poems be classified which follow some rules of the genre, but break others? How dynamic should the definition be, to clearly define the genre, while nevertheless allowing for literary development? To set these questions in the context of our earlier discussion on genre, how does a genre definition cover “all possible values” between 0 and 1? Many scholars of Russian friendly epistles confront the same issues. Lucja Kusiak-Skotnicka writes that “the epistles written by Pushkin before 1820 raise no doubts, but among the poems of the later period are many whose generic identity is ambiguous and determined on the basis of the individual scholar’s point of view” (199). Many Pushkin scholars acknowledge the same changes in Pushkin’s epistles as Brown and Kusiak-Skotnicka, but continue to call the later epistles “friendly epistles.” For example, Igor Nemirovskii claims in a 1988 article that Pushkin wrote more friendly epistles than poems of any other genre during the years of his southern exile, which ended in 1824. Nemirovskii, then, is classifying at least 48 more poems as friendly epistles than Brown (Nemirovskii, 165). Perhaps no one has devoted more attention to Pushkin’s friendly epistles than Grekhnev, who investigates themes such as laziness as virtue, time and 14 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. everyday realia in friendly epistles, and epistles’ unsuitability for dealing with the Romantic “other” (“chuzhoe”). Grekhnev achieves a sweeping picture of the genre, but this may be at the expense of details. Grekhnev’s project, like Todd’s project, involves the description of a genre, and in both cases, precise chronology has been sidelined in favor of a general outline of the genre’s characteristics. Grekhnev prefers to write in terms of decades rather than specific years, which sometimes gives the impression that, within each decade (“the 1810’s”), time stands still. Grekhnev focuses on abstract and philosophical explanations for the genre’s evolution and decline, and formal elements such as meter are beyond the scope of his discussion. Although Grekhnev’s discussion implies that friendly epistles as a genre share certain elements, it is not clear exactly what he considers to be a friendly epistle, or at what point poems descended from friendly epistles may no longer be classified as friendly epistles. In fact, although the titles of his chapters clearly refer to “friendly epistles,” in the text of his argument he tends to drop the adjective “friendly,” leaving it unclear whether all of the epistles under discussion are, in fact, friendly epistles, or whether they are merely “epistles.” Pushkin has been the focus of most of the scholarship on Russian friendly epistles, leaving little said of the earliest extant friendly verse letters dating from the late seventeenth century, or of poets who continued to write or exchange epistles long after the genre had gone out of style. In addition, little has been written on descendants of the friendly epistle, such as elegiac-toned letters in verse. As if to underscore a need for scholarly treatment of this genre, no less than three 15 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. major articles on Russian friendly epistles were published in 1998. M. Virolainen’s “Dve chashi” discusses death at symposia from Plato to Karamzin, to friendly epistles written in the 1810’s, all of which explain deaths at symposia in Pushkin’s “Malen’kie tragedii.” Senderovich, whose article appears in the same collection as that of Virolainen, uses the progression “wine-hangover” (“vino-pokhmel’ e” of the article’s title) as an extended metaphor for the progression of genres from the 1810’s to the 1830’s. As Senderovich argues, the 1810’s atmosphere of friendly symposia was memorialized in Batiushkov’s 1811-2 “Moi penaty,” main force behind the wave of friendly epistles in the 1810’s. In a few cases, women were the addressees of Russian friendly epistles, or women poets engaged in an epistle dialogue with male poets. Yet the friendly epistle genre, on the whole, tends to be an all-male phenomenon. Why this is so is the topic of the third 1998 article, “Beginning to Be a Poet: Baratynsky and Pavlova,” by Stephanie Sandler and Judith Vowles. In this article, the authors compare the first poems written by Baratynskii and Pavlova: Baratynskii began his poetic career in 1820 by writing friendly epistles, while Pavlova, beginning hers in 1839, chose other genres. This difference seems due to the friendly epistle’s restrictions on women participants: ... [Ejxchanged among men and frequently referring to amorous relationships with women, the familiar epistle imagined a specifically manly world of friendship and loyalty. (154) With an eye to joining this scholarly discourse, I have gathered Russian friendly epistles in as complete a collection as possible, taken from major and 16 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. minor poets’ work written from 1770-1830. A sampling of friendly verse letters predating and postdating these years, as well as poems of other genres, was also collected for reference. Salient characteristics of the poems collected were then entered into a computer database. These characteristics are described in chapter 2, and include the poem’s meter and number of lines; the names, gender and ages of author and addressee(s); year of composition and year of publication; the poem’s precursors and replies, rhyme scheme and distinctive word-combinations. Such an approach allows much contribution to current scholarly discourse. The ability to construct graphs outlining the genre’s popularity by year of composition allows us to fill in details regarding specific years, specific texts, specific formal traits and specific poets that other scholars have only alluded to. Where Brown defines all Pushkin’s friendly epistles as having a male addressee, despite Pushkin’s epistle to his sister (“K sestre”), a database that can survey friendly epistles according to the addressee’s gender can accommodate Pushkin’s epistle to his sister by setting it in context alongside epistles to women by poets like Murav’ev and Karamzin (chapter 3). Where Senderovich’s focus on “Moi penaty” may exaggerate the effect of a single poem and the strain of poems it influenced (iambic trimeter with anacreontic themes), a database can set this strain of poems in the larger context of all friendly epistles, most of which were set in other meters (chapter 4). The dissertation’s database could also help Sandler and Vowles set their study of Pavlova and Baratynskii in the larger context of friendly epistles’ gender restrictions: women rarely wrote friendly epistles, though they often served as addressees. 1 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Perhaps more importantly, charts in chapter 5 clearly showing the genre’s decline from 1821 could explain why a poet writing in 1820 might write friendly epistles, while a poet beginning to write in 1839 would choose other genres. Chapter Five’s charts fill out the picture of the genre’s decline sketched by Senderovich and Grekhnev, and in some cases can suggest specific causes: Del’vig’s choice not to write friendly epistles after 1821 happens to coincide with the 1822 parody by Fedorov mentioned above.I V Friendly notes in verse appear in poets’ correspondence as early as the seventeenth century, and evolve into full-fledged friendly epistles by 1780, if not earlier. But by 1815, Russian friendly epistles show signs of self-consciousness, in some cases manifested as experiments with form that are not meant as letters at all. Moreover, the somewhat naive tone necessary to maintain friendly epistles’ friendliness and optimism seems to limit the genre’s viability: disillusionment dispels naivete, so any disappointing event can stifle the genre, no matter its popularity. By 1825, the cult of friendliness propelling the genre forward had largely dissipated, and M. L. Gasparov writes that the friendly epistle all but disappears by 1850 (“Poslanie”), though later verse epistle exchanges among Silver Age poets and late twentieth-century poets bear marks of the friendly epistle’s influence. For all these reasons, friendly epistles are worth remembering. Whether sentimental or experimental, formulaic or risque; whether inviting the addressee to dinner or complaining of indigestion, friendly epistles make for entertaining reading on their own account, and this dissertation will hopefully encourage further 18 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. studies. Friendly epistles are also important as a transitional genre that helped to bridge the gap between poetry of high classicism to poetry of the Golden Age. In the 1810’s, friendly epistles themselves contributed much to poets’ perception that they were participating in a Golden Age, or had just experienced a Golden Age. In the 1820’s, friendly epistles’ decline began, but they were nevertheless able to offer a well-developed range of lexicon (including realia), poetic forms (including many meters) and rhetorical forms (multivoicedness) that facilitated the transition from Golden Age poetry to Romantic poetry and realist prose. 1 All translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. “ Grekhnev wrote several articles on the friendly epistle, published in 1978,1985, and 1994, which overlap to one degree or another. Since Grekhnev’s 1994 study is the most recent and comprehensive, this is the work to which I will refer. U 1 In 1987, Kusiak-Skotnicka called for a comprehensive study of Pushkin’s verse epistles, thereby suggesting that she was unaware of Brown’s 1984 dissertation: “In spite of [the verse epistle’s] prevalence in Pushkin, there is not a single comprehensive study of this aspect of the poet’s work in all the vast output of Soviet and international Pushkin research. Studies have been devoted to individual epistles, but little has been written about the artistic characteristics that are specific to the genre. In the numerous monographs on Pushkin, only passing remarks have been made on the epistles and then only in connection with other problems of his art But it is only when the epistles are examined as a group of works constructed according to a set of common principles that they yield their true artistic significance” (198). 1 V It will not be assumed that the reader automatically agrees with methodology that relies in part on a computer database, or that takes as a starting-point the idea that form carries meaning. However, it will be assumed that the reader is acquainted with poetics terminology, such as “iambic tetrameter,” “ternary meters,” and “blank rhymes.” Any reader not familiar with these terms may benefit from reading Barry Scherr’s 1986 introduction to Russian poetics, Russian Poetry: Meter, Rhythm and Rhyme, or a similar book. In any case, discussion of form and reliance on a computer database has been abetted by discussion of culture, biography, literary institutions and other literary genres. 19 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter Two: Methodology I. Defining the Russian Friendly Epistle II. The Dissertation’s Computer Database A. Database Design B. Description of Categories C. Case Study HI. Sources for Texts I. Defining the Russian Friendly Epistle As acknowledged in the preceding chapter, genre definitions are known for their circularity. In other words, if Genre A is known to contain thumbtacks, then we might tend to consider only other thumbtacks as candidates for Genre A. Likewise, if a pair of scissors was identified as a member of Genre B, then we might deduce, rightly or wrongly, that all members of Genre B were also scissors. To short-circuit this circularity, we may turn to more general notions of “what characterizes a friendly epistle” and “which texts are friendly epistles” held by the community of writers and readers contemporary to the genre, as well as notions of the genre held by the contemporary scholarly community. We will begin the process of defining the Russian friendly epistle by assuming only what the genre’s title implies. Namely, the poem in question appears to be, or functions as, a letter to one degree or another (“epistle”), and it is set in a friendly tone (“friendly”). This working definition provides a base for surveying more subtle notions of the genre, including definitions, titles, lists and letters by 20 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contemporaries to the genre, according to Todorov’s stipulation that genre be defined using the “metadiscursive discourse” of readers and writers contemporary to it (162). In addition, by turning to the scholarly community’s sense of the genre, some of the circularity inherent using a database to chart poems that we ourselves have identified can be avoided. The scholarly community can provide explicit definitions of friendly epistles, such as those found in James E. Brown’s dissertation and in Rimma Lazarchuk’s article on eighteenth-century Russian friendly epistles. In addition, implicit notions of “what a Russian friendly epistle looked like” are sprinkled throughout scholarship on Russian poetry, in the form of offhand comments such as “The friendly epistles ‘X’ and ‘Y’...” Poems mentioned as “friendly epistles” in the writings of B. V. Tomashevskii and M. Gasparov, for example, reveal underlying notions of genre held by “(experienced) readers,” following the argument made by de Geest and van Gorp that such readers command a “more or less intuitive knowledge of genres” that is “both satisfactory and almost naturally valid” (de Geest et al., 33). Assessing such lists will provide evidence as to the tacitly understood notion of “what constitutes a friendly epistle” and “which texts can be classified as such.” The first problem we find regarding friendly epistles is that poets writing them did not use the term “friendly epistle,” but instead called a wide range of poems, including formal epistles, simply “epistles” (“poslaniia”). In addition, epistles set in a friendly tone (i.e., friendly epistles) bear titles ranging from “poslanie” (epistle) to “pis’mo” (letter) to “zapiska” (note) and, in three cases, “epistola” ([didactic] epistle). Most titles made no generic distinction whatsoever, 21 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. except to identify an addressee: the most popular title for a friendly epistle was to simply name the addressee in the dative case, with or without a preposition: “K Zhukovskomu,” “Dashkovu” (“To Zhukovskii”; “To Dashkov”). The lack of a one-to-one correlation between titles and types of verse is bom out by the explanation of the epistle given by Ostolopov in his 1821 dictionary of poetry terms: It is well known that every genre has its own characteristics. For instance, the ode is characterized by bravery, the fable - by simplicity, the satire - by biting remarks, the elegy - by despondence, and so on. But in the epistle (“epistola”), which can be didactic, or passionate, or mournful, or humorous, or even caustic, all genres mix together, which is why every epistle takes the tone correspondent to its contents. (Ostolopov, 401) In this definition, Ostolopov uses the term “epistola” instead of “poslanie.” Likewise, Ostolopov lists poems that we today call friendly epistles (“druzheskoe poslanie’' ’ ), such as Karamzin’s “A. A. Pleshcheevu” and Zhukovskii’s “K Batiushkovu,” under the category “joking epistles” (“shutochnye e p is to ly emphasis added). Though no poem was actually titled “shutochnaia epistola,” and though no friendly epistle written after 1797 had the word “epistola” anywhere in its title, Ostolopov apparently considered the terms “epistola” and “poslanie” to be interchangeable: under the heading “poslanie,” he writes: “see ‘epistola’.” But others did not see the terms “epistola” and “poslanie” as interchangeable. The term “epistola” was heavily associated with didactic epistles, such as Sumarokov’s 1747 “Dve epistoly.” Sumarokov’s “Dve epistoly” are addressed to Russian poets generally, in a tone that is far from friendly, as the first lines from the second epistle make clear: 22 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O Bbi, KOTopbie crpeMHTecb Ha IlapHac, HecrpoHHoro rymca HMea rpy6bifi m ac, IIpecTaHbTe BOcneBaTb! IlecHb Barna He npejiecTHa, Koma M y3biK a B aM npaMaa HeH3BecrHa... [O [poets] striving to Parnassus, with an ill-mannered voice like discordant honking, cease your singing! Your song cannot delight as long as music itself remains unknown to you...] Mikhail Liustrov argues that the title “epistola” alone marked poems as belonging to the didactic tradition. According to Liustrov, Sumarokov uses a different title — “Pis’mo” (“Letter”) — for his friendlier verse letters, written several decades later (72-3). Indeed, Liustrov writes that the term “poslanie” was first used for religious treatises in prose, such as the Pauline epistles (112), and was not applied to friendly letters in verse until the 1770’s and 1780’s (117). This might explain why Lomonosov, in his 1757-8 essay on the place of religious tradition in modem Russian literature (“Predislovie”), uses the term “letter” (“pis’mo”) to describe friendly letters in verse (“stikhotvomye dmzheskie pis’ma”; “Predislovie,” 475). However, as with Ostolopov’s term “shutochnaia epistola,” Lomonosov’s term “stikhotvomoe druzheskoe pis’mo” is rarely found poems’ actual titles. Though a title might indicate that the poem was addressed “to a friend” (“K drugu”), no friendly epistle titles use the adjective “friendly” (“druzheskii”), and only a handful use the term “letter” (“pis’mo”). Though the term “poslanie” became the most common designation for friendly verse letters from the 1790’s until the early 1820’s, this did not eliminate the ambiguity between titles and genres, since more formal types of epistles - those that might have been titled “oda” or “epistola” in the eighteenth century - also began to 2 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. take on the title “poslanie.” For example, Zhukovskii uses the term “poslanie” to refer to his own formal epistle to Alexander I, as well as to epistles exchanged between friends, in an 1815 letter to Viazemskii (Zhukovskii 1959-60, IV: 564-5). The poems’ titles reflect this new ambiguity: the title of Zhukovskii’s formal epistle to Alexander, “Imperatoru Aleksandru: Poslanie” (“To the Emperor Alexander: An Epistle”), is set in a format identical to that of several of Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles (“K Batiushkovu: Poslanie,” “K Voeikovu: Poslanie”). Brown finds that Pushkin also used “poslanie” as an umbrella term for many different kinds of verse, and that the term covered different poems at different stages in Pushkin’s publishing career. Pushkin’s 1816-7 list of his own epistles contained many poems that Brown concurs are “friendly epistles.” However, Pushkin’s 1825-6 list re-designated the genre of many poems, so that “the majority of the poems [listed by Pushkin as epistles in 1825-6] cannot be considered as being... verse epistles... [and] friendly verse epistles are missing entirely from the list...” (Brown, 67). Tomashevskii, discussing Pushkin’s earlier list, concludes that by 1816-7 the friendly epistle genre was already disintegrating (116). On the other hand, Senderovich argues that the word “poslanie” was used in the 1810’s as shorthand reference for poems that today are called friendly epistles (75). This seems likely, since the term “poslanie” was used in the 1810’s not only in the titles of many friendly epistles, but also in metageneric discourse on friendly epistles in the epistles themselves and in prose letters. Twentieth-century scholarship on friendly epistles reflects the ambiguities in the use of the term “poslanie” by Ostolopov, Zhukovskii and Pushkin. It seems to be 2 4 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. common scholarly practice to refer to the friendly epistle genre, or to a specific friendly epistle, sometimes by the full name “druzheskoe poslanie,” and other times by the shorthand “poslanie.” But the term “poslanie” can also refer to formal epistles, invective epistles, and epistles whose larger generic affiliation is unclear. For example, sometimes the term “poslanie” is modified by adjectives referring to prominent traits in the poem at hand, and the resulting terms include anacreontic, anthological, declarative, epicurean, Hussar, light, lyric, necrological, and philosophical epistles. Many of these subcategories probably fit under the rubric of what is usually called the friendly epistle, but neither among the genre’s contemporaries, nor among current scholars, do we find consistently applied terms for epistolary genres. In seeking a broader consensus on what the genre consisted of, and what texts most typify the genre, we may turn to the “naturally valid” sense of genre attributed to experienced readers by de Geest and van Gorp (33).' In Tomashevskii’s work on Pushkin and in M. Gasparov’s work on Russian verse (Ocherk), we find a total of eleven mentions that this or that poem is a “friendly epistle” (“druzheskoe poslanie”), of which five coincide. These five are listed in 2.1.1 below: 2.1.1 Friendly Epistles Mentioned bv Both M. Gasparov and Tomashevskii Poet Title of Poem Year Meter 1 Zhukovskii “K Bludovu” 1810 Iambic trimeter 2 Batiushkov “Moi penaty” 1811 Iambic trimeter 3 Zhukovskii “K Batiushkovu” 1812 Iambic trimeter 4 Pushkin “K sestre” 1814 Iambic trimeter 5 Pushkin “Gorodok" 1815 Iambic trimeter R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These five epistles are somewhat striking in their interconnectedness: the list represents only three authors, writing over the course of just five years, and two of the poems on the list form part of an exchange (Zhukovskii’s “K Batiushkovu” was written in response to Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty”). These five epistles also share formal characteristics: they are all long (over 100 lines, averaging 334 lines), all set in irregular verse paragraphs rather than stanzas, and all irregularly rhymed. Four of the five were published soon after composition (the exception is “K sestre”), and four of the five were addressed to a clearly identified recipient who was the poet’s actual friend (the exception is “Gorodok”). A final, somewhat unexpected finding is that all these poems were set in the meter iambic trimeter. In fact, of the eleven poems identified by either M. Gasparov or Tomashevskii as “friendly epistles,” ten were set in this meter, as we see in 2.1.2 below: 2.1.2 Friendly Epistles Mentioned bv Either M. Gasparov or Tomashevskii Poet Title of Poem Date of Date of #Lines Meter Comp. Pub. 1 Murav'ev "K A.V. Naryshkinu" 1770-9 0 48 iambic trimeter 2 Kniazhnin “Pis'mo k gg. D. i A.” 1787 1787 195 iambic trimeter 3 Zhukovskii “K Bludovu” 1810 1810 123 iambic trimeter 4 Batiushkov “Moi penaty” 1811 1814 316 iambic trimeter 5 Zhukovskii “K Batiushkovu” 1812 1813 678 iambic trimeter 6 Viazemskii “K Batiushkovu” (Moi 1812 0 174 iambic trimeter milyi..) 7 V.L. Pushkin “K D.V. Dashkovu” 1814 1814 140 iambic trimeter 8 A.S. Pushkin “K sestre” 1814 0 122 iambic trimeter 9 A.S. Pushkin “Gorodok” 1815 1815 430 iambic trimeter 10 A.S. Pushkin “K moei chemil'nitse” 1821 0 98 iambic trimeter 11 Filimonov “Duratskii kolpak” 1824 1828 467 mixed iambs The only poem on this list in a meter other than iambic trimeter, Filimonov’s “Duratskii kolpak,” is not a typical friendly epistle; M. Gasparov describes it as a “gigantic friendly epistle without an addressee” (Ocherk, 115). 26 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The emphasis in 2.1.2 on a single meter is unexpected since overall, according to our database, iambic trimeter ranks only third in popularity as a setting for friendly epistles, behind iambic tetrameter and mixed (variable) iambs. (This holds true no matter whether rankings are made on the basis of total lines or total number of poems.) Perhaps the privileging of iambic trimeter by M. Gasparov and Tomashevskii highlights a consensus view that Tynianov was right to identify friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter and those set in iambic tetrameter as belonging to separate genres (Tynianov, 126). If this were the case, however, some mention would have to be made of the second-ranked meter, mixed iambs: would friendly epistles set in mixed iambs also be accorded a genre of their own? Further, scholars such as Brown, Lazarchuk, Lepikhov, and Lilly have listed poems set in a wide range of meters as friendly epistles. It seems reasonable to conclude that friendly epistles, indeed, appeared in a variety of meters. But what explains M. Gasparov’s and Tomashevskii’s association of the full term “friendly epistle” with a certain meter? As de Geest and van Gorp write, “our intuition, corroborated by a number of empirical data, tells us that some texts are somehow ‘better’ examples of haiku or sonnets than others...” (38) Friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter may strike experienced readers as being “better” examples of friendly epistles, or more representative of the genre as a whole. This may lead scholars to refer to a friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter by the full name “druzheskoe poslanie,” while a friendly epistle set in other meters is more casually referred to simply as “poslanie.” Grouping poems mentioned as either “friendly epistles” or “epistles” yields a much wider range of texts. Such a group of texts, culled again from M. Gasparov’s 2 7 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ocherk, is presented in 2.1.3 below, with formal characteristics for each text as in 2.1.2. All references to “Pushkin” are to A. S. Pushkin, and I have abbreviated some titles (“posl.” for “poslanie”) and the names of meters (“MI” for mixed iambs, “13” for iambic trimeter, etc.). In addition, I have supplied the text o f the first reference to each epistle’s addressee (e.g., “my friend!”), if one exists, as well as the line number on which this reference occurs. 2.1.3 Poems Identified as Epistles, or as Friendly Epistles, bv M. Gasparov P oet Title of Poem Y ear Pub. Total Lines M eter First Ref. to A ddressee Line M urav’ev "K A.V. Naryshkinu” 1770-9 0 48 1 3 xoflaTari kjhom My3bi / HapblLUKMH..! 1 Kniazhnin "Pis'm o k gg. D. i A.” 1787 1787 195 1 3 mo6e3Hbie flpy3bn 2 Karamzin "Posl. k [A.A.] P leshcheevu" 1794 1796 192 1 4 mom flpyr! 1 Karamzin "Poslanie k zhenshchinam " 1795 1796 392 Ml O Bbl, KOTOpbIX MHe mo6e3Ha.. 1 Batiushkov "K Dashkovu" 1813 1813 62 1 4 moh flpyr! 1 Batiushkov "Moi penaty" 1811-2 1814 316 1 3 >Kykobckmm flo6pbiii m om! 254 Zhukovskii "K Voeikovu: Posl." 1814 1814 304 1 4 TOBapmn-apyr 2 Zhukovskii "K Turgenevu" 1814 1816 28 1 4 flpyr 2 Zhukovskii "Podrobnyi otchet o lune" 1820 1820 381 1 4 - “ Zhukovskii "K B<ludov>u: Posl." 1810 1810 133 1 3 Jlio6e3H0My 2 Zhukovskii "K Batiushkovu: Posl." 1812 1813 678 1 3 MMnoMy co6paTy 6 Zhukovskii "K A. N. Arbenevoi" 1812 0 112 1 5 mom crapo/jaBHMM Apyr 2 Zhukovskii "Posl. k Pleshcheevu, v d en' svetlogo.." 1812 0 241 Ml H!06e3HblM M O M n03T! 1 Viazemskii "K partizanu-poetu" 1814-5 1815 108 1 4 banoBenb CHaCTnM BbIM 1 Viazemskii "Stantsiia" 1825 1829 309 1 4 - - Viazemskii "Koliaska" 1826 1826 221 1 4 - - Viazemskii "K Batiushkovu" 1812? 0 173 1 3 M O M M M O blM , M O M n03T 1 Viazemskii "Posl. kZhukovskom u (Iz Moskvy..)" 1813 1816 59 1 5 mom flpyr 1 Viazemskii "K Tirteiu slavian" 1813 0 33 1 5 - - Pushkin "Poslanie k ludinu" 1815 0 227 1 4 M M JlblM Apyr 1 Pushkin "Gorodok" 1815 1815 430 1 3 MMnbiii Apyr 1 Pushkin "K sestre" 1814 0 122 1 3 Apyr 6eci4eHHbiM 1 Pushkin "K moei chemil'nitse" 1821 0 98 1 3 noApyra 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. What do poems in this list have in common? Most of their titles name the addressee[s] in the dative case (“K Naryshkinu,” “To Naryshkin”). In addition, over half of the titles openly identify the poem as either a letter (“pis’mo”) or an epistle (“poslanie”). Most of the poems are addressed to a specifically identified male peer, but four of the twenty-three poems were addressed to women: apparently, friendly epistles could be addressed to either males or females, but female addressees were the exception, rather than the rule. Most of the poems in the table were published, usually within two years of their composition. The poems’ meters include iambic tetrameter, iambic trimeter, iambic pentameter and mixed iambs. Only two poems of the twenty-three are less than forty lines in length, the shortest poem being 28 lines and the longest spanning a record-breaking 678 lines; the poems’ average length is 211 lines. Finally, almost all the poems listed greet the addressee with a friendly epithet in the epistle’s first or second line.1 1 The poems on the list sharing the most similarities are those written by Zhukovskii and Batiushkov between 1810 and 1815. Those written after 1820, and those written by Pushkin in particular, show more idiosyncrasies: Pushkin’s “Gorodok” and Viazemskii’s 1820’s poems “Stantsiia” and “Koliaska” do not identify any addressee, and Pushkin’s “K moei chemil’nitse” identifies an inanimate addressee (the poet’s inkstand). Poems without an addressee, and poems written after 1819, are also less likely to have epithets characterizing the addressee, in contrast with the other friendly epistles, where such characterization usually appears in the first one or two lines. 29 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These findings may be more important in suggesting the range of forms possible than in helping us identify features unique to friendly epistles. For example, the metrical diversity in 2.1.3 supports the hypothesis that, though friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter tend to be identified as the most representative of the genre, friendly epistles can be set in a much wider range of meters. Similarly, though the poems in 2.1.3 tended to be published soon after composition, this was not mandatory, nor can we use such varied findings to distinguish friendly epistles from other genres on the basis of publication history. Even the fact that a poem was addressed to a specific recipient does not mean that it was a friendly epistle, as we saw with Zhukovskii’s epistle to Alexander I. But the friendly epistle’s distinctiveness can be glimpsed in the final category of 2.1.3, “first reference to addressee.” Rarely would a poem in any other genre open by addressing the recipient as “my friend,” as almost every poem in 2.1.3 does. There is an important exception: elegies and elegiac epistles used such word- combinations with increasing frequency after the decline of friendly epistles in the 1820’s. However, elegies adapted these word-combinations for their own purposes, setting them in the past tense or otherwise negating them (“My friend, where have you gone?”). We can conclude that friendly word-combinations are some of the surest markers of friendly epistles, though they are neither mandatory, nor are they conclusive proof that the text in question is a friendly epistle. How does our discussion of friendly epistles so far compare with that of other scholars? Brown, whose work is limited to Pushkin’s epistles, nevertheless concurs with some of our findings, writing that a verse epistle by Pushkin “opens with direct 3 0 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reference to the addressee, who then continues to be addressed, often with characterizing epithets throughout... the poem” (16). Brown divides Pushkin’s verse epistles into three subgroups: formal epistles, friendly epistles, and personal epistles. Friendly epistles are distinguished as long (200-300 lines), and are written in either iambic trimeter or iambic tetrameter. According to Brown, Pushkin maintains a light tone in his friendly epistles and often assumes a conventional mask, such as that of a “riotous young epicurean” (Brown, 17). In contrast, formal epistles are written in iambic hexameter, in a serious tone on a significant subject, while personal epistles are intimate, unrestrained, and oriented toward the addressee. Pushkin published or widely disseminated his formal epistles, whereas the friendly and personal epistles were “often not published and circulated among only a limited number of Pushkin’s personal friends” (Brown, 16-17). The texts in question are extant, and form a circumscribed set: those poems written by Pushkin that Pushkin himself, other scholars, and/or Brown, have identified as verse epistles. The fact that Brown’s set of texts is, for all practical purposes, closed, eliminates the need for a more abstract definition that might cover hypothetical cases (lost poems). Therefore, Brown can state with certainty that a personal epistle written by Pushkin will be less than 46 lines in length. Should a previously unknown personal epistle of Pushkin’s that is 47 lines in length, or even 80 lines in length, suddenly surface, presumably Brown could alter his definition to include the newly discovered poem. In other words, Brown’s task is altered because he is describing a clearly circumscribed set of literary facts. 3 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. However, when the texts considered are not the extant poems of a single author, but a large group of poems written over the span of several decades, some easily available, some buried in archives or old journals, and some, perhaps, lost, the question of genre definition becomes more complex. The more specific the definition, the more likely that poems that are reasonable candidates to be identified as “friendly epistles” may be unjustly excluded. When defining a large set of texts composed by many authors over many years, it must be remembered that each individual poet tends to approach each genre differently, and that the application of a genre changes over time. Nevertheless, Brown’s definition of a friendly epistle in Pushkin provides a convenient starting point. Brown, paraphrasing Lazarchuk’s 1973 description of early Russian friendly epistles, sketches the genre’s most typical characteristics. The author is [1] “a friend of the addressee engaged in a free, untrammeled conversation,” and shows [2] “adaptation to the reactions and possible objections of an individualized, particular addressee.” The poem has [3] an “abrupt beginning”; [4] an “endless variety of intonations”; [5] “unmotivated movement from one topic to another”; [6] “breaks in the development of a theme”; [7] “strings of rhetorical questions, puns, aphorisms, fragmentary passages”; [8] “short quotations for polemic and illustrative purposes”; and [9] “reoccurring references to the addressee inserted throughout the body of the text” (Brown, 8-9). Of course, all these characteristics could be present in a satire of a friendly epistle, since a satire must closely imitate the form of its target. Several of the characteristics could also be found in Pushkin’s formal epistles, namely, numbers 2, 3 2 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7, 8 and sometimes 9. In fact, though Brown draws clear delineations for epistles as they are represented in Pushkin’s oeuvre, it is difficult to apply these delineations to epistles by other authors. Defining an entire genre in terms of its known texts, while making provisions for unknown texts (lost, destroyed, or awaiting discovery), will involve more generalized, and less proscriptive, categories. In particular, formal criteria alone cannot form an adequate base for defining friendly epistles. In the first place, the variety of forms in 2.1.3 suggests that the texts themselves were far from adhering to a single norm. In the second place, many of the hallmarks of friendly epistles appear regularly in other genres. For example, many friendly epistles are long, meandering, and set in irregular paragraphs and rhymes, but the same is true of narratives and travelogues in verse. Many friendly epistles have exotic rhymes, but the same is true of burlesques and macaronic verse. Numerous friendly epistles addressed to A. I. Turgenev gently tease him about his love of food; does this differ from satire in much more than degree? Friendly epistles addressed to women often include compliments to the addressee, as do madrigals and album verse. Friendly epistles are known for their multivoicedness and simulation of dialogue, but odes also contain questions and exclamations. And, as mentioned above, elegiac epistles borrowed from friendly epistles’ repertory of word-combinations, such as “my friend,” “quiet retreat” or “humble hut.” What, then, is unique to friendly epistles, and what elements are mandatory to the genre? Returning to our original working definition of friendly epistles, we recall that every friendly epistle stylizes itself as a letter to a friend, even though not every friendly epistle actually functions as such. Though the most typical friendly 3 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. epistles are addressed to friends of the poet, 2.1.3 includes poems addressed to the poet’s superiors, such as Zhukovskii’s 1820 “Podrobnyi otchet o lune...” (“A Detailed Account of the Moon”) addressed to the Empress Maria Fedorovna. But even these epistles maintain a conversational, friendly tone, and their manner of discourse suggests that the poet was addressing a peer, no matter what the relations between author and addressee were in reality. Friendly epistles may not always be letters to friends, but they must always cultivate that illusion. The second part of our working definition, however, seems to be mandatory: every friendly epistle is, by definition, set in a friendly, often rosy-colored, tone. Such a definition excludes poems in similar form - long narratives, travelogues, burlesques, satires - from the list of possible friendly epistles. Elegiac epistles often address the recipient in a friendly tone, but view the surrounding world with alienation, hostility or disappointment. In order to distinguish elegiac epistles from friendly epistles, then, we add a further requirement that the friendly tone be directed not only towards the addressee, but also towards the surrounding world. The friendly epistle’s rosy-colored worldview appears to have been broad enough to accommodate treatment of death, and does not exclude the poet from depicting himself in ignominious situations. Friendly epistles could also express indignation towards mutual foes (e.g., members of “Beseda”), and the reason that friendly epistles laud retreat to the country is to escape from the city full of career-climbers, noise and crowds. Nevertheless, a general optimism, faith in the addressee, in the principle of friendship and often in the legitimacy of the social status quo prevails. 3 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. n. The dissertation’s computer database A. Database Design A computer database was used to organize a large number of details from a large number of texts, allowing us to keep a running tab on elements common to many texts, but in different combinations and proportions, from year to year and from author to author. The database allows us to more flexibly, and more accurately, sketch the friendly epistle’s history, building from the genre’s foundation, the literary facts themselves, to larger conclusions. The dissertation’s aim is not to cover every aspect of every word in every text. Rather, the focus has been on charting the genre’s most objective elements, such as the poem’s year of composition, meter and length, across years and decades.1 1 1 The database’s design reflects the characteristics of typical friendly epistles, and can accommodate entries unique to epistolary genres, such as the presence of a precursor or a reply. It can also accommodate less typical texts, so that a range of texts forms our view of the genre as a whole. However, the less typical the text, and the further chronologically from the main waves of epistles written between 1790 and 1820, the more difficult it is to quantify the genre’s popularity using a computer database. Although verse fragments can be found in familiar letters to friends written over the last four hundred years, these were not necessarily seen as part of a discrete genre by either author or addressee. On the other hand, verse epistles in a friendly tone written much earlier than 1790, or much later than 1820, betray strong influences from other genre systems. Though these can be discussed in the context 3 5 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of “early” or “late” manifestations of the friendly epistle genre, graphs and statistics will focus on the genre’s more central manifestations appearing between 1790 and 1820. Finally, many of the less objective categories were used mainly as heuristic tools to better understand the nature of the genre and its evolution. Some o f the elements characteristic o f friendly epistles that the computer would have trouble assessing, but which we human readers may watch for, include: 1. Resemblance to a familiar prose letter: open-endedness and spontaneity; inside references. 2. Opening lines “announcing” a friendly tone: addressing the recipient, announcing the relationship between author and addressee, or jumping directly into friendly discourse. 3. The named addressee being the intended audience: the named addressee is a living individual who will actually receive and read the epistle, which is sent as a friendly, rather than polemical, gesture. 4. Middle-style lexicon, or lexicon mixing high and low for comic effect. It might be possible to use criteria such as the four listed above to “rank” prototypical Russian friendly epistles. For example, landmarks of the genre, such as Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty,” could be given an a priori rating as 100% “friendly- epistolary.” Other poems could then be compared to these standards, and ranked according to the degree of similarity shown vis-a-vis the prototypes. For example, Batiushkov’s “K Dashkovu” might share 90% of the characteristics of “Moi penaty,” while a borderline text such as Batiushkov’s “Pastukh i solovei” might share only 50% of those characteristics. 3 6 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. However, determining genre is not only a matter of adding up positive characteristics. Every aspect of a poem that is not “friendly-epistolary” is, necessarily, “something else” - and that “something else” may well end up with a stronger claim on the poem’s genre classification than the friendly epistle. For example, a poem that bears most of the formal hallmarks of a friendly epistle (clearly defined addressee; iambic tetrameter; a hundred lines set in irregular verse paragraphs), yet which tends towards a morose or nostalgic tone, is not simply “less of a friendly epistle,” but “more of an elegiac epistle.” When all the poem’s genre- determining elements are assessed, then, it must be decided not only whether the poem lays convincing claims on friendly epistle status, but also whether some other genre could not better describe the poem. The database categories may be explained, therefore, not only in terms of what is expected for the friendly epistle genre, but also, which alternate genres might be indicated when “friendly” expectations are overridden by stronger ties to other genres. A few texts from other genres have also been entered into the database, for the sake of comparison or as part of the “reference” category, which catalogues specific texts referred to in friendly epistles ranging from Plato’s Republic to Tasso’s “Gerusalemme Liberata.” A list of database categories is given below, followed by brief descriptions. Literary history categories: Poem’s title Poet Marital status of poet Date of composition Date of publication Place of publication Name(s) of addressee(s) Age of author and (each) addressee 3 7 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gender of author and (each) addressee Relation of poet to addressee Tone of poet towards addressee Occasion for poem Literary references Literary predecessors Replies Form Categories: Meter Stanzaic structure Number of lines Rhyme scheme Content Categories: Degree of organization Dialogic devices Themes Tones Metaphor systems Friendly word-combinations Experimental phrases or neologisms B. Description of Categories Literary history categories Poem’s title: Usually the title consists of the addressee’s last name in the dative case (“K Viazemskomu” or “Viazemskomu”) Sometimes, first initials are added, or the addressee’s complete name is given, especially when the addressee is of higher rank than the poet. When the addressee is a child or a servant, the addressee’s first name in a diminutive form many be used (“Mishen’ke”). Less often, the addressee may be represented by initials alone (“K M. B.”), or by a fictitious name (“K Lidii”). However, such titles are often found in other genres, such as poetry used for salon games and riddles, or genres which fictionalize relations between author and addressee (some love poetry, for example). 3 8 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Poet: the poet’s name. Sometimes the poet’s name was abbreviated in publication, or only initials were given. However, it was usually assumed that readers would be able to guess the poet’s full name from the abbreviation. Since friendly epistles appearing in print intentionally publicized the personal, and since friendly epistles were intended as friendly gestures, there are very few friendly epistles written anonymously or under a pseudonym. Age of poet: minimum, maximum if exact age unknown Gender of poet: male, female. Few women wrote friendly epistles until after the genre had declined (e.g., Pavlova), though women often served as the addressees of friendly epistles. Marital status of poet: single, married, or unknown, at the time of the poem’s composition. This category was included to check my starting assumption that many friendly epistles were exchanged between young, unmarried male poets. This assumption appears to be true, but the relationship between a poet’s being “young, unmarried and male” and choosing to write friendly epistles does not appear to be causal. Rather, the leading poets usually turned their attention to friendly epistles whenever the genre experienced a spike in popularity, regardless of their age or marital status. Thus, Derzhavin and N. A. L’vov, both married and older than the median age for friendly epistle authors when friendly epistles came into vogue in the 1790’s, nevertheless both wrote friendly epistles; on the other hand, Batiushkov and A. S. Pushkin happened to be younger, and unmarried, when friendly epistles became popular in the early nineteenth century. Date of composition: minimum, maximum if exact year unknown. 3 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Date of publication. It seems that first- and second-tier poets, from the mid eighteenth century to the 1820’s, had little trouble publishing any poems that they wished to have published, though usually without compensation. Friendly epistles intended for publication were usually published within a year of composition. More experimental, shorter, or otherwise private epistles (e.g., those mentioning sedition) were usually not intended for publication. Place of publication: name of journal or type of book edition. Certain journals, such Karamzin’s 1790’sMoskovskii zhurnal an&Aonidy, Krylov and Klushin’s 1790’s Merkurii, V. V. Izmailov’s 1815 Rossiiskii muzeum and Del’vig’s 1820’s almanac Severnye tsvety, seem to have been especially well-disposed towards publishing friendly epistles. Some poets, such as Derzhavin, delayed immediate publication and instead published friendly epistles together with their other poetry in a collection of complete works. Namefs) of addresseefs): Most often, the addressee is often named in the poem’s title: “K Dmitrievu” (To Dmitriev). Sometimes a fictitious, or inanimate, addressee may be named in the title, such as the hearth in V. L. Pushkin’s “K Kaminu” (To my Hearth). In such cases, a human addressee may be named later in the poem, or the name of an addressee may be revealed by means of a footnote or parenthetical note. Age of (each) addressee: minimum, maximum if exact years of birth and death are unknown. Gender of ('each') addressee: male, female. 40 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Relation of poet to addressee: Relations were first classified as either “relative” or “acquaintance,” and then further broken down into subcategories, such as brother-in-law, sister, cousin; same-sex friend, opposite-sex friend, or patron. Tone of poet towards addressee: In a friendly epistle, the tone of the poem and the tone towards the addressee will often both be “friendly.” However, there are cases where the tone of the poem and the tone towards the addressee differ, usually occurring when the author and addressee are not peers or friends. The tone of the poem may be friendly, but the tone towards the addressee may be more respectful, as in Zhukovskii’s “Podrobnyi otchet o lune.” Occasion for poem: Many friendly epistles had no occasion other than to say “thank you for your recent letter.” Other friendly epistles were focused on a specific occasion, such as an invitation or the dispensing of advice. However, if the occasion overwhelms the “friendly” components of the epistle - that is, if the occasion organizes every aspect of the poem - then the poem may be better classified as “occasional verse.” Literary references: references to a text’s author, hero or heroine, or title. Literary predecessors: a letter or epistle from the addressee to which the author is responding. Replies: an answer from the addressee. “Predecessors” and “replies” can be used to track epistle exchanges. Form Categories Meter: the poem’s meter. 4 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stanzaic structure: stanzas vs. irregular verse paragraphs, which helps friendly epistles project the appearance of spontaneity, as Todd describes it, “neglegentia epistolarum,” which “maintained the illusion of ‘talking on paper’” (Todd, 73). Number of lines. Friendly epistles are typically between 40 and 300 lines. Epistles on the shorter side of the scale (20-50 lines) tend to be more experimental, or focused on a specific occasion, and were often not intended for publication. Longer epistles often address more abstract issues, such as “a poet’s lifestyle” or “writing poetry,” and were almost always intended for publication. Rhyme scheme: aBaB; irregular or mixed rhymes; blank or unrhymed verse. The most common rhyme scheme seems to be mixed, i.e., the rhymes do not follow a predictable pattern. Epistles written in stanzas are usually more predictably rhymed than those organized in irregular verse paragraphs. Content Categories Degree of organization: This was divided among three categories: 1) organized, 2) somewhat organized, and 3) deliberately unorganized. In poems falling under the first category, every word, every line, and every stanza is integrated into the whole; there are no digressions or metaliterary reflections. In the second category, the poem has a definite main idea, but does not always stay on one track. In the third category, the poem flaunts its lack of organization by making deliberate digressions, and also discusses these digressions. 42 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As a general rule, friendly epistles do not reflect much organization, since they usually strove for an appearance of spontaneity. Most friendly epistles fall under the second category, while the third category contains the longest, and often the most typical, friendly epistles. The longer the epistle, the more space in which intentional disorganization can be displayed; such disorganization can give the impression that the poem is spontaneous and unpremeditated, like a prose Ietter.,v Dialogic devices: addressing the addressee, posing questions and predicting the addressee’s response, quoting third parties. Themes: The main theme of each passage was entered, such as “what is on my bookshelf,” “invitation to visit,” or “how this poem is being written,” and each theme is assigned the tense that best correlates with it: past, present, or fiiture.v Tones: Most friendly epistles are set in a friendly tone. Metaphor systems: Greek; Latin; inside references. Many poems, regardless of degree of organization, champion a single metaphor system throughout the poem. In other words, a poem that begins by comparing the addressee to Apollo may go on to discuss inspiration “from Hippocrene” or compare composing poetry to “riding Pegasus.” Such a poem would be classified as having a “Greek” metaphor system. Friendly word-combinations: defined as a formulaic two-word phrase, consisting of either an adjective and modified noun (“liubimyi drug,” “beloved friend”) or of two nouns, one modifying the other (“pitomets muz,” “nursling of the muses”). Some word-combinations, such as the epithets “moi drug” (my friend) or “nezhnyi drug” (tender friend), recur throughout the corpus of friendly epistle texts. However, many word-combinations simply resemble one another, without being 4 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. repeated verbatim from poem to poem. For example, either of the phrases “pitomets muz” and “pitomets Apollona” could describe “a fortunate young poet,” with no significant difference in meaning (“the muses’ nursling” vs. “Apollo’s nursling”).V l Experimental phrases or neologisms: This includes single words that are not listed in a standard Russian dictionary, new phrases or phrases combining contradictory components, and foreign or otherwise interesting rhymes. Some experimental elements stand out clearly, such as the rhyme “Coglione / macaroni,” or Zhukovskii’s phrase “<zhopa> Apollona” (“Apollo’s ass”), in an 1808 epistle to Viazemskii. C. Case Study In this section, the process of entering a text in the database will be taken step by step. For the sake of convenience, the text to be entered is the shortest friendly epistle from Table 2.1.3, Zhukovskii’s 1814 “K Turgenevu...” (“To Turgenev...”). All twenty-eight lines of this poem are provided below: K TypreHeBy, b OTBer Ha c t h x h , npHCJiaHHbie hm BMecrro rmcbMa [To Turgenev, in answer to the verses sent by him in place o f a letter] Netgiorni tuoi,felici Ricordati di me! [When your days are happy Think of me!] B denb cnacmbfi BcnoMHHTb o T e 6 e - [To remember you on a happy day - Ha h t o T ax o e, a p y r , xcenaH be? What kind of wish is that, friend? Ha h t o H aM noBepjrrb cyabfie Why should we entrust fate with 44 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CBHUieHHOe BOCnOMHHSHbe? Korfla 6 jiK)6oBb k Te6e mob M ohm jiHiiib cnacTbeM H3Mep«jiacb H hm JiHuib b cepaue oacHBjiBJiacb, — CK O Jib 6eaeH era 6bui 6w a! Hct, H e r, moh 6 p a T , moh a p y r-x p a H H T e jib ; BocnoMHHaHneM hhmm rL n a n y T e 6 e : b BeHHO c hhm; O ho moh BepHbiH yreuiHTejib! B o dnu nenanu t h co mhoh; H, o6oapB eM biH to 6 o h , Em e b >KH3Hb H e n p e 3 H p a io ; O , HTO 6 b l HH 6bIJIO, -- B 3H3IO, r ^ e MHe npH 6e>K H m e o 6 p e c rrb , Kyna Jiio6oB b c b o io n p H H e c r b , H r a e jiK)6oBb He h 3 M 6 h h tc b , H ra e HejKHefimee xpaHHTca YnacTHe b cyabSe Moeii. floacaycb nab Her cuacmjiuebix d m u - O tom, moh MHabiH apyr, hh caoBa; KaKHM 6bi b hh uiea nyreM - B ee Tbi MHe cnyTHHKOM-BoacaeM; Co M H O H ao K B M H B rpoSoBOTO, H e H3MeHBBCB, H a n ; O a H a MoabSa: H e y n p e a n ! Our most sacred memory? If my love for you were measured, and kept alive in my heart, only by my happiness, — How impoverished I would be! No, no, my brother, guardian-friend; I reciprocate with a different memory: it is always with me, And is my faithful consoler! On sad days, you are with me; And, heartened by you, I do not despise life, as of yet; Whatever happens, at least I know Where to seek haven, Where to bring my love, And where love remains constant, Where the tenderest sympathy in my fate is safeguarded. Whether I will live to see happier days - Dear friend, not a word on that; Whatever path I take — You remain my companion, leader; Travel beside me to the grave, Unchanging; I have only one request: don't precede me!] The database entry form is displayed on the next two pages as 2.2.1, with explanations regarding the case study below. After the poem’s title (1), the meter (2) is entered as “iambic tetrameter,” and the poem’s organization (3) is classified as “moderately organized.” Zhukovskii, the poet (4), was unmarried (5) in 1814, the year of the poem’s composition (6). The poem was published in 1816 (7) in the author’s collection of verse (8). This poem is not set in stanzas, but in a single irregular verse paragraph. Checking “Irregular Verse [paragraph]” (9) leads us to an entry form where we enter the number of paragraphs as 1 and the number of lines as 28. 45 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.2.1 The Database Entry Form 1 T H I e | 4 Poet I 3 _±_ 6 Composition Date J 0 - 7 Publication Date j 0 g PuWcatjon Place | 2r1et« j 3 3)ffl«*2ation j 5 r M arital Status-------- ( * Unknown C M arried ^ Probably M arried F" Shgle 9 Irregular Verse f~ Total Lines J 0 N umber of S tanzas j 0 Lines Stanza* J 0 I OPhymeScheme 1 Rhythm Pattern 12 -A ddressee Last Name First Name M iddle Name Real Sent T jW y Relationship Addressee not a person _l----------!------------------ T oneT owards Addressees) 1 3 1 4 m i* 3 3 1 3 + Delete | Add Title Last Name First Name Midde Name 1 zi Add Precursor 1 5 pRepGe* Title Last Name First Name Midde Name j Add Reply zi 1 6 — Lit Reference - Title Last Name First Name Midde Name 1 Zl Add Reference 1 7 Theme 1 8 Line Start End Theme -Metaphor - MetaphorSystem 1 9 -Slovo-Signal* - Count Slovo-Signal m --------- Delete Record “ 3 -III ■^Experimental phrasee/neologisin* * Count Phrase/Neologism I 0 1 Record: i< I < 11 T > l n |n - l of 1 46 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.2.1 The Database Entry Form, Continued I t ; L r> e Start End Tone Add ; __________ r-Torte ol Epi*Ue Add Tone Hoa i; D e te lg I I j i r ° I ° r Delete | i Line Device A dd , D ialogic Delete I Device 24 r Borderine Genre 2 5 Subgenre Add Genre Delete 1 The lines are rhymed, but since the rhymes show no regular pattern (AbAb CddC eFFe), the Rhyme Scheme (10) is entered as “mixed.” The Rhythm Pattern category (11) was designated to record the rhythm of the poem’s lines, but this category proved too time-consuming to fulfill, so this space was left for notes on dates, variants, etc. The addressee (12) is Aleksandr Ivanovich Turgenev, 1784-1845. The lifespans of both author and addressee have already been entered in a table of Persons, which allows me to determine the ages of author and addressee at the time of each poem’s composition. “Real” indicates that Turgenev was a “real” person, and “sent” indicates that Zhukovskii (most likely) sent this poem to the addressee. In the poem, Turgenev is addressed with the informal pronoun “ty” (thou), and the relationship between author and addressee was entered as “friends (same-sex).” Based on the number of times Zhukovskii addresses Turgenev using friendly epithets, the tone towards the addressee (13) was classified as “friendly.” Zhukovskii’s title declares that this epistle was written in response to Italian verses sent from Turgenev, two lines of which serve as the epistle’s epigraph (Net 47 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. giorni tuoi,felici/Ricordati di me!). The rest of the Italian verses are not extant, but it is not essential to have a text on hand order to identify it as a precursor (14) to this text™ We have no record of Turgenev’s reply to Zhukovskii’s epistle (15), and Zhukovskii makes no literary references other than to the Italian verses (16), so these categories were left blank. Some of the “themes” entered (17) include “the addressee’s family members,” set in the past tense (“time”), “the author’s reaction to the addressee’s letter,” set in the present, and mention of “death, grave,” set in the future. (The “themes” category, like other subjective categories, was rarely called upon in queries.) There are few metaphors (18) in this poem, so the poem’s “metaphor system” was classified as “inside references.” This poem does boast several word- combinations characteristic of friendly epistles, such as “drug-khraniteF” and “milyi drug,” which were entered in (19) “Slovo-signaly.” No experimental phrases or neologisms were identified, so this category (20) was left blank. The poem’s occasion (21) was listed as “answer to addressee.” The tone of the epistle (22) varies between categories such as “friendly” and “earnest moralizing.” Some dialogic devices (23) employed include “questions to the addressee” (“What kind of wish is that, friend?”) and other simulations of dialogue between author and addressee (“Dear friend, not a word on that”). The final category (24) has to do with identifying the poem’s genre. The data entry process sometimes turned up, or confirmed, doubts as to whether a text should be classified as a “friendly epistle.” If it was determined that a text was not a friendly epistle, the “Borderline Genre” field was marked, and a more appropriate 48 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. designation could then be selected from a range of related genres (madrigal, elegy, invective epistle). But Zhukovskii’s poem is addressed to a concrete individual who is identified in the poem, several times, as the author’s friend. Friendly references to the addressee, vows of friendship, and an overall tone of friendly optimism, though inflected by a slightly melancholic bent, put this poem well within the bounds of the friendly epistle genre. The poem’s subgenre (25) was listed as “short friendly epistle,” but the subgenre category, like the other subjective categories, was rarely used other than as a heuristic device: any poem qualifying as a friendly epistle, regardless of subgenre, was eligible for inclusion in statistics and charts (depending on the range of years, authors, etc. used for a query) on Russian friendly epistles. HI. Sources for Texts How were friendly epistles circulated? In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when Russian friendly epistle discourse was thriving, friendly epistles were sent to the addressee as letters in and of themselves or as accompaniments to a prose letter. The addressee could then share the epistle with friends living nearby, or forward the epistle to other readers. Sometimes, this was at the behest of the author, who could include instructions regarding the poem’s distribution (“Show this to Turgenev”). If the epistle contained no taboo themes (anti-religious or anti-government sentiments, for example), and if no instructions accompanied the epistle, it could be assumed that the addressee had full discretion to circulate the epistle. 49 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If the addressee was a publisher of an almanac or journal, or had links to the publishing world, the author might include authorization to publish the friendly epistle in an accompanying note or prose letter. The author might even issue instructions on publication, such as encryption of the title (e.g., “K D-u” instead of “K Dmitrievu”)- Alternately, the author might himself or herself initiate the epistle’s publication, either by sending the poem to a publisher or by including the epistle in a collection to publish. Such collections were often organized by genre, and sections categorized as “Poslaniia” (“Epistles”) were one of the most common in the early nineteenth century. Twentieth-century editors of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russian poetry have often re-published friendly epistles under the same heading, “Poslaniia.” However, it should be kept in mind that definitions of what an “epistle” is vary from poet to poet and from editor to editor. Some poems listed as “Epistles” might be better categorized as “Occasional Verse,” while categories such as “Miscellaneous” (“Raznye,” “Smes”’) or “Comic Verse” (“Shutochnye stikhotvoreniia”) may contain poems that could just as easily be categorized as friendly epistles. These collections have generally focused more on the development of a single author than on the development of genres, and friendly epistles have never been collected into a single corpus (Virolainen, 65). To collect friendly epistles, I began with lists of the best-known friendly epistles, such as those identified in M. Gasparov (2.1.3 above). Such lists provided a starting point from which to expand the search: since M. Gasparov named Zhukovskii as the author of several friendly epistles, Zhukovskii’s poetry was culled 5 0 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for more friendly epistles. A second direction for expansion was on the basis of addressees: if Zhukovskii’s addressees included Viazemskii and Voeikov, then poetry by Viazemskii and Voeikov represented a possible source for more friendly epistles. Finally, the search was expanded along chronological lines. If many friendly epistles were written in the 1810’s, then any poet writing in the 1810’s came under scrutiny. Adjoining decades were searched next (the 1800’s and 1820’s). Collections of poetry suspected of harboring friendly epistles were carefully thumbed through in search of poems with friendly epistle characteristics. These poems were photocopied, collated with their footnotes, organized chronologically and entered into the database.V 1 " As a result, 318 friendly epistles by 46 poets writing across a span of 60 years have been included in this study. Friendly epistles were taken from many sources, though generally, the most recent Biblioteka poeta edition of each poet’s complete works was the first place I looked, where such editions existed. In some cases, the Biblioteka poeta editions were less complete than other editions. In the case of Zhukovskii, for example, neither the 1956 one-volume Biblioteka poeta edition of his selected poetry, nor the four-volume 1959-60 edition published by Khudozhestvennaia literatura, was as complete as a 1902 twelve-volume edition of Zhukovskii’s poetry and prose.1 * ' 5 In the case ofFet, the most recent Biblioteka poeta edition (1986) contained only selected poetry, from which some of Fet’s friendly epistles had been excluded. Only by combing through the two predecessors to that edition was a more complete set of texts assembled. 5 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is possible that some friendly epistles were undervalued by later readers and editors, perhaps because their nature seemed trifling and therefore not worth preserving or publishing. While this could hardly be true of a thoroughly studied poet like Pushkin, it may be true of second- or third-tier poets whose complete works have not been collected, such as Voeikov (Lotman, “Poeziia 1790-1810,” 33). Certainly, there were amateur poets writing friendly epistles in the 1790’s and 18I0’s whose poems were never published, or whose poems were published in relatively obscure almanacs or journals. To expand this dissertation’s corpus of texts to include all extant Russian friendly epistles would probably require the collaboration of several specialists over several years. Such a project could add nuances to the larger picture, and might also break new ground in intriguing areas of literary and cultural studies, such as “the poetics of everyday life” and “the lives and works of provincial or marginal poets.” Yet there is all reason to believe that all of the most influential friendly epistles by first-tier and second-tier eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russian poets have been included in this study. As assurance, we ask the reader to imagine the commotion that would be stirred up should a previously unknown friendly epistle by Pushkin suddenly surface. This dissertation would certainly be affected, but the effect would be no greater than the tumult such a discovery would have on the world of Pushkiniana. It is much more likely that the kind of friendly epistles that archival work could turn up would be short, playful dinner invitations, or imitations of the most famous epistles. Such archival work is nonetheless encouraged, and we 5 2 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. welcome the addition any new material might add to fill out the picture of the friendly epistle genre and of Russian literary culture. It should also be remembered that the form of a poem was not necessarily finalized in its first draft. Copies of an unpublished poem might circulate, some with one ending, others with a variant ending. Political references might be added or removed, depending on the expected audience, and a friendly epistle addressed to one addressee could even be re-adapted for another addressee. Where this occurs, the first version, which was usually the longest version, was used for data entry, though the existence of other versions was noted (usually in footnotes). This dissertation attempts to sketch the rules under which the friendly epistle genre operated. Two caveats to this aim should be mentioned. First, compiling data en masse tends to smooth out the waves caused by “rule-breaking.” The innovations in any particular text may be overwhelmed, statistically, by more conservative texts from the same year. Additionally, some “rule-breaking” innovations in a text dating from, say, 1793, could be imitated or adopted by other authors in 1794 and 1795, thus quickly canonizing “rule-breaking” innovations as legitimate components of the genre. Second, a focus on the rules of the genre almost allows the genre to take on life of its own, and we may forget, in the process, the poets who actually created the texts, and the cultural backdrop that encouraged or discouraged this creation. Readers are therefore counseled to keep at the back of their minds an image of an individual poet hammering out the details of a friendly epistle. Perhaps an influx of friendly interchanges in the writer’s life was inspiring him to compose a slew of 5 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. epistles, or perhaps the writer had recently taken leave of friends and was using the epistle as a way to keep in touch. To refer to a more unique case, the poet might be far from home, seriously ill, and obsessed by the memory of an unrequited love, all of which persuade him to pen epistle after epistle to his would-be beloved. In other words, personal reasons encouraged poets to write, or to not write, friendly epistles, and the resulting scattered texts are the fortunate literary facts that this dissertation will survey. 1 De Geest and van Gorp contrast this “valid” sense of genre against the difficulties that literary scholars face in attempting to “define and to delimit these generic categories” (34). For this reason, we will temporarily pass over scholarly studies focused on defining and delimiting genre in favor of studies focused on other aspects of Russian poetry which happen to mention that poem X is a friendly epistle. Such informal categorization by genre may provide the best semblance o f readers’ intuitive knowledge of genre, and of larger-scale scholarly consensus on “what characterized the friendly epistle” and “what texts can be included in that genre.” Some examples are studies by Tomashevskii, Ginzburg, and M. Gasparov. Ginzburg’s work on the lyric was not used, in the end, because she uses the term “friendly epistle” in reference to only one poem, Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty.” “ One exception is Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty.” The title helps explain this exception: Batiushkov’s title claims to address his domestic gods (penates) first, addressing Zhukovskii and Viazemskii only secondarily. Accordingly, many friendly references are directed towards the penates, while Zhukovskii and Viazemskii become the focus o f Batiushkov’s attention (and thus, the recipients of friendly references) only near the end of the poem. “ Some categories are, by their nature, more objective than others. The poet’s age, for example, would be expected to be relatively exact. But even here we find exceptions: V. L. Pushkin’s year of birth has been recorded as 1766, 1767, or 1770. K One quick test of degree of organization is to compare the poem’s opening and closing. Do the themes and metaphors match? In other words, does the poem give the impression of having been spontaneously dashed off, or does it give the impression that it has been revised and edited to emphasize unity? The more organized epistles are often oriented towards a specific occasion (“Congratulations on the birth of your child,” “Please come to dinner”). Highly organized epistles are often set in stanzas, which emphasize predictable form. These are the exception: most epistles are less organized, and are set in irregular verse paragraphs, which mimic the more open form of paragraphs in prose letters. 54 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v This category' was designed in order to evaluate Grekhnev’s claim that friendly epistles favor the present tense. The determination of tense is not always correlated with the verb tenses in the passage. For example, in the sentence “You asked me for a poem, and here is what I have written,” the verb “asked” is in the past tense, but the emphasis of the sentence is on the present-time fulfillment of the request. ” Phrases consisting of three formulaic words are broken down into two, two-word combinations. For instance, “moi liubeznyi drug” (my dear friend) would be broken down for entry as “moi drug” (my friend) and “liubeznyi drug” (dear friend). Where the components of a word-signal phrase are inflected to modify one another, the inflected forms are retained in the database: the phrase “drug serdtsa” (the friend of my heart) would be entered verbatim. However, when it is the surrounding phrase imposing inflections on the word-signals, the inflections are stripped off for database entry: “s drugom serdtsa” (with the friend of my heart) would be entered as “drug serdtsa” (the friend of my heart). Singulars and plurals are retained, so that phrases like “chas prokhlady” (the hour of coolness) and “chasy prokhlady” (the hours of coolness) would be entered separately. v u It is not clear to what genre the Italian poems belong, but it is not absolutely necessary to know this: they were classified simply as “reference” texts. On the basis of the two excerpted lines, it appears that the Italian poems were short verses written for a social occasion. It is also possible that Turgenev’s Italian poems represent a form of friendly epistles. This example of a discourse that crosses languages, and possibly genres, is certainly not unique. In early nineteenth-century Russia, prose letters were often written in French, so it is to be expected that Zhukovskii’s non-poet friends might write to him in French or, in this case, Italian. Further, whenever a poet was corresponding with a non-poet, exchanges were apt to cross genres, since a poet could insert quatrains of poetry in a prose letter or compose the entire letter in verse, while the non-poet was usually forced to stay with prose. In this dissertation, I have focused on friendly epistles written in Russian, but mixed-genre, mixed-language exchanges are promising for future study. v m Collating poems with corresponding footnotes proved to be easier said than done in the particular case of Pushkin. The most complete edition of Pushkin’s poetry is the 1937-49 17-volume Akademiia nauk edition, of which only the first volume contains annotations. This first volume has recently been updated with the 1994 Akademiia nauk publication of.4.5. Pushkin: Stikhotvoreniia litseiskikh let, 1813-1817. In the next few years, a new Akademiia nauk edition of Pushkin’s complete works should be published, this time with annotations accompanying all volumes. In the meantime, the texts taken from the 1937-49 edition were matched with annotations from other editions of Pushkin’s work, especially Tomashevskii’s notes to the 1956-8 \0-xo\vsne Akademiia nauk edition. K The Biblioteka poeta edition of Zhukovskii’s verse lists some of the “significant works” that had to be excluded from the volume, for reasons of space. These include Zhukovskii’s epistles to Bludov (1810), to Batiuskhov (1812), to Turgenev and to Viazemskii (1814) (Zhukovskii 1956, 767). Editions of Zhukovskii’s poetry are discussed further in chapter 4. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter Three: Early Russian Friendly Epistles, -1700-1801 I. Overview II. Early Russian Verse Letters to Friends and the First Russian Friendly Epistles, -1700-1790 HI. The First Major Wave of Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-7 IV. The Waning of the First Wave, 1797-1801 I. Overview This chapter discusses some of the earliest extant Russian letters to a friend in verse, dating from the late seventeenth century, and then moves on to the first major wave of Russian friendly epistles, which appeared in the late eighteenth century (the mid-1790’s). There is a distinction here that needs elucidation: “letters to a friend in verse” are not always “friendly epistles,” and the difference between the two has to do with consciousness of genre and similarity to prototype. Did early authors and recipients of “letters to a friend in verse” consider these letters to be part of a generic tradition? To take an analogous example, a poet may be completely unaware of the sonnet as a literary genre, yet nevertheless write a poem consisting of fourteen lines that happens to use one of the sonnet’s rhyme schemes. Such a poem is probably not itself a sonnet; its similarity to sonnets is more accidental than reflective of its participation in the genre’s tradition. In the same way, verse letters to a friend may bear accidental similarities to friendly epistles based on their common link to letters 5 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in general. Such accidental similarities do not necessarily imply that the two types of texts belong to the same genre. To distinguish “accidental” similarities between texts from similarities based on a common genre, we may refer to Todorov’s recommendation that “only those classes of texts that have been perceived as such in the course of history [be called genres],” defined by “metadiscursive discourse” (162). A. M. Panchenko writes that verse epistles were a leading literary genre in 1630’s and 1640’s Russia (48, 63), and these early verse epistles show evidence of metageneric discourse. Sawatii writes in one verse epistle that the rest of his answer will be outlined in a “second epistle” (iznucmonuH; Panchenko, 43). These early Russian verse epistles, which we will call epistolii in accordance with Sawatii’s term, often contained acrostics spelling out the name of the addressee, suggesting a degree of organization and ornament rarely found in friendly epistles. Panchenko characterizes these epistolii as having a “serious and rather ponderous manner [which] muffled free poetic expression” (55), and they seem to have been published in the capacity of verse prefaces to sermons written in prose (59), rather than exchanged as letters. This suggests that epistolii qualify as a discrete genre, but should be considered as distinct from the friendly epistle genre appearing later. At the end of the seventeenth century, there is evidence that verses of a friendlier nature began to be inserted into prose letters to friends. However, few Russian letters or other texts written in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries are extant, making metadiscourse difficult to find without a great deal of further 5 7 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. research. Nevertheless, we may still ask to what extent early “letters to a friend in verse” resemble prototypical friendly epistles, those “variants of red [which] are somehow ‘redder’ than others” (de Geest, 40), such as the five texts listed in 2.1.1. It is not exactly fair to compare seventeenth-century verse letters to hallmark friendly epistles from the 1810’s. Early authors could not be expected to foresee what later authors would write, or what elements would eventually become canonical components of the genre that came to be known as the friendly epistle. But, generally speaking, the “letters to a friend in verse” written before 1770 bear more accidental resemblance to prototypical friendly epistles than resemblance based on shared participation in a common genre tradition. Specifically, letters to a friend in verse written from the late seventeenth century up until 1730 or 1740 usually consisted of a few lines of verse inserted into a longer prose letter. The verse lines are usually short (ten lines or less), compared with later friendly epistles, and fragmentary in nature. Further, these verse inserts appear to be just what they seem, impromptu verse inserted into a prose letter to a friend, and do not appear to have been perceived as belonging to a discrete literary genre. From approximately 1730 until 1770, a new type of “letter to a friend in verse” appeared in Russian literature. Unlike the earliest extant verse letters, these were perceived as belonging to a discrete literary genre, but that genre was the didactic epistle, which gained prominence in the Russia in the mid-eighteenth century, rather than the friendly epistle. It is true that didactic epistles were set in a wide range of tones, from the near-hostility of Sumarokov’s “Dve epistoly,” cited in 58 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. chapter 2, to the friendlier tone of gentle condescension that authors chose when addressing close friends and family members. In fact, a type of didactic epistle emerged in the 1750’s and 1760’s that could be described as a hybrid between didactic and friendly epistles, and that served as a precursor to Murav’ev’s friendly epistles of the 1770’s and 1780’s. However, the difference between “advising a friend how to live” in a tone of gentle condescension (the semi-friendly, semi- didactic epistles) and “telling a friend how I live, and inviting the friend to join me” in a tone of friendly respect (prototypical friendly epistles) is telling. Furthermore, it is difficult to use a system of quantification to chart the progress of early Russian verse epistles that are not quite friendly epistles for one reason or another. It would be awkward to chart these as friendly epistles, since they do not seem to have been perceived as such by contemporary authors and addressees and do not bear convincing resemblance to prototypical friendly epistles. To include early examples of verse inserted into a prose letter to a friend in this dissertation’s database would suggest that friendly epistles first appeared far earlier than we believe is the case. (Many of these texts were written in the seventeenth century or early eighteenth century and cannot be precisely dated, which further complicates their inclusion.) And to include the lengthy semi-didactic, semi-friendly epistles appearing in the mid-eighteenth century would give the impression that friendly epistles were popular almost a half-century before the first wave of friendly epistles created with a conscious basis in the genre appeared in the 1790’s. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. All these examples of early Russian verse epistle discourse are interesting, and some representative early letters to friends in verse, and semi-didactic, semi- friendly epistles, will be discussed in this chapter. However, charts and statistics delineating the friendly epistle’s development will only be brought into the picture at the point that the first prototypical friendly epistles appear. The first prototypical friendly epistles are defined as verse epistles that address the recipient more or less as an equal, that employ at least some of the semantic systems, word combinations, friendly epithets, and formal elements characteristic of the epistles listed in 2.1.1. Finally, in order for a verse letter to qualify as a friendly epistle, the author’s friendly tone must cover not only the addressee, but also the world at large. This criterion was added to explain the difference between prototypical friendly epistles, which are naively optimistic in their worldview, and verse epistles that are friendly towards the addressee, but pessimistic or hostile towards the rest of the world. These tended to be written on the chronological peripheries of the tradition, appearing in the 1760’s and again in the 1820’s (discussed further in chapter 5). At what point do friendly epistles advance from the fledgling status of accidental insertions and hybrids with didactic epistles, and acquire the status of a discrete, recognizable and widespread genre, to a significant enough degree that the genre’s progress may be charted and quantified? The verse letters to friends written by Murav’ev, dating from 1770, meet all our criteria for friendly epistles. They are much longer than verse inserts in earlier prose letters, and much friendlier than earlier didactic epistles to friends; their friendliness is not only directed towards the 60 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. addressee, but shapes the lyrical hero’s worldview as well. Murav’ev’s verse letters to friends cultivate the same lexical style - a mixture of smooth, elegiac lexicon and word-combinations marked by friendliness - as prototypical friendly epistles. For these reasons, Murav’ev’s verse letters to friends have been classified as the earliest friendly epistles, and the computer database was set to generate graphs and statistics from 1770, the year of Murav’ev’s earliest friendly epistle. The decision to start a history of Russian friendly epistles with Murav’ev is supported by other scholars. Lazarchuk, in her 1973 article on the origins of the friendly epistle genre, identifies Murav’ev as the creator of the “first... friendly epistles in Russia” (15). More recently, Mikhail Liustrov has argued that Murav’ev’s friendly epistles are the first to “allow for clear distinctions to be drawn” between friendly epistles and other epistolary genres (117). Finally, the earliest poem mentioned by M. Gasparov as being a friendly epistle is Murav’ev’s “K A.V. Naryshkinu,” written in the 1770’s (Ocherk, 70). After a decade of widespread popularity in the 1790’s, friendly epistle production and publication abated at the turn of the nineteenth century, providing a convenient point to end this chapter. Rather than ending the chapter exactly at the century’s end, however, this chapter ends at 1801, for three reasons. 1) Paul’s reign, which Gary Marker argues negatively affected writing and publishing, ended in 1801; 2) N.A. L’vov’s friendly epistles were written between 1787 and 1801; and 3) our corpus of texts does not contain any friendly epistles written in 1802, providing a convenient breaking point. This chapter, then, covers Russian friendly epistles 61 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. written between 1770 and 1801, as well as a brief discussion of earlier letters to a friend in verse. The work of leading and second-tier poets was combed through in search of friendly epistles, yielding fifty-six poems written between 1770 and 1801. Normally, at this point, graphs would be presented showing the genre’s chronological development. However, the eighteenth-century group of friendly epistles presents a special challenge in terms of chronological precision, so a word about the accuracy of dates of composition is in order. Namely, over one-fifth (21%) of eighteenth-century friendly epistles in our collection cannot be precisely dated. For two-thirds of these (14% of the total), the range of possible dates exceeds four years. Especially in the case of poems by Murav’ev and L’vov, all we may know is that “this poem was written sometime in the 1770’s” or “1790’s.” In contrast, of the 262 friendly epistles in our collection written between 1800 and 1830, only 17 cannot be precisely dated (6%), and even most of these can be dated to within a couple of years (e.g., “this poem was written in 1814 or 1815”). This leaves only three poems, a mere 1% of nineteenth-century friendly epistles, with inexact dates ranging over a period of three or more years. The increasing precision of dates may be attributed to the professionalization of Russian literature during Pushkin’s lifetime: a professional writer is probably more likely to record dates than is an amateur writer. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. How can chronological charts be constructed of a group of poems lacking exact dates? To take an example, I. A. Krylov’s 168-line friendly epistle “Pis’mo o pol’ze strastei” (“Letter on the Use of Passions”) was written sometime in the 1790’s. This poem can be easily accommodated in graphs charting poems by decade. In 3.1.1 below, Krylov’s poem is seen classed with other friendly epistles written in the 1790’s: 3.1.1 Krylov's "Pis'mo o pol'ze strastei" and Other Friendly Epistles, 1780-1809, by Decade 4000 3500 w 3000 j j 2500 r 2000 •§ 1500 1000 500 0 1780 1790 1800 However, attempting to fit Krylov’s poem into a more specific chronological chart poses a problem. Should one date be chosen over the rest? Or should the poem’s lines be distributed evenly across the years in question? These options are presented in 3.1.2 (a), (b) and (c).1 In option (a), Krylov’s poem has been assigned the earliest date, 1790: □ "Strastei" ■ Other R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.1.2(a) Krylov's "Pis’mo o pol'ze strastei" and Other 1790's Friendly Epistles, by Total Lines □ ''Strastei' ■ Other 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 In option (b), Krylov’s poem has been assigned a date approximately midway between 1790 and 1799, 1794: 3.1.2(b) Krylov's "Pis'mo o pol'ze strastei" and Other 1790's Friendly Epistles, by Total Lines □ "Strastei" ■ Other In option (c), the 168 lines in Krylov’s poem have been distributed evenly across the years in question: 17 lines were allotted to 1790, 17 lines allotted to 1791, etc.: 64 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.1.2(c) Krylov's "Pis'mo o pol'ze strastei" and Other 1790's Friendly Epistles, by Total Lines 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 □ "Strastei1 ■ Other 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 Were we to guess the most likely year of composition, the most plausible choices would be 1792 or 1793, since Krylov wrote other friendly epistles in those years. What can we conclude from 3.1.2(a), (b) and (c)? 3.1.2(c) has the advantage that all possibilities are equally accounted for. But this could inadvertently allow differences in editors’ practices to weigh on our calculations. For example, one editor may give the date a poem was begun, a second may give the date it was finished, a third may use the year of publication as date of composition, while a fourth may offer a wide range of possible dates, and editors’ methodology is not usually explained. Another problem arises when few other poems were written in the range of dates in question. For example, 3.1.2(a), (b) and (c) show few friendly epistles written in 1790, 1791, 1798 and 1799. Were we to distribute many texts with inexact dates across the entire decade, as we did with Krylov’s poem in 3.1.2(c), it would appear that many short poems had been written in each year. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Of the other options, (b) seems to have the advantage over (a), if only that the midpoint suggests the range of dates more accurately than does the first date. Finally, depending on the amount of information available, guessing may also be an option. In sum, if a poem’s estimated dates span two years (the majority of cases overall), the earlier year was graphed; if the poem’s estimated dates span three or more years, either the midpoint or the most probable year was graphed.” In cases where arguments are being made about specific years, poems lacking exact data have been omitted altogether (and this omission has been explained). Fortunately, only 9% of friendly epistles in the overall collection (1770-1830) lack precise dates, and less than half of these - 4% overall - have a range of dates spanning three years or more. This said, we now turn to graphing the main trends of the friendly epistle in eighteenth-century Russian literature. Friendly epistle composition is charted below by number of poems (3.1.3) and by total lines (3.1.4): 3.1.3 Friendly Epistles, 1770-1801, by Number of Poem s 10 T~ ■ No. of Poems R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.1.4 Friendly Epistles, 1770-1801, by Total Lines 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 I : I 1 " ' i K . - - - l j i l . i t . . . . . 0— 1 - - - - L l ul k J u - B . l I No. of Lines oc M^’ COQOorvj' ^’ C o e o o c M ^ ’ C o e o o i s .^ r ^ > r ^ N - o o o o o o o o f io o > o ) 0 > 0 ) o > o Both 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 suggest that the friendly epistle genre appeared infrequently until a five-year period of exceptional popularity beginning in 1793. The juxtaposition of 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 brings up the question of whether it is more accurate to base graphs on the number of poems or on the total number of lines produced. Generally speaking, the more poems represented, the more the two graphs resemble each other, because the shorter and longer poems mete each other’s effects. When a few long poems are written, or when many short poems are written, however, different pictures emerge. In such cases, either both graphs are needed, or graphs may be sidelined altogether in favor of explanations. For the most part, I have preferred assessments using the total number of lines in this dissertation. The main reason for this is that the longer a poem, the greater the chance that it would be published soon after composition and the wider its influence. This seems to hold true until the 1820’s (and is further discussed in chapter 5). For this reason, most charts will be based on the total number of 67 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lines produced in a given time period, unless otherwise indicated. If there is a discrepancy between the two forms of assessments, both versions may be given, the results may be explained, or explanations may substitute for charts. Russian friendly epistles reflect changing metrical fashions. The earliest extant verse epistles in a friendly tone were set in syllabic meters, but Lomonosov’s epistles to Shuvalov in 1750 are set in iambic hexameter, the most popular meter in eighteenth-century Russian poetry (M. Gasparov, Ocherk, 59). In the 1760’s, when anacreontic lyrics came into mode, the meters associated with anacreontea, iambic trimeter and trochaic tetrameter, became common settings for friendly epistles on anacreontic themes. But the most popular meter for friendly epistles written between 1770 and 1801 was mixed iambs, iambic lines of unpredictably varying lengths. A third of all friendly epistles and friendly epistle lines (33%, 35% respectively) were set in this meter, which continued to be a popular setting for friendly epistles throughout the genre’s history. This meter’s popularity is graphed in 3.1.5 below: 3.1.5 Friendly Epistles Set in Mixed lambs and Other Meters, 1770-1801 1200 i n n n □ Mixed iambs H Other meters 68 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Iambic tetrameter did not serve as a setting for friendly epistles until 1792. However, between 1792 and 1797, enough friendly epistles appear in iambic tetrameter to make this meter the second most popular for the last third of the eighteenth century, and the most popular meter for friendly epistles overall. Iambic tetrameter served as a setting for 28% of friendly epistle lines (and 21% of poems) among eighteenth-century friendly epistles, as graphed in 3.1.6 below: 3.1.6 Friendly Epistles Set in Iambic Tetrameter and Other Meters, 1770-1801 1200 1000 * Other meters were still possible choices for friendly epistles, and changing fashions continued to influence the genre. For example, as iambic pentameter became more fashionable, more friendly epistles were set in this meter. But, if mixed iambs and iambic tetrameter were the friendly epistle’s “default” meters, and semantically more or less neutral, other meters often carried with them semantic nuances tying them to related genres. Usually, an “outside” meter would be chosen only if the meter’s nuances complemented the orientation of the individual epistle. Thus, the “anacreontic” meters served for hybrids between anacreontea and friendly epistles, and iambic hexameter served for hybrids between didactic or formal epistles 69 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and friendlier epistles. These meters all but disappear in the 1790’s, when iambic tetrameter displaces virtually all other meters, though trochaic tetrameter appears again in the 1800’s and though iambic trimeter eclipses all other meters in the early 1810’s (chapter 4). Friendly epistles’ preference for irregular forms manifested itself not only in the meter mixed iambs, but also in rhymes and stanzaic forms. Ninety-two percent of friendly epistle lines written between 1770 and 1801 were rhymed, but only a quarter of these were rhymed in regular patterns (e.g., aBaB). Instead, the majority was set in irregularly patterned rhymes (e.g., aBaaB), whose distribution is shown in 3.1.7 below: 3.1.7 Rhyming Patterns in Friendly Epistles, 1770-1801 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1 tt n F t 1 JSnl illL.-i X 1 , /A* ^ ^ ^ >o V *o O >0 \ v \ v N > N > *0 N > SP B Unrhymed □ Reg. rhymes B Irreg. rhymes An even more marked preference for irregular forms is shown in friendly epistles’ setting in irregular verse paragraphs (or strophoids), as opposed to stanzas of predictable length. Eighty-eight percent of eighteenth-century friendly epistle lines were set in irregular verse paragraphs, as shown in 3.1.8 below: 70 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.1.8 Friendly Epistles Set in Irregular Verse Paragraphs vs. Stanzas, 1770-1801 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 O C M r— i — r — ■ — i— r— XSSvSw □ Stanzas ■ Irr. V. P.'s (O C O o 0)05 0 1 ^ 0 O The proportion of friendly epistle lines set in irregular rhymes and irregular verse paragraphs continued to grow in the nineteenth century (chapters 4, 5). Another integral part of friendly epistle form is the title. Only a minority of Russian friendly epistles - 22% of those in our corpus written between 1770 and 1830 - have the terms “pis’mo,” “poslanie” or “epistola” in their titles. Instead, most friendly epistles carry titles identifying the name of the addressee in the dative. Usually this involved the addressee’s last name (“K Batiushkovu”), but first initials or first name and patronymic could be added. A few friendly epistles listed only the first name of the addressee (“Gav<rile> Romanovichu otvet”), with no last name. In some cases, only initials were used to identify the addressee, or no addressee was named whatsoever (“Drugu,” “K priiateliu,” “Poslanie k zhenshchinam”). For example, in his 1769 collection of poetry, Kheraskov published an epistle to A. A. Rzhevskii titled “K A... A... R...” (To A. A. R.”). Perhaps these initials would have been enough for most readers to guess the identity of the addressee, suggesting the games that could be played when a relatively narrow circle of poets 71 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was writing for a relatively narrow circle of readers. Or perhaps guessing the identity of the addressee was not as important as the air of intimacy implied by a title identifying the addressee only by initials. Part of the popularity of friendly epistles was that they publicized the private arena. Thus, Wendy Rosslyn describes the introduction of “verifiable facts from his own life” in the texts of Derzhavin: Derzhavin... allud[ed] in coded form to real circumstances, events and people. The technique relied on the reader to interpret the allusions, but as reader and writer shared the same culture and social circles, this was not difficult (115). In the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century, Russian poets and readers were generally expected to come from the same landed-gentry circles, so there was little danger of readers’ backlash in the form of parody or outright criticism. Indeed, friendly epistles seem to thrive only when their authors are supported by a relatively benevolent, and closed, circle of readers. As readership increased beyond the landed-gentry circles, and as the relatively benevolent publishing world lost some of its hothouse qualities in the 1820’s (discussed in chapter 5), friendly epistles, perhaps predictably, lost appeal. On the other hand, this relatively closed circle of readers had to be large enough to include some poets who could reciprocate, if the friendly epistle was to become a mainstream genre. By the 1790’s the number of poets able to, and inclined to, write letters in verse was sufficient to result in dialogues consisting entirely of friendly epistles. This is suggested by 3.1.9 below, which tracks verse epistle exchanges between two sets of poets, Karamzin - Dmitriev and Derzhavin - L’vov: 72 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.1.9 Friendly Epistles Exchanged Between Derzhavin and L'vov, Karamzin and Dmitriev, 1785-1801 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 f 1 1 n s 1 ’ ^ ^ □ Derzhavin, L'vov H Karamzin, Dmitriev ■ Other poets or exchanges The verse form nevertheless limited the longevity of exchanges, compared to exchanges of prose letters. Dena Goodman’s description of the Republic of Letters in eighteenth-century France involves serious epistolary exchanges, begun with formal agreements and carrying high expectations: Maintaining a [prose] correspondence was not a casual activity... The agreement to correspond was a formal engagement implying reciprocal responsibilities. If one of the correspondents failed to carry out those responsibilities, the other ended the relationship, generally, as in the contemporary epistolary novel, by asking that all previous letters be either returned or burned (139-140). Further, Goodman argues, these exchanges tended to be regular and long-lasting: A letter is not a solitary act of communication: letters follow one another, imply one another, respond to one another, following a circular rhythm based on chronological continuity (140). Exchanges of letters between friends are less formally conceived, and letters are often rife with complaints that “you haven’t responded to my last letter.” We have at least one piece of evidence suggesting that setting a letter in verse increased the likelihood of receiving a response. This excerpt is taken from a 1787 letter from L’vov to Derzhavin: 73 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Aren't you ashamed, Mr. Governor, that you haven't answer my last two letters?... I see, brother, that anything not set in rhyme doesn't get an answer (L'vov, 332). L’vov then set a long passage in macaronic-styled verse, followed by the question: “How did you like that? It’s written off the cuff [“nacherno”], don’t be angry.” But as a general rule, verse epistle exchanges were even less formal, circular or continuous than prose letter exchanges in Russia at the turn of the nineteenth century, especially compared with the more formal exchanges studied by Goodman. Certainly, more effort is required to write letters in verse, and whenever a poet addressed a verse epistle to a non-poet, the verse component of the exchange was short-circuited. The rules seem to have been as follows: poet A sends poet B a friendly epistle in verse, but B is not obligated to respond. Even should B respond, A will probably not write to B again for several years, if at all. Standards of productivity must, therefore, be lowered when judging verse epistle exchanges: a “productive” friendly epistle exchange may be defined as 1) a friendly epistle that is answered with another friendly epistle or 2) a friendly epistle that leads the recipient to (re)tum to prose correspondence with renewed energy.1 1 1 Often, a poet might write a batch of friendly epistles to different addressees, of whom perhaps one writes a friendly epistle in reply. This may be the extent of the “correspondence” for up to several years, until one of the poets is inspired to write a fresh batch of epistles, provided the genre is still in fashion. For example, in Derzhavin’s 1797 friendly epistle exchange with Khrapovitskii, involving a relatively high number of poems (five), the poets’ 74 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. investment in the exchange diminishes with each successive epistle. The exchange begins with a 48-line, very colorful epistle from Khrapovitskii dispensing advice and gentle criticism to Derzhavin, then descends to Derzhavin’s 36-line somewhat defensive answer. From there, the exchange rapidly loses momentum, next yielding Khrapovitskii’s 16-line affirmation of Derzhavin’s integrity, and finally tapering down to six-line replies, first from Derzhavin and finally, from Khrapovitskii, ending the exhausted exchange. Barring infusions of outside energy (good or bad news, meetings, a change in situations or in the correspondents’ relationship, the appearance of new poetry), the energy of an ongoing friendly epistle exchange tends to dissipate with each successive epistle. By the mid-1790’s, reciprocal dialogue set in friendly epistles begins in earnest. At the same time, however, we find more examples of friendly epistles that are not actually friendly letters to friends. Perhaps this is because it was easier to slip forbidden content into print in the guise of a friendly epistle. Or perhaps, with the friendly epistle’s increasing popularity, more poets felt inclined to participate in some kind of dialogue with this newly fashionable genre, but not all poets were inclined to straightforward application of the genre. As Todd explains: .. .writers do not merely copy the schema a genre sets before them but make a personal relationship to it a part of their creative fusion of material and form, adapting, rejecting, or changing the schema that they share with the experienced reader (12). In other words, each writer approaches genre idiosyncratically, whether this involves pulling the genre back towards its perceived roots or moving the genre forward in completely new ways. 75 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. n . Early Russian Verse Letters to Friends and the First Russian Friendly Epistles, ~1700-1790 The Russian friendly epistle owes much of its origin to a fascination with Horace and epistolary forms throughout the eighteenth century. Horace was read, translated and imitated throughout the eighteenth century, over a much broader span of years than the lifespan of original Russian friendly epistles as a discrete genre (1770-1830). For example, a Russian translation of Horace’s poetry was supposedly under production in 1700, though this translation was never published and no records remain of the poet(s) involved or how far the project proceeded (Levin, 97). In the early 1740’s, Kantemir worked on translation of Horace while serving as a diplomat in Paris. These were partially published in St. Petersburg in 1744 (Gershkovich, 488); according to Lomonosov, all Kantemir’s poetry was also circulated in manuscript form in Russia, and enjoyed great approbation (Gershkovich, 431). A more complete edition of Kantemir’s works was not published until 1762, by which time his syllabic poetry must have been perceived as very out of date, compared to the syllabotonic verse of Lomonosov, Sumarokov, and Trediakovskii. It nevertheless appears clear that Kantemir’s 1740’s translations of Horace influenced Lomonosov’s 1750’s verse epistles. Several poets undertook large-scale translations of Horace in the 1790’s and early 1800’s, including Murav’ev, whose translations remained unpublished (Levin, 185), and Kapnist, whose work culminated in an 1806 publication of Horatian and Anacreontic odes (Levin, 187). In the interim between the publication of Kantemir’s translation of Horace in 1762 and that of Kapnist in 1806, Horace’s influence 76 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. remained strong. This is reflected in poems ranging from Sumarokov’s “Horatian ode” (1758) to Derzhavin’s “Na vyzdorovlenie Metsenata” (To the Recovery of Maecenas, 1781), “Pamiatnik” (Memorial, 1795) and “Pokhvala sel’skoi zhizni” (In Praise of Country Life, 1798). These three Derzhavin poems were all published in his 1808 collected works; the first two had also been published at the time of composition. Horace combined didacticism with friendliness in his shorter friendly epistles and in his Ars Poetica, addressing his recipients as “friends” (“amici”) and predicting their responses to his argument in a friendly tone. I have italicized such markers of friendly dialogue in the opening lines of Ars poetica below: Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam Iungere si velit, et varias inducere plumas Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum Desinat in piscem mulier formosa supeme, Spectatus admissi risum teneatis, amicil Credite, Pisones, isti tabulae fore librum Persimilem, cuius, velut aegri somnia, vanae Fingentur species, ut nec pes nec caput uni Reddatur formae. “ pictoribus atque poetis Quidlibet audendi semper fu it aequa potestas. ” [If a painter chose to join a human head to the neck of a horse, and to spread feathers of many a hue over limbs picked up now here now there, so that what at the top is a lovely woman ends below in a black and ugly fish, could you, my friends, if favored with a private view, refrain from laughing? Believe me, dear Pisos, quite like such pictures would be a book, whose idle fancies shall be shaped like a sick man’s dreams, so that neither head nor foot can be assigned to a single shape. “ Painters and poets, ’ ’you say, “ have always had an equal right in hazarding anything. ” (Horace, 450-1)] Horace’s combination of didacticism and friendliness was rich enough to generate several strains of epistles in later traditions. Neoclassicists emphasized R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. didactic elements, while, authors of friendly epistles emphasized friendliness in their appropriations of Horace. These two strains of descent correlate with the Russian terms “epistola” and “poslanie” (both of which translate as “epistle” in English). How did interest in Horace's verse epistles translate into original verse epistles? Identifying the first verse epistles addressed to a friend in Russian is difficult because so little early poetry is extant. In the correspondence of the late seventeenth-century court publisher Karion Istomin, however, we find verse fragments suggestive of friendly epistles.I V In the undated verse (1690-1709, most likely written in 1706) below, Istomin complains to his addressee, Dmitrii Rostovskii, that his vision is deteriorating and no glasses are available: £ o S o jib H b ix onefi H a a o 6 H O y s a p a B J u n o iU H X KjnoHefi, K oh 6 hto6 y3flpaBJWnH, a ohh 6 ycMOTpajm, JJa B3jrra HecKopo rzr& HH no ofrfefffe A b Benep He3,ztpaBOCTb, 3HaTHO m ter crapocTb Tzte-jiuGo era™ h zio6pr fc nucaTH. [Overworked eyes need healing springs, to heal them in order to see. But there is no time and nowhere to procure them after dinner. And, as a sure sign of aging, in the evenings one feels too ill to stand anywhere and write well.] This verse fragment fills several requirements for the friendly epistle genre as a verse letter to a friend, set in a conversational tone and using low-to-middle lexicon. However, we have no indication that Istomin or Rostovskii considered such friendly verse letters to be discrete genres, since no metadiscursive discourse is extant. It is certainly possible that poets reading and translating Horace as early as 1700, and writing friendly letters in verse, considered them to be part of a larger system of genres, a question that holds promise for further study. 78 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As a translator of Latin texts into Russian verse, Istomin would probably have been acquainted with Horace’s verse epistles in the original, but many eighteenth-century Russian poets saw Horace’s works through the prism of French translations and the French epistolary tradition. At any rate, this is the claim Kantemir makes in a 1730 epigram: H t o aaji TopauHH, 3aH H Ji y 4>paHuy3a. O, KOJib co6oio 6e/ma moh My3a! («Abtop o ce6e (SnurpaMMa 1)») [What Horace gave me, I borrowed from a Frenchman. O, how barren is my muse! (“The Author on Himself (Epigram 1)”)] The range of Kantemir’s translations - Anacreon, Horace, Boileau, and even a short love poem by Voltaire - shows the types of works with which educated Russians were acquainted as early as the 1730’s and 1740’s. In fact, one of Kantemir’s original poems could legitimately be described as a Russian friendly epistle. In a 32-line 1740 epistle written from Paris to Prince Nikita Trubetskoi (Pis’mo I: K Kniaziu Nikite Iur’evichu Trubetskomu), Kantemir praises his addressee’s career, including serving as a Siberian governor: .. .T b i c n e j i b in FLiofl M H o ro B H flH b ix T p y flO B co6Hpaa, B noKoe npaBnuib KpanHne npeaenbi npocrpaHHa uapcTBa, h to b6 jih3 h Kirraa. [...reaping the ripe fruit of your highly visible labors, you have been peacefully managing faraway lands of a broad kingdom near China.] The rhyme “sobiraia / Kitaia” (reaping / China) typifies the type of exotic rhymes that both travelogues and friendly epistles tend to cultivate. Kantemir's poem names a concrete addressee and fulfills a certain function as a letter; in line 29, relations 79 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. between author and addressee are identified as those of “worthy friends” (“Menia dostoinym drugom tvoim zvat'sia”), which underscores the friendly tone of the epistle. Again, however, there is little indication that this verse epistle was considered to be part of a genre of Russian friendly epistles, and in any case, the fact that Kantemir's verse was set in syllabic poetry distinguishes it from the syllabotonic friendly epistles written between 1770 and 1830. By the 1750’s, Lomonosov was trying his hand at verse epistles. In 1750, Lomonosov wrote a short verse letter to a young patron, 1.1. Shuvalov, on the theme of how he and Shuvalov were, respectively, spending their summers. Namely, Shuvalov is romping in the palace gardens with the Empress Elizabeth: H e p T o rn C B erjib ie, G jiH craH H e M erajuiO B O craB H B , H a n o jm c n e m r r r E jiH c a B e r; Tbi cjieayenib 3 a Hen, jno6e3HbiH m o h U ly B a n o B ... [Having left the bright palace rooms, the glittering metals, Elizabeth hurries to the fields. You follow her, my dear Shuvalov...] while Lomonosov is cooped up in his hot laboratory: Me* c re H h n p n orHe jin u ib TOjibKO o G p a m a r o c b ... [My only movement is between the walls, before the fire...] This poem has many elements to recommend it as a friendly epistle. Its title names a concrete addressee (“Pis’mo k ego vysokorodiiu Ivanu Ivanovichu Shuvalovu,” “Letter to his Honor Ivan Ivanovich Shuvalov”), who is identified as “dear” to the author (“liubeznyi moi Shuvalov”). Though the title identifies the addressee according to station (“his honor”) rather than according to his relationship to the author (e.g., “my friend”), this title has far fewer embellishments than did titles 80 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of odes v Lomonosov refers to his addressee throughout the poem, and sets the addressee’s name in the rhyming position: “metallov / Shuvalov” (metals / Shuvalov). This is a device characteristic of later Russian friendly epistles, which take particular pleasure in incongruous rhymes involving proper names, foreign words or mundane objects, such as Murav’ev’s rhyming of Lomonosov’s own name with “apricots” (“abrikosov / Lomonosov”) in a 1770’s epistle to Naryshkin. Also characteristic are the epistle’s metaliterary references, as Lomonosov discusses the composition of the poem within the poem itself: Orpafla b c b , Koraa o jiere a nmny; O J ie re a ru n n y , a h m He H acjiaacztaiocb H paflOCTH B OflHOM MeHTaHHH HUiy. [My only consolation comes in writing about the summer; I write about the summer, while not enjoying it, and while seeking happiness in daydreams alone.] Such descriptions of “how this poem is being written” are popular in later friendly epistles as well: they not only add a metaliterary layer to the poem’s themes, but also contribute to a feeling of spontaneity of composition. Apparently, Shuvalov read this missive and understood an unspoken request: that Lomonosov would not be against taking a short vacation from his laboratory to enjoy the last days of summer. In fact, Shuvalov wasted no time in arranging a summer retreat for Lomonosov: a mere nine days after the date of his epistle, Lomonosov was already vacationing in Tsarskoe Selo (Lomonosov, P.S.S. VIII: 969). 81 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nonetheless, this 1750 verse letter is not entirely typical of the Russian friendly epistle genre. For one, it is only 36 lines long. Its meter, iambic hexameter, is also atypical: readers from the 1760’s onwards probably associated this meter with strictly neoclassical genres, such as formal or didactic epistles, rather than with friendly epistles.” But Lomonosov, of course, could not foresee the future of genres and meters, and his choice of iambic hexameter should be seen in this context. In 1752, Lomonosov wrote a much longer verse letter to the same Shuvalov on the uses of glass, “Pis’mo o pol’ze stekla” (“Letter on the Usefulness of Glass”). Lazarchuk describes this poem as an “older epistle” (“staraia epistola”), in contrast with the newer friendly epistles (12). Similarly, M. Gasparov calls Lomonosov’s “Pis’mo” a didactic epistle (Ocherk, 63). Only in the 1986 Bibliotekapoeta edition of Lomonosov’s poetry, edited by A. A. Morozov, is the genre “friendly epistle” mentioned. Morozov describes Lomonosov’s 1752 letter on glass as a “long enlightenment poem in the form of a friendly epistle [druzheskoe poslanie]” (Lomonosov, “Izbrannye,” 517). Yet Lomonosov’s verse letter on glass is much friendlier than didactic epistles. As with his 1750 epistle to Shuvalov, Lomonosov again coins an innovative rhyme using his addressee’s surname (“Shuvalov / Mineralov,” “Shuvalov / Minerals”). Lomonosov links this epistle directly to Horace by addressing Shuvalov as “Maecenas” (Horace’s patron). Lomonosov’s letter on glass is lengthy, friendly towards its addressee, and boasts middle-style lexicon and playful, innovative rhymes, all features typical of later Russian friendly epistles. However, the lyrical 82 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hero’s voice is that of a teacher, not that of a peer, and friendly epithets such as “my dear Shuvalov” (found in Lomonosov’s 1750 verse letter) or “my friend” are absent. Otherwise, Lomonosov’s letter would be typical of later Russian friendly epistles in every major respect. If Lomonosov’s 1752 verse letter on glass shows all the components of a friendly epistle except friendship, the friendly epistles written by M.M. Kheraskov and the circle of poets that formed around his journal “Poleznoe uveselenie” (1760- 2) were unequivocally interested in friendship. However, their advocacy of friendship was not based on friendship for its own sake, but on using friendship in order to live a more virtuous life, betraying a didactic component. Liustrov describes the goal of authors in Kheraskov’s circle: [These] authors advocate their desire to address a friend, in the first place, because of the friend’s virtue... and, in the second place, because of the desire to explicitly demonstrate the role of friendship in the life of a benefactor. In their opinion, friendship was a mandatory, inherent component of, as well as a condition for, virtue (93). Liustrov quotes Naryshkin’s 1761 “Pis’mo k A. R.,” addressed to A. A. Rzhevskii, as proof not only of their advocacy of self-improvement (“If every person were to reform him or herself, they would end up improving the world...”), but also as proof of their generally pessimistic outlook on the chances that this might happen: ... He floacflaTbC H H aM Tex flHeft 6jiaronojiyHHbix, He npnner Bex 3JiaroH... [But it is no use waiting for happier days, since the Golden Age will never come...(quoted in Liustrov, 97)] 83 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rzhevskii’s answer is no more optimistic: Moh npyr! 3ztecb TmeTHo Bee h HeneM 3^ecb npejibcrrHTbca, HaM hjokho yMeperb, KOJib Haao6Ho pom rrbca... [My friend! Everything here is in vain, there is no reason to be enticed, we must die since we were bom... (quoted in Liustrov, 99)] Such pessimism may be partly due to the influence of western sensibility. According to Brissenden, sentimentalism’s heroes and heroines were guided by an innate benevolence, while the outside world was seen as based on “evil and inimical conditions,” providing a “legitimate source for melancholy” (29). This worldview is not conducive to friendly epistles, which are usually hinged on optimistism. It is probably significant that Naryshkin phrases his pessimism in terms of a long-awaited Golden Age (“vek zlatoi”) that will “never come.” Precursors to friendly epistles written by Kheraskov and his circle in the 1760’s expressed doubt in the Golden Age, but later friendly epistles served not only as a forum for discussing a Golden Age, but also for spreading the impression that the poet and addressees were actually living through a Golden Age. According to Senderovich, this Golden Age arrived in the 1810’s, as manifested in the blossoming of the friendly epistle genre (95). Though the poets themselves did not show that they were conscious, at the time, that they were experiencing a Golden Age, it seems that they recognized so in hindsight. At any rate, the friendly epistles of the 1810’s were followed, in the 1820’s, by elegiac epistles mourning the irrevocable passing of the Golden Age, mirroring the pessimism expressed in Naryshkin’s 1761 epistle. The melancholy tone of Rzhevskii’s answer, set off against a sprinkling of friendly epithets (“My 84 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. friend! All is in vain.. was likewise echoed in the 1820’s by elegiac epistles addressed to a friend (discussed in chapter 5). Thus, negations of friendly epistles’ rosy worldview, and of the Golden Age that friendly epistles both discuss and embody, appear in the years directly before and after the friendly epistle’s coalescence (before 1770 and after 1820). But the Kheraskov circle contributed more than negations to the friendly epistle genre. Kheraskov’s poetry, in particular, shows how the merger between anacreontea and friendly epistles took place. The connection to Anacreon is unmistakable: several of Kheraskov’s poems in the collection Novye ody (New Odes, 1762) mention Anacreon specifically. But the epistolary element is much stronger than in anacreontic odes: Kheraskov’s “new odes” often specify concrete addressees, who then play an important role in the unfolding of the texts, whether they are being reproached, mollified, or brought into a virtual dialogue with the author. Kheraskov and his circle also helped to establish an association between anacreontea and the meter iambic trimeter, which became especially important in the 1810’s. In his 1762 “Iskrennie zhelaniia v druzhbe: A.A.R.” (“Sincere Wishes in Friendship: [to] A.A.R.”), addressed to Rzhevskii and set in iambic trimeter, Kheraskov treats his addressee’s decision to move to the country. In this epistle on friendship and love, rhetorical devices are used to suggest spontaneous composition. The lyrical hero interrupts his narrative with a metaliterary discussion suggesting the author must has been diverted by free-flowing ideas, and must remind himself to stay on topic: 8 5 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ho, ax! nocroHTe, M y3bi, Mow tojioc yaepjKHTe, Ilepo ocraHOBHTe. O MeM n w caT b n e p 3 a io ? K K O M y nHcaTb aep3aK)? Ilmny, nmuy k apyry... [But, ah! Wait, Muses, restrain my voice, stop my pen. What am I daring to write about? To whom am I daring to write? I am writing, writing to my friend...] Such discussion suggests that the poem had just been dashed off without any backward glance (or revision). Kheraskov’s metaliterary discussion is more complicated, by several degrees, than Lomonosov’s comparable phrase, “Pishu o lete...” (“I am writing about summer...”) This may be yet another indication of the influence of sentimentalism on Kheraskov and his circle. For instance, Gukovskii argues that metaliterary discussion appears as a natural consequence of sentimentalist authors’ subjective point of view: Perhaps one of the most typical characteristics of the thematics of aesthetically subjective poetry is an abundance of verse about verses, poems about poetry, about inspiration, about dreams. This was certainly a closed creation about oneself... (“U istokov,” 290) Similarly, Northrop Frye writes that in European sentimentalist texts, the process of writing often took precedence over its product. According to Frye, this is why Richardson uses the “apparently clumsy device” of having his heroine Pamela (Pamela, 1740) “scribble out her own novel,” in order “to give the impression of literature as process, as created on the spot out of the events it describes” (312-3). This is the same impression that friendly epistles strove to create, both by discussing R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the process of their composition and basking in the (probably fictional) claim that the verses had been spewed forth spontaneously. There may be a historical reason that Kheraskov wrote to friends who had moved to the country in 1762. Peter Hi’s 1762 edict freeing the gentry from compulsory state service suddenly gave the landed classes the possibility of, quite literally, withdrawing to more private arenas. In some cases, this made possible a life of pastoral reflection and private writing. But Peter’s edict did more than simply offer this possibility to the gentry: it gave new resonance to Western literature’s calls to country seclusion made by poets such as Horace and Gresset, calls that were set, not coincidentally, in friendly epistles. In fact, life on a country estate may be conducive to friendly epistles, assuming that other factors, such as interest in poetry and familiarity with Horace, are also present. Friendly epistles, like prose letters, permit country dwellers to keep in contact with friends who may be living in cities, or who may also be isolated on a country estate. But, unlike prose letters, friendly epistles in verse permitted the correspondents to nourish poetic identity, whether the authors were dilettante poets who wanted to live in the country without being “provincial,” or whether the authors were the leading poets of the day. Friendly epistles could fill three functions simultaneously for an estate-bound poet seeking to keep up poetic contacts. First, friendly epistles served as letters linking the estate-bound author to the outside world; they served as a forum for literary criticism; and they could be published, allowing the poet to maintain or develop his or her literary reputation. 8 7 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Indeed, the most productive sociocultural setting for friendly epistles seems to be one that mixes close contact in cities with periods of isolation on country estates, these extremes tempered by periodic visits with friends and resulting “poetic symposia.” Hammarberg describes interaction between salons and country estates in Russia in the late eighteenth century as a source of inspiration for literary letters: The intimate gatherings at the estates of the educated Russian provincial gentry can be seen as an interesting cross between the more official salons in the capital, and the provincial estate idylls... The letter or note was one of the links to one’s friends during absences, and the letter became one of the major models for literature during this era. (95, 97) However, the “pessimism” that, according to Liustrov, was high in 1762 (98) may have checked the exchange of friendly epistles among Kheraskov and his circle, limiting them to a period of just two years (1760-2). * * * The verse epistles by Kheraskov and his circle had placed significant burdens on friendship, aiming to educate the addressee and better oneself. These burdens explain why the resulting epistles were more didactic than friendly; they may also explain why the Kheraskov circle’s exchanges were short-lived. Murav’ev may have learned from the Kheraskov circle’s disillusionment: according to Liustrov, Murav’ev was skeptical of the possibility that individuals could be morally reformed (120). Such skepticism may have facilitated Murav’ev’s turn from didactic epistles to friendlier epistles. At any rate, it is a simpler notion of friendship, resting on the 88 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. principle of unassuming, undemanding companionship and devoid of ambitious plans for enlightenment, that underpins Murav’ev’s friendly epistles. This, incidentally, is also the vision of friendship in prototypical friendly epistles. Murav’ev also brought a smoothness of lexicon, borrowed mainly from the elegy, to his verse epistles. This lexicon served as a backdrop to simulated dialogues and assurances of friendship, and Murav’ev marked his epistles as “friendly” by using a pool of friendly epithets that soon became standard for the genre. Finally, Murav’ev was one of the main producers of friendly epistles in the 1770’sand 1780’s, as3.2.1 below suggests'1 1 : 3.2.1 Friendly Epistles by Murav’ev and Other Poets, 1770-1801 1200 1000 □ Murav’ev B Other poets O C M ^ - < D O O O C V ' * - < O O O O r V T j - C D O O O r- ^ r— r— c o c o c o o o c o a j o j c n c n C T i o i— — r ^ i — r ^ i — i— i— oo In Murav’ev’s first extant friendly epistle, “Druzhba: K Ivanu Petrovichu Turgenevu” (“Friendship: To Ivan Petrovich Turgenev,” -1770), Murav’ev, aged approximately 13, claims that friendship renders the Muses superfluous, since friendship more than adequately inspires poetry. Murav’ev’s lexicon, though friendly, is smoother and more lyrical than that of the epistles examined thus far: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. R Barnero n p o c H T b , o My3bi, craji B H y m e H b a , Koraa 6 He owymaji noB O JibH O noompeHba O apy»c6e B 03nnacHTb, 6biB npyjKboio BnepeH, - OHa H3BecxHa M H e: a nyB C T B O B aT b poatneH. H cne3H H T e HaBeK Bbi, n u e r H b i yK pam eH ba, - He HyjKHbi MHe cjiOBa, MHe HyacHbi omymeHba... [I would ask you, O Muses, for inspiration, if I did not already feel enough encouragement to discourse on Friendship, having myself felt its allure. Friendship is familiar to me: I was bom to feel. Vain embellishments, disappear forever! I need sensations, not words.] The fact that Murav’ev inspired a loyal following, functioning as a real-life cult of friendship, had to do not only with his poetry, but also with his life, as constructed in person and in verse. Gukovskii calls Murav’ev “the teacher of all the Karamzinian literati of the 1790’s and... 1800’s,” whose followers embraced a “cult of Murav’ev, their mentor in life, morals and literature” (“U istokov,” 251-2). Gukovskii continues: [T]he image of Murav’ev, as laid out in his own compositions, became the canonical image of a wise man and poet, as embraced by Karamzin’s circle: the image of a peaceful, quiet person, worshipping virtue and his fatherland, who is gentle and affectionate... who leads a calm, measured life in the bosom of friendship, nature and poetry... (“U istokov,” 252-3). Just as Murav’ev embodied the “ideal friend” to his male peers and underlings, so did Murav’ev initiate the cult of friendship between a man and a woman that was to play such an important role in 1790’s texts of Karamzin and others. As Kulakova writes, “Long before [Karamzin’s 1795] ‘Epistle to Women,’ the cult of friendship with a woman was developed in the letters and verse of Murav’ev” (30). Thus, it may not surprise us that Murav’ev was the first Russian poet to address friendly epistles to female addressees. His epistles addressed to R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. women, or to groups of mixed gender, may have served as important precursors for similarly addressed friendly epistles in the 1790’s by Dmitriev, L’vov, and Karamzin, as suggested in 3.2.2 below: 3.2.2 Friendly Epistles Addressed to Women or to a Group of Mixed Gender, 1780-1800, by Author 500 400 300 200 100 0 n & s i b £ A* N > A # a'9' a‘ A □ MuraVev ■ Dmitriev, LVov, Karamzin Russian poets had addressed poetry in other genres to women, including love poetry, odes and book dedications. In 1762, Sumarokov wrote an “anacreontic ode” to Kheraskov’s wife, the poet E. V. Kheraskova (nee Neronova). Sumarokov’s ode is something of a cross between an anacreontic song and a didactic epistle. It is set in a total of three different meters, two of which are associated with anacreontic songs (iambic trimeter and trochaic tetrameter), but its content is didactic, advising the addressee to write of love and nature, leaving tales of heroes and battles to other poets. This advice is set in strings of imperatives, underlined in the excerpt below: Korea Bocnerb repoeB, Korea rnacH T b no6ezu>i /(p y r o M y o c r a B jw e in b ... Bocnon BecHy npexpacHy... Bocnon jik > 6 b h 3apa3bi... Ht/ien b jtk )6 b h ycnexn H h v b c t b v h b H ew yrexn. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [While you leave songs about heroes and praise for military feats to others, sing the praises of beautiful spring, sing of love’s fever, eniov success in your own love, and find consolation in it.] To what extent is this poem, and this advice, marked as “addressed to a woman”? To answer this question, we may compare Sumarokov’s 1762 poem to a 1784 didactic epistle sent from a male poet to a male addressee, Khvostov’s “Iakovu Borisovichu Kniazhninu.” The first difference is that anacreontic references found in Sumarokov’s epistle are absent from Khvostov’s. Nor does Khvostov set his epistle in meters associated with anacreontea: his epistle is set in the neoclassical meter iambic hexameter, a meter more closely associated with didactic epistles. Yet both poems employ strings of imperatives, as perhaps is natural in a didactic epistle. Finally, both authors invoke their addressees to let their talent be seen. Khvostov writes: 3a6yafa KopHe:w, n a . P i MHe BuneTb KHJDKHHHa, IlycTb fiytter nyBCTBaMH gyrna tboh nonHa. [Forget Corneille, let me see Kniazhnin, let your soul be full of emotions.] Sumarokov had used similar phrasing (“let Russians see in you,” compared with Khvostov’s “let me see [you]”) to encourage his addressee: A T b i, XepacbKOBa, ceMy b h h m b h cjioBy, YBHflerH b ce6e aaii poccaM Cacj)y H O B y . [And you, Kheraskova, listening to my words, allow Russians to see in you a new Sappho.] The differences between Khvostov’s and Sumarokov’s poems boil down to Sumarokov’s anacreontic forms and his advice that his addressee restrict herself to 92 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “light” themes. This advice is limiting and somewhat condescending to Kheraskova, Sumarokov’s addressee. But such differences may have been necessary (unspoken) minimal conditions for a male poet to address a didactic epistle to a woman. Perhaps the genre could only be stretched so far. However, in the 1780’s, Murav’ev addresses friendly epistles to women in a much smoother manner. His 1780 epistle to a mixed-gender group of country hosts, “Itak, opiat’ ubezhishche gotovo” (So, again the haven is prepared) is addressed to a group of relatives consisting of three women and one man.”1 1 Murav’ev includes clear indications that his addressees include women, as the three passages below addressed to different addressees show: He BHJKy jib b h h x xo3«HHa noHTemia Co CKpoMHOio yjibi6KOH Ha y c ra x ... He rocnojKa jib rocTenpHHMHa flO M a TocrreH c b o h x BCTpenaeT H a KpbuiMje?... O M HJIblH f l p y r , H yB C TB H TejIbH blH H H O K H blH , Cecrpa m o b , t m b pyxn k H e ii c n e u i H i u b .. . [Isn’t it my respected host that I see [among the rest], with a modest smile on his lips... Isn’t this the hospitable lady of the house, meeting her guests on the veranda? O dear friend, sensitive and tender, my sister, you hurry to her embrace...] Markings that women addressees should be treated differently from men are largely absent in these passages, where the host and hostess are described in similar terms and where the sister is described using the male-gendered term for a friend, “drug.” Despite the fact that three-quarters of the addressees are female, Murav’ev does not set the epistle in a “madrigal” meter, such as trochaic tetrameter, nor does 93 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. he resort to anacreontic forms: instead, the epistle is the first in our corpus of poems to be set in iambic pentameter. Nor does Murav’ev avoid the kind of erotic themes that are usually seen only in epistles exchanged between males: “country nymphs” play a large role in his rendering of life at his cousins’ estate. Murav’ev wrote in a slightly different style when addressing a friendly epistle to his sister Feodosiia the following year. In prose letters, Murav’ev had described his relationship to his sister as that of “innately related souls”: You like Wieland. So do you really not believe his favorite thoughts, that there exist innately related souls which enjoy reflecting one another? ... You will regard my letter, of course, as a letter to a related soul. (Murav’ev, quoted in Kulakova, 30) It is in the same sentimental, somewhat mystical vein that Murav’ev wrote his 1781 “Pis’mo k Feone” (Letter to Feona), addressed to Feodosiia. In it, Murav’ev begs Feodosiia to visit him in St. Petersburg in order to purge his soul of the laziness and forgetfulness that now prevent him from writing poetry: HaaeMcaa, cjiabbiH apyr HecnacrjiHBbix Jiio,aeH, 3a6BeHHOH x h ^ k h h h npexoflH T n p a r Moefi. Ho apy^c6a, h o p o a c t b o , icaic t w h x omymaeuib, EecueHHbi h o k h o c t h , T b i k o h ocBamaeuib, He oTBpam afO TCH HecnacrHoro oHe. npH CTpaCTH H C B O H npH C B O H Jia Tbi M H e. Bee aoGpoflerejiH c n a c H T e jib H o ii ypO K H ! n p m m - h H e ,ae p 3 H y T np H 6 jin jK H T b C H n o p o K H . [Hope, an unhappy person’s feeble friend, passes by the threshold of my obscure hut. But friendship and kinship, as you feel [towards me], and the priceless tenderness that you sanctify, do not reject the unhappy person. You have conferred on me your own passions. All [your] lessons concern redemptive virtue! Come - and vice will not dare approach.] R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As in his 1780 “Itak, ubezhishche,” Murav’ev makes no secret of the fact that “Pis’mo k Feone” is addressed to a woman, but no marker of the addressee’s gender, such as the condescension in Sumarokov’s epistle to Kheraskova, is palpable. “Pis’mo k Feone,” like so many of Murav’ev’s friendly epistles, is not only addressed to a friend in a friendly tone, but also takes as its major themes the friendship between author and addressee and friendship as an abstract principle. This emphasis on friendship as the setting for the text, as well as the reason for the text, may have helped solidify the perception that these texts represent a new genre with a new philosophy, expressed through new lexical combinations, and distinct from previous verse letters to friends such as inserted verse in prose letters and semi- friendly didactic epistles. Murav’ev’s epistles to female addressees remained unpublished during Murav’ev’s lifetime, and therefore could not affect a broad readership. However, they were apparently read and remembered in poetic circles, both those of Murav’ev’s contemporaries and of subsequent generations. Murav’ev’s 1780 discussion of ancient domestic gods (“drevnie penaty”) and the shared festive cup (“obshchestvennaia chasha”) are two of many hints of influence on the famous friendly epistle “Moi penaty” (My Penates), written thirty years later by Murav’ev’s nephew, Batiushkov.1 * Further, we may presume that Murav’ev’s 1781 epistle to his sister, unpublished until 1819 but probably available in manuscript, was one factor inspiring A.S. Pushkin’s 1814 sentimental epistle to his own sister, “K sestre” (To My Sister). 95 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UL. The First Major Wave of Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-7 Murav’ev’s friendly epistles set an important precedent, but were few in number. In fact, between 1780 and 1790 friendly epistle production for any given year rarely topped two hundred lines. Such modest numbers hardly presage the bonanza of epistolary activity that began in the I790’s, and especially between 1793 and 1797, as shown in 3.3.1 belowx: 3.3.1 Russian Friendly Epistles, 1780-1801 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 s ■ § I i § A B ■ m ■ s ...... 1 S ........U ...... A ..« ... A ....A . i m 1 <s* <V k S * a S > N V V V ■ Total lines By the 1790’s, Russian literature was well prepared for friendly epistles. Poets were acquainted with Horace and other foreign authors of friendly epistles; the circles of Kheraskov and Murav’ev had developed the ideal of friendship and experimented with forms, lexicon and themes appropriate to friendly epistles; and late eighteenth-century Russian culture was supportive of poetry. As Lotman describes Russian society at the turn of the nineteenth century, “Poetry... penetrated everything, washing away... borders between life and literature, verse and prose...” (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 32). It is precisely domestic genres like album verse and 96 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. friendly epistles that could “penetrate everything” and wash away “borders between life and literature, verse and prose.” As Ginzburg writes, these “domestic” genres showed that “private life could be interesting to the general public...” and functioned as an affirmation of the principle of private life (“Pushkin,” 146). But what explains the surge of friendly epistle production precisely between the years 1793 and 1797? One explanation lies in the timeline of Russian reactions to the French revolution, which, according to David Denby, was initially perceived by European sentimentalist writers as a “triumph of enlightenment over the forces of darkness” (94). Russians intellectuals’ reaction to the revolution in its early years (1789-1792) was likewise favorable (Martin, 41). However, according to Marker, .. .with the outbreak of the French Revolution, Catherine began a determined assault on the independence of the press... [and] forbade the importation of French books and newspapers or books that even mentioned France... (226). Nevertheless, Russian writers found ways to publish texts indirectly discussing events in France, or implying support for such a revolution, though this was often done at personal risk. In early 1791, Karamzin began to publish his Pis ’ ma russkogo puteshestvennika {Letters o f a Russian Traveler) in the journal he was then publishing, Moskovskii zhumal. According to Lotman’s Sotvorenie Karamzina, Karamzin’s Letters “discuss” events in France by not discussing them, while readers with any sense of the French revolution’s timeline could guess that Karamzin had seen more revolutionary activity than he admitted. Karamzin was able to turn his Letters from a potentially dangerous political diary into a sentimental 97 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. journey by omitting facts, rearranging dates and re-casting the nature of Karamzin’s travels as an apolitical spiritual journey. If Karamzin was able to publish his Letters without reprisal, other publishing ventures in the early 1790’s ended less happily. Radishchev was arrested in 1790 after anonymously publishing his Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow, on his own printing press, in limited tirage and with the censor’s approval, because Catherine perceived the novel as propagating her overthrow. Novikov’s publishing was curtailed in 1789, and he was arrested in 1792. Finally, after Karamzin’s 1792 publication of “K milosti” (On Mercy), which advocated Novikov’s release, Karamzin found himself under increased official suspicion, leading him to abandon publishing Moskovskii zhumal and take refuge in the country home of friends (the Pleshcheevs). In sum, many of the journal publishers most active in the late 1780’s and early 1790’s were either in prison or taking refuge in the country by 1793-4 (with exceptions, such as Krylov and his friend Klushin, whose 1793 journal Sankt- Peterburgskii Merkurii was not closed down until the end of that year). This, then, was the backdrop to the surge of friendly epistles written in the mid-1790’s. A link between repression of writers, especially those publishing journals, and the surge in friendly epistles beginning in 1793, is suggested in 3.3.2 below, which presents the same data as 3.3.1 in the context of a political timeline: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.3.2 Russian Friendly Epistles According to Political Timeline, 1780-1801 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 ^ ^ JtP A < £ > S& A& <£ /V \ S 9' S ° ’ A * ' kV N' N * □Arrests, journals closed gMain wave of 1790’s friendly epistles H Before/After Ultimately, the French Revolution led to large-scale disappointment, and sentimentalist writers were among many forced to reevaluate their worldview in light of the postrevolutionary terror (Denby, 3). Russians’ views of the revolution also “changed completely” in the early 1790’s (Martin, 41). As early as 1791, Karamzin was expressing disappointment in the revolution, albeit in oblique terms. Karamzin reviewed a new Russian translation of Thomas More’s Utopia (1516), which he described as containing “a description of an ideal... republic, similar to Plato’s republic,” but one whose principles “can never be carried out in reality” (quoted in Lotman, “Poeziia Karamzina,” 8). Karamzin’s 1791 expression of disillusionment in Plato’s idealized republic was echoed in a 1794 friendly epistle to 1.1. Dmitriev, “Poslanie k Dmitrievu v otvet na ego stikhi.. (Epistle to Dmitriev in answer to his verse...): H BHJKy H CH O , H T O C IXjiaTOHOM Pecny6jiHK HaM He ynpeaHTb... 99 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [And I see clearly, that we, like Plato, will not be able to establish a Republic.] The fact that Karamzin’s disappointment in idealized republics was expressed in a friendly epistle, and the fact that this friendly epistle was published that same year (in Karamzin’s collectionMoi bezdelki), brings us back to the main point of discussion: why friendly epistles became so popular in the mid-1790’s. If, in the early 1790’s, Karamzin’s oblique discussions had been set in serialized travelogues, book reviews and other journal articles, by 1794 discussion of failed republics was had appeared in a friendly epistle. This friendly epistle was published not in a journal, but in the more innocuous print forum of a collection of poetry. In fact, at a time when writers were under arrest and journals were being closed down, publishing a letter to a friend in a collection of verse may have been perceived as a safe way to continue participating in public discourse with less risk of reprisal. It seems plausible that reprisals taken against journalists, and against writers publishing articles in journals whose “addressee” was the general reading public, may have resulted in a shift, in the mid-1790’s, to the ostensibly private genre of friendly epistles, as a way to continue discourse in less noticeable form. * * * When Karamzin found himself the subject of investigation in 1792, his response was to retreat to the country, a notion that had received extensive treatment in Western friendly epistles. Refuge in the country had been a common theme of 100 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Horace’s friendly epistles; in Gresset’s 1735 “La Chartreuse,” the lyrical hero proposes that his addressee join him in forming a private republic of aristocrat-poets on his estate, rather than face indignity and disappointment in a crowded city full of career-climbers. Gresset influenced Russian poets from Kheraskov, Murav’ev and Karamzin to Batiushkov and Pushkin, and not a little of this influence should be attributed to the notion of retreat, which may have appeared especially attractive after Radishchev’s arrest. Indeed, the poet’s retreat to the country became a fixture of Sentimentalism, and friendly epistles written in the mid-1790’s bear witness to this. Rosslyn describes Sentimentalist poets as “creat[ing] a poeticized self living in a world of aesthetic invention - the stereotype of the sensitive poet in idyllic pastoral retreat from the corruption of society, devoting himself to virtue and to art” (115). Gukovskii describes 1790’s retreats as the shirking of rational activism, in his analysis of a 1795 quote by Kheraskov: For writers like Kheraskov, a deep disappointment in the reality of their former ideals becomes a deep disappointment in the reality of worldly ideals in general... ‘Is there any place, after all, where there are no dreams? All our life is a dream!’ writes Kheraskov... [Writers like Kheraskov] withdraw into the ideas of self- perfection, rejecting social activity, and retreat into spheres of mystical visions, rejecting rationalism (“U istokov,” 244). However, retreat may have been an entirely rational solution. Karamzin’s retreat to the country, and his “retreat” from publishing articles and reviews in journals (Moskovskii zhumal) to publishing collections of poetry set in ostensibly private genres (friendly epistles) may have helped him avoid 101 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. further investigation or arrest. Karamzin’s turn to friendly epistles between 1794 and 1796 is reflected in 3.3.3 below: 3.3.3 Friendly Epistles by Karamzin and Other Poets, 1780-1801 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 I I 1....1 ................ n t ............... ■ 1 l - t l „ _ « . H o S > \ □ Karamzin B Other poets Far from being a rejection of social activity, as Gukovskii claims, Karamzin’s “retreat” to the country and to friendly epistles enabled him to continue publishing. Karamzin published all his friendly epistles soon after their composition, and also published many friendly epistles by other authors. 3.3.4 below charts friendly epistles by all authors published by Karamzin in the 1790’s: 3.3.4 Friendly Epistles Written in the 1790's: Published by Karamzin, or Other 1200 -r-^ □ Published by Karamzin H Published in other venues or not published in the 1790's 102 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. What explains Karamzin’s successful publication of friendly epistles, in a range of venues, across a decade that was full of perils for writers and publishers? Private genres came under less scrutiny partly because they tended to deal with private issues, such as falling in love, but also because any discussion of public issues was tempered by private genres’ intimate tone, which could mitigate, or disguise, discussion of proscribed topics. A private genre, especially one advocating the retreat that many Russians had found forced upon them in the 1790’s, was both safe and highly appropriate. With so much capability to be found in a single genre, it is no wonder that Russian poets in the 1790’s used it for many purposes besides that of a verse letter to a friend. In Karamzin’s case, the friendly epistle was used to express disappointment in failed republics, as we saw in the excerpt from his 1794 epistle to Dmitriev above. More often, however, Karamzin used friendly epistles for shaping personal messages by setting them in a genre that represents itself as a letter to a friend. Returning to Karamzin’s 1794 epistle to Dmitriev cited earlier, we find that the discussion of failed republics helps Karamzin respond to Dmitriev’s melancholic 1793 “Stansy k N.M. Karamzinu” (Stanzas to N.M. Karamzin). Though Dmitriev’s “Stansy” had characterized Karamzin with friendly epithets and addressed him in a friendly tone, its overall mood was gloomy. In the opening line, Dmitriev mentions Romans who had “nobly” committed suicide, whose example Dmitriev now finds ever more appealing. It is probably significant that Dmitriev titled his poem “Stanzas” rather than “Epistle” or “Letter,” which explains its setting in stanzas with 103 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a regular rhyme pattern, predictable forms that were usually avoided by friendly epistles. In writing an epistle on melancholy, Dmitriev probably instinctively avoided forms characteristic of friendly epistles. In replying to his friend’s “Stansy,” Karamzin chose not to echo Dmitriev’s tone, themes or forms.” Instead, Karamzin met each of his addressee’s arguments with a gently persuasive counter-argument, all the while insisting on the primacy of friendliness and friendly solutions. Karamzin titled his poem an epistle (“Poslanie...”), set it in irregular verse paragraphs with irregular rhymes, the most typical setting for friendly epistles. It was, thus, in the forms most typical for friendly epistles and in a tone of unadulterated friendliness that Karamzin replied to Dmitriev, countering Dmitriev’s musings on suicide with an alternate approach for dealing with aging. Namely, Karamzin envisions aging gracefully in the company of friends and a wife (both poets were unmarried at the time) nestled in a country idyllia, an echo of the “republic of poets on a country estate” envisioned by Gresset in “La Chartreuse.” Karamzin promptly published his epistle, making at least his leg of the exchange public.”1 Karamzin’s “K Dmitrievu” is basically what it appears: a friendly letter to a friend. But Karamzin’s 1795 “Poslanie k zhenshchinam” (Epistle to Women) is in many ways not what it seems. According to Lotman, when Karamzin spent several years with A. A. Pleshcheev and A. I. Pleshcheeva (nee Protasova) in the mid- 1790’s, he became increasingly enamoured of Pleshcheeva (annotations to Karamzin, 392), though she seems to have discouraged his attention. These 104 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. circumstances generated at least five epistles, including Karamzin’s mammoth 1795 “Poslanie k zhenshchinam” (Epistle to Women). In this epistle, Karamzin addresses Pleshcheeva, arguably the “actual” addressee, only nine-tenths of the way through the poem, declaring that he has renounced his love for her in favor of friendship: Cica3aB j h o 6 b h : npocmu! 5i flpyxdSoio c b h to h d 5KHBy h 3KHTb xoH y. M H e pe3B biu K ynrm oH OTCTaBKy n o a n H c a ji - jik d S o b h h k c ceflHHOio He MOxceT c h 3 c t j i h b 6 b rrb ; t 3 k o b c y ^ b 6 b i 3 3 k o h , - Ho HCTHHHbix jipy3eH a b Bac >Ke o 6peraK ). [Having said to love: farewell! I am now living, and want to live, by sacred friendship. Merry Cupid has signed my retirement orders - a graying lover cannot be happy; such are the laws of fate. But you have now become one of my true friends.] This renunciation is somewhat unconvincing, and Karamzin betrays himself ever more clearly in the succeeding lines, in which he addresses Pleshcheeva as “Nanina”: H aH H H a! ,H,ec«Tb j i e r t o t a e H b fijiaro cjiO B ju n o , Koraa tq6 h, m o h apyr, y B u n e n b nepBbifi pa3... [Nanina! For ten years I have been blessing the day I saw you, my friend, for the first time... ] The epistle concludes with Karamzin’s desire to share an obscure hut with “Nanina” and his request that his epitaph read: “He loved: He was the tenderest friend of a tender woman!” Why did Karamzin choose to express his renunciation of love in a friendly epistle? If Pleshcheeva was discouraging Karamzin, then writing her a love poem would have been inappropriate; writing an elegy would be tantamount to giving up; and madrigals were usually too stylized to accommodate deep emotions. But the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. friendly epistle genre allowed Karamzin to acquiesce to Pleshcheeva’s insistence on friendship on one level, while intimating that he continued to love her on another. The basic conflict in Karamzin’s relations to Pleshcheeva also inspired more extreme degrees of simulation. His 1796 “K bednomu poetu” (To a Poor Poet) is ostensibly addressed to an unnamed poet who has been disappointed in his ideals, and as a cure Karamzin recommends cynical pragmatism. Finally, in the 1796 poems “Otstavka” (“Retirement”) and “K Lile” (“To Lila”), Karamzin takes a bitter stance, accusing his beloved (Pleshcheeva again) of fickleness and even asserting that he has abandoned his pursuit of her because she is aging. As these examples show, the friendly epistle could be used to deliver messages of many kinds. In fact, both Derzhavin and Karamzin wrote friendly epistles conveying the same particularly ticklish message in the early 1790’s, and this coincidence allows us to compare individual poets’ approach to the same task and genre. In 1793, Catherine let it be known that she was interested in poets writing new odes to her. Her messages were passed along to Karamzin and Derzhavin, who both refused, and who both set their refusals in the form of a friendly epistle to an intermediary. A refusal to a request by Catherine was something of a dangerous message to convey, but the friendly epistle form apparently soothed the reception of the unwelcome content.”1 1 Derzhavin’s refusal, “Khrapovitskomu” (“To Khrapovitskii”) opens by addressing the recipient in a friendly tone: T o B a p n m flaBHHH, BHOBb c o c e a , npm iT H blH , OCTpblH XpanOBHTCKOfi! 106 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tbi yMHbifi M H e aaeuib coBer, HTOSbl BJiaflblHHUe KHprH3CKOH necHH neji H jiHpoii eii XBajibi rpeMeji. [Long-time friend, now again my neighbor, pleasant, sharp Khrapovitskii!M V You give me wise advice, that I should sing songs to the Kirgyz queen and let my lyre resound in praise of her.] Derzhavin goes on to acknowledge that writing some “mediocre little verses” (“sredstvenny stishki”) to Catherine might bring him “rings and jewels.” However, Derzhavin must answer to the higher powers of Apollo and Truth, with which he cannot reconcile odes to Catherine. This epistle to Khrapovitskii shows some of the idiosyncrasies seen across the board in Derzhavin’s friendly epistles. For Derzhavin, apparently, the friendly epistle genre afforded yet another opportunity to repeat his favorite themes (esteem for truth, disdain for career-climbing). Only the opening lines are set in the buoyant, friendly tone characteristic of friendly epistles, while the rest of the poem turns to moralizing. And, in this poem, as in most of Derzhavin’s friendly epistles, Derzhavin eschews the friendly epistle’s usual forms, irregular verse paragraphs and irregular rhyme patterns, in favor of stanzas and regular rhyme schemes. While Derzhavin’s refusal was presented outright, Karamzin softened his own refusal with feigned modesty. In his 1793 “Otvet moemu priiateliu, kotoryi khotel, chtoby ia napisal pokhval’nuiu odu Velikoi Ekaterine” (Answer to my friend, who wanted me to write a panegyric ode to the Great Catherine), Karamzin shies away from the task requested of him: is it really for his “quiet lyre” to praise Her “whose robes will soon engulf the entire world”? Karamzin compares himself to a 107 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. siskin (“chizhik”) who is comfortable singing love songs, but who does not dare sing of Zeus. In fact, concludes Karamzin, Catherine’s deeds leave him so awestruck that he “forgets” to praise her (“I khvalit’ pozabyvaiu”). No addressee is identified, which increases the likelihood that the title “Answer to my friend.. is merely a literary device, and that the poem is a friendly epistle in form, but not in function. This suggests even more strongly that Karamzin’s choice of the friendly epistle genre was motivated not by a practical need to “answer his friend,” but by a desire to reiterate his preference for private genres (love songs and friendly epistles) over public genres (panegyric odes). In any event, even if Karamzin’s poem is a friendly epistle in form alone, this form equipped poets with an important means of gently expressing a refusal. * * * Krylov presents a somewhat different story. As we saw earlier in this chapter, Krylov’s poems are difficult to date, and what we know of his biography does not fit easily under the timeline suggested in 3.3.2. First of all, according to Gukovskii, Krylov’s satiric journal writing peaked between 1789 and 1792 (“U istokov,” 298), when others were being arrested or were voluntarily retreating to the country. Krylov was “bold” and “merciless” in his satires (Gukovskii, Russkaia literatura, 475-6), and his journals (JPochta dukhov, 1789, Zritel ’ , 1792, and Merkurii, 1793) were investigated and closed down one after another. But he was 108 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. never arrested, and he was one of the most prolific authors of friendly epistles published in 1793, the first year of the genre’s 1790’s upsurge. Krylov’s friendly epistles had strong satirical elements and were published in his 1793 journal Merkurii. It could be argued that the closing of Merkurii caused Karamzin and others to infer that, in order for friendly epistles to be published discreetly, they had to be convincing as letters to friends (Krylov’s were often not) and published in private collections of poetry, rather than in journals. On the other hand, the texts Gukovskii cites as reasons for the shutdown of Merkurii were in other genres. When Krylov finally retreated from his publishing ventures to take refuge in the country in late 1793 or early 1794, he does not seem to have continued writing friendly epistles, unlike Karamzin. Instead, Krylov all but disappeared, and there are rumors that he spent much of the next five years playing cards (Gukovskii, Russkaia literatura, 479-82). Krylov took a different approach from both Karamzin and Derzhavin in his own stretching of the friendly epistle genre’s themes and functions. His friendly epistles do not take a bitter stance against the addressee, nor do they use the form to convey a personal message. Rather, Krylov used the friendly epistle form to continue writing in a satirical vein. In the cases of both Karamzin and Krylov, the friendly epistle seems to have had the potential to substitute for the genres they had published between 1789 and 1792, but which were no longer safe. Thus, Karamzin transplanted some of the politically risky themes from his journal articles to friendly epistles in 1794, while Krylov transplanted elements from his satires to friendly 109 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. epistles in 1793. The fact that Krylov apparently abandoned friendly epistles after the closing ofMerkurii seems to confirm that the genre’s appeal for him rested not in its function as a letter to a friend, but rather in the possibility of continued participation in public discourse through a genre triggering less official scrutiny. In the 1790’s, Krylov wrote four long friendly epistles, altogether totaling over 800 lines and comprising nearly a third of 1790’s friendly epistle lines in our corpus. These include two 1793 poems published in Merkurii, “K drugu moemu A. I. K<lushinu>” (“To My Friend A. I. K<lushin>”) and “K Schasti’iu” (“To Happiness”). Two others did not appear in print until much later: “Poslanie o pol’ze strastei” (“Epistle on the Uses of Passion”) was published in 1808, and “Pis’mo o pol’ze zhelanii” (“Letter on the Uses of Desire”) remained unpublished until 1847. Because these cannot be precisely dated, Krylov’s output will not be charted by year, but 3.3.5 below suggests his productivity vis-a-vis other authors: 3.3.5 Friendly Epistles Written in the 1790's by Krylov and Other Authors mnn 2500 J 2000 - I 1500 - 1000 - 500 - n .... l i Y i Y i Y i Y f t v r i y r v i..... - ' - ^Total lines K ry lo v other 110 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Krylov and Klushin’s journal Merkurii was in print only one year (1793), but three long friendly epistles appeared there, two by Krylov and one by V. L. Pushkin. Krylov and Klushin’s publication of friendly epistles is charted in 3.3.6 below: 3.3.6 Friendly Epistles Written in the 1790's: Published by Krylov, or Other 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 | ■ Published in other venues □ Published by Krylov or not published in the 1790's 0 £ .o ^ .cO' .(& .of1 .<& .dP „oS . <& .d ? Of Krylov’s four friendly epistles, one of the four names an addressee in its title (Klushin), and two of the poems’ titles claim epistolary status (“Epistle” and “Letter”), all in keeping with norms of the friendly epistle genre. The two poems that were immediately published were written in iambic tetrameter, while the two that were not immediately published were written in the more unusual meter iambic pentameter. All four were lengthy (ranging from 140 to 289 lines), and all were set in irregular verse paragraphs with irregular rhyme schemes, as customary for the friendly epistle genre. Further, all four poems include the most typical friendly epithets, conversational devices, and innovative rhymes. In his “Epistle on the Uses of Passions,” Krylov parodies Russians’ passion for the services of foreigners, using foreign lexicon and humorous rhymes (“lob / grob,” “forehead / grave”): i l l R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ffoKoucoH - o 6 y f i , ffiocjjo - B c n e u iH HaM j io 6 , Y M p e M , h - i y r - a a w H e M u a c n e jia T b r p o 6 . [Johnson will provide us with shoes, Duffeau - with a coiffure, [and] when we die, let a German make our coffin.] All these examples show tinges of detachment that, taken together, betray the poems as satirical. Further, in his epistle to Klushin, Krylov all too matter-of-factly claims to be head-over-heels in love with a certain “Aniuta”; his claims are rendered even more suspicious by traces of misogyny. These culminate in a prediction that love will be the death of him: 5 L ycnoKOKDCH k o h c h h o ; Ho me? - non rpoGoBofi nocKon. [I will find calm eventually, but where? In my grave.] Gukovskii’s biographical portrait of Krylov suggests some reasons for his satirical use of the friendly epistle genre. Klushin and Krylov were colleagues and friends, but their friendship was not sentimental or idyllic. Both were of mixed class, self-taught, poor, and ill-tempered, characteristics not usually associated with cults of friendship. Guaranteed income and promise of refuge from an estate could facilitate “gentleness,” whereas, according to Gukovskii, Krylov had no estate to which he could retreat (Russkaia literatura, 489). Even when Krylov amassed fame and fortune as a fabulist in the nineteenth century, VigeP remembered him as friendless: This man had never known friendship or love, there was no one whom he considered worth his anger, he hated no one, and he sympathized with no one. (Vigel1 , quoted in Gukovskii, Russkaia literatura, 491) 112 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In short, Krylov’s temperament hardly disposed him to write friendly epistles. Nevertheless, simulated versions of the genre gave Krylov ways to express his satire, in forms that could be published, in the mid-1790’s. What distinguishes Krylov’s friendly epistles in a satirical vein from more straightforward friendly epistles? There were few formal differences: statistically, there appear to be no differences in the choice of meter, or in other formal attributes. This comes as no surprise: parodies and simulations must, by definition, closely imitate the expected forms of the targeted genre. However, we do find that epithets in simulated friendly epistles tended to be more generic, and there tended to be fewer of them. Listing the most common friendly word-combinations, made up of adjectives such as “liubeznyi, nezhnyi, nezhneishii, dorogoi” (amiable, tender, tenderest, dear) combined with nouns such as “drug, liubimets, pevets” (friend, favorites, bard), their occurrences may be tallied against the number of total lines. Applying this method, we find that friendly epistles exchanged between Karamzin and Dmitriev (1793-4) show approximately a 16:100 ratio of friendly epithets to total lines. In sharp contrast are Krylov’s friendly epistles, whose friendly epithets comprise a meager 3:100 ratio to total lines, statistics that betray the alleged friendliness of Krylov’s friendly epistles. Krylov’s friendly epistles functioning as social satire may have served as precursors for the 1795 poem “K murze” (To the Murza) by N. S. Smirnov, an educated serf who had tried to flee Russia but was caught, imprisoned and drafted into the military (Poety 1790-1810, 195). “K murze” presents itself as a friendly 1 1 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. epistle to Derzhavin, the “Murza” of Catherine II, and is set in the typical form of an anacreontic friendly epistle (iambic trimeter, irregular verse paragraphs and irregular rhymes). Smirnov mimics the local coloring of Derzhavin’s odes to Felitsa with footnoted discussions of the Kirgyz diet: H n b b to p T e a CHHcy, K yM bi30M 3 a 6 a B jia io c b 1 H BpeM a npoBoacy 3a nauiK O H c 6m n6apM aK O M .2 [Or I sit in my tent, entertaining myself by drinking sour goat's milk and whiling away the hours before a bowl of boiled lamb.] The poem’s topic is the “gratitude” of Catherine’s conquered subjects, and its satire surfaces mainly in the hero’s hyperbolic obsession with “Felitsa”: H j i b pocKOiiiH BKyinaa B 0 6 t5 IT b H X MHJIbIX aceH , f lo a q iy c b , KaK cnaflKHH c o h, C O M K H yB yC T aB IIlH B30pbl, IlepeH eceT 3 a ro p b i B 6eccMepTHOH cnaBbi xpaM, K <I>ejiHUbiHbiM HoraM. [Or, while partaking of luxury in the arms of dear maidens, I wait, my tired eyes closed, until a sweet dream carries me beyond the mountains to the temple of immortal fame, to the feet of Felitsa.] Smirnov’s poem was sent to the editors of “Priiatnoe i poleznoe preprovozhdenie vremeni” in 1795, whose editors apparently found that the description of an eroticized relationship between Catherine and her bards was not too shocking to be published, under the signature “Daurets Nomokhon.”x v Indeed, without knowing 1 KBameHoe Ko6bun>e m o j io k o : aaopoBoe, npoxjiaa*rrejn»Hoe, h o HecKOjn.RO roaHoe inrn>e. Kupnnki a o 6e3MepH0CTH ero jno6jrr h b o Bee j ic t o i i o h t h h m o j b i h m h n H ia K r r c a . 2 Mejnco H3py6jieHHoe h BecbMa yBapeHHoe 6e3 k o c t c h 6apaHbe m b c o . 114 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Smirnov’s biography, this poem would be difficult to identify as a satire at all (which is probably the reason it was publishable during Catherine’s own reign). According to Lotman, after Radishchev’s trial, the delineation of texts as either “official and designated for publication” or “unofficial, meant for one’s own circle” grew sharper (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 56). As evidence, Lotman cites an “unofficial” poem by P. A. Slovtsov (1767-1843), his 1794 “Poslanie k M. M. Speranskomu” (Epistle to M.M. Speranskii): IlmuM k apy3bHM, nepTbi KpacHBbie 6pocafi, II huih o hobocthx, ho jiHimca He BpynaH. B ot 3aBemaHbe Bee: «H och jiHHHHy b CBere, A 4 > hjioco(J ) om 6yflb, 3anepuiHCb b Ka6HHere... [Write to friends, jot down beautiful sketches, write about the news, but don’t present too much. To sum up the principle: “Wear a mask in public, and be a philosopher only behind a bolted study door.”] Slovtsov’s advice corresponds to patterns in the other 1790’s friendly epistles we have examined. It seems that in years when, to use Lotman’s phrasing, “poetry penetrated everything,” and when private genres like the friendly epistle were used for many purposes besides that of a friendly letter to a friend (personal messages, social satire, diplomatic refusals), they served as a kind of “mask,” as Slovtsov describes “writing to friends” (“Write to friends, but don’t reveal too much... Wear a mask in public”). To extrapolate from Slovtsov’s formulation, friendly epistles that were actually private, or other forms of “philosophy,” a term that carried overtones of freethinking, were to be read only “behind a bolted study door.”'™ R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. From friendly epistles serving as publishable substitutes for other genres that had become risky to publish in the mid-1790’s, we turn now to their polar opposite: straightforward, unpublished, and very friendly verse letters to friends - the engaging friendly epistles of L’vov. Thanks to a 1994 publication of L’vov’s selected works, our corpus of eighteenth-century Russian friendly epistles is augmented by ten very innovative poems. Though many of L’vov’s epistles do not have a precise date of composition, three of the ten are precisely dated to the period following friendly epistles’ peak in Russia, 1797-1801. Therefore, while we have discussed the Russian friendly epistles in the 1790’s as forming a wave, we would have to say that L’vov’s friendly epistles form something of a delayed wave of their own. Though many of L’vov’s poems cannot be precisely dated, the approximate contours of this wave are charted in 3.3.7 below: 3.3.7 Friendly Epistles by L'vov and Other Authors, 1785-1801 1200 □ L'vov ■ O ther authors 116 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The fact that, to our knowledge, L’vov published very little of his poetry, and only one of his friendly epistles,5 "1 1 might strike us as odd, considering that he had direct ties to, and the respect of, publishing poets like Kapnist and Derzhavin. Perhaps earlier work (as an architect) at Catherine’s court had given L’vov his fill of public life. However, we may be viewing L’vov from the wrong angle: perhaps it is because his epistles were not intended for publication that his use of genre is so unique. L’vov seems to have used the friendly epistle genre for its purported purpose: to serve as friendly letters to friends, rather than as personal messages, coy refusals or satires intended for publication.5 "1 1 ' L’vov’s 1792 epistle to Derzhavin (“Gav<rile> Romanovichu otvet,” “An Answer to Gavrila Romanovich”) weighs the attractions of country life over city life, a common eighteenth-century theme, but in a style that presages no Russian poet as much as Maiakovskii. L’vov describes his preference for a free, poetic life in the country, which he contrasts with the “indifferent ascent to Parnassus” of court poets: H c E o ro M , b ao d p b iH nac, IIojie3JiH Ha IlapHac; Ho Bee 6e3 cyaopor, cnoxoHHO, paBHoayuiHO. Her, cepaue M oeM y YMy H e T aK n o c jiy u iH O . [And with God, in good time, they began to ascend Parnassus, all the while avoiding convulsions, with calm and indifference. No, my heart is not so obedient to my mind.] L’vov employs autobiographical references unabashedly: in the same poem, he refers to an architectural project he had done for Derzhavin (“Domashnii zodchii vash,” R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Your domestic architect”), and describes his domestic life (three noisy, healthy children and a happy marriage) in concrete detail. Further, L’vov does not shy away from describing himself in ignominious situations. This is characteristic of “low,” unofficial genres, according to Lotman: In “high” satire, the author’s point of view was presented as the norm, a position from which judgment was rendered on the subject of portrayal. The author’s point of view was equated to the truth and was not further characterized in the given work. In low satire, the author was incarnated as an actor who was directly included in the text’s action and who shared all its improprieties. (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 30) Though L’vov’s description of his sleigh landing in a puddle (1790’s? “Liubeznyi drug! Nas sani...” (Dear friend! The sleigh [carried] us...)) may be as fictitious as Voeikov’s description of finding himself in an insane asylum (Lotman’s example, “Poeziia 1790-1810,” 30), L’vov succeeds in excusing himself for arriving late with self-effacing humor: JlK > 6 e3 H b iH f lp y r ! H a c cami ^ O B e 3 JIH JIH UIb TOJlbKO flO P jB a H H , A T y r p a c r a s u i C H e r, H HeB03M OxcHO x y x c e , CBepuiHjica 6er Ham b jiy>Ke! [Dear friend! Our sleigh carried us only until Riazan’, and there the snow melted and things could not have been worse: our trip ended in a puddle!] This leads to a metaphysical discussion on the dependence of body and spirit, set in the same playful style as the lines quoted above. L’vov continued to write friendly epistles not intended for publication, even when other poets under Paul had abandoned the genre. For example, a 1799 mixed R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. verse and prose letter to Derzhavin sports playfully-worded criticism of Derzhavin’s recent ode on Suvorov’s 1799 defeat of the French in Italy (“Na pobedy v Italii”). L’vov begins with a list of what he admired in Derzhavin’s ode (in L’vov’s words, his “little song”), quoting Derzhavin’s phrases near-verbatim and only gradually infusing more of his own words. This is seen in the opening of L’vov’s letter, presented below, with the words and phrases taken from Derzhavin’s ode underlined: Bo-nepBbrx, 6mroaapto re6n, moh aoSpbiu itpyr, 3a neceHKy, KOTopyio Tbi cneji pyccKOMy IIojiKaHy; b Hefi nojuo6HJiacb MHe tboh MHCTHKa: H neBaTbiu Bari b mopckhx BOimax. H Boacab. BocnuTaHHbiH bo Jibjiax, 3aTeM h to Harne ahbho hvjo. KaK Bbifraer n 3 -n o n cnv.ua. YuiaTaMH u rnauKOH Jiber Ha cboh oroHb b Kpemeube jiea. [In the first place, thank you, my good friend, for the little song that you sang to the Russian Vulcan. I especially liked your mysticism: the ninth swell of the sea's waves, and the leader, brought up in the land of ice, because our wondrous miracle, as it emerges into the light of day, spills buckets and washtubs full of ice in the Christening of fire.] It seems clear that, by switching to verse, L’vov is able to incorporate Derzhavin’s own words into his commentary; this is one way that friendly epistles served as a natural forum for metapoetic dialogue. Derzhavin had described Suvorov's recent victory as that of the North over the South. Perhaps as a way to emphasize his allegiance to the North, Derzhavin had eschewed metaphors based on Greco-Latin (Mediterranean, or Southern) mythology in favor of a northern semantic system. In practical terms, Derzhavin replaced 119 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. references to figures such as Apollo and Eros with references to Scandinavian gods. It is this “Norwegian theology” that L'vov objects to as obscure and irrelevant: B o t 6 e a a Tojibico a m Merm— TBoe HopBexccKoe fiorocjiO B ne A H T O HaM H y X C f lb l, H b H M yM OM KDpoflcrBOBajiH ^aHra, uiBeabi. [The only problem for me is your Norwegian theology And what does it matter, at whose expense Swedes and Lombards played the fool?] In L’vov’s opinion, apparently, Derzhavin would have been better off using the more expected and widely understood metaphor system based on Greco-Latin mythology. It has been claimed that prose novels are a more dialogic forum than verse genres,X 1 X but here we find that verse allows L’vov to achieve maximal dialogicity. By writing his reply at least partly in verse, L’vov was able to weave Derzhavin’s own words into his discussion, albeit with a slight shift in meter (L’vov adds a syllable to the beginning of Derzhavin’s iambic tetrameter line, resulting in trochaic pentameter). Such potential for multivoicedness is what allowed friendly epistles to serve as a forum for friendly literary criticism, as L’vov here does informally and as nineteenth-century authors of friendly epistles would do with intensity (chapter 4). If only one of L’vov’s friendly epistles was published in his lifetime, to what extent can L’vov have influenced other poets? Lotman argues that “unofficial texts” of the 1790’s and 1800’s - unpublished poems in macaronic verse, verse tales set in bordellos, etc. - were the texts that most influenced poets of the next generation, while “official” texts were all but forgotten (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 29). Lotman’s 120 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. argument is best served when examples of “official” and “unofficial” texts are taken from clearly contrasting genres, for example, comparing a long-outmoded ode with V. L. Pushkin’s risque, well-circulated and widely praised “Opasnyi sosed.” In the case of friendly epistles, the line dividing “official” from “unofficial” is hazy. One of the assets of the friendly epistle genre was that published friendly epistles (“official” texts, by virtue of their having been published) could simulate, deceive, and disguise more easily than could published poetry of other genres. On the other hand, unpublished friendly epistles were generally less risque than unofficial poetry of other genres. To make comparison with clearly “official” and “unofficial” texts, it is a rare friendly epistle that kowtows to Suvorov in the manner of odes; but it would be even more unusual for a friendly epistle to depict prostitutes reeking of garlic, as V. L. Pushkin did in his “Opasnyi sosed.” It seems certain that unofficial texts such as L’vov’s friendly epistles influenced other poets, and not only because his texts were known in the circle of Derzhavin and Kapnist. Lotman cites Batiushkov’s ranking of an obscure 1790’s poet (E. Kolychev) on the same par as Radishchev, concluding that “[Batiushkov] apparently had adequate grounds for [ranking them] so” (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 56). In other words, unofficial texts by Kolychev were probably available to Batiushkov, but are now buried or lost. It seems entirely possible that the 1994 publication of L’vov’s poetry contains exactly the kind of unofficial texts that poets of A. S. Pushkin’s generation might have read. 121 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IV. The Waning of the First Wave, 1797-1801 Throughout 1790’s Europe, according to Paul Keen, conflict was felt between “excesses generated by the French Revolution, on the one hand, and by the information revolution, on the other” (8). In England, this tension eventually yielded to arrests of authors and “antagonism towards those new readerships who... could not be trusted” (ibid)**, while in Russia, printing presses were simply closed down, beginning with Catherine’s October, 1796 edict revoking the right to privately operate a printing press. According to Marker, this edict caused the number of private presses to drop, overnight, “from 16 to 4” (227). But if the Russian press was threatened by Catherine’s 1796 edict, it was nearly devastated by Paul’s reign, from late 1796 until 1801. Paul released Novikov and Radishchev, but new prisoners took their places. Paul also increased censorship, which resulted in the number of published books being cut “almost in half in the late 1790’s” (Marker, 164). Marker continues: The crowning blow of [Paul’s] assault on the presses came when, for a brief period in 1800, Paul closed several institutional publishing houses altogether... For writers and publishers, the combined impact of closing private presses, banning foreign books, and occasionally censoring domestic ones was decidedly depressive (227, 231). Though friendly letters had thrived despite - or because of - arrests and the closing of journals in the early 1790’s, the “depressive” impact of Paul’s assault on the press appears to have been too much for friendly epistles to withstand. Friendly epistle production remained high in 1797, perhaps out of the force of inertia, but quickly dropped in the four years thereafter. The steep drop in friendly epistle 122 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. composition at the end of the eighteenth century was tempered only by L’vov’s continued production of “unofficial” friendly epistles. One reason for the drop may have been that poets were writing less poetry. It is also possible that poets besides L’vov switched from friendly epistles meant for publication to friendly epistles meant for private circulation, and that these have not come down to us. When poets did write verse epistles during these years, the tone of the poems was often elegiac, as in Radishchev’s 1797-1800? “Oda k drugu moemu” (Ode to my friend). As is typical of elegiac epistles, the recipient of Radishchev’s “ode” is named using friendly epithets (“my friend”), but the poem’s overall tone is melancholic: JlexHT, m oh a p y r , KpbiJiaTbiu b ck , B 6e3flOHHy BeHHOcrb Bee BajiHTca... [The winged epoch flies by, my friend, and everything tumbles into fathomless eternity... ] Other poets, such as 1.1. Dmitriev and Andrei Turgenev, also wrote elegiac verse epistles during these years. What had happened to the broad range of poets writing friendly epistles between 1793-6, especially the genre’s most prolific authors, Karamzin, Krylov and Derzhavin? Krylov had been nudged out of literary life by the end of 1793, and Karamzin turned to shorter, less personal genres between 1797 and 1801, including fables, epigrams, and anthological verse. When Karamzin did address a reader during these years, he was more likely to call the reader “Glupon” (Mr. Folly) or “bezumnyi chelovek” (senseless person) than “moi drug” (my friend).**1 As for 123 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Derzhavin, after winding down friendly epistle exchanges with Kapnist and Khrapovitskii in 1797, he turned from writing original friendly epistles to writing translations of Horace. Friendly epistle discourse had thrived when poets had cause for dissatisfaction with public life but were not, for the most part, directly threatened. They were still able to express themselves in print, as long as that expression was set in the friendly epistle, rather than in the genres favored between 1789 and 1792 (satirical journalism, reviews, travelogues). In Russia between 1793 and 1796, though many wrote of the virtues of retreat to the country, there continued to exist some degree of freedom to read, to travel, to write, and to publish. It may have been this blend of retreat and poetic freedom that spurred on the friendly epistle’s popularity in the 1790’s, especially given the genre’s ability to link a poet in the country to his friends (Hammarberg, 97). The drop in friendly epistle composition under Paul was drastic, but it pales in comparison with the plunge in friendly epistle publication during the same time. Most friendly epistles written in the early 1790’s were published within a year or two of composition. As journals were closed and other publishing restrictions took hold, the average length of time between composition and publication increased. By 1798, any friendly epistle as yet unpublished remained so until after 1803. These publication patterns are illustrated in 3.4.1 below, where the 1804 and 1808 data represent publications of 1790’s friendly epistles by Derzhavin and Krylov: 124 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.4.1 Publication of Friendly Epistles Com posed in the 1790's, by Year of Publication, 1790-1808 ■ Lines published In 1801, Alexander I repealed the “repressive printing laws,” but, according to Marker, “the damage to publishing was such that it did not regain the vitality of the late 1780’s until several years after the controls had been eased” (231-2). Marker’s assessment is bom out by 3.4.1, showing that no friendly epistles whatsoever were published between 1799 and 1803. Moreover, those few friendly epistles written between 1799 and 1801 were not published even after the “controls had been eased.” It seems that poets writing friendly epistles in the mid-1790’s had had the luxury of assuming that their poems could be published, and this assumption persisted until 1797. This explains why friendly epistles written in 1797, though impossible to publish under Paul, were nevertheless published in the early nineteenth century (1804-1808): they had been originally intended for publication. However, it must have become evident by 1798 that the possibility of publication was remote. Thus, between 1798 and 1801, fewer friendly epistles were written, and those that were written were not intended for 125 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. publication. Subsequently, even after possibilities for publication opened up, these poems remained unpublished, never having been intended for publication. Russian friendly epistles all but disappeared at the turn of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, the genre had succeeded in establishing itself in poets’ and readers’ minds, and the genre’s form had begun to stabilize (irregular verse paragraphs, irregular rhymes, a title designating the poem as a letter or epistle and naming the addressee). By the 1780’s, friendly epistles had carved out for themselves a piece of the elegiac lexical territory, comprised of friendly epithets and a specific group of word-combinations. Friendly epistles may have temporarily been wiped off the literary scene under Paul, but the genre was not forgotten, and required only a reversal of Paul’s restrictions for revival. In other words, the stage was set for the friendly epistles of Zhukovskii and Batiushkov. 1 For the sake of simplicity, none of the other 1790’s poems lacking an exact date of composition was included in charts 3.2.1 (a), (b) or (c). “ Any guesses or other manipulations are done by hand, and affect only the data in the specific graph at hand. The data in the database continue to show the entire range of dates given in the poem’s annotations. m Perhaps this is due to the greater effort required to set a letter in verse. Or perhaps it is because parity in writing prose is more common than parity in writing verse, and lack of parity strains epistolary correspondence of any type. Finally, the vows of friendship and friendly epithets characteristic of friendly epistles might begin to strike an addressee, and the larger reading public if the poem is published, as either dishonest or unhealthily obsessive, if more than one friendly verse epistle is addressed to the same addressee in the space of several years. The main exception to this “one-friendly-epistle-per-addressee” pattern seems to be if the relations between author and addressee change sharply. For example, A. S. Pushkin wrote two verse epistles in close succession to Batiushkov, the first jovial and idealistic (before Pushkin and Batiushkov had met), the second distanced and wary (after a meeting during which Batiushkov had given Pushkin unsolicited advice). These are discussed at greater length in chapter 4. 1 V My thanks to Lidiia Sazonova for furnishing me with these verse fragments. The verse quoted can be found in manuscript in GEM , Chudovskoe sobranie, n. 300, list 289. A slightly different version is published in Brailovskii, 99. 126 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v Compare this relatively straightforward title to the embellished tides Lomonosov gave to verse of more formal genres in the same year, 1750: “Note on the Illumination, Presented on the Festival Birthday o f Her Highness, December 18, 1750, before die Winter Residence, where a Shining Star was Depicted over the Altar, Over Which a Heart Blazes; Along the Sides of the Temple.” (Lomonosov, P.S.S. VIII: 365.) " In 1750, iambic hexameter was one of the leading meters, along with mixed iambs, for Russian poetry. Later in the eighteenth century, the “neutral” or default meter switched from iambic hexameter to iambic tetrameter, and certainly by the time of Pushkin, only the most markedly classical genres, such as formal or invective episties, were left to the realm of iambic hexameter (e.g., Pushkin’s 1822 “Poslanie tsenzoru”). ™ According to Alekhina, Murav’ev wrote many friendly epistles in the 1770’s and 1780’s that have never been published, and that now lie buried in unmarked Moscow archives. Alekhina mentions some of these by name, and presents some in their entirety, in her 1990 article on Murav’ev archives (22,44, 50-2, 59, 82-4). Alekhina’s work suggests a promising area for future research on the origins o f Russian friendly episties, and it would be desirable to incorporate research on Murav’ev’s manuscript friendly episties in future studies of the genre as a whole. However, evidence that Murav’ev wrote more friendly epistles than we have immediate access to does not diminish the general argument presented here, namely, that Murav’ev was the originator of the Russian friendly epistle as the genre came to be developed by Batiushkov and others in the early nineteenth century. ™ * The addressees include Murav’ev’s second cousin, A. F. Vul’f (nee Murav’eva), her husband and her younger sister, a short passage is also addressed to Murav’ev’s own sister, Feodosiia Nikitichna (married name, Lunina), to whom he recommends to the cousins’ hospitality. K For further discussion of these poems’ similarities, see Kulakova, 33. x Because specific years are under discussion, eight poems written in the 1790’s lacking more exact dates have been excluded from 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Had they been included according to the methodology for dealing with inexact dates outlined in 3.1, most of them would have fallen between 1793 and 1797. ” However, according to Lazarchuk’s analysis, Karamzin’s reply did borrow words and exact phrases from Dmitriev’s 1793 “Stansy.” Thus, argues Lazarchuk, Karamzin’s 1794 epistle to Dmitriev was “built on play with the other’s utterances, using snatches of the other’s semantic meanings in both hidden and open polemics... By these means [Karamzin’s epistle transformed itself] into a complicated amalgam of his own and the other’s texts” (14). * “ Before writing his verse reply, Karamzin sent Dmitriev a prose letter thanking him for his “Stansy” and suggesting revisions. By the time Dmitriev published his revised “Stansy” in 1795, Karamzin had already published his verse epistle “K Dmitrievu” (1794), so the chronological sequence of the epistles was reversed in publication. To further complicate matters, “K Dmitrievu” was published in Karamzin’s 1794 collection of poems titled Moi Bezdelki (My Trifles). Dmitriev paid homage to his friend by titling his 1795 collection of poems I moi bezdelki (And My Trifles Also). This “answering” collection was where Dmitriev published his “Stansy,” although that poem was the originator of the exchange with Karamzin, and not the answer. x u l It may have helped that neither poem was published immediately, and neither may have reached Catherine. Karamzin published his epistle in his 1796 Aonidy, and Derzhavin published his epistle to Khrapovitskii in an 1808 collection of his poetry. 127 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X 1 V Derzhavin and A. V. Khrapovitskii had been colleagues in the Senate and, in 1793, both were serving as state secretaries to Catherine. Both were spending the summer in the Tsarskoe selo palace, which is why Derzhavin addresses Khrapovitskii as his “neighbor” (Derzhavin, 407). I t v Smirnov’s satire probably expressed itself in his unusual pseudonym as well, Daurets Nomokhon. This is not to say that pseudonyms were uncommon: on the contrary, gentlemen-poets tended to publish friendly epistles with the names of both author and addressee abbreviated (“K D.,” “A.V.”). Within the text of a friendly epistle, open reference to the addressee could also be abbreviated and thus encoded. For example, in publishing an epistle to L’vov, Derzhavin abbreviated his exclamation “Milyi L’vov” to “Milyi L!” In these examples, though names were withheld, readers were probably encouraged to guess the addressee’s identity. In fact, journal editors devoted a considerable amount o f their personal correspondence to enlightening friends as to “which poet wrote poem ‘X ’ in last month’s issue.” On the other hand, Smirnov’s rather improbable pseudonym “Daurets Nomokhon” does not lend itself to such guessing-games played between gentlemen-poets and their gentle readers. Smirnov’s pseudonym is more typical of invective genres such as epigrams and satires. x v ' Though these lines are written in a tone of friendly, if wary, wisdom, most of Slovtsov’s 1794 epistle hovers on the brink between poetic elegy and despair. The lines cited are immediately followed by darker recommendations: B ot 3aBemam>e B ee: «Hoch jm H H H y b cBere, A 4 > hjio co< 1 > om 6ym>, 3anepnmcb b Ka6nHerc; B npoT H B H O M cjiynae b K apM aH e na mien: O m y BK ym aiO T cwepri, nHcarem. n 3jio,aeH! [Here is the principle in a word: “Wear a mask in public, but be a philosopher behind your bolted study door. Otherwise, keep poison in your pocket: the writer and the malefactor taste the same death!”] This poem was written while Slovtsov, a seminary teacher who had been arrested the preceding year for spreading freethinking in his sermons, was undergoing “rehabilitation” in the Valaam monastery. x v u L’vov’s 1796 “Otiyvok iz pis’ma k A.M. B<akuninu>...” was published in part II of Muza, 1796. x v m There is evidence, in fact, that much of L’vov’s work was lost in the mid-1790’s, as he laments in letters to Kapnist (1795) and N. P. Iakhontov (1796). It is difficult to say whether these manuscripts would have been published had they not been lost: even prior to 1795, i.e. before the manuscripts were lost, L’vov had published very little of his poetry (L’vov, 348-9). X K For example, Bakhtin emphasizes the heteroglossia of the novel, which he contrasts with poetry (set in the author’s monologic voice). “In the majority of poetic genres, the unity of the language system and the unity (and singularity) of the poet’s individual language and speech, which is directly realized in the poetry, are prerequisites of poetic style” (78). “ As Keen explains, “the growing numbers of people who could read - and who, more dangerously, appeared eager to read - but who could not be trusted as readers, meant that it was precisely the dissemination of ideas which ensured the author’s potential criminality.” Keen goes on to describe “...the arrests of a seemingly endless series of authors, publishers and booksellers...” (68,73). X X 1 These examples are from Karamzin’s 1797 “K Shekspirovu podrazhateliu,” “To Shakespeare’s Imitator,” and 1798 “Protei, ill nesoglasiia stikhotvortsa,” “Proteus, or A Poet’s Discrepancies.” 128 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter Four: The Heyday of Russian Friendly Epistles, 1802-1815 I. Overview II. A Heterogeneous Group of Friendly Epistles, 1802-1810 II. 1810-5: Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty,” Precursors, Answers, Imitations, and Parodies IV. 1810-5: The Friendly Epistle as Critical Forum and Poetic Laboratory I. Overview The previous chapter covered letters to a friend in verse written across the entire eighteenth century, with more specific discussion, statistics and graphs based on fifty-seven friendly epistles written between 1770 and 1801. In the time period covered by this chapter, the genre’s popularity increased rapidly, so our study becomes more concentrated. This chapter is based on analysis of one hundred and ten friendly epistles written between 1802 and 1815, a period covering less than fifteen years. In other words, our corpus of texts has almost twice as many friendly epistles written in half the time, so production of friendly epistles increased about fourfold between 1802 and 1815, compared to the previous thirty years. An even greater increase is evident in total number of lines written: our corpus includes 4,683 lines composed between 1770 and 1801, compared to 10,037 lines composed between 1802 and 1815 (more than twice the lines written in less than half the time). While the number of eighteenth-century friendly epistles written between 1770 and 1801, and especially between 1793 and 1797, was arguably high enough to be statistically significant, it was not high enough to avoid all statistical 129 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. awkwardness. For example, according to chart 3.3.5, just four poems by Krylov represented about a quarter (24%) of 1790’s friendly epistle lines. The larger number of poems and lines in the nineteenth century greatly increases the data’s statistical significance, and so mitigates disproportionate influences or other biases possible in a smaller sample. This is true, as well, of the poems covered in chapter 5, which also cover over 10,000 lines. The number of poems and total lines covered in each chapter is nevertheless low enough to facilitate discussion of specific texts. Finally, either because of the increasing professionalization of writing, or because of the acceptance of the friendly epistle as a legitimate, discrete genre, poets writing in the nineteenth century tended to record friendly epistles’ dates of composition more often. This allows us to eliminate the statistical adjustments that were necessary to account for imprecisely dated texts covered in the previous chapter. Since the friendly epistle reached its peak in the early 1810’s, this chapter also seems to be the best place to cover scholars’ generalizations about friendly epistles. Friendly epistles written in the early 1810’s are the texts scholars tend to refer to when writing about the genre, and perhaps it follows from this that scholars’ generalizations best apply to these texts. What explains the increase in friendly epistle composition in the early nineteenth century, and how do nineteenth-century friendly epistles compare with those discussed in the previous chapter? Compared to the 1770’s and 1780’s, the surge in friendly epistle composition between 1793 and 1797 appeared remarkable, but it pales compared to the genre’s overall peak, between 1812 and 1815. The 130 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. distribution of friendly epistles, and the distribution of friendly epistle lines, written between 1790 and 1815, is charted in 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 below1 : 4.1.1 Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-1815, by Number of Poems 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 I 1 1 B ■ _ l I « a 1 . B1 I ■ ■ 9 I I I I I ■ 1 - 1 m 1 I ■ 1 | | | H| | | | I Total poems o C M CD C O 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 0) r* . r* . h- O C \ J < D co o o o o o o t- C O C O CO 0 0 0 0 00 CM M* 5 CO 4.1.2 Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-1815, by Total Lines 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 O C \ J C O 0 0 O C M C O C O O C M 0)0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 O O i— ■ » — i ^ r ^ r * s . f s . | ^ c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o ■ I ■ B 9 n | _-.1 B i l l . . ■ _bb.BB.1b i ■ Total lines For another indicator of the genre’s popularity in the 1810’s, we may compare its peak periods. Between 1793 and 1796, about twenty-five epistles were written, while two and a half times that number (sixty-seven) were written between 1812 and 1815. Charts 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 reflect these trends, showing friendly epistles and friendly epistle lines written between 1770 and 1801 and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. those written between 1802 and 1815, with texts written during peak years segregated within each column: 4.1.3 Friendly Epistles Written between 1770-1801 and 1802-1815, by Number of Poems 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1770-1801 1802-1815 ■ Poems written during peak years (1793-6,1812-5 respectively) □ Poems written outside peak years 4.1.4 Friendly Epistles Written between 1770-1801 and 1802-1815, by Total Lines 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1770-1801 1802-1815 ■ Poems written during peak years (1793-6, 1812-5 respectively) □ Poems written outside peak years 132 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Not only were a great number of friendly epistles written between 1812 and 1815, but they also tended to be longer than those composed during other periods. This trend is illustrated in 4.1.5 below: 4.1.5 Average and Median Length of Russian Friendly Epistles, 1790-1815 Time Period: Number of Friendly Epistles: Average Length: Median Length: 1790-1799 39 88 lines 52 lines 1800-1809 33 60 lines 49 lines 1810-1815 79 104 lines 81 lines Among eighteenth-century friendly epistles, a small number of extremely lengthy poems produced a disparity between median length and average length. In the early 1800’s there is less disparity. Friendly epistles were shorter, across the board, between 1800 and 1809, and much longer, across the board, between 1810 and 1815. In the nineteenth century, there was more development of the kind of informal, “macaronic” friendly epistles that L’vov had written in the 1790’s, especially by Zhukovskii in the 1810’s, and by Pushkin and Viazemskii in the 1820’s. There also seems to have been a correlation between 1) experimental lexicon, 2) the author’s depicting himself in ignominious and comical situations and 3) the poem’s remaining unpublished during the author’s lifetime. In other words, poets tended not to publish their more experimental texts. Since experimental friendly epistles were the least likely to be published, they may also have been the least likely to come down to us. For example, in a letter to Viazemskii, Zhukovskii described friendly epistles he had been exchanging with 133 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the son of Karamzin’s friends, A.A. Pleshcheev. Zhukovskii’s epistles to Pleshcheev were written in Russian, while Pleshcheev’s were written in French: This epistle is not the first; I’ve already scribbled down a lot of extra nonsense, but I think that this one came out all right... In time this will become part of a ‘correspondence between two neighbors, in two languages’ (Zhukovskii 1959-60 I: 428-9). Five friendly epistles from Zhukovskii to Pleshcheev (written between 1812 and 1814) are extant, but none from Pleshcheev to Zhukovskii have come down to us, and Zhukovskii's plan to compile a “correspondence between two neighbors, in two languages” was never fulfilled. The fact that Pleshcheev's friendly epistles are not extant suggests which epistles circulating in early nineteenth-century Russia were most likely to be lost: unpublished poems by amateur poets. Furthermore, had Zhukovskii or Pushkin been less active on the wider literary scene, it is possible that their experimental verse epistles would have met the same fate as Pleshcheev’s. We must therefore keep in mind the fact that L’vov, Zhukovskii and Pushkin were participating in a wider phenomenon of exchanging informal, friendly verse letters. In terms of other formal characteristics, the tendency to eschew stanzas in favor of irregular verse paragraphs continued eighteenth-century trends: 86% of friendly epistles written between 1802 and 1815 were set in irregular verse paragraphs (up from 77% between 1770 and 1801). According to total lines, 90% of friendly epistle lines were set in irregular verse paragraphs (up from 88% between 1770 and 1801). One poet, however, rejected the irregular verse paragraph form: every one of Derzhavin’s friendly epistles, from his 1790’s epistles to L’vov and Kapnist to his mammoth 252-line 1807 “Evgeniiu. Zhizn’ zvanskaia,” is set in 134 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stanzas. When we exclude Derzhavin’s epistles from the totals, the percentage of friendly epistles set in irregular verse paragraphs jumps to around 95% in all years (1770-1815). In fact, the years in which the stanzaic form registers on a graph tend to coincide with years in which Derzhavin wrote friendly epistles, 1804 and 1807, as we see in 4.1.6 below: 4.1.6 Friendly Epistles Set in Stanzas vs. Irregular Verse Paragraphs (IVP's), 1802-1815 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 a □ Stanzas ■ IVP's n i T i i w n ^ m t D N m m o T - w n ' j i n O O O O O O O O t — T-T-T-T— T— O O O O C O C O O O C O C O C O G O G O C O C O O O C O A preference for irregular rhyme patterns (e.g., aBaBB) also increased gradually in the early nineteenth century, at the expense of unrhymed epistles. Between 1802 and 1815, three-quarters of all friendly epistle lines were set in irregular rhyme patterns, while unrhymed lines dropped from nine percent to just two percent of the total: 4.1.7 Friendly Epistle Lines bv Type of Rhyme. 1770-1801 and 1802-1815 Type of Rhyme: 1770-1801 1802-1815 Unrhymed lines 9% 2% Lines set in regular rhyme patterns 23% 23% Lines set in irregular rhyme patterns 68% 75% 135 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The most popular form for a Russian friendly epistle was a combination of irregular verse paragraphs and irregular rhyme patterns. More than two-thirds of Russian friendly epistles written between 1770 and 1815 boasted this combination of irregular forms, whose popularity was most pronounced between 1812 and 1815. Despite the gradual tendency towards irregular forms, however, and despite the fact that between 1802 andl815, mixed iambs and iambic tetrameter continued to be two of the most popular metrical settings for friendly epistles, unchanged from the eighteenth century, early nineteenth-century friendly epistles had plenty of metrical variation. For instance, between 1802 and 1810, trochaic tetrameter was a popular meter, while between 1810 and 1815, iambic trimeter became popular. In fact, because of the length of the friendly epistles written in iambic trimeter between 1810 and 1815, that meter served as the setting for a fifth of all Russian friendly epistles (20%) and nearly a third of all Russian friendly epistle lines (32%) written between 1802 and 1815, more lines than any other meter. This brings up the question of how far texts can vary from one another and still be considered members of the same genre. In earlier chapters, we defined mandatory elements of friendly epistles as 1) a friendly tone and 2) some link to letters, whether the poem actually functions as a letter to a friend, or only appears to do so. There are also elements that are common to many friendly epistles, but that are not mandatory: examples of this would be irregular verse paragraphs, irregular rhymes, and a title naming the addressee in the dative. Finally, there are elements that vary more freely. Given the number of meters that served as settings for 136 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. friendly epistles (iambic tetrameter, mixed iambs, iambic trimeter, trochaic tetrameter, iambic pentameter, iambic hexameter and so on), and given that the popularity of any given meter as a setting for friendly epistles varied by author, by year, and by setting, meter seems to fall into this third category. In other words, knowing a poem’s meter does not tell us whether the poem is a friendly epistle or not. But specific meters were associated with specific themes, occasions, tones and lexicon. In other words, meter can tell us something about the poem’s subgenre, and meter can link a text with precursors, answers or larger literary orientation. Michael Wachtel proposes the following explanation for a link between meter and meaning: Russian poets relate a specific poetic form to a specific content (whether generic or thematic)... [0]nce a metrico-semantic connection is set (in an exemplary poem or series of poems), it creates a firm association for future poets (241). Though meter may not define a poem as a friendly epistle, subsets of friendly epistles based on meter can be identified. Two of these metrical subsets, “Hussar” friendly epistles set in trochaic tetrameter and “anacreontic” friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter, will receive special attention in this chapter. It is curious that, though friendly epistles are usually characterized as one of the more experimental genres (M. Gasparov Ocherk, 113, 122), friendly epistles did not spread to one of the most dynamic emergent meters, iambic pentameter, in the early nineteenth century. Instead, iambic pentameter was used as a setting for formal and elegiac epistles, especially in 1812 and 1813." In another way, however, friendly epistles continue to serve as sites for metrical innovation: long before ternary meters became widespread in Russian poetry (M. Gasparov Ocherk, 179), a 137 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. significant minority of early nineteenth-century friendly epistles was set in ternary meters (almost 10% of poems and 5% of lines). What does our knowledge of the friendly epistle's forms, their variations and evolution help us understand about larger questions pertaining to the history of the genre? For instance, why were friendly epistles so popular in the early 1810's? What literary, cultural or personal needs did this genre address, and why was this genre better suited to address these needs than other genres? Poetry, poetic culture and print culture were well enough established in Russia by the early nineteenth century to allow for idiosyncratic development of genre, regardless of foreign precursors or literary trends. As Senderovich argues, genres of Russian poetry in Pushkin’s time can be better understood as having been formed under original circumstances, rather than under the influence of foreign or traditional models alone (72). In fact, the claim that a text was original became more or less obligatory by the 1820’s, when translations and imitations were criticized. For example, Pushkin wrote of Zhukovskii’s imitations of German ballads, “It is time for him to have his own imagination... God help him begin to create” (quoted in Tynianov, 39). As Tynianov argues. The infusion of ready-made genres from the West could satisfy for only a limited time. New genres are formed as a result of tendencies and strivings in a national literature, and the infusion of ready-made Western genres does not always completely resolve the evolutionary tasks at hand before national genres (40). Imitations of foreign models may help a nation’s literature find its own bearings, but a national literature must soon begin to chart its own course or risk stagnation. 138 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus, though Russian poets continued to be acquainted with Horace and European authors of friendly epistles, by the end of the eighteenth century their engagement with the friendly epistle genre was not oriented towards translation or imitation of Western models. Rather, Russian poets were writing actual letters to other Russian poets, receiving answers in the same genre, and publishing the entire exchange. In fact, Russian interest in friendly epistles between 1790 and 1820 is something of an anomaly compared to Western European literary trends: no other literary culture embraced the friendly epistle so late, and so warmly, as did Russia’s. Senderovich, citing the friendship of Goethe and Schiller and the close friendly group maintained by the Lake poets in England, contends that the [a]tmosphere of collegial friendship between poets, as a condition for the existence of poetry, characterizes the early stage of all European romanticism... But in Russia, friendship among poets resulted in something more: an aristocratic republic of poets (94). But foreign influences were still palpable, both in the positive example of Gresset’s friendly epistles, whose tone and theme progression seem to have served as a model for nearly the entire Russian friendly epistle tradition, and in the negative example of the Napoleonic campaigns. Namely, it seems clear that many nineteenth- century Russian friendly epistles would not have appeared if not for the Napoleonic wars. Boris Gasparov describes the friendly epistle's adaptation to a wartime setting: [Between 1812 and 1815] poetic-patriotic pathos seized all spheres and all genres of Russian literature, even those that had formerly been at enmity with this pathos... The verse epistle became a favorite way to express patriotism; a heroic ending, urging the addressee to further military and/or literary feats, became one of the intimate friendly epistle’s mandatory attributes (85). 139 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In our corpus of texts, there are epistles with an overwhelmingly military orientation, such as Davydov's 1804 epistles to Burtsov. Batiushkov, too, wrote epistles from the front and about the front (“N. I. Gnedichu” 1807, 1808; “Otvet Gnedichu” and “Poslanie grafu Viel'gorskomu,” 1809, and “K Petinu” 1810). These friendly epistles took at least partial inspiration from bonds of camaraderie formed in military life. Military camaraderie fit well within the cultural tradition of the cult of friendship, which had manifested itself in Murav'ev's circle in the 1780's and in Karamzin's circle in the 1790's, but which still had not run its course by the 1810's. Besides friendship or camaraderie, friendly epistles require that the author and addressee be separated from one another, occasioning the need for a letter. Leaving for military service fulfilled this requirement just as well as “leaving for one's estate” fulfilled it in peacetime. Finally, there are those epistles that do not directly mention the wars, but which nevertheless owe their genesis to the wartime setting. These include Zhukovskii's 1813 friendly epistle to a French prisoner of war residing with Zhukovskii's relatives (“K Doktoru Foru”) and an 1814 epistle in praise of another doctor, whose feats on the operating table were likely necessitated by wartime casualties (“K Kavelinu”). B. Gasparov is certainly correct in noticing increased incidence of friendly epistles during the years 1812-1815, and it is acknowledged that his intention is to survey the Russian poetic language across all genres of the Golden Age, rather than to write a history of the friendly epistle genre. Nevertheless, some aspects of his analysis may be disputed. For instance, the chronology is more complicated than it 140 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. may first appear: friendly epistles expressing patriotism, such as those by Davydov and Batiushkov, were generally written during the earlier Napoleonic wars and the Swedish campaign (1804, 1807-1810), i.e., before the 1812-1815 period that B. Gasparov discusses. Certainly, there is mention of military life, Napoleon and patriotism in friendly epistles written between 1812 and 1815, but such mention occurs less often than we might expect. Nearly a third of friendly epistles in our corpus of texts written between 1802 and 1811 (twelve out of forty-three, or 28%) describe military life or mention Napoleonic campaigns. However, that number drops to 19% among friendly epistles written between 1812 and 1815 (thirteen out of sixty-seven). Further, two of the poems mentioning military service in the 1812-5 category are by the lyceeist A. S. Pushkin, who is not discussing real military action but is fantasizing about joining the army (“Poslanie k Iu<dinu>,” “K G<alichu>u,” both 1815). What may be more remarkable about friendly epistles written between 1812 and 1815 is their tendency to avoid any mention of the wars, as we see in the Zhukovskii epistles mentioned (“K Doktoru Foru,” 1813, and “K Kavelinu,” 1814). Instead, discussion of patriotism and war is generally relegated to other genres, such as the formal epistle (e.g., Zhukovskii’s 1814 “Imperatoru Aleksandru: Poslanie”) or the elegiac epistle (e.g., Batiushkov’s 1815 “K Drugu” (“Skazhi, mudrets mladoi, chto prochno na zemli?”)). The immediate effect of Napoleon’s invasion was a decrease in the number of friendly epistles, especially when Napoleon seemed to have the upper hand. 141 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Russian friendly epistle output in 1812 appears strong in 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, perhaps because the wars came as something of a surprise halfway through 1812. However, a clear drop in friendly epistles registers in 1813, according to 4.1.1 and especially in 4.1.2, which charts by total lines. Poets generally switched from friendly epistles to elegiac epistles, if they had time to write at all, in late 1812. An October, 1812 elegiac epistle by Viazemskii is representative: T i t e be> i , TOBapHiitH-flpy3i>a? Kto pa3JiyHHJI C O ejtH H eH H B D C ^ymoit pyicaM H conjieTeHHbix? Ooth, 6e3 cepzmy jtparoiteHHbix, 0 , h h h Tenepb TOCKyto a! .. .BoTme B 03H 0C H M k H e 6 y pyxn: Ilomaztbi HeT H aM ot He6ec! (K mohm tipy3baM )K<yKOBCKOMy>, B<anoinKOBy> n C<eBepHHy>) [Where are you, comrades and friends? Who has separated those united by one soul and interwoven hand in hand? I’m alone, without those dearest to my heart, and alone I grieve! .. .In vain do we raise our hands to the sky: heaven has no mercy in store for us! (“K moim druz’iam Zh<ukovskomu>, B<atiushkovu> i S<everinu>”)] Questions like Viazemskii’s “Where are you, comrades and friends?” became commonplace in the elegiac epistles appearing in the 1820’s, discussed in chapter 5. But in the early 1810’s, the tides of war turned quickly, restoring optimism and optimistic camaraderie, while the campaigns continued to create more than usual geographical and social displacement. This resulted in new acquaintances (Zhukovskii’s Dr. For) as well as separation from friends. The combination of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. heightened bonds of friendship and separation from friends understandably correlates with a return from elegiac epistles to friendly epistles. A second reason for the rise in friendly epistles before, during and just after the Napoleonic wars may have been Russia’s new relationship to all things French. Martin describes Russia’s changing attitude towards France: as early as 1806, “all French influence in Russia (political, cultural, or otherwise) [was declared] to be by definition subversive” (67). Such a declaration vis-a-vis French culture signaled a turnabout for Russian writers, who until recently had written many poems titled “imitations of Gresset” and other French writers. Friendly epistles also benefited from the emphasis on individuality typical of all epistolary genres. Genuine letters tend to be original texts, marked by the writer’s individualism. It is true that letters in verse are usually more dependent on literary conventions than are letters in prose. As Wachtel writes, “it is difficult to imagine a poet - even in the heat of inspiration - spontaneously composing a sonnet” (240). Yet even letters set in verse tend to be projected and perceived as products of the poet’s own voice, and may take themes directly from the poet’s unique, real-life experiences. In other words, a successful imitation of Pamy should sound like Pamy, but a letter to a friend should not sound like an imitation of any other text. In showcasing individual authorial voice and in developing personal themes, letters - in verse as well as in prose - could emphasize their Russianness and avoid association with imitations of French poetry. As Lotman writes, general disillusionment with France as a model provoked Russian writers to seek genres that were simultaneously 143 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Russian” and individual (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 9); the friendly epistle seems to have to fit these criteria. Whereas B. Gasparov appears to argue that the Napoleonic wars forced adaptive measures on friendly epistles, formal analysis presented earlier in this chapter suggests that friendly epistles continued along the same trajectory as in the eighteenth century, with previous patterns simply becoming more pronounced. In other words, friendly epistles in the early 1810’s were longer, more numerous, and even more inclined to be set in favored forms (irregular verse paragraphs, irregular rhyme patterns) than those written in the 1790’s. Although some meters became more popular than others did, these variations hardly seem forced. Rather than arguing that the Napoleonic wars forced changes in friendly epistles, it seems more arguable that Russian success in the Napoleonic wars created an extremely nurturing environment in which the genre could flourish. The wars brought to the fore affirmations of friendship, Russianness, and the importance of private life. Friendly epistles’ description of private life usually included a discussion of “how a Russian poet-philosopher should live.” Such discussions often drew heavily from the realm of prosaic reality: a wobbly table, description of a meal, the poet’s bookshelf. The tendency in friendly epistles to discuss everyday life using prosaic lexicon has been documented by a range of scholars. Tynianov writes that the essence of friendly epistles was to bring prosaic themes and details into poetry (93). Ginzburg observes an interweaving of poetic conventions and everyday realia in friendly epistles; this, she argues, opened the way for everyday lexicon to enter into 144 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Russian literary language (O lirike, 39). Mann describes an intentional prosaicizing in friendly epistles, which resulted in raising the status of domestic topics, things, and private life (149). The quote below, from a 1984 article by Chubukova, sums up the scholarly consensus: .. .If it is fair to say that realism was conceived in the heart of previous literary movements, then the friendly epistle was the genre which best met demands for a realistic representation of life (200). Prosaic themes and details from everyday life can be observed in some eighteenth- century Russian friendly epistles, but they are most noticeable in friendly epistles written in the 1810’s and 1820’s. Even if it is widely accepted that friendly epistles laid the lexical groundwork for realism, the friendly epistle was not necessarily a realist genre. The objects mentioned in friendly epistles refer to real things, but in a context that privileges poetic fantasy over sober realism: .. .a distinct connection to the sphere of real life was missing in the [friendly epistle] genre, since it freely switched its point of view from everyday life to fantasy... Most often, the reality of an epistle was a festive reality, unencumbered by the spectacle of blatant social conflicts (Grekhnev, 29, 38). Grekhnev defines the friendly epistle’s sphere as the boundary between poetry and everyday life: The epistle stylized everyday life and prosaicized the poetic sphere, trying to establish itself as playful and familiar, simultaneously dividing and uniting these realities (33). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In fact, according to Ginzburg, a verse letter to a friend with many realistic references, but lacking the counterbalance of playful or fantastic elements, should not be categorized as a friendly epistle: ...the importance of friendly epistles’ material basis should not be exaggerated. Friendly epistles represent a phenomenon totally different from the vigorous empirical concreteness of Derzhavin’s “Zhizn’ zvanskaia...” (O lirike, 40). The poem Ginzburg mentions, Derzhavin’s 1807 “Evgeniiu. Zhizn’ zvanskaia,” is certainly chock-full of things, evidenced by the two stanzas Ginzburg cites: B kotopoh k rocno>Ke, jmx noxBaiibi rocTefi, IIpHHocaT pa3Hbie noiioTHa, cyiota, ncaHH, Y 3opHM o6pa3ttbi c a j u J t e r o K , cKaiepTeit, KoBpOB, H Kpy>KeB, It BJBaHH. T flec cKOTeH, nnejibHHKOB h c h t h h h h k o b , npyaoB To b Macne, t o b co ia x 3pio 3JiaTo noji b c t b h m h , To nypnyp b aroztax, to 6apxaT-nyx rpnooB, CpeSpo, Tpenemyme JieutaMH. [[Into this haven] they bring assorted linens, cloth, draperies, patterned samples of napkins, tablecloths, carpets, lace, and knitting to the mistress of the house. From the cattle yards, bee gardens, hen houses and ponds, I see gold beneath the branches, either in butter or in honeycomb, the purple of berries, the velvet fuzz of mushrooms, silver, flickering with freshwater fish.] Does the mention of concrete objects in “Evgeniiu. Zhizn’ zvanskaia” really mean that it is part of a “phenomenon totally different” from friendly epistles? Aspects of Derzhavin’s friendly epistles, especially their moralizing tone and stanzaic form, have been acknowledged to be idiosyncratic. Nevertheless, the themes in “Evgeniiu. Zhizn’ zvanskaia” include those most typical of friendly epistles: the poet’s preference for country life, followed by a description of a typical R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24-hour day; reflection on the brevity of life; and, in conclusion, a vision of the addressee making a future visit to the author’s gravesite. These themes, and their progression, agree in large part with Virolainen’s description of typical friendly epistle motifs and their usual order: rejection of society vanity; discreet solitude in a country house, broken only by the poet’s beloved or friends; enjoyment of nature; reading (list of favorite authors); creativity; friendly symposium, where life’s fleetingness is discussed; and a specifically shaped motif of death (Virolainen, 41). It is true that Derzhavin’s poem emphasizes the prosaic over the poetic, and includes many practical questions of running an estate (giving snacks to serf children, negotiating with peddlers) and activities that are not very poetic in nature (playing darts). Derzhavin’s poem does not create the balance between fantasy and fact that Grekhnev argues is characteristic of friendly epistles. But to what other genre could “Evgeniiu. Zhizn’ zvanskaia” possibly belong, since it is a letter to a friend in both form and function? In this one instance, we will override Ginzburg’s argument and classify “Evgeniiu. Zhizn’ zvanskaia” as a friendly epistle, though Ginzburg is right to point out differences between this text and prototypical friendly epistles. As Ginzburg explains, friendly epistles poeticized household objects, but unspoken criteria determined which household objects were eligible to appear: The choice of everyday “objects,” penetrating into [friendly epistles in the 1810’s], was very narrow. In the final account, these [objects] were also conventional word-signals... (O lirike, 40). 147 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Yes, friendly epistles pioneered the realist lexicon from which Russian realist prose would take its initial cue. But friendly epistles yield no glimpse of serf children sharing a single pair of boots in winter, no counting of steps to a planned crime scene, no detailed descriptions of cancer. Nevertheless, friendly epistles did make room for broken objects, or objects left in a state of benign neglect. Batiushkov’s 1811-2 “Moi penaty” mentions a tom tablecloth, Zhukovskii’s 1814 “K Polonskim” spends most of its energy on a detailed description of a broken-down carriage, and the lowest bookshelf in Pushkin’s 1815 “Gorodok” is covered in dust. These “things” more or less correspond to Grekhnev’s generalization of “things” in friendly epistles: “simple and patriarchal, bearing a warm and spiritually uplifting mark of intimacy with [their owner]” (54). In much the same way, friendly epistles’ domestic setting was based on the poet’s actual living space and way of life, within certain limits. Friendly epistles' object-filled, domestic setting celebrated the author's private life, as well as more general principles of privacy and individuality, as Grekhnev argues: [The epistle] confirmed the cult of the individual, who had shed his official casing and left behind bureaucratic and cultural stereotypes, while still retaining an artistic vision of all these outer casings which together forged individual identity (38). Further, there is usually a very real biographical, and autobiographical, basis to friendly epistles. However, the relation to biographical fact depends both on the author's identification with the lyrical hero or “speaking subject” in any particular poem, and on literary conventions, as Kusiak-Skotnicka argues: 148 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The closer the poem's author and [speaking] subject are to each other, the more useful is the author's biography for the interpretation of the poem... The investigator, however, cannot take the real life of the artist as a point of departure for analysis but rather must begin from certain forms of expression about the life of the individual which have become deeply rooted in the cultural consciousness of the age (200). How is the nineteenth-century emphasis on private domestic life different from the country retreat widely vaunted in 1790's friendly epistles? An invitation to visit the author in the country continued to be a common gesture in nineteenth- century friendly epistles. However, in the nineteenth century there was less emphasis on “fleeing the court and crowded city” and more emphasis on the country setting itself. Against the backdrop of the Napoleonic wars, this slight shift makes sense: backbiters at court no longer represented poets' main enemy, and finding a friendly, safe country haven was especially important when one's house, or the house of one's addresee, had actually burned down. This brings us to the question of friendly epistles' relation to biographical reality. For one example, authors of friendly epistles often describe themselves as living in a “hut” (“khizhina, shalash, domik, khata, lachuzhka”; Vinokur, 375). But how many poets actually lived in huts? In other words, did “poeticizing” reality involve its falsification or its whitewashing? We do not have to look far for fictitious assertions. In his 1812 “K Batiushkovu: Poslanie,” Zhukovskii answers an invitation to visit embedded in Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty,” and claims that he is on his way: Cbih Hern h Becejiba, n o My3e M H e poflHon, n p n a T H O C T b HOBOCejIbH Jleny b k v c h t b c t o 6 o h . .. 149 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [Son of comfort and merrymaking, my brother in poetry, I am flying to take part in the pleasantness of your housewarming...] As if to emphasize that he has nearly arrived, Zhukovskii switches to a present-tense description of Batiushkov's house, including a terrace and flower-garden, a river and mill, and finally, a goose nesting on an island. The only problem with this description is that Zhukovskii had never seen Batiushkov's house or garden. Therefore, Zhukovskii appends an explanatory note to these lines: “Not having seen your house, I described my own.” Since Zhukovskii explains himself, this seems to be a case of poeticizing reality, rather than falsification. And, though Zhukovskii was not actually “flying” to participate in Batiushkov's housewarming, and probably never did visit Batiushkov on his estate, the promised visit probably represented an appropriate poetic response, rather than an intention to deceive the addressee.1 1 1 On the other hand, not every autobiographical or biographical reference in friendly epistles had necessarily undergone alteration for poetic or rhetorical effect. When Zhukovskii writes in 1814 that he has been looking after his friends’ children (“K Pleshcheevu” (“Nu, kak zhe vzdumal ty, durak”)), I see little reason to doubt this was true. In the first place, Zhukovskii did not publish this epistle to Pleshcheev, and we presume that friendly epistles not intended for publication served more as actual letters, and could adhere less to poetic convention, than those intended for publication. In addition, the claim that one has been looking after a friend’s children is uncommon in friendly epistles, so such a claim is unlikely to have been motivated by the demands of convention. As Belykh writes, in a 1981 article comparing friendly epistles and prose letters exchanged between Batiushkov and Gnedich, 150 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ...the author’s actual life and inner world served only as a starting point for [friendly epistles’] material, which was then subjected to re interpretation and given a generalized meaning (233). Friendly epistles’ realia (description of the poet’s and addressee’s activities, dwellings, surrounding objects) is usually based on a kernel of biographical truth, which is subsequently altered by mixing in various degrees of poetic convention and fantasy, according to the taste of the author and demands of the context. ^ ^ Some fictionalization is to be expected when we consider friendly epistles’ larger context as an integral part of Russian print culture since the 1790’s. In chapter 3, it was argued that some friendly epistles appearing in print in the 1790’s served as substitutes for “blacklisted” genres such as satires and political discussions, and therefore had external motivation to introduce fictitious elements. However, friendly epistles written in the early nineteenth century seem to incorporate fictitious elements the way a novel incorporates fictitious elements: fictitious elements signal that friendly epistles were not only letters to friends, but also members of a literary genre and vehicles for participation in public poetic discourse. What was the relation between public and private elements? Friendly epistles intended for publication can hardly be expected to be as candid as truly private letters. Though friendly epistles appeared in print with depictions of intimate details, including clandestine visits from lovers, the most famous of these (that of “Lileta” in 151 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty”) appears to be no more fact-based than Zhukovskii’s claim that he is “flying” en route to visit Batiushkov.lv It is likely that the rules of poetic convention and the interests of public discourse sometimes overrode the primacy of (auto)biographical accuracy. Friendly epistles functioned as a kind of code - much like other epistolary and autobiographical genres intended for publication — for presenting a private life to the public, through the vehicle of specific literary conventions. Grekhnev describes the heyday of friendly epistles as a time of emerging literary consciousness (35), and it may be a sign of such consciousness that the private lives of poets were considered worthy of public attention (Ginzburg, “Pushkin,” 146). Yet the fact that much of friendly epistles’ biographical and autobiographical information was based more on convention than on fact, and the fact that a majority of the friendly epistles in our collection was published, indicates that the friendly epistle was in some sense a public genre. Specifically, between forty and forty-five percent of the poems in our collection were published within a year or two of composition; fifteen percent were published later in the author’s lifetime; and between forty and forty-five percent remained unpublished during the author’s lifetime.v Statistically speaking, most friendly epistles published within the author’s lifetime were published soon after composition. However, there was much variation, especially in years when few friendly epistles were written or published. Chart 4.1.8 below tracks friendly epistles written between 1800 and 1820 and published within the author’s lifetime, by year of publication: 152 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.1.8 Friendly Epistles Written 1800-20 and Published In Author's Lifetime, by Year of Publication (1800-32) 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 ■ I 11 1 i l l . 1 1 . mm 1IH 1 ■ i ■ 8 ■ a 8 i 1 l i t ______ B O C V J ^f C D O O O CV I^ t CD O O O C M ^ J 'C D O OO C M O O O O O ^ t— t— t— t— C M C V J C V J O J O J C O C O c o c o c o c o c o c o c o o o o o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o I Lines Most friendly epistles intended for publication were published within two years of composition, but there were exceptions, especially in the early years of the nineteenth century. According to the norm, we might expect that most friendly epistles published in 1804 had been written between 1802 and 1804, and that most friendly epistles written in 1804 would be published between 1804 and 1806. In fact, however, the only friendly epistles published in 1804 were three short poems written by Derzhavin in the 1790’s, and only two of the nine poems in our collection written in 1804 were published in the next year or two. The rest were published several years later, while three by Davydov appeared in print only decades later, in 1832, when Davydov published a collection of his verse. These exceptions may be attributed to the fact that the sample in question — friendly epistles written or published in 1804 - is too small to be representative of larger trends. The 1804 poems (an imitation by Batiushkov, a set of friendly epistles on the four seasons by Derzhavin, a set of friendly epistles on “Hussar” themes by 153 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Davydov) are themselves atypical of friendly epistles overall. Yet their atypicality is, ironically enough, representative of larger trends. Friendly epistles in the first decade of the nineteenth century, and specifically, between 1798 and 1806, were rare, and those written show strong influence from other genres (“Hussar” epistles are linked to drinking songs) and organizing principles (the four seasons). These will be further discussed in the second section of this chapter. Further, it should be remembered that the number of poems published depends not only on the number and type of texts produced, but also on the existence of channels for publication. Whether or not a text is published may depend on its artistic merit and whether it accords with literary trends, but it also depends on the presence of appropriate publishing institutions. Paul’s restrictions on the Russian press (discussed in chapter 3) took a toll that continued even after his death in 1801. These explanations go far towards explaining the dearth of published friendly epistles between 1800 and 1806 (4.1.8). Alexander I brought a different set of restrictions, which Marker describes: Paradoxically, shortly after Alexander lifted the ban on private printing and the import of books, he put into law Russia’s first systematic censorship, which institutionalized prior review by the government of all published books. Alexander thus succeeded where Catherine and Paul had failed in establishing a new symbiosis... between the government’s political authority and the endeavors of writers and publishers to be a part of an intellectual life... outside of the halls of power (232). Based on the fact that many individual years of Alexander’s reign saw the publication of over five hundred lines of friendly epistles (1808, 1810, 1813-5, 1820- 1, according to 4.1.8), it could be inferred that Alexander’s system was favorable for 154 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the publication of friendly epistles. The phenomenon described by Marker as a “symbiosis” between government, writers and publishers may have even encouraged friendly epistles to be written. However, censorship probably had a negative effect on friendly epistles in the long run: writers’ consciousness that all texts had to meet a censor’s approval probably helped corrode the cult of friendship, on which the viability of friendly epistles depended. * * * How did individual poets contribute to the increasing interest in friendly epistles between 1802 and 1815? Several poets writing friendly epistles in the early nineteenth century (Derzhavin, Davydov, Batiushkov, Zhukovskii, Viazemskii, A. S. Pushkin) have already been mentioned. This list implies little overlap between eighteenth-century authors of friendly epistles, discussed in chapter 3, and those in the nineteenth century. In fact, of the six most prolific authors of friendly epistles between 1802 and 1815, only two - Derzhavin and V. L. Pushkin - had written friendly epistles in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, the friendly epistles of both of these authors are marked by idiosyncrasies, and the output of each comprises less than 5% of the total number of friendly epistle lines written in this period. Part of the reason for the lack of overlap between 1790’s and 1800’s authors that the friendly epistle tended to be a younger poet’s genre. The generation of 1790’s poets had aged and moved on to other genres (Karamzin, to history; Krylov, 155 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to fables) or had passed away (L’vov) by the time the friendly epistle regained popularity in the 1810’s. And, since friendly epistles were usually addressed to peers, they were not often exchanged between poets of different generations/1 Friendly epistles by the four most prolific authors of friendly epistles between 1800 and 1815 - Zhukovskii, A. S. Pushkin, Batiushkov and Viazemskii - represent the texts most typical of the genre as considered in hindsight (2.1.1, 2.1.2) and also as compared with other friendly epistles in our corpus of texts. Friendly epistles by these four authors adhere especially closely to the forms associated with friendly epistles since the 1790’s (irregular rhymes and verse paragraphs; titles naming the addressee in the dative; a certain range of meters; friendly word- combinations). Jarring idiosyncrasies, such as Derzhavin’s insistence on stanzas or V. L. Pushkin’s use of iambic hexameter, are generally absent from their texts. But an absence of idiosyncrasy is not the same as an absence of innovation. Early nineteenth-century friendly epistles were innovative, while remaining within the limits of the genre’s accepted formal, lexical, and content-based conventions. As Senderovich argues, in 1810’s Russia [f]ree reign as to which components to retain of the genre’s historical tradition, ...and experiments within that tradition, did nothing to dampen interest in the principle of genre, nor in the genre’s masterworks, identified according to each poet’s taste. Affiliation with a specific genre tradition even began to carry a presumption of creative intensification and renewal of that tradition. In this regard, poets competed with one another and closely followed one another’s achievements (71). Thus, poets tolerated, and initiated, changes sympathetic to the genre’s general principles (friendliness, spontaneity); they were open to the influence of one 156 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. another’s work and to the advice of peers and friends. Of the top four authors of early nineteenth-century friendly epistles, Batiushkov was the first to take to the genre, in 1804: 4.1.9 Friendly Epistles by Batiushkov and Other Authors, 1802-15 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 - l a l l □ Batiushkov ■ Others c M c o T j - w c o r ' - . c o O T o ^ — w n ^ w O O O O O O O O - * — T — T — - I — - T — T — c o o o c o c o c o c o c o c o g o c o c o c o c o c o However, Batiushkov claimed in an 1813 elegiac epistle (“K Dashkovu,” usually dated 1812) that he could not write friendly epistles in times of war, and he all but abandoned the genre after this. In fact, during the genre’s peak in 1814 and 1815, it was mainly Zhukovskii and A. S. Pushkin writing and publishing epistles. 4.1.9 suggests that Batiushkov was a more or less stable producer of friendly epistles between 1804 and 1814. 4.1.10, below, shows that Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles dominate the years 1812 to 1814; and A. S. Pushkin is by far the most prolific author of friendly epistles in 1815: 157 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.1.10 Friendly Epistles by Zhukovskii, A.S. Pushkin and Other Authors, 1802-15 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 □ Zhukovskii M Pushkin ■ Others 0 Many of the friendly epistles written between 1812 and 1815 are closely linked to one poem, Batiushkov’s 1811-2 “Moi penaty.” It is probably no coincidence that Batiushkov’s poem, his addressees’ answers, and several imitations were all set in the same meter, iambic trimeter. Iambic trimeter, which served as a setting for only 12% of Russian friendly epistles and 17% of total lines among poems in our corpus of texts (1770-1830), jumped to cover 41% of friendly epistle lines written between 1811 and 1815, peaking at a remarkable 65% of total lines in 1812, when Zhukovskii wrote a 678-line response to Batiushkov. Though it is true that later friendly epistles by poets involved in the “Moi penaty” exchange shifted back to more common meters (iambic tetrameter, mixed iambs), and though it is true that parodies of “Moi penaty” were sometimes set in even less common meters (such as iambic dimeter), the fact that a group of connected poems was set in the same, rare meter is significant. In the words of Wachtel, 158 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When a metrical and stanzaic model occurs in only a handful of poems, it should come as no surprise that these few poems are related (246). “Moi penaty” and related poems, most of which were set in iambic trimeter, will be discussed in this chapter’s third section (4.3). Because of the large number of friendly epistles written between 1810 and 1815, the last section of this chapter (4.4) was devoted to discussing friendly epistles written between these years that are not directly linked to “Moi penaty.” Like “Moi penaty,” many of these engage in metageneric discussions of friendly epistles and “how this poem is being written,” but unlike “Moi penaty,” many also include specific criticism of poetic texts, taken line by line. This final section also covers humorous and experimental friendly epistles by Zhukovskii, nearly unknown today, as well as Pushkin’s early friendly epistles. What is the reasoning behind this chapter’s chronological boundaries, 1802 and 1815? The fact that our corpus of texts contains no friendly epistles written in 1802, and that its 1803 friendly epistles are rather atypical, aided the decision to end chapter 3 with the year 1801. But in the 1810’s, there is no hiatus in friendly epistle composition and publication. Instead, the genre grows in popularity until 1814, when the number of lines written peaks; the number of lines published peaks in 1815, after which a gradual decline sets in, broken by a final upsurge in 1819-1820. The genre’s decline is accompanied by a shift towards related genres: shorter epistles (“zapiski”), epistles with an elegiac bent, epistles with more distance towards the addressee, and highly personal epistles not intended for publication. Friendly epistles’ decline, and their shift to other forms, was accompanied by biographical 1 5 9 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and historical events unfavorable to the genre, such as Batiushkov’s incapacitation by mental illness and the failed Decembrist uprising. The genre’s decline was also marked by the rise of Romantic poetry and themes incompatible with friendship, like alienation and betrayal. It is difficult to say whether these events and literary trends furthered the friendly epistle’s decline, or whether they served as symptoms of the decline. It seems clear, at least, that no one event or poem was influential enough to singularly push the friendly epistle into oblivion. Left without a clear breaking point, it seemed most appropriate to end this chapter at the genre’s peak, in 1815. II. A Heterogeneous Group of Friendly Epistles, 1802-1810 It is surprisingly difficult to establish patterns among friendly epistles written in the first decade of the nineteenth century. The number of friendly epistles written remained relatively high compared to previous decades, as 4.2.1(a) below suggests: 4.2.1(a) Russian Friendly Epistles, 1780-1809, By Decade 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ' ■ - ''I . v ■ . . ; . U;*; - K' . . • ; ■ ■ ■ ■ • . , . . . . . . □ No. of Poem s 1780-1789 1790-1799 1800-1809 160 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. However, a sharper decline is revealed when poems are charted by total lines: 4.2.1(b) Russian Friendly Epistles, 1780-1809, By Decade Ar\nr\ Q c ;n n - Q finn _ - " 2500 - □ Total lines ^uuu ■ i 1500 - 1000 - cnn - . . n . , , - - 1780-1789 1790-1799 1800-1809 The differences between 4.2.1(a) and (b) can be explained by friendly epistles’ relative brevity in the early 1800’s (4.1.5). Not only were friendly epistles somewhat shorter and less common between 1800 and 1809, but they were less unified in form and function. Friendly epistles written during these years show an abundance of borderline characteristics, especially elements imported from other genres. In many ways, the friendly epistle was behaving as a peripheral or non-canonical genre, which helps explain the diversity in forms found in 1800’s friendly epistles: experiments are more easily tolerated in non-canonical genres. In early nineteenth-century friendly epistles, we see innovations introduced but never repeated or adopted by other poets, so the innovations’ potential generative effect is lost. This is also related to the fact that there are almost no sustained exchanges during these years (i.e., most addressees did not write replies). 161 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In sum, friendly epistles written in the first decade of the nineteenth century do little to betray themselves as representatives of a genre on the verge of wide popularity, and do little to serve as a bridge between the more unified groups of friendly epistles appearing in the mid-1790’s and in the early 1810’s. In this section, I will look at three moments from this heterogeneous group of texts: Derzhavin’s early nineteenth-century friendly epistles; “Hussar” friendly epistles; and epistles exchanged between Batiushkov and Gnedich. * * * One example of formal innovations introduced in early nineteenth-century friendly epistles, but not repeated or adopted in other friendly epistles, is to be found in Derzhavin’s 1804 tribute to the four seasons. The poems’ titles, “Zima,” “Vesna,” “Leto,” “Osen”’ (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall), suggest that they belong to genres linked with descriptions of nature, such as the elegy or the idyll, and the poems generally open with a description of the season at hand. However, sometime in the second half of each poem, Derzhavin explicitly identifies an addressee, as in this excerpt from “Zima”: ...M eam y TeM k HaM , BejibHM HHOB, TbI npHHJIH... [In the meantime, Vel’iaminov, come visit us...] The revelation that this poem is directed to an addressee appears in line 32, only 8 lines before the end of the poem. 162 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The four poems’ titles are unusual for friendly epistles, and their belated identification of addressees is anomalous for a genre whose defining characteristic is explicit orientation towards an addressee (Mann, 151; Senderovich, 98-9). In addition, these poems are set in meters unusual for friendly epistles, as well as for nineteenth-century Russian poetry generally, including logoedic verse, mixed-length dactyls, and the dol’nik. There is also evidence that at least one of these poems, “Leto,” was published anonymously without having first been sent to the addressee/1 1 This is a highly unusual way of circulating a friendly epistle. Similar tension, inherent in the publication of ostensibly private letters, is discussed by Todd, who writes that letters addressed to friends could eventually “reach the public [the authors] might pretend to scorn” (25). However, [t]radition demanded that for modesty's sake some time elapse between the writing and the publishing of a familiar letter - otherwise the genre's illusion of intimacy would be broken (72). The prose-letter etiquette described by Todd applies no less to friendly epistles. Though Derzhavin’s four-seasons poems bear minimal resemblance to prototypical friendly epistles, they have been nontheless classified as friendly epistles, since they are letters in verse to an explicit addressee, set in a friendly tone. All Derzhavin’s friendly epistles are marked by idiosyncrasy, but these 1804 poems are especially so. This suggests that in the early 1800’s, the codifications of friendly epistle form set in the 1780’s and 1790’s were being stretched, so that some manifestations of the genre were almost unrecognizable as such. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. One of Derzhavin’s four-seasons poems, “Zima,” was set in trochaic tetrameter, a meter that was more common than the other meters used in Derzhavin’s “four-seasons” poems, but that served as a setting, overall, for only 6% of friendly epistles and 4% of friendly epistle lines (1770-1830). Yet trochaic tetrameter, a meter usually associated with songs, folk poetry and prayers, was one of the most popular friendly epistle meters in the early 1800’s. Over a third of all the trochaic tetrameter epistles in our collection (7 out of 20, or 35%) was written between 1802 and 1810. These seven poems account for 18% of the poems and 16% of total friendly epistle lines written in between 1802 and 1810, establishing trochaic tetrameter as the third most popular friendly epistle meter (after iambic tetrameter and mixed iambs) in the first decade of the nineteenth century. According to Markin, trochaic tetrameter was one of the meters - along with iambic trimeter - closely associated with anacreontea (19). In the early 1800’s, friendly epistles in trochaic tetrameter set anacreontic themes (eat, drink, be merry) against the backdrop of military life. This trend begins with three 1804 poems by Davydov, and is later echoed by Batiushkov and Viazemskii. These poems have sometimes been called “Hussar” friendly epistles, epistles that reflect the cult of friendship through the prism of the Napoleonic wars. Lotman describes the cultural circumstances behind such poems: During the Napoleonic wars, friendly society was colored by a tone of bivouac brotherhood, while after the war it took on the tone of an officer’s club - a friendly union between young bachelor officers, sharing unpretentious quarters and immersed in joint efforts to 164 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. educate themselves and develop plans for the future transformation of Russia (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 57). Lotman’s high-minded description of bivouac brotherhood seems flattering when applied to Davydov’s poems, which tend to celebrate alcohol (punch or rice wine, “araka”) as the antidote to the dangers of war. The following lines from Davydov’s 1804 “Gusarskii pir” (addressed, like his other 1804 poems, to A. P. Burtsov) characterize the tone of Hussar friendly epistles: EypuoB, 6 p a T ! h t o 3a pa3H0Jite! IlyHm JK ecT O K H H !.. Xop rpeM HT! EypnoB, m>io TBoe 3ztopoBbe: Eyab, rycap, BeK m > H H h cbit! IIoHTHpyH, K aK noHTHpyemb, OjiaHKHpyil, K aK <|m aH KHpyeim >; B M H pH M X H H H X H e yH B IB aH H b 6ohx K aH aH -BajiH H ! >KH3Hb JieTH T: He O C paM H C H , He npocnn ee nojieT. neii, jho6h m Becemicfl! BOT M O H /tpyyKeCKHH C O BeT. [Burtsov, brother! What liberties you take! The punch is strong! The chorus resounds! Burtsov, I drink to your health: Hussar, may you always be drunk and well-fed! Gamble, as you gamble: flank, as you flank; don't be down on days of peace; and in battle, toss and roll! Life flies by: don't embarrass yourself, and don't sleep through its flight. Sing, love and be merry! This is my friendly advice.] This passage may clarify why a meter associated with 1) songs, 2) prayers and 3) anacreontea was chosen as a setting for friendly epistles on army life. Army life, as poeticized by friendly epistles, consisted of 1) drinking songs, 2) drinking toasts (prayers of sorts) and 3) advice to enjoy life’s momentary pleasures, since the “fleetingness of life” is felt, literally, on a battlefield. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Davydov was famous for combining soldiery and poetry. Though he was not the only Russian poet to fight in the Napoleonic wars, it seems safe to say that the others were more poet than soldier. In any case, that is the picture Batiushkov draws of himself, in his 1810 “K Petinu” (addressed to I. A. Petin). This toned-down version of the Hussar friendly epistle is also set in trochaic tetrameter: Meacay T eM K a K t b i imtncaMH HlBeaoB 3a nee npoB O yK an, R repoiicKHMH pyKaMH... Y j k h h BaM n p H ro T O B JB U i. [While you were driving the Swedes past the forest with bayonets, I was using my heroic hands to... prepare your dinner.] This passage contains an example of friendly epistles’ favorite type of humor, based on an incongruity between high (Petin’s heroic feats) and low (Batiushkov preparing dinner). Batiushkov’s poem, like Davydov’s, ends by proposing a drinking toast. ^ ^ While Batiushkov set his “Hussar” epistle to Petin in trochaic tetrameter, many of the friendly epistles Batiushkov wrote in the early 1800’s were on “civilian” themes, set in more common meters (iambic tetrameter and mixed iambs), and addressed to Batiushkov’s main correspondent during these years, Gnedich. The friendly epistle exchange between Batiushkov and Gnedich is important not only in the context of early nineteenth-century friendly epistles, but also because it serves as a contrast with Batiushkov’s later exchanges, discussed in the next section (4.3). 166 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Senderovich suggests that Batiushkov already had the poetic technique, and showed an inclination, for writing a friendly epistle like his landmark 1811-2 “Moi penaty” in the early 1800’s, but the “empirical possibility of addressing real friends with an epistle” did not arise until 1811 (82). Senderovich is referring to the fact that it was only in 1810 that Batiushkov befriended a circle of Moscow poets, including Zhukovskii and Viazemskii, the addressees of “Moi penaty.” But Senderovich’s claim is curious inasmuch as it implies that Batiushkov’s main friend prior to 1810, Gnedich, was not a “real friend,” or at least, was not a suitable addressee for an epistle like “Moi penaty.” In this case, instead of explaining why friendly epistles were written in certain years, we may ask why they were not written in other years, taking our cue from Senderovich. What about Batiushkov’s friendly epistles to Gnedich, and their friendship, leads Senderovich to conclude that Batiushkov could not have addressed a friendly epistle like “Moi penaty” to Gnedich? Batiushkov and Gnedich met around 1803 and became fast friends, despite having what Belykh describes as “dissimilar characters” (232). Their friendly epistle exchange began around 1805 and lasted until around 1810; according to Belykh, they also exchanged prose letters from 1807 until 1821 (229). But analysis of extant prose letters and friendly epistles must be done with care, because Batiushkov preserved so few of the letters and poems sent to him.v n i Namely, over a hundred prose letters from Batiushkov to Gnedich have come down to us, but we have only fourteen prose letters from Gnedich to Batiushkov (Belykh, 229). Many fewer friendly epistles are extant, but the proportions are similar: we have three friendly 167 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. epistles, and several more mixed verse-and-prose letters, from Batiushkov to Gnedich, but only one extant friendly epistle from Gnedich to Batiushkov. Since it is likely that Gnedich addressed at least as many prose letters (100+) and perhaps as many friendly epistles (3-5) to Batiushkov as Batiushkov addressed to Gnedich, it is not exactly fair to judge Gnedich on the basis of what little is extant. Nevertheless, we do find suggestions in Gnedich’s single extant friendly epistle to Batiushkov that Gnedich did not take to the friendly epistle genre easily. Gnedich’s 1807 “K K.N. Batiushkovu” is set in stanzas and organized along a single theme, an invitation to visit so that the two friends might enter a fantasy realm of earlier poets. Among these earlier poets is Tasso, whose work Batiushkov had translated in fits and spurts: Tyaa, Tyaa, b tot Kpaii cnacTjiHBbiH, B Te 3eM JiH comma noneTHM, T^e Phm3 npax KpacHopemiBbiH Hjib rpaa c b h t o h Epycanim. ...IleBeu h x , Tacc, T eo e mooe3HbiH, C KeM T B O H JiaB H O C p O JIH H jIC H IIVX... [There, there, to that happy place, to lands of the sun we'll fly, to the eloquent ashes of Rome or to the holy city of Jerusalem... Their bard, Tasso, is beloved to you, and your spiritual kinship began long ago...] Belykh describes this epistle as having “order and consistency,” “syntactic unity” within every stanza, and a dearth of epithets common to friendly epistles (238). Belykh’s characterization alone would suggest that Gnedich was not comfortable with the open-ended forms, friendly epithets, and the (appearance of) spontaneity common to friendly epistles. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that Batiushkov was 168 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. unable, or disinclined, to explore the friendly epistle genre, or to develop it as he did from 1811 until 1813, so long as Gnedich served as his main correspondent. Gnedich’s reluctance to embrace the friendly epistle’s usual forms was not simply a matter of limited formal repertory. His tendency to dispense unsolicited advice, seen in his 1807 friendly epistle to Batiushkov, and mentioned by Belykh as characteristic of his prose letters (231), indicates a reluctance to embrace a principle underlying friendly epistles, “non-judgmental friendship” based on harmony or humor. Of course, it is possible to write a friendly epistle set in the genre’s usual forms and based on its principles even if the actual friendship between author and addressee is marked by humorlessness, disharmony, judgment and defensiveness. (The fact that “unfriendly” individuals like Voeikov wrote friendly epistles serves as proof.) It is also possible to write a friendly epistle that is not based on any biographical friendship at all. (The extremely simulated friendly epistles of the 1790’s discussed in chapter 3, and Pushkin’s “Gorodok,” to be discussed in the final section of this chapter, serve as proof.) But most friendly epistles seem to have been inspired by actual friendships, buttressed by the wider cultural phenomenon of the cult of friendship. Friendly epistle exchanges, in turn, reinforced both the cult of friendship and the actual friendship in question. In contrast to this is the correspondence between Gnedich and Batiushkov in both verse and prose, characterized by unsolicited advice from the former and defensive answers from the latter. For example, in response to Gnedich's goading Batiushkov to finish his Tasso translations, seen in Gnedich’s 1807 epistle 169 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mentioning Tasso and probably also found in prose letters from Gnedich to Batiushkov, Batiushkov wrote the following plea: .. .1 ask you to leave my Tasso in peace; I probably would have burned [my translation] if I knew that my copy was the only one (1809; Batiushkov HI: 64). The main bone of contention between Batiushkov and Gnedich was how a poet should live to best produce poetry. This topic involved discussion of idleness, as well as how to best deal with mental instability (“illness,” “le tic douloureux,” “nervous collapse,” “rheumatism,” “hypochondria”) affecting both poets to varying degrees. Gnedich, who himself worked almost single-mindedly on translations of Homer, prodded Batiushkov throughout the 1800’s to abandon light verse genres in favor of epics, which (Gnedich argued) would bring Batiushkov renown and glory.1 * Batiushkov defended his indifference to literary glory in an 1806 friendly epistle, “K Gnedichu”: ToiitKo ap yacoa oG eutaer M H e oeccMepTHH b c h o k . . . I l y T b k 3a6aBaM nponoaceH ; K cnaBe TeceH n M y a p e H . . . [Only friendship promises me the wreath of immortality... The path to pleasure is laid, the path to fame is narrow and difficult...] Even excuses for not writing sooner are phrased defensively in Batiushkov's epistles to Gnedich. Such excuses are part of the repertory of most letter-writers, but Batiushkov seems to go out of his way to emphasize the momentousness of the obstacle to his writing sooner. For example, the vagaries of military life in wartime. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the death of a friend, are some of the reasons Batiushkov cites in his friendly epistles to Gnedich: n o necTH, MyapeHO b catiax h j ih BepxoM, Korjta KpHHBT: «Mapin, Maprn, cjiymaH!» KpyroM, nacaTb Te6e, moh apyr, nocjiaHba... (<H. H. THe^Hny> 1807) [To tell you the truth, when we're on sleighs or on horseback and everyone is yelling “Forward march! March!” it's not easy, my friend, to write epistles to you... (<N. I. Gnedichu> 1807)] /JaBHO T bI OT JieHHBOH My3bl, J^aBH O He cjibiman HHHero. .. .H MHe jih neTb noa raeTOM poica, Koraa M eH fl cym>6a acecTO K a JlHinHJia ap y ra h p o flH H ? .. (<H. H. FH e a H n y > 1808) [You haven’ t heard anything from [my] lazy muse for a long time. But is it really for me to sing, burdened by fate, when cruel fortune has deprived me of a friend and relative? (<N. I. Gnedichu> 1808)] In fact, the obstacles cited by Batiushkov are so momentous that their use in the undignified role as “excuses for not having written earlier” seems almost frivolous. The questions of how quickly Batiushkov answered letters, whether he would finish his Tasso translations and how he should best seek literary glory became tied up with the question of whether Batiushkov was lazy. Grekhnev, discussing “the virtues of laziness,” mentions Batiushkov’s struggles against this reproach. According to Grekhnev, identifying oneself as a “lenivets” (idler) was a way of insisting on writing as a profession. In other words, time spent reading, writing and thinking was time well spent for a writer, as opposed to “daily plodding to and from a government office, writing and copying useless papers” (42). Reproaches of 171 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Batiushkov, reflected in Batiushkov’s answers (e.g., “You reproach me for being lazy” (Batiushkov HI: 62)), are described by Grekhnev as [suspicions of] idleness, when what is actually taking place is invisible and intense work involving the soul and consciousness... (43) Grekhnev continues: In fact, Batiushkov was hardly someone to be reproached for idleness, since he had participated in ‘3 wars, all on horseback,’ [and] was familiar with the thorns of bureaucratic service, but nevertheless Gnedich, his friend, colleague in poetry and publisher, had the gall to accuse him of laziness (43). By 1810, when Batiushkov had befriended the Moscow circle of poets, he continued to complain of nervous breakdowns, illness and depression in his letters to Gnedich, but overall his epistolary relationship with Gnedich began to reflect more balance. For example, Batiushkov’s letters to Gnedich describe the literary advice he was now receiving from Zhukovskii, who in 1810 was publishing Vestnik Evropy and was certainly better known as a poet than Gnedich. It may be that, by telling Gnedich about Zhukovskii’s advice, Batiushkov was signaling that Zhukovskii had now assumed the role of his primary literary advisor, previously played by Gnedich. Zhukovskii also authorized Batiushkov to communicate offers to publish in Vestnik Evropy to Gnedich. In fact, Batiushkov’s friendship with Zhukovskii may be the reason that Gnedich’s one extant friendly epistle to Batiushkov survived, where others may have been burned: Zhukovskii published Gnedich’s 1807 epistle, back to back with Batiushkov’s 1809-10 reply, in an 1810 issue of Vestnik Evropy. Batiushkov’s 1809-10 reply, “Otvet Gnedichu,” is much shorter than Gnedich’s original epistle (24 lines vs. 68 lines), and mentions neither Gnedich’s 172 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. invitation to visit, nor his proposal that the two of them together devote themselves to Tasso and other poets. Batiushkov’s usual rejection of literary glory is here phrased more offensively than defensively: IlycKaH, k t o HecTOJnodbeM Sojiett, EpocaeT c MapcoM orim h rpoM; Ho a - 6e3BecTHOCTbio xtO B O JieH B C aSuncK O M aoM HKe MoeM! [Let anyone who is ill with ambition toss down lightning and thunder, alongside Mars. But I am content with obscurity, in my Sabine hut!] These excerpted lines show defiance of Gnedich’s advice: Batiushkov describes glory-seekers as being “ill with ambition,” and links himself to Horace (“my Sabine hut”) to justify his preference of a quiet country life over fame. It seems reasonable to conclude that Batiushkov’s new friendships, with Zhukovskii and other Moscow poets, gave Batiushkov the courage to defy Gnedich’s advice. The fact that the repudiation of Gnedich’s advice was published by Batiushkov’s new friend Zhukovskii may have underscored Batiushkov’s argument that he had made the right choice in preferring his new Moscow friends, their way of living, writing, and publishing, to the example set by Gnedich, who strove after literary fame by laboring alone in his office in the St. Petersburg library. Batiushkov’s defense of his “lazy” country life was also expressed in an 1810 prose letter to Gnedich, insouciantly “recording” the activities in Batiushkov’s typical twenty-four-hour day: In every day are twenty-four hours. Out of these, I spend 10 or 12 in bed, busy sleeping and dreaming. Then... one hour I spend smoking. 1 - 1 dress. 173 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 hours I practice killing time in art... 1 - 1 eat. 1 - my stomach spends on digestion. V a , hour I watch the sunset. You will say that this is time wasted. Not true! Ozerov always watched the sun drop below the horizon, and he wrote better verse than I do, and was more productive than both you and me... % hour every day I use for several natural needs [...] 1 hour I spend reminiscing on my friends, of which V z I spend thinking of you. 1 hour I spend with my dogs... V z hour I read Tasso. V z hour I spend regretting that I translated him. 3 hours I spend yawning in anticipation of nightfall... In total 24 hours. From this it follows that I am not lazy;[...] and that my illness is not due to laziness, but rather, my laziness is due to illness, since rheumatism robs me of the strength not only to reflect, but also to think, etc. (Batiushkov HI: 102). Yet Batiushkov’s championing of poetic “laziness,” and his related defense of light genres, did not last. In 1813, Batiushkov yielded to the advice Gnedich had been giving him for so many years, and announced a decision to abandon light verse in favor of epics, though he did not actually produce any epic poems. In a sense, Batiushkov’s 1813 decision signaled a defeat for his attempts to stylize himself as a carefree gentleman-poet, writing friendly epistles from his country home and inviting friends to banquets and poetic symposia. This 1813 decision may have also involved an admission of defeat to his encroaching mental illness: gloom, paranoia, and the burning of manuscripts have no place in the rosy world of friendly epistles, but might be treated in other genres, such as epics and Romantic lyrics.' The list of Batiushkov’s activities, recorded in the 1810 letter to Gnedich, may or may not characterize a typical day of Batiushkov, but it certainly sets the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. struggle each poet underwent in maintaining their friendship into clear focus. This “prosaic” rendering of a twenty-four-hour day may be the best point to end a section covering friendly epistles as a peripheral genre, before Batiushkov’s “poetic” rendering of a typical twenty-four hours, expressed in “Moi penaty” a year later, brought friendly epistles briefly to the fore of Russian literature. III. 1810-5: Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty,” Precursors, Answers, Imitations, and Parodies Eecnemtfcie cnacTJiHBUbi, ® H JIO C O (j)I>I-jieH H Bm >I, Bpara npiiEBopHbix y3, Jfpy3ba moh cepaeuHbi! IIpHiiHTe b nac oecneuHMH MOH HOMHK HaBeC TH TB - riocnopHTB h nonHTt! (EaTiomKOB, “Moh neHaTbi," 1811-2) [Carefree, lucky fellows, idler-philosophers, enemies of court bonds, my dearest friends! Come, at a carefree moment, to visit my little house, to dispute and to drink! (Batiushkov, "Moi penaty,” 1811-2)] He jvN ian . ueH 3op m o h vrpioMbiH, H t o a . oecH vacb n o H on aM [...] C h / k v , c h h c v Tpn h o h h c p a j y H BblCH/KV - TpeCTOnHblH B3ZtOp... (A. C. n>TH K H H , "M oeM y A pH CTapxy,” 1815) [My gloomy censor, don't think that I sit raving all night long, three nights in a row, until I finally come up with some trimeter nonsense... (A. S. Pushkin, "Moemu Aristarkhu,” 1815)] In the second half of 1811, Batiushkov drafted a poem, revised in the first half of 1812, which would significantly alter the course of friendly epistle 175 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. development. That poem, the 316-line “Moi penaty: Poslanie k Zhukovskomu i Viazemskomu” (“My penates [domestic gods]: An Epistle to Zhukovskii and Viazemskii), has been described as a “unique occurrence in the history of Russian poetry” (Senderovich, 75), “the model” for the main wave of friendly epistles in the 1810’s (Virolainen, 67), and the poem that “ensured the amazing popularity” of friendly epistles in a certain form (M. Gasparov, Metr, 94). And Pushkin, whose notes in the margins of Batiushkov’s Opyty are sometimes quite critical, had little but praise for the harmonic lyricism of “Moi penaty.” “Moi penaty” is distinguished by its metrical setting (iambic trimeter), lexicon (including specific phrases and rhymes, like “wobbly table” (shatkii stol) and “Lileta/ odeta”), tone (light-hearted optimism) and theme progression (the poet’s rooms and bookshelf, a typical 24-hour day, an invitation to visit, the imagined visit, ending in reflections on death). “Moi penaty” styles itself as a prayer, of sorts, to the household gods of the poem’s title. Indeed, three of its five verse paragraphs open by addressing these gods: Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 5 OxenecKH netiaTbi... OTenecKiie oorn ! A B bi, CM H peH H oii xaTbi, O Jiapbi h neHaTbi! [Paragraph 1: Patriarchal penates... Paragraph 2: Patriarchal gods! Paragraph 5: And you, o Vestal spirits and gods of my humble hut!] Paragraphs three and four are occupied with recounting a nocturnal visit with the lyrical hero’s clandestine lover, “Lileta,” and discussing poetic inspiration, which leaves little space for another appeal to domestic gods. 176 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In fact, Batiushkov’s poem does not dwell on intricacies of Roman mythology, but instead uses the stylized prayer as a framing device for more typical friendly epistle content: descriptions of the lyrical hero’s domestic surroundings, acquaintances, and way of life. Only quite late in the poem does Batiushkov turn from the “primary” addressees (the penates) to the other addressees named in the title, Zhukovskii and Viazemskii. “Moi penaty” ends by extending these addressees an invitation to visit (see epigraph above), promising feasts and enjoyment of momentary pleasures, while never losing sight of impending mortality. Mortality closes the poem, as the lyrical hero envisions a traveler passing by the future gravesite of the poet and his addressees:'1 1 1 H nyTHHK yrajtaeT Ee3 HaanHcen 3Jian>ix, Hto npax Tyr nomiBaeT CnacTJiHBLteB mojiojbix ! [And the traveller will guess, without any gilded inscriptions, that here rest the remains of young, lucky fellows!] Scholars agree that “Moi penaty” was highly influential. There is less agreement over the extent to which “Moi penaty” was unique or unprecedented. Lazarchuk claims precedents for “Moi penaty” in eighteenth-century Russian poetry, citing a healthy eighteenth-century friendly epistle tradition (16). Yes, such a tradition existed: the credibility of the entire previous chapter rests on this claim. But did these epistles serve as precursors to “Moi penaty”? One unique aspect of “Moi penaty” was its setting in a relatively rare meter, iambic trimeter. M. Gasparov writes that iambic trimeter had been used only for 177 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. secondary genres (such as anacreontea) in the eighteenth century, but in the early nineteenth century, iambic trimeter experienced a “brief, but brilliant, blossoming” {Ocherk, 118), which manifested itself in friendly epistles. Friendly epistles in iambic trimeter retained overtones from the anacreontea with which the meter had earlier been associated: ...the same anacreontic (or, more broadly speaking, epicurean) motifs of enjoying a modest, but joy-filied, existence, shift to the friendly epistle genre, [namely]: the epicurean epistle in iambic trimeter... 0Ocherk, 118). M. Gasparov’s term “the epicurean epistle in iambic trimeter” can be interpreted as a description of “Moi penaty,” its precursors, replies and imitations. It was Tynianov’s opinion that epistles set in iambic trimeter and iambic tetrameter were different enough to be called members of distinct genres (126). This recommendation is partially followed by M. Gasparov, who on occasion refers to friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter as an independent genre: both Zhukovskii and Viazemskii answered [“Moi penaty”] with epistles in the same meter, and in the 1810’s almost no poet bypassed this genre... (Metr, 94; italics added). Senderovich writes that “an entire series of friendly epistles in the 1810's, and only then, was written in iambic trimeter” (75-6), adding that this was not due to chance: In this case, iambic trimeter was not an accidental circumstance. Rather, it represented the renewal of poetry in general, and of the epistle genre in particular (76-7). It is not clear whether Senderovich is arguing that certain meters have a natural capacity for renewal. Perhaps he means that a remarkable poem set in a rare meter might have more capacity for renewal than a similarly remarkable poem set in a 178 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. common meter. Or perhaps his point is that “Moi penaty” achieved renewal because it was remarkable in and of itself, and this renewal became associated with the poem’s unusual meter. In any case, it is certain that a great number of friendly epistles were written in response to, and in the wake of, “Moi penaty.” Other poets may have been inspired to link their responses, imitations, and later, parodies, to “Moi penaty” by setting their poems in the same meter. These links between a text and its meter were probably easier to make because iambic trimeter was relatively rare before the appearance of “Moi penaty” in 1811: our corpus of texts includes only six eighteenth-century friendly epistles set in this meter, and none between 1800 and 1809. Friendly epistles written from 1785 until 1811 are charted in 4.3.1 below, with those in iambic trimeter distinguished: 4.3.1 Friendly Epistles, 1785-1811, in iambic Trimeter (13) and Other Meters, with "Moi penaty" Highlighted 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 - S n ■ B JL If a.I aiillL I □ ''Moi penaty1 ' □ Other 1 3 B Other meters I a° > n < £ > n < § y > < gp ^ N N ' N N N N N N N ? N P N ? N r i If 4.3.1 shows few friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter before “Moi penaty,” however, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 suggest the popularity of iambic trimeter once “Moi 179 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. penaty” had appeared. 4.3.2 sets iambic trimeter epistles against the backdrop of friendly epistles in all meters, while 4.3.3 outlines the trimeter tradition alone: 4.3.2 Friendly Epistles, 1810-25, in Iambic Trimeter (13) and Other Meters, with "Moi penaty" Highlighted 3500 3000 500 -- E l "Moi penaty" □ Other 1 3 B Other meters O T - C M C O ^ l O C O N - O O r o O i - C M C O ^ - U J O O C O C O C O C O O O C O C O c o c o c o c o c o o o c o o o 4.3.3 Friendly Epistles, 1810-25, in Iambic Trimeter (13), with "Moi penaty" Highlighted 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 o T— C V J CO in C O r ^ - CO O ) o Y— C M C O in Y—■ Y— T*“ Y“ 1— T “ C M C M C M C M C M C M CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G O 0 0 0 0 T — Y— Y— Y — Y— T— I El "Moi penaty [□Other 1 3 — w i~i n a . n n As discussed earlier (4.2), the “other” anacreontic meter, trochaic tetrameter, had appeared in the early 1800’s as a setting for friendly epistles on army life with 180 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. anacreontic undertones. But friendly epistles in trochaic tetrameter were not numerous even in the early 1800’s, and the appearance of “Moi penaty” in 1811 does not appear to have affected them in one way or the other. At least, this is the impression given by 4.3.4 below, which tracks friendly epistles in both anacreontic meters written from 1800 until 1825: 4.3.4 Friendly Epistles, 1800-25, in "Anacreontic" Meters Iambic Trimeter (13) and Trochaic Tetrameter (T4), with "Moi penaty" Highlighted 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 O C M C D O O O O O O O O t- C M - M - CD CO O C M - M - T T — T — - T — C M C M C M c o c o c o o o c o c o c o c o c o c o G O c o c o II "M oi penaty" □ Other 1 3 ■ T4 All these charts show wide fluctuations in the popularity of iambic trimeter, from no lines whatsoever (1791-6, 1800-9) up to thousands of lines in the early 1810’s. Friendly epistles in trochaic tetrameter appear in more modest numbers - only in 1810 does the number of total lines set in trochaic tetrameter exceed 200 - but more regularly (once every three years, on average). The transition from one anacreontic meter to the other, or from “Hussar” epistles set in trochaic tetrameter, whose popularity peaked in 1810, to languid, “gentlemen-poet” epistles set in iambic trimeter, popular between 1811 and 1815, seems to have been aided by two friendly epistles that incorporated elements of both 181 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. traditions. These two epistles are Zhukovskii’s 1810 “K B<ludov>u: Poslanie,” and Viazemskii’s 1811 “K Perovskomu.” They share a number of characteristics: both are set in iambic trimeter, but both also function as letters on the occasion of the addressee’s leaving to join the army (the Hussar element, or “bivouac” setting, often found in trochaic tetrameter epistles). Yet each poem takes its own approach towards merging components from the light-hearted tradition of eighteenth-century anacreontea set in iambic trimeter with components from the hard-fighting, hard-drinking tradition of Hussar friendly epistles developed in the early 1800’s. While Viazemskii’s epistle to Perovskii is not from one Hussar to another, as Davydov’s 1804 Hussar epistles were, it nevertheless takes as its setting the addressee’s (future) bivouac camp: Viazemskii foresees bad weather, sorrows and loneliness (and recommends consumption of alcohol as remedy for all three). Viazemskii ends his epistle on a note of uncertainty as to what the future might bring: Ho n a c H a c T a n n p o m a H b a , Tbi coopaiica - nocToil! EoKaji - b 3ajior C B H jtaH bH , A TaM... h Eor c toSoh! [But the hour of parting is here, you're ready to go - but wait! A drink, as a promise that we will meet again, and [while you are away]... let God be with you!] In contrast, Zhukovskii’s epistle to Bludov focuses on those Bludov is leaving behind (his wife Liudmila and his friend Zhukovskii), so its narrative does not follow the addressee into his “bivouac” setting, but remains set on Bludov’s R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. country estate. Zhukovskii avoids uncertainty over whether the addressee will return by stating his conviction that they will meet again: IIp o c T H , moh i t p y r H ejiec T H b iii! H a a o j i r o jib ? H en3B ecT H O . Ho B ep y io ayniofi (H B e p a He o6M aHeT): )K ejiaH H M H a e H b H acTaH eT - MbI C B H flH M C H C T O bO H . [Goodbye, my earnest friend! Will it be a long time? We don’t know. But I believe in my soul (and faith doesn’t deceive): the desired day will come - you and I will meet again.] In fact, according to Zhukovskii, should their meeting fail to take place, the reason will not be because Bludov has perished in war, but because Bludov may return to find Zhukovskii passed away: Tbi cnpocHiiib y apy3eft: «rae cKpbuica apyr jno6HMbiH?» H hto 5 K Te6e b otbct? « E r o y>K b M Hpe HeT...» [You will ask your friends, “Where is my dear friend hiding?” And what will they say in response? “He has already left this world...”] This narrative line is somewhat awkward, since by discussing his own impending death (which did not take place for 42 more years) Zhukovskii seems to detract from the danger Bludov faced in joining the army. On the other hand, this ending reinforces the earlier-stated conviction that Bludov will return safely. In other words, the contradiction between the occasion of the poem (focusing on Bludov leaving for military service) and its ending (predicting Zhukovskii’s death) was probably deliberate. Furthermore, this ending allows Zhukovskii to adhere to the friendly epistle genre’s tradition of ending an epistle with discussion of death. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Friendly epistles could end in a number of ways, including metaliterary discussion of “why this letter must end” (e.g., Viazemskii claiming, in his epistle to Perovskii cited above, that his epistle had to end because Perovskii was packed and ready to leave). Another popular way to end a friendly epistle was to tack on a short parable, such as “Happy is he who enjoys life...” However, this “moral-of-the- story” type of ending was more or less replaced in the 1810’s by endings predicting the author’s death or envisioning his future gravesite. The shift from ending with a parable (“Happy is he...”) to ending with a vision of the author’s death is emblematic of the shift from early friendly epistles’ semi-didactic tone to later friendly epistles’ purely friendly tone. In other words, there is a touch of didacticism in the ending of Murav’ev’s 1775 epistle to Brianchaninov, which reminds his addressee that “we don’t know when we will die” (“Oda vtoraia k A.M. Brianchaninovu”), as well as in the ending of Karamzin’s 1794 epistle to Dmitriev, which advises the addressee not to fear death (“Poslanie k Dmitrievu, v otvet...”). On the other hand, authors of later friendly epistles tended to refrain from telling the addressee how to live, instead setting forth their own example and inviting the addressee to join in. This general stance suggests why parable endings were replaced by endings describing the author’s future gravesite (Zhukovskii’s “K Bludovu” and Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty”), or describing the author calmly meeting death (Viazemskii’s 1813 “K podruge”). These endings communicate, “this is how I live and hope to die,” rather than “this is how you should live or die.” Zhukovskii’s 184 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “death / gravesite” ending in “K Bludovu” probably served as a precursor to Batiushkov’s “death / gravesite” ending in “Moi penaty,” and the widespread influence of “Moi penaty” rendered this ending programmatic. This is the “specific treatment of death” that Virolainen notes is a common friendly epistle ending (41). The fact that Zhukovskii’s 1810 epistle to Bludov and Viazemskii’s 1811 epistle to Perovskii were both set in iambic trimeter may have convinced Batiushkov to choose the same meter when he wrote “Moi penaty” to these same poets in late 1811. But metametrical discourse was probably not Batiushkov’s primary reason for writing “Moi penaty.” Instead, as earlier discussion of Batiushkov’s unsatisfying friendship with Gnedich implies, there is a biographical explanation for the genesis of “Moi penaty.” Senderovich argues that Batiushkov’s poetry from 1806 to 1810 betrays a “primary need” for contact with friends (82). This need was filled in the early 1810’s when Batiushkov developed friendships with a circle of Moscow poets, including Viazemskii and Zhukovskii. Batiushkov and Viazemskii did not begin exchanging letters until August, 1811, but Viazemskii's prose letters seem to have quickly begun serving as an antidote to those from Gnedich. Perhaps partly because Viazemskii was several years younger than Batiushkov (in 1811, Viazemskii turned 19, Batiushkov turned 24 and Gnedich 27), Viazemskii refrained from giving Batiushkov advice (which Batiushkov's complaints of depression and laziness seem to have begged from Gnedich). Instead, Viazemskii sent epigrams, jokes, and news. Batiushkov appears to have responded positively to this new type of correspondence: Batiushkov's prose 185 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. letters to Viazemskii are full of light-hearted characterizations of himself and his addressee, as well as affirmations of their friendship - in other words, the building- blocks of friendly epistles, albeit set in prose. Batiushkov could describe country life in bleak terms in a prose letter to Gnedich: [Right now I am sitting alone in my little house, bored and depressed, and I plan to sit here until fall, or maybe until winter, that is, until I can gather about 4,000 rubles... (August 1811; Batiushkov III: 134)]. But the same country house was set in a rosier light in “Moi penaty,” addressed to Viazemskii and Zhukovskii: B ceil x H H C H H e ySoroii Ctoht nepea okhom CtO J I BeTXHH h TpeHoraH C H30pBaHHBIM CyKHOM. [...] Bee yTBapH npocrae, Bee pyxjiaa CKyjtent! CKyztenb .. Ho M H e aopoxce, HeM OapxaTHoe noace H Ba3bi SoraHen! .. [In [my] poor hut, a dilapidated three-legged table faces the window, with a tom tablecloth. My things are simple, ramshackle junk! Junk - but to me it’s dearer than a velvet couch or wealthy person’s vases!..] The difference in outlook between these two excerpts, written within two months of one another, may very well be due to the difference between the types of realia a friendly epistle could accommodate (nothing too grim) vs. the realia a prose letter could accommodate (virtually everything). Nevertheless, Viazemskii’s friendship may have also made a difference, giving Batiushkov an appropriate addressee for such a friendly epistle, as Senderovich implies. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Viazemskii’s correspondence seems to have also influenced the direction of “Moi penaty” while in progress. In a November, 1811 letter to Viazemskii, Batiushkov wrote that he had recently finished the “ending of an epistle to the Penates,” “addressed to Viazemskii and Zhukovskii.” Batiushkov enclosed a draft of this poem, although he was concerned that “the ending is more lively than the beginning” (Batiushkov, III: 153). Nowhere in the first three-quarters of “Moi penaty” is mention made of Viazemskii or Zhukovskii. If we assume that the “ending” referred to in the November letter involves the lines addressed to Viazemskii and Zhukovskii (the final lines, from 243 to 316), then it seems possible that Batiushkov began “Moi penaty” as an epistle addressed apostrophically (in this case, to his household gods). It would follow that Batiushkov turned his poem into a friendly epistle with actual (human) addressees only after entering into an exchange of friendly letters with Viazemskii in September, 1811. According to the textual evidence, “Moi penaty” appears to be more or less equally addressed to Zhukovskii and Viazemskii. If anything, Zhukovskii seems to be slightly privileged, since his name appears first in the subtitle and he is characterized first in the poem. Yet biographical evidence suggests that, in fact, Viazemskii was the primary addressee. In the first place, Batiushkov sent Viazemskii a draft of “Moi penaty” more than five months before sending a copy to Zhukovskii (November 1811 vs. April 1812; Batiushkov III: 178). In the second place, Viazemskii seems to have served as an intermediary between Zhukovskii and Batiushkov. In May, 1812, a month after receiving “Moi 187 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. penaty,” Zhukovskii wrote a reply (“K Batiushkovu: Poslanie”), but sent his reply first to Viazemskii, who sent the poem on to Batiushkov a few months later at Batiushkov’s request (Batiushkov III: 188, 195). Even before Batiushkov had read Zhukovskii’s answer, he replied to news of it by writing another friendly epistle to Zhukovskii, “Prosti, otshel’nik moi” (later, “Prosti, balladnik moi”). This suggests that Batiushkov was solicitous of Zhukovskii - withholding the rough draft of “Moi penaty” until a final draft was ready, and replying immediately to Zhukovskii even when he had not seen Zhukovskii’s poem. Furthermore, Batiushkov and Zhukovskii exchanged few prose letters, and those that are extant resemble Batiushkov's tormented letters to Gnedich more than his light-hearted, affirmative letters to Viazemskii.3 "1 In an 1811 letter from Batiushkov to Viazemskii, written at the same time as “Moi penaty,” Zhukovskii comes in for tongue-in-cheek reproval: We can't do without him, but he, the scoundrel, lives terrifically [npnneBaioHn] without us (Batiushkov III: 154). Not only are the friendships between Batiushkov, Zhukovskii and Viazemskii depicted as equally warm, when biographical evidence suggests otherwise, but the ostensible occasion of “Moi penaty” appears to have been fictitious. There is no evidence that either Viazemskii or Zhukovskii ever took Batiushkov up on his invitation to visit him at Khantonovo, either in 1811 or afterwards; there is no evidence that either considered such a visit; and there is no evidence that Batiushkov intended his invitation to be taken seriously, or was ready to receive visitors. His house at Khantonovo was so dilapidated that he and his sister discussed tearing it down in order to build a new one (Batiushkov III: 186), and there is also a 188 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. chronological discrepancy: Batiushkov sent Zhukovskii the “invitation to visit” him at Khantonovo in April 1812, when Batiushkov had already been living in St. Petersburg for three months. “Moi penaty” may not have served as stimulus to visit Batiushkov, but it did serve as a poetic stimulus. Both Zhukovskii and Viazemskii had written trimeter friendly epistles (to other addressees) before receiving “Moi penaty,” so the form was not new to them. Both Zhukovskii and Viazemskii had written friendly epistles to one another (1808, 1811), so this also was not new. But “Moi penaty” motivated each of its addressees to write long trimeter epistles in response, and the energy that went into this was, indeed, new. 4.3.5 below charts “Moi penaty,” its responses, and other trimeter epistles exchanged between Batiushkov, Zhukovskii and Viazemskii: 4.3.5 "Moi penaty," Its Replies and Replies to the Replies Set in Iambic Trimeter, 1810-5 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 S ■ ■ El Batiushkov □ Zhukovskii ■ Viazemskii 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 189 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These trimeter epistles were followed by another round of epistles set in various meters. 4.3.6(a) below charts all friendly epistles exchanged between Batiushkov, Zhukovskii and Viazemskii, including those preceding “Moi penaty”: 4.3.6(a) Friendly Epistles Exchanged betw een Batiushkov, Zhukovskii and Viazemskii, in All Meters, 1808-17 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1! Batiushkov □ Zhukovskii B Viazemskii 4.3.6(b) below charts the same group of poems according to meter: 4.3.6(b) Friendly Epistles Exchanged betw een Batiushkov, Zhukovskii and Viazemskii, in All Meters, 1808-17 1000 800 600 400 200 □ Iambic trimeter ■ All other meters 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 190 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A chronological spread greater than that of 4.3.5 emerges in 4.3.6(a) and (b), when poems exchanged between these three poets in all meters are included, and the impact of Batiushkov's contribution to the exchange diminishes. It should, however, be kept in mind that all three poets interrupted other pursuits to serve in the Napoleonic wars for various lengths of time between 1812 and 1814, and Batiushkov served the longest; this helps explain the drop in friendly epistles in 1813 reflected in all these charts. Batiushkov's abandonment of light genres around 1813, and his demand that his friends do likewise, helps explain why Zhukovskii and Viazemskii shifted from iambic trimeter back to other meters in 1814 and 1815. The exchange stemming from “Moi penaty” was followed by the entrance of other poets, leading to what Senderovich describes as an “entire culture of epistle exchanges” consisting of “dozens of texts,” all “conscious of stemming from one fundamental event” (76). Considering that hundreds of lines were involved in just the first round of poems (“Moi penaty” contained 316 lines; Zhukovskii's reply consisted of 678 lines; and Viazemskii's reply, 174), it is striking that so much attention was paid to a purely poetic symposium, in the form of an invitation to visit that did not even take place. It is also striking that Zhukovskii's reply is more than twice the length of Batiushkov's original epistle, while Viazemskii's is almost that much shorter. Further, Zhukovskii published his reply in Vestnik Evropy the following year (1813), while Batiushkov did not publish “Moi penaty” until 1814, and neither of Viazemskii's epistles to Batiushkov (“Moi milyi, moi poet,” 1812, “Ty na puti 191 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vozvratnom!” 1814) was published in Viazemskii's lifetime. Thus, though Viazemskii seems to have shared a closer friendship and a more prolific prose correspondence with Batiushkov, it was Zhukovskii's longer, more substantial friendly epistle reply to Batiushkov that was made public. This leads to two conclusions: 1) that Zhukovskii contributed to spreading the popularity of “Moi penaty,” and of trimeter friendly epistles generally, and 2) that widely publicized friendly epistle exchanges are not necessarily products of the warmest friendships. To be sure, limiting our viewpoint to Batiushkov's iambic trimeter epistles addressed to Zhukovskii or Viazemskii does not do justice to his output overall. Batiushkov wrote two epistles in iambic trimeter to A. I. Turgenev (1812, 1813), and wrote friendly epistles to other addressees in other meters. Batiushkov's overall friendly epistle production is charted in 4.3.7 below: 4.3.7 Batiushkov's Friendly Epistles, 1804-18, by Meter 350 300 □ Mixed iambs 250 200 □ Iambic trimeter, including "Moi penaty" ■ All other meters 150 100 - 50 192 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.3.7 suggests a rather steady pattern in Batiushkov's writing: he wrote 50 to 150 lines a year of friendly epistles in the seven years preceding “Moi penaty,” as well as in most of the years directly following. In other words, Batiushkov produced friendly epistles steadily for over a decade, although by the mid-1810’ s his friendly epistles were studded with characteristics of related genres. For example, his major 1814 epistle was a philosophical poem to I. M. Murav'ev-Apostol, set in the meter associated with neoclassical and formal verse, iambic hexameter. Furthermore, friendly word-combinations in that epistle were set against a backdrop of high-style lexicon and themes, which were usually out of place in friendly epistles. The epithet “liubimets Feba” (favorite of Apollo) is a regular component of friendly epistles, but in Batiushkov's 1814 epistle to Murav'ev-Apostol, it appears in a formal context: MnaaeHeu cHacxnHBbitt, yxce jnooHMeu Oe6a, O h c jkhuhoctbio B3Hpaji H a CBeT jia3ypHM H H e 6 a ... [The happy infant, already Apollo's favorite, looked with longing at the azure sky...] We have no friendly epistles by Batiushkov in our collection for 1815, by which time Viazemskii was asking, in a prose letter, for “the old Batiushkov” - the Batiushkov who was less demanding of his friends and himself - to return: Be the Batiushkov that you were when I gave you part of my heart, or don't ask for my love, because I was bom to love Batiushkov, and not another. I am not sending you any of my verse, because you want something significant, and I have nothing like that (April 5, 1815 letter to Batiushkov; cited in Zorin, 375). Though “the old Batiushkov” was not likely to reappear, and the three poets involved in the “Moi penaty” exchange were no longer writing friendly epistles in 193 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iambic trimeter, other poets appear to have been eager to pick up the mantle of this form. In fact, overall production of friendly epistles in iambic trimeter grew from 1813 to 1815, due to these other poets and especially to A. S. Pushkin, who entered the fray in 1814 and was more or less the form's sole proponent in 1815, as shown in 4.3.8 below: j I 4.3.8 Friendly Epistles in Iambic Trimeter, 1810- 1815, According to Author BA. S. Pushkin ji i | □ Other authors □ Batiushkov, Viazemskii, j j Zhukovskii____________ j j i 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 j What explains outside authors' growing interest in the “Moi penaty” form in 1814 and 1815? One answer may lie in the publication timeline of “Moi penaty” and its replies. Though many poems were widely circulated in manuscript, sometimes several requests would have to be made before a poet would go to the trouble of copying out his or her latest poetry, even for a close friend. A. S. Pushkin was not close friends with leading poets in 1814, so that he and others like him would have had to rely on new publications to find out the latest literary trends. Readers relying on publications to learn about the latest trends were subjected to a time lag inherent in publishing, and would have been introduced to “Moi penaty” and its replies only 194 \ 1000 800 600 400 200 n ■ ■ 1 [ill fS 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in 1813 and 1814, when these poems - and the friendly epistle in iambic trimeter- made a rather stunning entrance in print, as 4.3.9 below suggests: 4.3.9 Iambic Trimeter Friendly Epistles Published 1800-14, by Year of Publication □ "Moi penaty," Zhukovskii's reply, Batiushkov's reply to Zhukovskii's reply □ All other published friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter OW 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Zhukovskii’ s trimeter epistles were the first to be published, partly because of his close involvement with Vestnik Evropy: “K Bludovu” was published in 1810 and his reply to Batiushkov appeared in 1813. Batiushkov's trimeter epistles to Zhukovskii were both published in 1814. With so many friendly epistles in iambic trimeter published in 1813 and 1814, it may come as no surprise that other poets, anxious to keep up with the latest literary trends, might try their hands at this new and extremely popular form. In the year that “Moi penaty” appeared in print, 1814, both V. L. Pushkin and his nephew, the 15-year-old A. S. Pushkin, wrote friendly epistles in iambic trimeter. V. L. Pushkin's epistle, “K D.V. Dashkovu,” was written and published in 1814, and is reflected in 4.3.9.x iii 195 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The themes of “Moi penaty” (poetic inspiration in a quiet, humble hut, and solitude broken only by friendship) are not commonly found in V. L. Pushkin's poetry. V. L. Pushkin's 1814 epistle to Dashkov retains only one of the central features of “Moi penaty,” the description of the poet's house. In accordance with the “Moi penaty” tradition, V. L. Pushkin depicts his surroundings as humble: Tenept> ripest ueji& iM C B eT O M Mory h a cica3aTi>, H t o a >KHBy iio o t o m : PybneBaa KpoBan,, JJpa CTyjia, ctoji jtydoBbitt, HepHHJibHHita, nepo - Bot Bee Moe aoGpo! [Now, before the entire world, I can also claim that I live like a poet: a one-ruble bed, two chairs, an oak table, an ink-stand and a pen - this lists all my property!] According to Grekhnev, friendly epistles advocate a humble hut as being more spacious, spiritually, than a grand palace (54). But V. L. Pushkin, apparently, thought otherwise: his ascetic lifestyle was not of his choosing. Indeed, the number of lines devoted to “fancy dinners” and “racing around Petersburg in expensive carriages” greatly exceeds the number devoted to his current humble lifestyle. V. L. Pushkin twists the “Moi penaty” schema in another way. Literary polemics were generally inappropriate in iambic trimeter friendly epistles, but, accustomed as V. L. Pushkin was to discussing literary polemics in his other epistles, he squeezes a defense of himself against Milonov into his epistle to Dashkov: )Kejiaro a cepaenHo, H t o 6 h o b b i h lO B e H a ji CaTHpbi HanojiHaa He 6pam>io j i h ih b o j ih o i o , 196 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ho BKyCOM, O C T pO T O IO , Hto6 C B eT oh Jiynrne 3Han! OSoramaTi. scypHan Hto6 oh He ToponHJica, Ho 6oxree 6 H H T aji H 6ojiee yHHJica! [I wish, heartily, that the new Juvenal would fill up his satires with more than just invective, but would include taste and wit. I wish that he would get to know the world better, and, rather than hastening to enrich his journal, would read and study morel] V. L. Pushkin, then, took to iambic trimeter friendly epistles rather gingerly, trying out the meter and some of the themes of “Moi penaty” while retaining his usual attention to literary invective and autiobiographical projection. However, A. S. Pushkin (hereafter, Pushkin) responded to “Moi penaty” more boldly: by writing a friendly epistle directly to Batiushkov. Pushkin's 1814 epistle, “Filosof rezvyi i piit,” was set in iambic tetrameter, not trimeter. Yet it is linked closely enough to the trimeter phenomenon for Senderovich to claim that with this poem, Pushkin entered the “Moi penaty” exchange “uninvited” (77). Pushkin's entry violated the friendly epistle norm mandating that the author and addressee at least be acquainted, if not close friends. Pushkin's gesture also presented Batiushkov with what Batiushkov disliked most in his relationship with Gnedich: unsolicited advice directing him to write more poetry: He cjibimeH Ham napHH pocchhckhh!.. non, toHoma, - neBeu Thhcckhh B Teds bjihsji cboh HescHbm ,ztyx.[...] HacrpoH see iinpy. n o crpyHaM JleTafi H rpH BM M H neperaMH... R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [We can’t hear our Russian Pamy!.. Sing, youth, -- the Teos bard [Anacreon] has poured his tender soul in you. [...] Tune your lyre. Along the strings, let your playful fingers fly...] Such advice permeates Pushkin's entire epistle “Filosof rezvyi i piit.” It is not known whether Pushkin sent this epistle to Batiushkov, either directly or via an intermediary such as his uncle. He may have simply published the epistle (in Rossiiskii muzeum in January, 1815), allowing Batiushkov to read it when it appeared in print.X I V This would have represented yet another violation of friendly epistle etiquette, namely, that the addressee and his friends should be the first readers of a friendly epistle before it was set before the public in print. Pushkin's unsolicited and quickly-published “Filosof rezvyi i piit” may be compared with a friendly epistle from Viazemskii to Batiushkov written around the same time (July 1814). Viazemskii's “K Batiushkovu” (Ty na puti vozvratnom!) is in iambic trimeter, signaling its orientation towards the “Moi penaty” tradition. Viazemskii effuses joy that Batiushkov is returning and that they may soon embrace: CrreinH ac, MJianoii bohtcjib, B C H aC T JIH B V K ) O O H T eJIB , B O O BH T U a K X tpV 3b5tM ! rioBecb cboh iruieM nepHaraH, OicpoBaBJieHHbi jiaTbi H wen, rpo3y BparaM. [Hurry, young warrior, to our happy family, to your friends’ embraces! Hang up your feathered helmet, your bloodstained armor and your sword, so menacing to enemies.] Like Pushkin in “Filosof rezvyi i piit,” Viazemskii recommends that Batiushkov now turn his attention back to poetry. However, unlike Pushkin, Viazemskii touches on this recommendation gently and briefly: 198 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ripnMH .ziocnexH MHpa - Tocnyiomaa jntpa 3oBeT mo6HMiia M y3. [Take up the armour of peace - your wistful lyre is calling you, favorite of the muses.] Viazemskii then predicts that his advice will have been given in vain, since Batiushkov will do, and write, as he wants — a prediction that softens the effect of unsolicited advice. In contrast to Pushkin's 1814 epistle to Batiushkov, Viazemskii's 1814 epistle adheres to the norms of friendly epistle etiquette: Viazemskii was actually Batiushkov's friend; Viazemskii's epistle was not published before the addressee had a chance to read and respond to it (in fact, this epistle remained unpublished in Viazemskii's lifetime), and Viazemskii's advice to his addressee was kept to a minimum (advice occupies only 7 lines, of 127 total). Viazemskii's 1814 epistle to Batiushkov involves the same characteristics as the “Moi penaty” exchange, as listed by Senderovich: friendly relations, playful disagreement, intimate knowledge of one another’s lifestyles, and a guarantee that inside references will be understood by the reader (88). Presumably, it was Pushkin's 1814 epistle that motivated Batiushkov to visit Pushkin at his lycee (Vatsuro, 538), a meeting that seems to have been less than fulfilling.'1 '’ As a result of this meeting, Pushkin wrote a second epistle to Batiushkov (“V peshcherakh Gelikona”), this time without any pretense of friendly relations. In this second epistle, Pushkin defends light poetry in defiance of Batiushkov's advice, concluding, “To each his own” (“Bud’ vsiakii pri svoem”). This epistle was set in 199 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the meter so closely associated with Batiushkov, but which Batiushkov now rejects: iambic trimeter. Setting a defense of light poetry in a meter associated with light poetry may have helped Pushkin make his point (“to each his own”). But, notwithstanding literary polemics in V. L. Pushkin's 1814 epistle to Dashkov, the iambic trimeter world generally consisted of rosy-colored twenty-four-hour days, in a countryside republic of poets. In other words, poems set in iambic trimeter rarely served as a setting for the rough-and-tumble world of literary polemics. Pushkin's use of iambic trimeter for literary polemics is even more unusual considering that his polemical target was not a critic or Besedist, but his own addressee. Additionally, the fact that Pushkin published this polemical epistle soon after its composition (1815) meant that his defiance towards Batiushkov was quickly presented before the public. Such public defiance, in combination with the appropriation of one of the most “innocent” meters for polemical purposes, represented an assault on the cult of friendship, as well as on the insulated world of anacreontic friendly epistles. Pushkin made a second contribution to the iambic trimeter tradition in his 430-line “Gorodok," published in 1815 and representing a different kind of assault on friendly epistles. At first glance, "Gorodok" appears to be yet another echo of Batiushkov's "Moi penaty." set in iambic trimeter and treating the usual themes: Pushkin addresses a friend, describing his new, humble country residence and a typical day. But, while friendly epistles usually had some autobiographical basis, Pushkin's "Gorodok” appears to have none whatsoever. No addressee is named, no 200 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. concrete characteristics of the addressee are mentioned in the poem, and scholars generally concur that the poem's orientation on an addressee is fictitious (Tomashevskii, 72-3; Vatsuro, 559). An epistle without an addressee is, by its nature, highly simulated, and every new fictitious autobiographical reference increases the degree of simulation. For example, whereas “apologies for not writing earlier” from Batiushkov to Gnedich had a biographical basis, Pushkin's apologies are fabricated: ripO C T H M H e, MHJIMH f l p \T , ^ByxjieTHee MOJinaHte: EtHcanj Te6e nocnaHbe M H e o b m o H e n o c y r . [My dear friend, forgive my two-year silence. I had no time to write you an epistle.] And, when the 15-year-old lyceeist Pushkin describes the house he is renting (“la nanial svetlyi dom”, “I have rented a sunlit house”), to what was he referring? The absence of an addressee does not automatically disqualify a poem from being categorized as a friendly epistle. Tomashevskii describes “Gorodok” as a “generalized friendly epistle” (73), and more recent annotators agree that this is an epistle, dismissing Pushkin's fictitious references as “poetic license” (Vatsuro. 558- 9). Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of “Gorodok” is that it seems to have been written mainly for the general reading public. This would set “Gorodok” against the grain of friendly epistle etiquette, as defined by Virolainen: An addressee [of a friendly epistle] may be stylized, or even fictitious. However, the epistle is nevertheless primarily addressed to a relatively closed friendly circle, and only after that, to the aeneral reading public (47). 201 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If Pushkin's aim was sharpening of his technical prowess, then he succeeded, if we judge by the comments of Tomashevskii and Grekhnev.X V I However, Pushkin’ s success probably came at the expense of friendly epistles' viability. Friendly epistles did not exist as a form to be conquered, nor in order to promote the reputations of young poets, but were supposed to be, first and foremost, real letters to real friends. Friendly epistles managed to survive infusions of satirical material in the 1790's, partly because a new generation of poets took to the genre in the 1800's. But Pushkin's disregard for the genre’ s etiquette and “greater meaning” was perhaps more lethal. By the end of 1815, Pushkin, having successfully negotiated the iambic trimeter friendly epistle form in “Gorodok,” was snubbing iambic trimeter altogether: in “Moemu Aristarkhu” (see epigraph to 4.3), Pushkin mocks poets who lose sleep sweating out “trimeter nonsense” (“trestopnyi vzdor”).x v n : j e s j : 5 j e Senderovich claims that the “Moi penaty” exchange constituted a “Romantic republic of poets” based on “a single poetic symposium and its echoes” (94). Did Pushkin's ridiculing of “trimeter nonsense” signal this poetic republic's indecorous end? The short answer is that friendly epistles in iambic trimeter continued to appear. However, according to M. Gasparov, [B]y the beginning of the 1820’s this genre [friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter] seems to exhaust its means, and from leading poets it proceeds to epigones. Pushkin's epistle to his inkstand [“K moei chemil’nitse,” 1821] already has a summary aspect (Metr, 94). 202 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Indeed, those trimeter poems that did appear after 1815 continue to take their cue from lexica] combinations and themes of “Moi penaty,” but in parody, not imitation. For example, a poem by A. Mazdorf, set in iambic trimeter, discusses the addressee’s relations with his beloved “Lileta.” Mazdorf s poem continues the progression of the (probably fictitious) relationship between Batiushkov and Lileta as it stood according to Batiushkov’s 1811 and 1812 epistles, “Moi penaty” and “K Zhukovskomu” (Prosti, balladnik moi). In “Moi penaty,” Lileta willingly disguises herself in cross-dress in order to keep their midnight trysts a secret, while in “K Zhukovskomu,” Lileta no longer recognizes Batiushkov (or his lyrical hero), since he is wasted away by illness. Further, she teases him about morbidity with a “spiteful smile” (“s ulybkoi zloiu”). Mazdorf s 1819 “Poslanie k I. F. G. L.” represents an answer to Batiushkov’s trimeter epistles, counseling the addressee to take revenge on “proud Lileta” by fantasizing about raping her as she sleeps: ITocjiyiiiaH: npej pa3CBeT0M , Kaic b c o h norpyaceHa, Ha Kpbumax MenraHba, noKpaabca b cnanbHio k Hen; Ho He poriefi CBHaaHba, Eyjib H ecK O JibK O CMe.aen.... C n e p B a k o r p y z tn h o k h o h T flXOHbKO n p H T p O H H C b . . . Taxi k meihce oenocHOKHOH JleroxoHbKO K O C H H C b ; A T ax i h k ryoicaxi aiibiM, A Taxi., nero pooerb? He 6yju> aoBOiieH xiajibixi, Kojib xio^cemb Bee HxieTb. JlHneTa H e npocHeTca, Bepb c j io b v xioexiy; Ho CKpbiTHO n o c x ie e T c a Jly K aB C T B y T B o e x iv . R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [Listen: before dawn, when she is deep in sleep, steal into her bedroom on the wings of a dream. But don't be timid of the meeting, be a little more bold... First, gently touch her tender breast... Then lightly touch her snow-white neck. Then, to her crimson lips, and then - no reason to be timid! Don’t be satisfied with a little when you can have it all. Lileta won’t wake up, take my word; but she may secretly chuckle at your craftiness. (Blagonamerennyi 201-3)] The physical characterization of Mazdorf s Lileta is strikingly similar to that of Batiushkov's Lileta, whose characteristics include “grad' lileinaia,” “raka belosnezhnaia,” and “alye / plamennye usta” (lily-white breast, snow-white arm, crimson / fiery lips). The main difference between the two authors’ trimeter poems about Lileta is in their tone: while both imply sex without naming it outright, Mazdorf s advice would be out of place in Batiushkov’s poems. Despite the fact, then, that Batiushkov’s poem implies actual sex, while Mazdorf s sex is part of a fantasy sequence, Mazdorf s parodic answer shows the outdatedness of Batiushkov’s genteel, lyrical, understated treatment of sex in a coarser and more prosaic age. Mazdorf s poem broke the ice for more parodies involving Lileta, such as Iazykov’s 1823-5 series of short “Elegies.” Though Iazykov’s poems are set in iambic dimeter rather than trimeter, the references to “Lileta” and similar rhyme patterns link Iazykov’s poems with “Moi penaty.” For instance, both describe Lileta with emphasis on her (cross-/un-) dress in the rhyme “Lileta/-odeta”: Batiushkov li TLI, M Oil JlHJieTa, B C M H p eH H H H yrOJIOK ripmtH nojx BenepoK, TafiKOM nepeoaeT a!... [And you, my Lileta, come to my humble comer towards evening, secretly disguised!] Iazvkov Ax, Kax MHiia Moa JlHJieTa! OHa npinnjia, I Io iiy o a e T a ... [Ah, how sweet my Lileta is! She came, half-naked...] 204 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In another of Iazykov’s elegies, Lileta betrays the lyrical hero by spending the night with a priest: MHe H 3M eH H Jia J l y m a m o h , Mjiaaaa Jbuia; OHa Bnepa K n o n y xoztH Jia H n p o ro c T H ita Taw h o y r p a . Ham n o n , a 3H aio, He CJIHUIKOM CBHT H BepHO, p an 3eMHOMy p a io ... [My soul, young Lila, betrayed me. Yesterday she went to see the priest, and stayed there all night long. I know that our priest is not overly holy and is probably happy to experience earthly heaven...] As with Mazdorf s parody, Iazykov’s poems again reduce the genteel love-games of “Moi penaty” to crude and comical sensuality. About a decade after the trimeter heyday, Lermontov wrote a stylized epistle, “Veselyi chas” (1829), which may be the most interesting late parody of the iambic trimeter friendly epistle. Lermontov's poem presents itself as a stylized epistle: a parenthetical note tells readers that “these verse were discovered, in the original [French], on the walls of a government prison in France.” This parenthetical note, a Romantic device, sets up a rather clumsy introduction to a poem that functions not as a prisoner's lament, but as a parody of friendly epistles. Lermontov preserves the thematic progression of traditional trimeter epistles, including addressing friends with a vicarious toast and describing the lyrical hero's “rooms,” meals, a typical 24- hour day, and “how this poem is being written.” However, the naively friendly and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. carefree tone characteristic of trimeter epistles becomes farcical when the lyrical hero is speaking from a prison cell: Tatcace b Barny necTb, K jIHHH illOOOBb ObUiyK), Xne6 HepcTBtiH CTaHy ecTb M Bojxy nHTb rHHJiyio!.. Ilpea MHOH OTJIHHHblH CTOJI, H inaTKHH <H> CTapHHHbrit... 9l Ha CTeHe icpyroM IlHmy cthxh yrjie.M , BpaHio Koro npnaeTca, X B ajn o K o ro x o n y , Hepejuco xoxony, Hto Tax MHe yaaeTca! [And for my part, I will eat stale bread and drink moldy water in your honor, swearing to our bygone love! Before me is an excellent table, both wobbly and ancient... I write verses all over the wall in coal, I rail against whomever deserves it, I praise whomever I want, I often laugh out loud that I can get away with this!) The lyrical hero's “feast” is presented with almost a straight face, while his wobbly, ancient table (“stol shatkii i starinnyi”) is a familiar piece of furniture in earlier trimeter epistles: the table Batiushkov describes in “Moi penaty” is three-legged and dilapidated (“trenogii, vetkhii”), while the table in Zhukovskii's answering epistle is. like the prisoner's, wobbly (“shatkii stol”). Lermontov's take on the metaliterary digressions common to trimeter epistles again juxtaposes the carefree tone of the usual gentleman-letterwriter against incongruous prison conditions, as the lyrical hero tells his addressees “how this poem is being written” (in coal on the wall). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. What can we conclude about the “Moi penaty” exchange and its relation to the rest of Russian friendly epistles? It is surely no accident that the “Moi penaty” exchange presaged, and coincided with, the peak of the genre overall, 1812-5, as suggested in 4.3.2. Further, as suggested in chapter 2, it is also no accident that twentieth-century scholars describe poems in the “Moi penaty” exchange, and related poems in iambic trimeter, as “friendly epistles,” while similar poems in related meters are more often called simply “epistles.” In fact, the four of the five poems mentioned by both M. Gasparov and Tomashevskii as “friendly epistles” (all but Pushkin’s “K sestre”) have been discussed in this section, and all are set in iambic trimeter, as we see in 2.1.1 reproduced below: 2.1.1 Friendly Epistles Mentioned by both M. Gasparov and Tomashevskii Poet Title of Poem Year Meter 1 Zhukovskii “K Bludovu” 1810 Iambic trimeter 2 Batiushkov “Moi penaty” 1811 Iambic trimeter 3 Zhukovskii “K Batiushkovu” 1812 Iambic trimeter 4 Pushkin “K sestre” 1814 Iambic trimeter 5 Pushkin “Gorodok” 1815 Iambic trimeter In chapter 2, these poems' metrical coincidence was interpreted, not as a sign that all Russian friendly epistles were set in iambic trimeter, but as a sign that when an epistle was set in iambic trimeter, that poem was more likely to strike readers then and now as a prototypical friendly epistle, or the variant of red that is “‘redder’ than others” (de Geest et al., 40). Proof of just how closely friendly epistles, as a whole, were associated with iambic trimeter shows up in an 1824 article by Kiukhel’beker, “O napravlenii nashei poezii, osobenno liricheskoi, v poslednee desiatiletie,” published in his almanac 207 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mnemozina. This article constitutes an attack on elegies and friendly epistles, two poetic genres that, in Kiukhel’beker’s view, had undeservedly replaced the ode. Kiukhel’beker singles out friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter for ridicule: It is difficult not to be bored when Ivan and Sidor are singing to us of their woes. It is even more difficult to stay awake, reading how they tell one another, sometimes in three hundred trimeter lines, that - thank God! - they are healthy, but awfully sorry not to have seen each other recently! At least it is better when [...] the author spares us a detailed description of his pantry and library, and the Swiss geese and Russian ducks of his friend. Now I ask: have we gained anything, having traded the ode for elegies and epistles? (455; italics added). It seems odd for Kiukhel’beker to attack friendly epistles, when he himself had written several (1819-1823) and had published his own and other poets’ friendly epistles in 1820 and 1824. Furthermore, 1824 is rather late to be complaining about iambic trimeter specifically: 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 showed few lines in iambic trimeter written after 1815, and 4.3.10 below shows how few were published after 1815: 4.3.10 Friendly Epistles Published 1800-25, in Iambic Trimeter (13) and Other Meters, by Year of Publication 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -L I bT Jta a O C O C O O O O C M ' ^ ’ C D O O O C M T f O O O O t- t- ' t- t- t-CMCMCNJ c o o o o o c o o o c o o o o o o o c a c o c o ! □ "Moi penaty" and its replies i □ Other 1 3 j ■ O ther m eters 208 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is true that Iazykov wrote several friendly epistles in iambic trimeter in the early 1820’s (reflected in 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). Iazykov’s 1820 “K bratu” and 1823 “Moe uedinenie” (published 1822 and 1823, respectively, and reflected in 4.3.10) take their cue from the “Moi penaty” tradition. Both are relatively long (138 lines, 134 lines), both discuss programmatic topics like the poet’s rooms in a light, friendly tone, and both use word-combinations similar to (“smirennaia khata” vs. “ukromnaia khata”) or the same as (“liubimyi syn”; “mimaia sen’”) those found in “Moi penaty.” But none of Iazykov’s friendly epistles reflects the specific traits ridiculed in 1824 by Kiukhel’beker as well as Zhukovskii’s 1812 reply to “Moi penaty,” which actually mentions Swiss geese belonging to the addressee: H, rocTb H 3 apaa jtajibHH, Y lO T H B IH flO M H K C B O H TaM uiBadcKHH rycb cnecHBtm Ha ocTpoBe noa hboh, M e* aaKOK) K panH BO H BecneHHO 3anoacna. [And, a guest from a faraway realm, an arrogant Swiss goose, has lightheartedly laid a cozy house for himself, on an island, beneath a willow, among wild nettle.] It seems likely that the trimeter epistles appearing in the early 1810’s made such a strong impression on Kiukhel’beker that he continued to consider them a threat to Russian literature, even when this strain of epistles had long been on the wane. Indeed, in the years since 1812, Zhukovskii had not been lingering on trimeter discussions of Swiss geese, but had begun using iambic trimeter and other meters for experimental, humorous notes to friends. In an 1813 trimeter note to A. A. Pleshcheev, Zhukovskii cancels plans to attend a ball due to illness: 2 0 9 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. OjiHaKo, M H jibM apyr! M H e, npaB O , H extocyr; 5i 6oJieH, 6oneH, 6ojieH; TaK exaTB a H eBO JieH , Xoth 6 m h acenaji, Ha 3TOT 3B3HbIH 6aji! (<A. A. njiemeeBy> «Ha 6aa, o6ea h y>K H H !») [All the same, dear friend! I really don't feel well; I'm sick, sick, sick. So, though I would like to go, I am unable to attend this invitation- only ball! (<A. A. Pleshcheevu> “Na bal, obed i uzhin!”)] While Zhukovskii’s note to Pleshcheev suffuses the iambic trimeter meter with colloquial lexicon and experimental rhymes (e.g., tautological “rhyming” of the name “Katerina” with itself), Batiushkov’s final extant trimeter lines show lyricism similar to that in “Moi penaty.” These lines, written as Batiushkov sailed back to Russia after the Napoleonic campaigns and included in an 1814 letter, describe Batiushkov reciting Tasso for his ship’s captain. The captain is deaf to poetry, a fact that Batiushkov accepts; only the mermaids below the sea listen eagerly: CTaHHitbi Hepenfl B ce p eb p flH b ix n e n x e p a x CkJIOHHJIH HCagHblH CJiyX H CJiaflOCTHO B3flOXHyjIH, Ha ypH bi npeioioH Jicb JlHiieHHOK) pyKOIO... (M3 nncbMa k fl. n . CeBepHHy ot 19 hiohji 1814 r.) [A group of sea-nymphs, in their silvery caves, inclined their eager ears and sweetly sighed, leaning their lily-white hands on urns... (June 19, 1814 letter to D. P. Severin)] These lines’ lyricism resembles that of Batiushkov’s earlier trimeter lines, but their context is different. As we infer from the accompanying prose letter, only sea- nymphs remain as poetic audience in a prosaic time, when the English are too busy R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with their “god-damns” (“goddemy”; Batiushkov III: 275) and the Swedes are too busy gnawing at crackers and yawning (Batiushkov HI: 283) to think of poetry. By the early 1820's, iambic trimeter had been abandoned by all main poets except Iazykov, who wrote imitations of “Moi penaty” for only a few years before switching to the parodic “Elegies” discussed above. Our collection has no friendly epistles set in iambic trimeter after 1823, and the fact that Lermontov's parody appears to be the only poem even faintly resembling a trimeter verse epistle in the second half of the 1820's tells us much about the longevity of this once-popular form. However, though trimeter epistles were themselves no longer viable, the tendencies shown in iambic trimeter's final settings - Zhukovskii's humorous notes, Batiushkov's wry assessment of whether lyrical poetry or mercantilism would prevail, and Lermontov's farcical matchup of carefree epicureanism against a grim Romantic setting - provide a preview of the genre's future themes, and of the forms into which the friendly epistle would soon evolve. Friendly epistles in the “Moi penaty” exchange and echoes of that exchange represent a relatively distinct phenomenon that garnered fame quickly, and declined just as quickly, suffering the indignity of attacks from within (Pushkin’s “Gorodok”) and from without (parodies, literary criticism). Despite the distinctiveness of the trimeter tradition, the decline of the trimeter friendly epistle nevertheless weighed down the genre as a whole. Tynianov writes that every literary trend, though unified by a general principle, has diverse strains, one of which... acquires a pre-eminent role, especially near the genre’s end, when its viability as well as the complexity of the trend have been exhausted... (23). 211 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Similarly, Todd argues that In terms of literary ‘impact’ a single instance can overwhelm hundreds of others and so occupy the minds of contemporaries and successors that, in itself, it constitutes tradition (7). “Moi penaty” represents such a single, overwhelming instance, epitomizing the friendly epistle genre, serving as its “reddest” shade of red, and influencing its conceptualization for both contemporaries and later readers. With time, “Moi penaty” and the strain of trimeter epistles written in response came to constitute much of the genre’s perceived tradition. IV. 1810-5: The Friendly Epistle as Critical Forum and Poetic Laboratory Though trimeter epistles epitomized prototypical friendly epistles, and though iambic trimeter was the most popular meter for friendly epistles written between 1810 and 1815, only 39% of total friendly epistle lines written during these years were set in iambic trimeter: the majority of friendly epistles were set in other meters. 4.4.1 below lays out the distribution of lines between iambic trimeter and other meters in friendly epistles written between 1810 and 1815: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.4.1 Friendly Epistles Set in Iambic Trimeter vs. All Other Meters, 1810-1815 3000 £ 100 = 150 is c 8 200 250 200 □ Iambic trimeter BAII other meters 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 According to 4.4.1, iambic trimeter predominated in 1811 and 1812, but mixed iambs and iambic tetrameter made an impressive comeback in 1814. According to 4.1.2 presented earlier, 1814 represents the high point, overall, for friendly epistle production, based on number of lines. This fact underscores the importance of the “non-Moi penaty” friendly epistles to be discussed in this section. The three most popular friendly epistle meters, after iambic trimeter, were the “neutral” iambic tetrameter, “experimental” mixed iambs, and “neoclassicist” iambic hexameter. Together, these three meters comprised just under half of friendly epistle lines written between 1810 and 1815 (46%). The distribution of friendly epistle lines across these three meters between 1810 and 1815 is charted in 4.4.2 below: 213 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.4.2 Friendly Epistles Set in the Top Three Meters After Iambic Trimeter, 1810-1815 0 Iambic hexameter □ Mixed iambs ■ Iambic tetrameter According to 4.4.2, friendly epistles set in iambic hexameter were produced rather steadily in the early 1810’s. These epistles, and the eruption of epistles in all meters in 1814, are linked to the general topic of literary criticism, which carved out a place for itself in friendly epistles during these years. Whereas trimeter epistles generally did not serve as a forum for discussing literary polemics (V. L. Pushkin’s 1814 “K Dashkovu” is an exception), friendly epistles in other meters did. Literary polemics were especially popular in epistles set in iambic hexameter. These tended to be of a “satirical-didactic” strain, in accordance with meter’s links, in eighteenth-century Russian poetry, to satires and didactic epistles. The topic of these often baldly polemical epistles was the conflict between Karamzinists and poets favoring Slavonic lexicon and high-style genres, who became known as the “Besedists” after the name of their literary group, which met between 1811 and 1816 (“Beseda liubitelei russkogo slova”). The verse epistles written by Karamzinists in polemics with the Besedists hover on the borderline 214 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. between “satires” and “friendly epistles.” They are friendly towards their addressee, as we see in the opening line of Viazemskii’s 1812 “K Zhukovskomu”: vKyKOBCKHii, M y3aM a p y r h c e p a n y Jtp y r jno6e3H M H ... [Zhukovskii, friend to the Muses and dearest friend to my heart...] However, these epistles quickly abandon niceties toward the addressee and proceed to a thorough thrashing of one or more Besedists, called by derogatory nicknames such as “Vzdykhalov,” “Svistov” and “Shutovskoi” (Shalikov, Khvostov, and Shakhovskoi, all mentioned in Viazemskii’s 1812 “K Zhukovskomu”). In the same poem, a parody of Biblical, high-style lexicon is employed in a discussion of “sin”: IH,aflHTi> nopoH H bix ec x b yxc m a r o a h h k nopoK axi. H jib MHe npH H Tercfl b r p e x , Kopzta b BecejibiH n a c R n o cM eio c b n n citaM , non3ym H M H a Ila p H a c , K paxTH n o n H o m eio c th x o b c b o h x TxxcejiBix, MjiajteHpaM no yMy, h o b jieTax ycTapejibix? [To have mercy on sinners itself constitutes a step towards vice. Or, am I considered to have sinned, when in fun I mock the scriveners crawling up to Parnassus, groaning under the burden of their heavy verses, babes in intellect but aged in years?] Viazemskii's preference of mockery over mercy goes against the grain of Karamzin's advocacy of gentle cricitism, as well as Zhukovskii's view that poetry should ennoble readers' spirits (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 17). Indeed, calling polemical poems “friendly” is oxymoronic; anti-Besedist friendly epistles are on the cusp of two opposing traditions. The dissertation's database requires that every text be classified as either a friendly epistle or not, so anti-Besedist friendly epistles were classified on a case-by-case basis. Viazemskii's 1812 poem, because of its emphasis on invective and lack of orientation on the addressee, did not make the cut. 215 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In Russian friendly epistles set in iambic hexameter, invective themes often displace the genre’s usual themes, such as the poet’s surroundings, how the poet spends a 24-hour day, vows of friendship, and friendly characterizations of the addressee. Likewise, friendly epistles’ usual friendly tone is replaced in these polemical epistles by tones of condescension and indignation. In other words, these poems are only peripherally related to mainstream friendly epistles. For the most part, this was a form cultivated by V. L. Pushkin, with a few echoes from Shalikov and Viazemskii. V. L. Pushkin earned his contemporaries’ praise for his 1811 verse tale “Opasnyi sosed,” but it would be safe to say that he had little to add to friendly epistle discourse, where he tended to recycle formulaic barbs and indignant exclamations.1 " 1 1 1 The following lines, taken from his 1810 epistle “K V. A. Zhukovskomu,” are representative of his epistles’ tone and general thrust: C jiaB JiH C K H e cnoBa TanaH Ta H e flaioT, H H a I l a p H a c o h h nooia H e BeayT. [Slavonic words do not impart talent, nor do they lead a poet to Parnassus.] V. L. Pushkin’s second-rate polemical epistles nonetheless spurred Zhukovskii to write several much more interesting answers. Though Zhukovskii may have been generous and forgiving by nature (Iezuitova, 192), after seeing himself caricatured in Shakhovskoi’s 1815 play “Urok koketkam, ili Lipetskie vody,” he was perfectly happy to assume a leading role in Arzamas, the literary society founded in 1815, and its imaginative anti-Beseda antics. However, V. L. Pushkin and Zhukovskii clearly had different ideas about 216 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. what role the friendly epistle genre should play in these polemics. V. L. Pushkin wrote borderline epistles, where friendlier components could be sacrificed for literary invective, while Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles remained focused on his friendly relations with his addressees. When literary polemics did make their way into a friendly epistle by Zhukovskii, it was usually in a more generalized form (complaining about “bezumtsy,” “gluptsy” - maniacs, idiots), rather than by means of a direct hit (ridiculing a specific poet).x lx In sum, Zhukovskii showed little interest in using friendly epistles as a vehicle for literary polemics. For example, instead of writing an answer to Viazemskii’s 1812 “K Zhukovskomu,” Zhukovskii sent his recommendations for revision. Similarly, he let an epistle on literary polemics addressed to him by V. L. Pushkin in 1810 languish unanswered for four years. In the fall of 1814, Zhukovskii wrote a spate of friendly epistles that not only caught him up on this overdue correspondence, but also set a new tone for friendly epistle discourse. Of these epistles, the most interesting are those not intended for publication. These poems suggest that Zhukovskii was working to re-channel literary invective into self-analysis and friendly criticism, set in the form of friendly epistles. These epistles are marked by friendly, yet forthright, literary criticism of both author and addressee, encouraging self-evaluation rather than judgment, and making recourse to neither satire nor didactic proscriptions. Instead, they are hinged on faith in self-improvement, which can be facilitated by friendly criticism from peers. This reflects a belief in “gradual evolution consisting of enlightenment, intellectual and moral progress, active philanthropy and self-perfection” that Lotman describes as 217 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. part of early nineteenth-century Russian culture (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 42). It is arguable that this description characterizes no poet as closely as Zhukovskii, and no texts as closely as these 1814 friendly epistles. Zhukovskii's first friendly epistle dealing primarily with literary criticism was written in response to a series of epistles being exchanged between Viazemskii and V. L. Pushkin in 1814. This series begins with V. L. Pushkin's 1814 “Poslanie k kn. Petru Andreevichu Viazemskomu,” expressing his usual indignation at Besedist crimes against taste. Viazemskii's answer (“Otvet na poslanie Vasil'iu L'vovochu Pushkinu,” 1814) echoes the tone and themes of its precursor. Zhukovskii's entrance into this exchange brings rather startling innovations. In the first part of his 1814 “Poslaniia k kn. Viazemskomu ii V. L. Pushkinu,” “Vot priamo odolzhili...,” Zhukovskii prefaces his remarks by explaining that it is not his intention to join the ranks of invective critics (“chtoby v zoily... meniane zaveli...”, “so that [my comments] would not relegate me to the ranks of Zoils”). Rather, Zhukovskii is fulfilling his addressees' request for comments, which he sets about providing with no further ado: IIo c jiy m a H , n y u iK H H -ttp y r, tboh c jio r otmchho hhct; T p aM M aT H K a T e S a y ro ttH H K O M CHH TaeT, H HHKor.ua tboh B K yc He K O B B iJiaeT . Ho K aaceTC fl hto tbi noztnac M H o ro p e n H C T , HtO C T H X O T B O p H B IH X C a p T B O H M O r 6bl 6 B IT B > K H B ee, A BBipaaceHHH Kopone h CHJiBHee; Eme xce ecTb h to, hto tbi, moh ttpyr, nottnac PlpettMeT cboh 3a6BiBaemBl TBoe «nocjiaHBe» b tom h ch bo h npHMep ttJia Hac. [Listen, my friend Pushkin, your style is extremely clear; Grammar considers you her suitor, and your taste never falters. But, I think that 218 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sometimes you are too wordy, that your versificational zeal could be a little more lively, and your expressions briefer and stronger. Also, my friend, you sometimes stray from the topic! In this regard, your “epistle” serves as a vivid example for us.] This passage includes the friendly epistle genre's most characteristic traits: colloquial lexicon (“eshche zhe est’ i to...” “also”), unorthodox rhymes (“chist/mnogorechist”), exclamations (“You stray from the topic!”), other devices suggesting dialogue between author and addressee (“Listen...”), and friendly epithets addressing the recipient (“friend Pushkin,” “my friend”). Answering epistles were often set in the same meter as their precursor, and switching from one meter to another within a series of epistles could inject new undertones into an exchange. This was seen with A. S. Pushkin's two epistles to Batiushkov - the first in iambic tetrameter, the second in trimeter - where the change in meter served a polemical purpose (4.3). In “Vot priamo odolzhili...,” Zhukovskii may have hesitated to match the meter of V. L. Pushkin's precursor epistle because iambic hexameter was inconsistent with the friendly tone of Zhukovskii's answer. In addition, Zhukovskii was using “Vot priamo odolzhili...” as a response to two poems of different meters, V. L. Pushkin's epistle in hexameter and Viazemskii's answer in mixed iambs, thus forcing himself into a practical dilemma: which meter of the precursors to privilege? His solution, as the passage quoted above shows, was to set the section addressed to V. L. Pushkin mainly in hexameter, with one stray trimeter line: “Predmet svoi zabyvaesh!” (“You stray from the topic!”). This trimeter line, in the midst of a hexameter section, reflects the poem's overall meter (mixed iambs), and may also emphasize that line's objection. To 219 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. criticize a friendly epistle for “straying off topic” is to demand something new from the genre. After all, intentional digressions were a mainstay of friendly epistles, since they allowed a friendly epistle to give the impression that it had been spontaneously dashed off, in the vein of familiar prose letters. Grekhnev goes so far as to argue that friendly epistles were not in the least concerned about thematic unity or “the need to include logical transitions from one episode to the next” (64). Thus, Zhukovskii's rather unprecedented demand for organization, brevity, and more polished verse, in a genre that delighted in the opposite, suggests that at the peak of its popularity, the genre's most basic traits were already losing legitimacy. If Zhukovskii maintained a friendly, yet straightforward, tone when criticizing his friends’ poems, he could be more disdainful, and funnier, when criticizing his own poetry. This he does, parenthetically, in “Na etoi pochte vse v stikhakh,” forty-three lines appended to “Vot priamo odolzhili.” “Na etoi pochte...” serves as criticism of all three of his own October, 1814 epistles addressed to V. L. Pushkin and Viazemskii.x x Just two months later, in December, 1814, Zhukovskii used the friendly epistle form to write a full-length poetic self-critique of his formal epistle to Alexander (“Imperatoru Aleksandru: Poslanie”), which he was just finishing. Zhukovskii circulated a draft of this poem among his friends, to whom he referred, as a group, as his “supreme tribunal” (Gk. areopagus), requesting their comments. Several of his readers, most notably Batiushkov and to a lesser extent Voeikov, provided Zhukovskii with recommendations for revision. Zhukovskii acknowledged 220 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. these in a 159-line friendly epistle, “Areopagu” (December 1814- January 1815). Zhukovskii quotes passages, rhymes and entire lines of his epistle to Alexander (in italics below), which he then discusses in conjunction with his critics’ advice: ffep3iiem jiu ceoii JiucmoK oh e mom ennecmu eeneif? Y 3K acH M H c t h x ! T a x T bi B o cK JiH K H y ji, m o h n e B e ii! H My3bi Bee c t o 6 o h co rn a cH b i! fla a h caM Kpnny, HaMopmnBiHHCb: yotcacHbiu! Bonne xcyio nepo, BOTme mojhocb SoraM, ’ JTod o t cero craxa o h h c t h j i h «IIocnaHbe»! H a n p a c H o e n e p a HeBHHHoro aceBaHbe, H a n p a c H b ie m o jibS w ! - n o n p a B b e r o r a caM ! [Does he dare to weave his leaf into that crown? A terrible line! So you exclaimed, my bard [Batiushkov]! And all the muses agree with you! And I myself scream out, frowning: terrible! In vain I chew on my pen, in vain I entreat the gods to purge my “Epistle” of this line! Chewing on an innocent pen is to no avail, my entreaties are to no avail! - [the gods answer,] “fix it yourself!”] “Areopagu” takes full advantage of devices used to simulate dialogue: this passage has questions, exclamations, quotes of the addressee, and even quotes of unmerciful poetry deities. Further, “Areopagu” takes full advantage of the humorous effect of juxtaposing high and low lexicon (“Does he dare...” vs. “I chew on my pen”). The humor of this juxtaposition comes at the expense of the high-style lines, which appear rather ridiculous in such colloquial surroundings. Ultimately, the juxtaposition confers power on the prosaic or low-style lines: just two words attributed to an addressee, “uzhasnyi stikh” (“a terrible line”), can determine whether or not the high-style line in question will be preserved, amended, or tossed out. In the excerpt above, the high-style line (“Derznet li svoi listok...”), was presented in its entirety and occupied an entire line, uninterrupted by prosaic jabs. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Not all of the high-style lines were so fortunate. As evidence, we present lines 21-24 from Zhukovskii’s “Imperatoru Aleksandru,” in their final, revised form: H t o m b ic j ih j i t b i, b 6 j i h 3h nocnbimaB k j i h k h cnaBbi, A b OT^aiieHHH BHHMaa, icaic aepacaBbi [23] H ncnpoBeprajia, Bpar 3eMHbix Hapo^oB, 6paHb, Kax TpoHBi naaaiiH nozt xmitHHKOBy pjiaa b? [What were you thinking, having heard cries of glory up close, while seeing at a distance how battle, the enemy of all earthly nations, was overthrowing power after power, how thrones were falling under the predator’s palm?] These lines may not show scars or other hints of a painful genesis, but their treatment in “Areopagu” shows otherwise. The rather humiliating wringer the twenty-third line underwent in “Areopagu” split up its phrases into several parts and discussed words in the preceding line (“derzhavy”) out of context. The excerpt below shows how colloquial criticism was interjected directly into the lines (as they appeared in the earlier draft): H t o c t h x : JJpooma Had znaeoii 3e.\tHbix Hapodoe 6paHb, h h t o ac eme: depjicaebi! — CMeillHOH H TeMHBIH CTHx! EblTb MOvKeT, 6eC Jiy K aB b lH , Mohx 6ajuiaa repon, CmyTHJI TUKHM CTHXOM KOBapHO HaflO mhoh. Haa H CK ycH TeneM ceba m b i n03a6aBHM EajuiajoH h o b o io , a c t h x x o t b Tax nonpaBHM: Hucnpoeepzana, epaz 3e.\tnbix napodoe, dpaub!,. [What about the line: “Battle crashed over the head of all earthly nations,” and what’s worse, “powers [power after power]”! - A ridiculous and obscure line! Perhaps a cunning demon, the hero of my ballads, was slyly mocking me with this line? We will amuse ourselves at the expense of the demon in a new ballad, and will improve the line at least with this change: “Battle, the enemy of all earthly nations, was overthrowing [power after power]!..] 222 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In these lines, Zhukovskii depicts himself as at the mercy of his own poetic creations, since the unsuccessful line is blamed on a devil from his own ballads. Nevertheless, this tongue-in-cheek claim of powerlessness against gods and demons is incidental to the most striking, and probably unintentional, effect of “Areopagu.” Namely, its juxtaposition of high (quotes from “Imperatoru Aleksandru”) and low (comments of Zhukovskii and his areopagus) suggests why the formal epistle was no longer a viable mode of discourse in the early nineteenth century. To put it bluntly, Zhukovskii’s high lines are no match for his low lines’ vividness and energy. “Areopagu” also suggests how everyday lexicon was being assimilated into the Russian literary language, via the friendly epistle genre, an assimilation that proved crucial for the later development of Russian realist prose. In the end, “Areopagu” must have demanded more humor or free time than Zhukovskii had at hand, because after a hundred lines of such detailed metaliterary discussion, “Areopagu” seems to run out of steam. Having covered only the first half of “Imperatoru Aleksandru” (“Areopagu” discusses lines 1 through 196, of the formal epistle’s 484 lines), “Areopagu” is abruptly wrapped up: Erne H a M H orne c th x h o h [B o c h k o b] noKocnjica, Jla a H e corjiacnjica. [There were many other lines that [Voeikov] looked askance at, but I didn't agree.] The fact that “Areopagu” is mainly focused on Batiushkov's suggestions, while Voeikov’ s were given shorter shrift, brings up the issue of addressees. Nowhere did Zhukovskii name a specific list of intended addressees. Rather, he sent 223 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “Areopagu” to A. I. Turgenev in St. Petersburg, with the instructions that as many friends as possible be polled. A. I. Turgenev went about this in his own way: Viazemskii does not seem to have been invited into the discussion, perhaps because Viazemskii was in Moscow, or perhaps because A. I . Turgenev was already jealous of the attention Zhukovskii was paying to Viazemskii (expressed in a December, 1814 letter; Larionova, 77). Further, some comments were withheld from Zhukovskii, according to Turgenev's discretion: Turgenev passed along only those suggestions from Neledinskii-Meletskii that were seconded by Bludov (Larionova, 80). Yet Zhukovskii's circle of addressees, blurry as it is, nevertheless conforms to Virolainen's stipulation (cited in 4.3) that a friendly epistle be addressed “primarily to a relatively closed circle” (47). It is no coincidence that the innovative, metaliterary friendly epistles discussed so far were all written by Zhukovskii in a single year, 1814. Zhukovskii had written many lines of friendly epistles in both 1812 and 1814, but most of his 1812 output was due to a single text, his reply to “Moi penaty,” whereas he wrote many shorter epistles in 1814. In fact, the autumn of 1814 was one of the most productive periods of Zhukovskii’s life. In September 1814, Zhukovskii took up residence as the guest of an aunt, A. P. Kireevskaia (maiden name Iushkova; second married name, Elagina), where he stayed until January, 1815. The Kireevskii estate’s name, “Dolbino,” convinced Zhukovskii to title the notebook of verse he produced there his “Dolbino verse.” 4.4.3 below charts Zhukovskii’s Dolbino friendly epistles, his earlier answer to “Moi penaty” and his other friendly epistles: 224 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.4.3 Friendly Epistles by Zhukovskii, 1808-1815 1800 H Zhukovskii's reply to "Moi i i penaty" j j i i □ Zhukovskii's friendly ; | ep istles written in j j Dolbino jj ■ All o th er friendly ep istles by Zhukovskii, 1808- 1815 In 4.4.3, we see that Zhukovskii wrote between one hundred and six hundred friendly epistle lines every year from 1810 until 1815. These totals top one thousand in 1812 thanks to his 678-line answer to “Moi penaty.” However, in 1814, Zhukovskii’s total friendly epistle lines top fifteen hundred, thanks to almost a thousand lines of friendly epistles written in Dolbino. Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles, including those written in Dolbino, appear prominently even when charted against the backdrop of all other early nineteenth-century Russian friendly epistles. In fact, 4.4.4 suggests that the hundreds of epistle lines written by Zhukovskii in 1812 and 1814 comprise the largest single factor contributing to the genre’ s peak in the 1810’s: 225 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4.4.4 Friendly Epistles by Zhukovskii and Other EiZhukovskii's friendly epistles written in Dolbino □ All other friendly epistles by Zhukovskii ■ Russian friendly epistles by all other authors j ----------------------------------- H In 1812, when Zhukovskii wrote his answer to “Moi penaty,” he had written a number of ballads loosely translated from German, but had not written many friendly epistles. His familiarity with translations of German verse, and the need to write a substantive reply to Batiushkov’s remarkable poem, may explain why Zhukovskii’s answer includes a 50-line paraphrase of a Schiller poem. But nothing in Zhukovskii’s Dolbino friendly epistles appears translated. Iezuitova describes these humorous epistles as a sort of “creative laboratory” for Zhukovskii, where “an experimental principle prevails” (216). Just as the genesis of “Moi penaty” can be partly attributed to personal circumstances - according to Senderovich, “Moi penaty” resulted when Batiushkov found “real friends” to fulfill his “primary need” for contact (82) - Zhukovskii’s stream of epistles in 1814 suggests the convergence of poetry and life. Zhukovskii’s 1814 friendly epistles accommodated mundane requests, travel and social plans, as well as discussions of poetry composition - a range of themes that covered just about 226 Authors, 1803-1815 350 0 3 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 2000 1500 1000 500 & R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. all of Zhukovskii’s activities. They reciprocated, and fostered, his friends’ support, and they served as the poetic “laboratory” mentioned by Iezuitova. Such a convergence of poetry and life is suggested in the final lines of Zhukovskii’s reply to “Moi penaty,” where Zhukovskii refers to himself in the third person: H ObiTb TaicHM acenaeT K atCH M b c b o h x cm x a x Ce6a H3o6paacaeT. [And he wants to be the way he represents himself in his verse.] This tendency to conflate poetry and life was not unique to Zhukovskii. For example, Batiushkov, in his 1816 essay “Nechto o poete i poezii” (“A little something on poets and poetry”), recommended that a poet devote his entire life, his secret thoughts and passions to poetry, since poetry “requires the entire person” (Senderovich, 89). If Zhukovskii’s 1814 productivity is, indeed, due to a convergence of life and poetry, it is significant that this convergence was expressed in the friendly epistle genre. With its simulations of dialogue, its mixture of high and low styles and lexicon, of prosaic “thinginess” and poetic inspiration, the friendly epistle may bridge the gap between poetry and life more naturally than any other poetic genre. Zhukovskii’s poems “Vot priamo odolzhili” and “Areopagu” represent the iceberg’s tip when it comes to his innovative 1814 friendly epistles. Lotman claims that experimental poetry, full of foreign words and a mixture of high and low styles, “always occupied a significant place in the works of Karamzinists” (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 24). However, the role of experimental poetry 227 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. shifted over the years. While L’vov depicted himself landing in puddles, it seems m o r e ty p ic a l o f f rie n d ly e p is tle a u th o rs in 1 8 1 4 a n d 1 8 1 5 to d e p ic t th e m s e lv e s in m is h a p s o f a m o r e lite r a r y n a tu re : Z h u k o v s k ii’s u n o f fic ia l e p is tle s o fte n d e p ic te d th e ir ly ric a l h e r o w a g in g lo s in g m e ta lite ra ry b a ttle s f o r th e r ig h t e x p r e s s io n s o r r h y m e s . F o r e x a m p le , in a n 1 8 1 4 e p is tle to P le s h c h e e v , Z h u k o v s k ii “ la y s b a r e ” th e e p i s tle ’s c o m p o s itio n p ro c e s s : H y , Kax ace /xyMaji t b i, xtypax, Hto h 3 a6 b u i T e o s ! - o , p o x ra! T a x a a M biciib BecbM a n o x o a c a H a t o t K yapHBbm o y e p a x , KOTOpblH - HJIb H e T !.. - B KOTOpOM... H u b HeT!.. o ih h 6 ch: H a k o t o p o m ... H o Mbi 0CT3BHM 6 y e p a x , A Jiy u m e , He XHTpa, jtOKaaceM, To-ecTb npocTOio npo3O0 cxaaceM, H to caM xcpyroM Tbi b h h o b b t ! Hto Tbi n n c a T b h caM He xBar! (« K IIiie m e e B y » , 1 8 1 4 ) [S o , h o w c o u ld y o u th in k th a t I fo rg o t y o u , y o u fo o l! — o , u g ly m u g ! T h a t th o u g h t r e s e m b le s th e le a fy g u lly , w h ic h - o r n o ! - in w h ic h ... O r n o ! I m a d e a m is ta k e : o n w h ic h ... B u t w e ’ll le a v e th e g u lly , a n d in s te a d , w ith o u t c u n n in g , w ill p ro v e , in o th e r w o rd s , w e ’ll u s e s im p le p ro s e to s a y th a t i t ’s a ll y o u r o w n fa u lt! T h a t y o u y o u r s e lf a r e n ’t m u c h o f a le tte r- w rite r ! (“ K P le s h c h e e v u ,” 1 8 1 4 )] T h e ly r ic a l h e r o ’s m is s ta te m e n ts (“ i l ’ n e t! ” “o r n o ! ” ) g iv e th e im p r e s s io n th a t th is p o e m w a s d a s h e d o f f in re a l tim e , r e f le c tin g th e w ritin g p r o c e s s a s it a c tu a lly o c c u r re d a n d e n d o w in g th e e p is tle w ith th e fe e lin g o f a re a l le tte r. T h e s e “ m is s ta te m e n ts ” a ls o ra is e th e d is c u s s io n to a m e ta lite ra ry le v e l a s th e ly ric a l h e ro s ta m m e rs in s e a r c h o f th e rig h t e x p r e s s io n . F in a lly , e x tr e m e ly u n o rth o d o x ta u to lo g ic a l r h y m e s , ra re e v e n in u n o f fic ia l p o e try , c la im a s o lid p la c e f o r th e m s e lv e s R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in this poem (“kudriavyi buerak/ ostavim buerak,” rhymed with the highly colloquial “durakand “v kotorom / na kotorom”). While this epistle is interesting for its tautological rhymes, its lyrical hero’s stammering and poetic mishaps, a slightly earlier epistle (1813-4) to the same addressee is marked by the nearly overwhelming effect of its meter, iambic dimeter. Dimeter lines are so short that they are almost always the setting for experimental verse, no matter what the genre. In the passage below, Zhukovskii discusses “how this poem is being written”: Hto > k HaimcaTB? YyKejib CKa3aTi>, Hto annHKe Ha cyHKyice? Hto tkxJ jakh - He napHKH? H to Mobhjiboh, X o T a K penteH , Ho peHeraT H He aceHar! Y b b i! m o h ztpyr! Mhc Heaocyr. MepKypHH t b o h : « n o p a aoMon!» Mhc roBopiiT... («nocjiaHHe k A. A. njiemeeBV» CZJpyr m h j i b i h m o h ) ) [What should I write? Should I really say that the ornament is on the trunk? Or that mattresses are not wigs? Or that Movilion [the addressee’s bailiff, Bukil’on], though Christian, is still a renegade and a bachelor! Alas! My friend! I don’t have time. Your Mercury [the addressee’s servant, acting as messenger] is telling me: “Time for me to leave!” (“Poslanie k A. A. Pleshcheevu” (Drug milyi moi))] This passage again suggests that Zhukovskii is baring the compositional process for the reader. In this case, the lines’ brevity forces almost half of the words to be set in R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the rhyming position, so that word-plays based on rhyme (“applike / na sunduke”) assume prominence. In fact, Zhukovskii suggests in the same poem that dimeter lines inherently resemble stacks of rhymes: Ha itB y x cronax, Kax Ha «BOJiHax», Moh c t h x h ( H 3 pH(J)M h c m b ix h ) K Te6e nonayT H npHHecyr IIpHHTHblH COH! [In dimeter lines, as if on waves, my verses (layer-cakes of rhymes) will come to you, bringing you pleasant dreams!] If the dimeter lines above seem to be about as short as poetic lines can come before losing meaning altogether, then we are in for a surprise with Zhukovskii’s even briefer monometer iambs. These are found in yet another 1813-4 friendly epistle to A. A. Pleshcheev. Here, the self-denigration of the previous poem (in Zhukovskii’s implication that his poem will put Pleshcheev to sleep) is exchanged for denigration of the addressee, especially in terms of his physical characteristics: 0 Herp, nepHHJiaMH p a c n u c a H H tra Haiypofi, Ha KoeM BHiteH iiaK H C K yccre; kh-noa OKBaxopa npone3inH H k Haxi (Jm rypoH , Jlrnia n y a e c H o r o a H B H in b a p x H T e ic r y p o H ... Tbi Moacemb c a e a a T b c n B e.m K oio c k o t h h o h , T o eCTb OOHblHHM CKOTOM, K o r a a He n o a a p n m b apv3efi 6e3aenK O H - a H e \i, H He ocTaHembCH y Hac ceroaHH c Hhhoh. naemjit! He Bapyr OdaBb flpy3e0! Eii! Eii!... («<A. A. rijiemeeBy>» (O Herp...)) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [O Black man, painted with Nature's inks, on whom the arts’ varnish can still be seen; in a figure that has crawled out from under the equator to us, you amaze us by the architecture of your “miraculous” face... You will be a great cad, or in other words, a big swine, if you won't give your friends just one free day, if you won't stay home today with [your wife] Nina and me. Pleshchuk! Don't leave your friends so fast! Really!... (<A. A. Pleshcheevu> (O Negr...)] The fact that Zhukovskii characterized his addressee as both primitive (“prolezshii,” “having crawled out”) and Black (“O Negr,” “chemila,” “lak” - “O Black man,” “inks,” “varnish”) may be shocking to some. This could have been a way of teasing the addressee for being dark-complexioned, although it also suggests that being characterized as Black in a playful way was not offensive. All in all, the unusual metrical settings, experimental rhymes and discussion of “how this poem is being written” in Zhukovskii’s poems to Pleshcheev are consistent with their easily familiar characterizations of the addressee (“durak,” “Negr,” “rozha”; as a fool, a Black man and an ugly mug). Iezuitova argues that in Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles, “the more mundane the theme, the more experimental its setting” (217). Indeed, these highly experimental epistles to Pleshcheev all deal with the most mundane themes: who owes whom a letter; how Pleshcheev’s servant is rushing Zhukovskii to finish his epistle: and whether Pleshcheev will change his plans to spend the day at home. However, sometimes highly experimental friendly epistles masked important content. As Lotman writes, “even in ‘nonsense texts,’ something of serious value could be discovered” (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 25). For example, both Zhukovskii and Batiushkov wrote experimental verse to Viazemskii in fall, 1811. Batiushkov’s 231 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. missive consisted of a few lines of joking verse inserted into a prose letter, while Zhukovskii wrote a 97-line friendly epistle set in the experimental iambic dimeter: M o h m h jim h jtp y r, 3 H aT t, H e a o c y r IlH CaTb k apy3bK M ? npH CTaJI K My'/KbHM! H c BbicoKa, KaK c uepjtaKa, Ha S eztH H K O B X O JIO C T H K O B C m cb c b rnajmuib! H roBopHiiib: «Bbi aypaKH!...» («<K n . A. Ba3eMCKOMy»> (M o h Miuihm a p y r ) ) [My dearest friend, apparently you have no time to write your friends? You’ ve joined the ranks of husbands! And you look loftily, like from an attic, mocking [us] poor bachelors! And you say, “You're fools...” (“<K. P. A. Viazemskomu>” (Moi milyi drug))] Zhukovskii’s experimental form and joking tone nevertheless served a serious occasion: as the excerpt above implies, Zhukovskii and Batiushkov were both congratulating Viazemskii on his recent marriage. Descriptions of “how this poem is being written” beg the question: to what extent is a reader to believe such claims? Scholars generally regard professions of spontaneity as simulated. For example. Belykh cites multiple revisions evident in manuscript copies of friendly epistles as evidence of “a thoroughness in refining texts which at first glance appear to be spontaneous” (228). It is difficult to imagine that Zhukovskii was really unable to control the process of composition enough to avoid stammering and mistakes (“II’ net!.. -- oshibsia” “Or no!.. — I made a mistake”) in his friendly epistles. None of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Zhukovskii’s published poems, in any genre, shows such stammering, and Zhukovskii’s advice to others regarding choice of words and rhymes is meticulous, suggesting that he demanded no less of his own verse. For example, in “Vot priamo odolzhili,” Zhukovskii accuses of Viazemskii of choosing a word simply because it allows a convenient rhyme: Ho, ztpyr, He npaBiia jih, hto 3necb TBoe nomo.Mcmeo He k CM bicjiy npiiBeno, a k purine eeponoMcmeo! [But, friend, isn't it true that here your word «posterity» was chosen, not for its meaning, but because it rhymes with «treachery»!] Zhukovskii does not end the discussion with these lines, but rather, continues for over thirty lines discussing the etymology and meaning of both words. This is wrapped up by a final plea: M o h a p y r , He ropanH C b, oxaaH MHe eeposioMcmeo... [My friend, don’t fly into a passion, but give up [the word] “treachery” to me...] Such discussions, also evident in Zhukovskii’ s prose letters, all but rule out the possibility that Zhukovskii would unintentionally stammer within a poem. Yet some of Zhukovskii’s claims about “how this poem is being written” seem credible. It is not hard to imagine that Pleshcheev’s servant was indeed in a hurry to return home while Zhukovskii was trying to compose a reply (“Merkurii tvoi: / ‘Pora domoi!’ / Mne govorit,” “Your Mercury is telling me, ‘Time for me to leave!”). The fact that Zhukovskii’s experimental verse was almost never intended for publication also speaks for the credibility of such claims. These epistles were not written for the larger reading public, but rather for the addressee, the addressee’s 2 3 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. family and friends, before whom Zhukovskii had less to prove, ostensibly, than before the public.5 ™ > | « ? { < How do we sum up Zhukovskii’s contribution to early nineteenth-century friendly epistles? It would be inappropriate to exaggerate this contribution since the epistles have rarely been discussed. In fact, contemporary literary scholars may not even know of the existence of many of Zhukovskii’s most innovative epistles. Zhukovskii’s friends did know his unpublished friendly epistles, but it seems that they were not taken into account in evaluations of Zhukovskii’s verse. Viazemskii was dissatisfied with the “monotony” of Zhukovskii’s themes, and Pushkin complained about Zhukovskii’s affinity for translated ballads requiring little originality; Zhukovskii’s enemies issued even more severe complaints against monotony, excessive smoothness and lack of originality (Tynianov, 38-39). These complaints fly in the face of what we know of Zhukovskii’s unofficial friendly epistles, which are nothing if not colorful and original. Zhukovskii’s enemies may have been unacquainted with all his friendly epistles, and may plead ignorance on this basis. But why did his friends fail to mention them? The best explanation may be that the most colorful of Zhukovskii’s poems remained unpublished. Indeed, the same pattern is found among Russian friendly epistles across the board: the more innovative the epistle, the less likely that 234 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. it would appear in print/*1 ' And unpublished poems, according to Lotman, were ineligible for mention in public discourse (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 29)/x m It is less clear why twentieth-century editors of Zhukovskii’s verse did not do more to include these colorful friendly epistles in editions of his poetry. The 1956 Biblioteka poeta edition of Zhukovskii’s verse does not claim to be a complete collection: its title is “Stikhotvoreniia” (“Poems”), as opposed to “Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii” (“Complete Poems”) or “Polnoe sobranie sochinenii” (“Complete Works”). However, friendly epistles were singled out for omission, as the editor states explicitly: This collection of V.A. Zhukovskii’s verse aims to include his most essential and characteristic works, in order to present the reader with his artistic make-up in historical development, in the most comprehensive and integral way possible...[However,] it was inevitable to exclude several significant works: his epistle to Bludov (1810), [his epistle] to Batiushkov (1812), to Turgenev, to Viazemskii (1814) and others... (Zhukovskii 1956, 767). Though the editor sought a characteristic representation of Zhukovskii’s different works, he apparently did not consider friendly epistles to be essential or characteristic. But the omission of friendly epistles ends up privileging other genres at the epistle’s expense. In Zhukovskii’s case, the omission exaggerates the importance of his translated ballads, the very poems that Zhukovskii’s peers complained most about. This Biblioteka poeta edition, then, reflects and sustains stereotypes of Zhukovskii cast in earlier traditions. Other twentieth-century editions (Khudozhestvennaia literatura 1959-60, 1980) contain a fuller collection of Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles, but for the most 235 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. complete collection we must turn to an 8-volume edition of Zhukovskii’s works published in 1902. It is in this 1902 collection that Zhukovskii’s epistle to the French prisoner-of-war Dr. For may be found, as well as some of his most experimental friendly epistles, many of which were written in Dolbino. ^ ^ ^ Despite an entire chapter in Iezuitova’s book devoted to Zhukovskii’s humorous verse, including many friendly epistles, this aspect of Zhukovskii’s work remains virtually unknown. Yet there is evidence that Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles influenced some of Pushkin’s most important works. Zhukovskii’s most innovative friendly epistles were not published in his lifetime, but they served as an important drawing-board from which he could borrow, according to Iezuitova: “the most successful artistic discoveries [made by Zhukovskii in unofficial verse] were [then] transferred to texts intended for publication” (216). What Iezuitova notices in Zhukovskii’s verse correlates with M. Gasparov’s claim for the friendly epistle genre as a whole: it served as the “most common forum for experiments in poetic form” in the early nineteenth century (Ocherk, 122). In other words, the friendly epistle genre acted as a non-competitive, non-threatening clearinghouse, where prosaic lexicon, new meters, rhymes and word-combinations could be tried out. After this trial, some innovations were kept in storage, while others were implemented in more official genres and presented before the public. 236 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As an example of how this “clearinghouse” worked, we may turn to Ginzburg’s work on the meticulousness with which Zhukovskii, Pushkin and their peers formed word-combinations, as evidenced in their prose letters. For instance, Viazemskii’s phrase “dremat’ v zlatykh mechtakh” (“to doze in golden dreams”) did not satisfy Zhukovskii, because the literal use of the verb “to doze” (“dremat”’) was inconsistent with the abstract use of the adjective “golden” (“zlatye”; O lirike, 35). Some poets took the conservative measure of sticking to tried-and-true epithets, in order to avoid such clashes; but the ideal solution was to shift formulaic word-combinations just enough for originality, without violating the era’s strict laws of taste and precise semantics. According to Ginzburg, this is what Pushkin achieves in the following passage from the short 1816 friendly epistle “Druz’iam”: EoraMH BaM erne jjaHbi 3naTE.ie h h h , 3JiaTbie h o h h . .. [The gods have still allowed you golden days and golden nights...] Here, the traditional poetic formula “golden days” is matched with an unfamiliar combination, “golden nights,” and Ginzburg argues that this juxtaposition reinvigorates the traditional formula with literal meaning (O lirike, 45). But this 1816 achievement by Pushkin seems less remarkable in light of a similar juxtaposition of a traditional formula with an unfamiliar combination by Zhukovskii in his 1814 friendly epistle “Vot priamo odolzhili.” In this epistle, Zhukovskii gently upbraids Viazemskii for oscillating between high and low: T bi PmjtMHHa v 6 h tb cnocoSeH 3nuzpa.\moii, Ho h BbicoKoe T e6e He b b ic o k o , B o o 6 p a jK e H n e c to o o io H e y n p j& io , 237 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H Jim Te6a jieTaih 3a hhm jierKO n o B ticoTaM h n o Jiy raw n a p H a c a . [You're capable of killing “Rhymester” with a single epigram, but the lofty is not lofty for you, your imagination is not recalcitrant, and it is easy for you to follow its flight over the heights, and valleys, of Parnassus.] In this passage, Zhukovskii commits the same stylistic “error” (probably intentionally) for which he reprimands Viazemskii: oscillating between high and low. Specifically, Zhukovskii matches the high-style formula “the heights of Parnassus” with the unfamiliar and rather humorous “valleys of Parnassus.” This juxtaposition of opposites, like Pushkin’s “golden days, golden nights,” re- invigorates a staid formula by means of a semantic shift. When Lotman turns to similar discussion of synasthesia in early nineteenth- century word-combinations, he chooses a different case in point: Pushkin’s “mute darkness” (“mrak nemoi,” “Poeziia 1790-1810,” 26). Neither Zhukovskii’s “Vot priamo odolzhili” nor Pushkin’s “Druz’iam” appeared in print during their authors’ lifetimes, so those poems’ semantic shifts were discoveries relegated to “storage.” However, the phrase cited by Lotman, “mrak nemoi,” appeared in Pushkin’s Ruslan i Liudmila, which was published in 1820 and widely known thereafter. This demonstrates that discoveries made in poetry not intended for publication (semantic shifts in friendly epistles by Zhukovskii and Pushkin) may have been crucial to Pushkin’s later breakthroughs, as Lotman also argues (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 53-4). In other words, experiments carried out in unofficial friendly epistles could be later introduced to the public in the garb of more official genres. 238 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Iezuitova provides further evidence of the groundbreaking nature of Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles, and their influence on Pushkin, arguing that metaliterary discussions of rhyme in Zhukovskii’s Dolbino epistles (“Dlia rifmy kletka zdes’,” “I needed the word ‘chicken-coop’ for the rhyme”) are echoed in Pushkin’s Evgenii Onegin: (HHTaTenb acneT yac ph<J)mh po3ti\ Ha, bot B03BMH ee CKopeii!) [The reader is already expecting that the rhyme will end with ‘roses.’ Here, take your rhyme already! (quoted in Iezuitova, 237)] Metaliterary discussions of rhyme in Pushkin’s 1815 friendly epistle “Moemu Aristarkhu” probably also owe a debt to Zhukovskii.x x lv Grekhnev does not credit Zhukovskii’s influence, but he does discuss “Moemu Aristarkhu,” in terms of the theme “how this poem is being written.” The passage cited by Grekhnev resembles the metaliterary discussions of Zhukovskii’s 1814 friendly epistles: nurny KopoTKne cthxh, CpejtH npH H TH oro 3a6BeH&a Ckjiohhcb b no/iyuncy tojioboh... [I am writing these short verses in a state of pleasant oblivion, with my head leaning against a pillow...] Even Zhukovskii’s characterization of his friend Pleshcheev as an ugly, savage and Black found an echo in Pushkin’s 1820 friendly epistle “Iur’evu”: A a, noBeca BeHHo-npa3^HBm, nOTOMOK HerpoB 6e3o6pa3HWH, B3pOmeHHBIH B flHKOH npOCTOTe... [While I am an ever-idle rake, a hideous descendant of blacks, growing up in savage simplicity...] 239 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Zhukovskii’s characterization of Pleshcheev as a black man was in a lighthearted context: Zhukovskii’s use of iambic monometer and other signs of playfulness such as the addressee’s nickname “Pleshchuk” testify to this. In “Iur’evu,” Pushkin applies the “ugly, savage and Black” characterizations to himself rather starkly, without avoiding a suggestion of self-hatred. Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles may be in line for re-evaluation, if indeed they influenced some of Pushkin’s most famous poetry, including Ruslan i Liudmila and Evgenii Onegin. But Pushkin did not directly emulate Zhukovskii’s friendly epistles. For example, Zhukovskii’s attempt to set detailed literary criticism in the form of a friendly epistle was one experiment that proved unsustainable. Setting a few critical comments in a friendly epistle could be an effective way of keeping informal critical discourse friendly, as seen in L’vov’s 1799 letter to Derzhavin (chapter 3). But detailed literary criticism is much more effectively set in prose, which is probably why Zhukovskii found his “Areopagu” too taxing to complete. Instead, Pushkin picked and chose from discoveries made in Zhukovskii’s “creative laboratory” for new uses, in new genres. Pushkin incorporated short metaliterary asides, developed by Zhukovskii in unofficial friendly epistles, in many poetic genres. However, Pushkin refrained from attempting large-scale literary criticism in verse. In his lycee years especially, Pushkin seems to have been less interested in the addressee’s private enlightenment (in contrast to Zhukovskii’s “Vot priamo odolzhili”) and more interested in presenting his own technical prowess, in whatever genre appeared to be the most fashionable at the moment, to the public. As 240 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. suggested in earlier discussion of “Gorodok” and his epistles to Batiushkov (4.3), Pushkin’s early friendly epistles functioned more as vehicles for public poetic statements than as actual letters to friends. s f c ^ % Aside from the basic question of whether a friendly epistle was intended for publication, neither Pushkin nor other poets seem to have put deliberation into the publication of friendly epistles. Little effort seems to have been made to present an exchange of friendly epistles in chronological order: Zhukovskii’s answer to “Moi penaty” was published a year before “Moi penaty” itself appeared in print. Consistency as to place of publication was also negligible: the “Moi penaty” poems appeared in various periodicals, some in Vestnik Evropy and others in Panteon russkoi poezii, while Viazemskii’s reply to “Moi penaty” remained unpublished. Similarly, in the epistles exchanged between V. L. Pushkin, Viazemskii and Zhukovskii between 1810 and 1814, we find that sometimes a precursor was published, while its reply was not; sometimes a reply was published, while its precursor was not. Specifically, in 1815, V. L. Pushkin published an epistle to Viazemskii in the second issue of Rossiiskii muzeum, and Viazemskii published his answer in the third issue of the same journal. In the sixth issue of the same journal appeared a friendly epistle from Zhukovskii to both V. L. Pushkin and Viazemskii. However, this was not in answer to the epistles published in earlier issues, but was 241 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rather in answer to other epistles, addressed to Zhukovskii years earlier. Evidently, poets placed more emphasis on finding exactly the right word (as Ginzburg’s discussion underlines) than on presenting their finished epistles in coherent fashion before the general reading public. The editor of Rossiiskii muzeum, V. V. Izmailov, may have deliberately solicited friendly epistles, since during the twelve months of its publication (1815), Rossiiskii muzeum served as the favorite publication forum for Karamzinists’ friendly epistles. This occasioned an astonishing, if temporary, shift in publishing practices for friendly epistles, from Vestnik Evropy and other periodicals to Rossiiskii muzeum, as shown in 4.4.5 below: 4.4.5 Friendly Epistles Published Between 1810 and 1815, by Publication Venue 2000 • 1500 < D £ Z 1000 < 8 o 500 0 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 j Pushkin was one of the most prolific contributors of friendly epistles to Rossiiskii muzeum, which provided him with a temporary, but much-desired, window on the publishing world.x x v His lycee directors’ vehemence against their students publishing suggests that Pushkin had good reason to publish with urgency when the chance came his way in 1815. The significance of Rossiiskii muzeum for Pushkin is 242 E "Vestnik Evropy” j □ “Rossiiskii muzeum" BAN other print venues R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. evidenced by 4.4.6 below, which compares Pushkin’s friendly epistles appearing in Rossiiskii muzeum with other friendly epistles published in Rossiiskii muzeum and elsewhere: 4.4.6 Friendly Epistles Published between 1810 and 1815, in R o s s i i s k i i m u z e u m (RM)and Other Venues, by Year of Publication H D P u sh k in 's Friendly E p istles P ublished in RM □ All O th er Friendly E p istles P ublished in RM H Friendly E pistles P ublished in O ther V en u es By 1815, when Pushkin was publishing his lycee epistles, however, the genre’s earlier proponents had moved on. Batiushkov had abandoned friendly epistles much earlier, and Pushkin’s rather saucy second epistle to Batiushkov could only have further reduced Batiushkov’s opinion of the genre. Batiushkov had continued to write prose letters with friendly verse inserted, but these were not meant for publication, and Batiushkov probably intended them to be read as accidental inserts, rather than as short friendly epistles. In the meantime, Zhukovskii had left Dolbino for Moscow, which coincided with a reprieve from writing friendly epistles: from 1814 to 1815, Zhukovskii’s output dropped from more than sixteen friendly epistles, covering fifteen hundred lines, to just four friendly epistles covering three hundred lines. In an interesting 243 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. twist of fate, Zhukovskii’s formal epistle “Imperatoru Aleksandru,” so maligned by its own author in “Areopagu,” had attracted the attention of the royal family. This led to invitations to court functions in 1815, and eventually, to Zhukovskii’s establishment as tutor to members of the royal family. In 1815, Zhukovskii was also occupied making arrangements to publish a collection of his verse, which appeared in December of that year. These St. Petersburg obligations were balanced by constant trips to Tartu (Dorpat), where the Protasov family had moved after A. A. Protasova’s marriage to Voeikov. In other words, in 1815, practical matters replaced the leisure, conducive to friendly epistles, which Zhukovskii had enjoyed at Dolbino. Finally, after the acceleration of literary polemics occasioned by Shakhovskoi’s play “Lipetskie vody” in September, 1815, the literary group Arzamas was established. Arzamas meetings called for poetry and literary discussions, but no friendly epistles, even though its members included the most significant and prolific friendly epistle authors. Instead, Arzamas genres, such as “galimatias” and “funeral speeches” dedicated to Besedists, were at once more playful and more satirical than friendly epistles. They were also more appropriate to a context of heightened polemics, which called for quick and direct counter-attacks, rather than for friendly epistles’ solutions, vows of friendship and retreats to the country. In essence, Arzamas meetings took over functions previously filled by friendly epistles, serving as an affirmation of friendship and forum for literary criticism and playful experimentation. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Before continuing on to the genre’s decline after 1815, we may summarize its achievements during its years in the limelight. Ginzburg writes that friendly epistles were one of the genres instrumental in helping Russian literature to “pass through a period of stylistic regimentation and cleansing, of development of flexible and precise language, able to express everything complicating the world of the new individual” (O lirike, 25). Whereas lyrical friendly epistles like “Moi penaty” themselves served as models for such “stylistic regimentation and cleansing,” this lexical cleansing was also carried out, in humorous metaliterary discourse, in Zhukovskii’s unofficial friendly epistles. Finally, Zhukovskii’s unofficial friendly epistles helped steer his addressees away from anti-Besedist invective towards thoughtful self-censure, and from outmoded tones and forms into more contemporary tones and forms, thus updating the role of polite criticism. ‘ As discussed in chapter 3, not every poem can be easily categorized as having been written in a specific year. The problem of inexact dates is less acute in the early nineteenth century: more friendly epistles can be dated exactly, and the range of inexact dates is usually narrow (e.g., “1804 or 1805” instead of “between 1790 and 1799”). Perhaps this is because friendly epistles carried greater authority by the nineteenth century: a poet might be more inclined to document a poem written in a leading genre, especially one intended for publication. Eight of the 110 poems under discussion in this chapter could not be assigned exact dates, although in each case the range of dates could be narrowed down to two years. “ Examples include Viazemskii’s 1812-3 elegiac epistle “Poslanie k Zhukovskomu iz Moskvy, v kontse 1812 goda” and his 1813 formal epistle “K Tirteiu slavian,” as well as Zhukovskii’s 1813 elegiac epistle “Turgenevu, v otvet na ego pis’mo: Poslanie,” all set in iambic pentameter. Promising to visit may have been an appropriate answer to Batiushkov’s friendly invitation, but Batiushkov’s house was in disrepair, his financial limitations were well known, and these would probably have taxed his ability to host friends. Zhukovskii's answer represented something of a poetic “visit,” which may have allowed Zhukovskii to avoid having to explicitly turn down Batiushkov’s invitation. An invitation from someone with means, living in a large house near Moscow (e.g., Viazemskii), would probably have been considered more seriously than an invitation from a financially troubled friend living far from city centers. 245 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 V Virolainen writes that it is “well known that Batiushkov’s lyrical hero in his sensual-hedonistic aspect is an exclusively stylized figure,” and later, that “Batiushkov’s eroticism was purely of a literary character” (48-51). v These statistics vary from year to year, but there is no significant variation between overall publication statistics for poems covered in chapter 3 (1750-1801) compared with statistics for poems covered in this chapter (1802-1815). When we examine publication data by number of lines, we find almost 60% of all friendly epistle lines published within two years of composition. We also find proportionally more lines published in the eighteenth century than in the nineteenth century. This difference (from 40% to 60%) reflects the fact that longer poems were more likely to have been intended for publication. The higher number of published lines in the eighteenth century may reflect not a greater tendency to publish friendly epistles, but rather, a weaker tendency to preserve unpublished friendly epistles, so that unpublished eighteenth-century poems are less likely to have come down to us. In any case, all statistics agree that slightly over half of all friendly epistles in the database were published, and that most of these were published soon after composition. V I The median age for authors of Russian friendly epistles, from 1770 until 1830, was 27; the median age for their addressees was 28. These data are not based on all the friendly epistles in the database: though the date of birth of all poets in the database is known, a sizable fraction of their addressees’ dates of birth is unknown, necessitating their exclusion from the data. Friendly epistles whose date of composition could not be defined to within two years were also excluded. v “ In the text of “Leto,” Derzhavin names the addressee as I.I. Dmitriev, and Dmitriev wrote a response, “K G. P. Derzhavinu,” set in the same metrical and stanzaic form (mixed-length dactyls in four-line stanzas) and on the same theme (summer). Both epistles were published in 1805 issues of the journal Vestnik Evropy (Derzhavin’s in No. 18 and Dmitriev’s in No. 23). There is nothing unusual about finding a friendly epistle and its reply set in the same forms and published in the same journal, or in different issues of the same journal. But, as a general rule, a friendly epistle was first sent to the addressee, and published only after the addressee had acknowledged its receipt. However, Dmitriev opens his reply with the suggestion that he had first read “Leto” on the pages of Vestnik Evropy, and had guessed the identity of its author: Eapa 6e3biM SH H L >[fi! Te6a jib He y3Haio? O pjIH H H3/taBHa 3H 3KO M MHe IlOJieT. [Unnamed bard! Could I really fail to recognize you? I have been acquainted with this eagle's flight for a long time.] The suggestion that Dmitriev had correctly guessed the identity of an anonymous author is buttressed by a footnote, explaining that this is an answer to verses sent anonymously to Vestnik Evropy. V 1 " Batiushkov’s friends tended to preserve letters he sent them, but anything sent to Batiushkov had to undergo trial by fire, literally. One of the manifestations of Batiushkov’s mental illness, which asserted itself with increasing strength in the late 1810’s and especially from 1822 onward, was the burning of all sorts of letters, papers, and manuscripts. Batiushkov mentions burning manuscripts (as well as “losing his mind”) rather often even in his earlier letters. For example, in 1809 Batiushkov sent Gnedich a poem to read, assuring him that it could be burned if it turned out to be not to his taste (Batiushkov III: 55). A month later, Batiushkov asked Gnedich to send the same poem back. Batiushkov needed it because he had “intentionally burned the original” in order to “read it later and revise it with a clear mind” (Batiushkov III: 70). 246 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ,x Gnedich appears to have tried to dictate Batiushkov’s reading list as well, as we surmise from Batiushkov’s answer, “I laughed at your admonition not to read Mirabeau, d’Alambert or Diderot...” (Batiushkov III: 68). x The fact that, in 1817, it was Gnedich who edited Batiushkov’s collected poetry, Opyty v stikhakh i proze, may be interpreted as a sign of Gnedich’s reconciliation with Batiushkov’s light poetry, or as a gesture of charity to his friend, who had begun to show unmistakable manifestations of paranoid schizophrenia. However, Gessen presents a totally different view: “In 1817, while publishing Batiushkov’s Opyty v stikhakh i proze, Gnedich forced [Batiushkov] to take on the entire financial responsibility for the publication in the case it should turn out to be unsuccessful. But when the book was published and brought profits beyond all expectations, Gnedich, having netted around 15,000 rubles, paid Batiushkov just 2,000” (Gessen, 32). x ' Virolainen argues that in “Moi penaty,” the cup of feasting and the cup of death become one and the same, and the proposal that the friends “take the lead over death” (“I smert’ operedim”) does not mean they will run away from death, but rather, will anticipate death (49). x “ For example, an 1810 letter from Batiushkov to Zhukovskii shows the same mixture of self-pity and self-degradation seen in Batiushkov's letters to Gnedich, mentioning illness and burning of manuscripts: “Since I arrived [in the country], my illness, ‘tic douloureux,' has become so bad that I have been lying in bed for nine days straight... [I am sending] an imitation ofPam y’s “Le torrent,” which, if you find it to your liking, you can take for your Collection [of verse, to be published at the end of 1811]; otherwise, throw it in the fire” (Batiushkov III: 98-9). x l" Batiushkov returned home from the Napoleonic campaigns in July, 1814 and published “Moi penaty” shortly thereafter in the first part of Pcinteon russkoi poezii. V. L. Pushkin’s iambic trimeter epistle “K D.V. Dashkovu” was published in Vestnik Evropy, 1814, No. 7, which probably appeared a few months earlier, around April, 1814. Since V. L. Pushkin makes reference to “Moi penaty” in his epistle, it seems likely that he had read a manuscript version of Batiushkov’s poem. X 1 V There may be no way to know how Batiushkov became acquainted with this first epistle from A. S. Pushkin. However, Maikov implies that Batiushkov probably read it in print: “Already by 1814, the first youthful poems of the lyceeist Alexander Pushkin began to appear, first on the pages of journals based in Moscow and then, in St. Petersburg... [Ojne of these, a composition published in Rossiiskii muzeiun in 1815... was in the form of an epistle to [Batiushkov]” (Maikov, 193). x v Batiushkov’s visit to Pushkin probably took place late March or early April, 1815 (Zorin, 376). Pushkin was probably hoping for encouragement in light verse, from the poet best known for such verse. However, in “K Dashkovu” (written and published in 1813), an epistle with an elegiac tone, Batiushkov had argued that he could not write friendly epistles in a wartime setting. This did not yet represent a definitive rejection of light poetry, but it was the direction in which Batiushkov was heading, from light poetry and a “small philosophy” towards more seriousness, spirituality, and “larger” genres. X V 1 Tomashevskii writes that “while Zhukovskii, Batiushkov and others were rendering reality by means of flaccid allegories, Pushkin was already able to suffuse this youthful text with everyday concreteness...” (73). Similarly, Grekhnev argues that “the everyday space of'Gorodok,' despite its fictitiousness, is more densely ‘populated’ ... [than is] Batiushkov’s ‘Moi penaty’” (57). 247 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. * v " “Moemu Aristarkhu” is one of several lycee poems by Pushkin that appear in two variants in the 1994 Stikhotvoreniia litseiskikh let. In this edition, the first variant appears unmarked, while the second is labeled “pozdniaia redaktsiia” (a later version). Some of the notebooks kept by lycee students contain the first variant and some contain the second - and there are usually lines differing from notebook to notebook. The existence of variant texts is useful for poetry studies, but presents a problem for computer databases, which do not know how to deal with two similar versions. This project’s reliance on a computer database means that one of the variants had to be selected to serve as the “authoritative” version and entered into the database. Fortunately, the variants do not generally differ in tone, and their lexical differences often involve swapping one common word-combination for another. For example, in the 1815 “Moemu Aristarkhu,” the first variant mentions the lyrical hero’s “shatkii stol” (wobbly table), a word-combination used by Batiushkov in “Moi penaty,” while the second variant uses “vernyi stol” (faithful table). The main overall difference between variants is length: usually, the second variant is an abbreviated version of the first. Differences in length range from one line to several dozen lines. Publication histories go a long way toward explaining the existence of variant texts, and also provide guidance as to which variant should be used. Some poems were published soon after composition. For example, Pushkin’s 1815 “K Galichu" (Puskai ugriumyi rifmotvor...) appeared in Rossiiskii muzeum in 1815. In this case, the published version (the first version) was chosen as authoritative. In other cases, the poem was not published until the 1820’s, and Pushkin’s revisions most likely took place just before publication. The first version of Pushkin’s “Poslanie V. L. Pushkinu” (Skazhi, parnasskii moi otets), circulated in manuscript in 1817; Pushkin revised it sometime later, probably just before publishing it in 1824. Usually it is customary to view a published version as the most authoritative, since it represents the author’s final say on how the text should look. However, in this study we are more concerned with what was in circulation in any given year, and less concerned with revisions the author made years, or decades, down the road. Thus, when examining the literary atmosphere of 1817, it is most relevant to study the 1817 version of Pushkin’s epistle to his uncle. The second version, which is less than one-fourth the length of the first version, probably became relevant only in 1824, and therefore the first version was chosen as “authoritative.” The second version may have come to supersede the first in 1824, but such possibilities can be discussed as the need arises, and will not change the entry of data. Finally, there are several friendly epistles by Pushkin that never appeared in print. When these poems exist in more than one variant, it is most likely that both variants were circulating in manuscript simultaneously. This makes it very difficult to choose one or the other version as “authoritative.” In dealing with published texts, the first variant has been entered, so it seems most consistent to follow the same methodology in dealing with unpublished texts. Therefore, in all cases where friendly epistles by Pushkin are given in two variants, the first variant has been entered in the database. Why does this issue come up with Pushkin’s poetry, in particular? After all, there is plenty of evidence that Viazemskii made revisions of his friendly epistles according to Zhukovskii’s suggestions. For example, regarding his first poem to appear in print (“Poslanie k <Zhukovskomu> v derevniu,” 1808), Viazemskii himself writes that “almost all the verses, from first to last, were revised by Zhukovskii” (Viazemskii, 441). Editors of Viazemskii’s poetry, like most editors of poets other than Pushkin, usually prefer to discuss evidence of revision in footnotes, rather than to provide readers with all variant versions. This is probably because most poets do not command the interest, for lay- readers or scholars, which Pushkin commands. The existence of variants in editions of Pushkin’s poetry, then, serves as an important reminder that many texts, especially unpublished, unofficial poems, may have variant versions. 248 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. * V 1 " Lotman characterizes V. L. Pushkin’s poetry intended for publication, which includes this group of literary-polemical epistles, as “oriented towards the style and tastes reigning in pre-revolutionary French poetry” (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 27). V. L. Pushkin’s anachronistic style may be ascribed to differences in generation. Both V. L. Pushkin and Shalikov belonged to a slightly older generation of poets (born in the late 1760's) than those associated with Russia's Golden Age, born between 1783 (Zhukovskii) and 1803 (Iazykov). This may explain why V. L. Pushkin and Shalikov used themes and meters more characteristic of eighteenth-century traditions. x l* On those occasions when Zhukovskii did mock a Besedist by name, his goal was often self censure: the Besedist’s negative example served as a warning for Zhukovskii himself. For example, in an 1814 epistle to Voeikov (“K Voeikovu”), Zhukovskii depicted “Khlystov” (D. I. Khvostov) suffering torture in the afterlife appropriate for the “sin” of having written reams of bad verse. This mockery of Khvostov was not an end in itself, but instead underscored the poem’s main point: that both Zhukovskii and his addressee should strive to write better, so as not to meet a similar fate. M Zhukovskii wrote three poems to V. L. Pushkin and Viazemskii in 1814. Two, mentioned here, were combined by Zhukovskii under the heading “Poslaniia k kn. Viazemskomu i V. L. Pushkinu” (part 1, “Vot priamo odolzhili,” and part 2, “Na etoi pochte vse v stikhakh”). The third epistle, written in 1814 and published in Rossiiskii muzeum in 1815, was titled “K kn. Viazemskomu i V. L. Pushkinu: Poslanie” (“Druz’ia, tot stikhotvorets - gore”). To avoid confusion, these poems will be referred to by their opening lines, rather than by their titles. Ginzburg and others caution against equating a poem’s lyrical hero with its author. Nevertheless, Ginzburg does differentiate among lyrical heroes by genre (“Pushkin,” 142-3). Common sense suggests that the lyrical hero’s voice coincides closely with the author’s voice in private prose letters; it is likewise arguable that the lyrical hero of a friendly epistle not intended for publication speaks in a voice relatively close to the author’s. Applying the criteria for distinguishing “experimental” lexicon from more conventional poetic lexicon laid out in chapter 2, we find that friendly epistles with little or no experimental lexicon were most likely to appear in print soon after composition. However, the greater the experimental component, the less likely the poem would appear in print: of poems with experimental lexicon appearing in over 10% of lines, less than 7% were published, and only 5% were published within two years of composition. Lotman continues by arguing that A. S. Pushkin’s reference to a “private” hero (his V. L. Pushkin’s Buianov from “Opasnyi sosed”) in a “public” text, Evgenii Onegin, constituted an “intentional violation of this unwritten but strictly observed poetic ritual” (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 29). ™ v In “Moemu Aristarkhu,” Pushkin claims that his “weak poetic genius” often finds itself overwhelmed by the attraction of the easiest Russian rhymes (“na aiu, aet i na oi”). In other words, as Vatsuro explains, Pushkin’s lyrical hero claims to be attracted to rhymes based on verb-endings and on a common ending for adjectives and nouns in oblique cases (592). ” v According to Tomashevskii, manuscript journals of student poetry were banned from Pushkin’s lycee in 1813 (708), but Izmailov had no such qualms against student poetry, and published sixteen poems by Pushkin in Rossiiskii muzeum in 1815 (Russkaia periodicheskaia pechat’, 153), including “Gorodok” and Pushkin’s second epistle to Batiushkov (“V peshcherakh Gelikona”). However, lyceeists’ publishing was ended in 1816 (and the directors of Pushkin’s lycee may have had something to do with this: Tomashevskii, 714). 249 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter Five: The Waning of the Russian Friendly Epistle Genre, 1816-1830 ...it is not “genres” that have disappeared, but the genres of the past, and they have been replaced by others. (Todorov, 160) I. Overview II. Friendly Epistles, 1816-1830 III. Other Genres Borrow From, and Negate, Friendly Epistles; Conclusion I. Overview To the extent that a literary genre is viable for any duration of time, it will undergo some degree of evolution, even if its general outline remains more or less fixed. Sometimes that evolution leads to dead ends, or to the opposite - innovations that inspire more productivity in the genre. Sometimes, that evolution leads the genre to metamorphose beyond recognition. Elements of all three types of evolution appear in friendly epistles written between 1816 and 1830. Stylized epistles in the vein of “Moi penaty” had reached their peak in the early 1810’s, and friendly epistles written in this vein after 1815 are rarely more than epigonic, representing a path of dead ends for the genre. Innovations leading to increased productivity came mainly in the realm of personal, colorful friendly epistles by Viazemskii and Pushkin. Finally, evolutions leading the genre to metamorphose beyond recognition tended to involve shifts towards Romanticism. These included a shift from friendly word-combinations to elegiac lexicon; a shift in the treatment of themes (the poet’s hut or death); and the 250 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. substitution of Romantic themes (e.g., accusations of betrayal) for “friendly” themes (e.g., invitations to visit). The rate of change increased in the 1820’s, transforming the friendly epistle from a reigning genre into one forced into negations of its earlier principles and an easy target for critical attacks and parodies. Nevertheless, plenty of friendly epistles were written, and published, between 1816 and 1830. Before turning to the poems themselves, it may be useful to sketch the period’s overarching trends. This sketch will cover friendly epistles’ formal characteristics and idiosyncrasies, publication patterns, and will suggest explanations for the genre’s decline. Friendly epistles’ ongoing popularity can be ascribed partly to their previous popularity, and partly to the productive nature of some of the innovations introduced. As Senderovich argues, reaching a peak did not stop the friendly epistle, but “allowed it to progress past” its original conception: Having reached its pinnacle, the wave [of friendly epistles] immediately began to subside and dissipate into gradually diminishing ripples of already isolated friendly verse epistles, but its kinetic energy did not disappear. Instead, it crossed into the sphere of Romanticism’s formation of a system of poetry genres and lexical orientation (95). As a result of what Senderovich refers to as the friendly epistle’s “kinetic energy,” compared to the previous fifteen years, there are almost 50 percent more friendly epistles in our collection written between 1816 and 1830 (152, compared to 112 written between 1800 and 1815). Friendly epistles written between 1816 and 1830 tended to be shorter than those written in earlier periods, but their sheer number nevertheless guarantees that the total number of lines produced between 1816 and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1830 is just forty lines less than the total number of lines written between 1800 and 1815 (10,161 vs. 10,201). Decline sets in after 1820, as seen in 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 below: 5.1.1 Friendly Epistles Written During So-Called "Peak" vs. "Decline" Years, 1800-30, by Number of Poems 35 - 30 - 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 - 5 - 0 - □ peak ■decline 5.1.2 Russian Friendly Epistles Written During So-Called "Peak" vs. "Decline" Years, 1800-30, by Total Lines 3500 i 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 I n — n I I n F I n 1 I 1 I * ■ - B ■ n n f l R n T .- . I I I b S b &B h h S b b b b S bb □ peak ■ decline It might be posited that up-and-coming genres govern their members by centrifugal force, which works against diversity, channeling member texts into a 252 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. consolidated generic identity. Such is the force that allowed the friendly epistle to be distinguished from other genres, perhaps as early as the 1790’s and certainly by the early 1810’s. However, the centrifugal force at work while a genre’s identity is becoming consolidated is reversed when the genre’s popularity wanes. As the genre breaks down, previously obligatory components may begin to disappear, while elements alien to the genre may appear with increasing frequency. In essence, this is what happened to the friendly epistle in Russian literature after 1815, especially in terms of lexicon, tone, choice and treatment of themes. However, nothing like this appears as far as formal elements are concerned. Instead, the process of consolidating the genre’s identity according to a set of recognizable forms appears to accelerate between 1816 and 1830. Friendly epistles had always shown a strong preference for irregular forms, such as irregular rhymes and irregular verse paragraphs, in the years preceding 1816. Between 1816 and 1830, this strong preference becomes nearly universal: fully 96% of friendly epistle lines written between 1816 and 1830 are set in irregular verse paragraphs (as opposed to stanzas), up from 90% at the beginning of the century. In addition, 85% of lines are set in irregular rhymes, up from 76% at the beginning of the century. These trends are illustrated, according to individual years, in 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 below: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.1.3 Friendly Epistle Lines Set in Irregular Verse Paragraphs vs. Stanzas, 1810-1830 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 . — I 1 II--------------- tilt H illllllallaliQ & □ Stanzas ■ Irregular V.P.'s 5.1.4 Rhyming Patterns in Friendly Epistles, 1810-30 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 n : 1 E H I S I I | | | | I l i l l l l l s l l H l i n E Un rhymed □ Regular patterns ■ Irregular patterns Perhaps more striking is the consolidation in the area of meter. In previous eras, no more than a third of poems or lines had been allocated to any single meter, despite sudden increases in popularity of meters like iambic trimeter in individual years. In fact, friendly epistles were flexible enough regarding choice of meter that, in any given group of years, a different meter might predominate. However, between 1816 254 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and 1830, iambic tetrameter slowly strengthens its hold, garnering overall almost two-thirds (66%) of all friendly epistle lines. The gradual decrease in metrical variety is suggested in 5.1.5: 5.1.5 Friendly Epistles Set in Iambic Tetram eter (14) vs. Other Meters, 1810-30 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 wmrrrttinit illA i □ Other meters : ■ 1 4 The popularity of iambic tetrameter in friendly epistles is partly a reflection of larger trends: M. Gasparov finds that this meter’s popularity reaches an all-time high in the 1820’s, serving as a setting for 40% of verse lines across all genres (Ocherk, 113). But 40% is far below the 66% of friendly epistle lines set in iambic tetrameter. This suggests that friendly epistles had done an about-face by the 1820’s, from being one of the more metrically diverse genres to being one of the more conservative genres in terms of meters. Finally, the length of friendly epistles written between 1816 and 1830 decreases, dropping to a median of 40 lines (lower than that of any other era: see 4.1.5) and an average length of 66 lines.1 It might seem that shorter texts could pose as ’"impromptu verse letters'’just as well, if not better than, longer texts. However, 255 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. length provides the author more opportunity to meander from theme to theme, in imitation of prose letters. Length also fosters discussions of the writing process in real time (“Right now I’m leaning my head on a pillow as I write this ”). Shorter poems, in contrast, tend to be better organized, and organization suggests that texts have been revised and polished, rather than tossed off. It is probably no coincidence that these tendencies are all typical of a different genre, beginning its own ascent between 1816 and 1830: the elegiac epistle. Elegiac epistles, indeed, tended to be set in irregular verse paragraphs and favored irregular rhymes. Though we have not compiled statistics on elegiac epistles’ forms, it is evident that iambic tetrameter was heavily favored over other meters. Likewise, elegiac epistles tended to be much shorter than friendly epistles: the median length of friendly epistles during these years, 40 lines, sounds like an accurate estimate for the median length of elegiac epistles during the same years. These findings can be explained with the quote from Todorov used as an epigraph to this chapter: ...it is not “genres” that have disappeared, but the genres of the past, and they have been replaced by others (160). The friendly epistle genre was still viable between 1816 and 1830, but it was also merging with, and being replaced by, the elegiac epistle and other related genres. Though friendly epistles continued to be written between 1816 and 1830, and though their formal traits showed increasing consolidation, the lines distinguishing friendly epistles from related genres become increasingly hazy. Perhaps we may draw an analogy for genre formation and dissipation to “salt.” Once mined or produced, salt can be defined in terms of chemical components; it can be weighed 256 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and its volume measured. (Such “scientific” definitions and measures have allowed us to construct a picture of the friendly epistle genre in terms of charts and statistics.) However, were the salt to be tossed into the ocean, our scientific findings would no longer apply. Instead, our salt would lose its status as a weighable, measurable, discrete entity as it dissolved into the larger body of water. This is the process accompanying a genre in decline: texts in the genre and components associated with the genre may become more difficult to distinguish. Perhaps the dumping of our salt would even affect the ocean’s overall salinity, just as friendly epistles influenced the Romantic and realist texts that appeared in the genre’s wake. But to speak of our salt as a distinct essence would no longer be appropriate. Grekhnev concurs on the difficulty of describing a declining genre: ...genre is based on a structural integrity according to a single worldview, and if that integrity has disintegrated, if its inner links have dissolved, then there is no reason to speak of genre (77). Given the challenges involved in describing a genre in decline, it may come as no surprise that many scholars prefer to focus on genres at their peaks. When decline sets in, it is often preferable to shift discussion to the next up-and-coming genre rather than dealing with the contradictions inherent in decline. This is the approach taken by Senderovich, whose fruitful discussion of friendly epistles nevertheless avoids the topic of the genre’s decline, since he jumps from discussing friendly epistles at their peak (the cycle of “Moi penaty” poems) to elegiac epistles. Derrida argues that literature, by its very nature, defies genre classifications, because innovation involves transgression. This argument may be easier to ignore 257 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. when a genre is at its peak and member texts are conforming, more or less across the board, to the genre’s “rules.” In other words, when a genre is gaining momentum, innovations tend not to go against the central grain of the genre, and thus, fewer borderline cases are produced. It is not difficult, generally, to decide whether a particular text written between 1810 and 1815 belongs to the friendly epistle genre or not. However, once a genre begins to decline, to merge with other genres or to evolve in unpredictable ways, a strict taxonomy of texts according to genre becomes all but impossible. It is at this point that Derrida’s tongue-in-cheek insistence that “genres not be mixed” becomes especially relevant: Genres are not to be mixed. I will not mix genres (“Law,” 55). As Derrida’s argument unfolds, “mixing genres” is tied to “mixing genders,” or processes that lead to the production (or birth) of new and innovative texts. Therefore, any insistence that genres remain separate is bound to result in sterility, while mixing genres and genders brings about innovation (life). How does the mixing of genres affect friendly epistles? 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 suggest a “third wave” of friendly epistles in 1819 and 1820, but many of the poems constituting this wave show idiosyncrasies that can best be ascribed to the mixing of genres. Namely, friendly epistles by Zhukovskii account for a third (34%) of all the friendly epistles in our collection written in 1819 and 1820, and more than half (55%) of total lines. But they differed from Zhukovskii’s earlier friendly epistles in at least one respect: between 1815 and 1819, Zhukovskii switched from addressing his recipients informally (“ty”) to formally (“vy”), as 5.1.6 below suggests: 25S R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.1.6 Zhukovskii's Friendly Epistles Designating the A ddressee Formally ("Vy") vs. Informally ("Ty"), 1810- 23 i 1600 I 1400 I 1200 i 1000 i 800 600 ; 400 200 ! 0 ■ m l 1 1 — n I I n n n ■ . | ■ " Vy" | □ "Ty" i >\ p * 5 ^ * 5 ^ n * ^ n f t ' i ____________________________________________________________________ : This is probably due to the fact that the friendly epistles Zhukovskii wrote between 1819 and 1823 were addressed to acquaintances at court, where Zhukovskii was serving as tutor to members of the royal family. Setting the data from Zhukovskii’s poems back into the context of all Russian friendly epistles, in 5.1.7 below, we see that Zhukovskii’s use of formal designation for his addressees is unique, though other authors’ use of formal address increases slightly in the 1820’s: 5.1.7 Formal A ddress ("Vy") in Friendly Epistles by Zhukovskii and Others, 1810-30 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 1 1 iililiii.i il ll.l l.i .. □ Zhuk. - "Vy" □ Others - "Vy" BAD using "ty" 259 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Zhukovskii’s epistles to court acquaintances appropriate elements (formal address, compliments to the addressee, a pandering tone) more characteristic of related genres such as madrigals and occasional verse. Indeed, they would not be considered friendly epistles at all by some standards. For example, one of Brown’s criteria for defining verse epistles in Pushkin’s work includes informal designation of the addressee (“ty”), as well as a requirement that the author and addressee be “moral, intellectual and social” equals (Brown, 15-6). But if Zhukovskii’s epistles to court acquaintances are not friendly epistles, to what genre do they belong? They do not qualify as madrigals, according to Grossman’s assertion that madrigals are based on glitter, coldness and gracious indifference (“Madrigaly,” 120). Rather, Zhukovskii’s court epistles include friendly references to the addressee, simulated dialogue, and high and low lexicon combined for humorous effect. These are evident in an 1823 request to borrow the third volume of an adventure novel, the second volume of which ended with a cliffhanger: M aT H iibjia, npaBna, cnaceHa, Ho apyr ManeK-Ajteiib!.. Hto oyneT oh HecuacTHOH? .H b m jia n e p o io c a H a n p a c H o : B H eir Hunero vac 6o:ie H eT .. CoceaKH, OKaiibxecfl! M He TpeTHH tom npHuuiHTe; Huh. . . T o n t a yac H e myniTe - CofmeT c yMa cocen! [«K BapBape IlaBiioBHe YmaKOBOH h Tp. IlpacKOBbe AjieKcaHnpoBHe X hjtkoboh [TeHnpHKOBofi]. B TaTHHHe»] [It's true, Matilda has been saved, but her friend Malek-Adel! What will happen to that unlucky fellow? In vain I dig around in my hat: there is nothing there.. Please, neighbors, have a heart! Send me the third volume: or - all jokes aside - your neighbor will lose his mind! (“K Varvare Pavlovne Ushakovoi ii Gr. Praskov'e Aleksandrovne Khilkovoi [Gendrikovoi]. V Gatchine.”)] R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, though none of Zhukovskii’s court epistles calls itself an epistle (“poslanie”), neither do these poems call themselves madrigals, and instead tend to have titles like “Letter to...” (“Pis’mo k...”) or “Notes to...” (“Zapiski k...”). As in the earlier part of the century, friendly epistles continued to be exchanged between members of literary circles. Many of the remaining of friendly epistles written in 1819 and 1820 were generated by members of the group “Zelenaia lampa” (“The Green Lantern”), whose epistles account for over 500 lines in total and make up a third (34%) of all lines written in 1819. However, these numbers pale in comparison with friendly epistle production by Arzamas members, who produced nearly 2000 lines, and 56% of lines in our collection between 1815 and 1817." “Zelenaia lampa” exchanges of friendly epistles end when the group itself ended, in 1820, but Arzamas exchanges continued long past the group’s last meetings in 1817, as shown in 5.1.8 below:1 " 5.1.8 Friendly Epistles by Members of Arzamas and Zelenaia lampa, 1812-22 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 261 □ Arzamas □ Zelenaia lampa ■ Other R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The short-lived effects of “Zelenaia lampa” on friendly epistle output may reflect the waning of the cult of friendship or the transitory nature of friendships between its members (or both). This is the impression left by Pushkin’s complaints expressed in an 1822 letter to Iakov Tolstoi, a founding member of “Zelenaia lampa”: You alone, of all my comrades, momentary friends of my momentary youth, have remembered me. Whether or not this is for the best. In two years and six months I have had no news from them, no one has written even a line or a single word... (Pushkin XIII: 47). Zhukovskii’s court epistles and friendly epistles exchanged between members of “Zelenaia lampa” have something in common, then, other than the fact that together they comprise most of the “third wave” of friendly epistles. Namely, Zhukovskii’s formal mode of address, and the brevity of “Zelenaia lampa” friendships, suggest that friendly epistles were now being addressed to acquaintances and distant friends, rather than to close friends exclusively. Their atypicality suggests that genres are indeed being mixed, and that the friendly epistles written in 1819 and 1820 are already beginning to show the effects. In earlier periods, there was a strong correlation between a friendly epistle’s length, its likelihood of publication and its wider relevance; however, this correlation breaks down after 1815. Friendly epistles written between 1801 and 1815 were published at roughly the same rate as those written between 1816 and 1830 (52% vs. 53% of poems and 59% vs. 60% of total lines). However, almost half (44%) of the earlier group’s lengthiest poems (100+ lines) were published, while less than a third (29%) of the shortest (20-29 lines) were published. The later group shows the opposite trend: now, the shorter the poem, the more likely it would be published. 262 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Only 38% of the lengthiest poems (100+ lines) in the later group were published, compared to over half (53%) of the shortest epistles (20-29 lines). As far as wider relevance goes, the poems widely mentioned and imitated by contemporaries, and studied today, such as “Moi penaty,” were lengthy and were published soon after composition. But lengthy, published friendly epistles written between 1816 and 1830 - as the genre was waning - were no longer the most relevant. Publication is often synonymous with wide readership, but many of the most innovative 1820’s friendly epistles were unpublishable because of anti-clerical, anti-government, or sexual references. A short, unpublished epistle by Pushkin may have reached a wider readership than a long, published epistle by a second-tier poet. Can changes in methodology address the problem of setting “shorter, but more innovative or relevant” verse in an appropriate context? One solution would be to construct charts based on the total number of poems, rather than total lines. This gives Pushkin a boost vis-a-vis other authors, as shown in 5.1.9(a) and (b): 5.1.9(a) Friendly Epistles by Pushkin vs. Other Authors, 1816-30, by Total Lines 2000 I a I ■ □ '□Pushkin ! b Other authors <o r*- oo o ) o i - i— t — ■ » — i— C M C M 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 c v j c o ^ L O c o r ^ o o o o C \ ! C M C M C \ I C \ J C \ l C \ J C \ J C O c o o o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o 263 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.1.9(b) Friendly Epistles by Pushkin vs. Other Authors, 1816-30, by Number of Poems | □ Pushkin j! ! ■ Other authors I i C O O O - r - C M C O ' ^ L O C O h ' O O O O i - f - f - T - C V l C M C V J C J C M O J C g C M C V J O l C O c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o e o o o o o o o c o However, the boost given is slight, and these charts still exclude some of Pushkin’s most interesting late friendly epistles. For example, his 1825 “<Iz pis’ma k Viazemskomu>” (“V glushi, izmuchas’..”) is only 14 lines long and has therefore been excluded from all charts. It is also difficult to say how widely short, unpublished epistles were circulated, making it is difficult to say whether charts based on total lines or total poems more accurately reflect late friendly epistles. The mixing of genres may result in mixed signals no matter how the charts are produced. Two of the most prolific authors of friendly epistles in the 1820’s are Iazykov and Pushkin (second and third in terms of total lines, after Zhukovskii; and second and first, respectively, in terms of total number of epistles). The existence of thorough studies on each of these poets’ verse epistles (by Lilly and Brown) reduces the need for a comprehensive survey. For all these reasons, the next sections in this chapter will offer fewer charts and statistics, and will instead survey the most representative and innovative late friendly epistles. 264 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The final phenomenon to be mentioned in this overview of late friendly epistles is the almanac. Friendly epistles appearing in journals like Syn otechestva and Moskovskii telegraf account for significant numbers of friendly epistle lines published in 1821 and 1826-7, respectively, as shown in 5.1.10(a) below:I V i i 5.1.10(a) Favorite Publication Venues for Friendly j Epistles Written 1816-30, by Year of Publication j H Syn O techestva jj □ Mosk. Telegraf jj B O ther venues But many of the friendly epistles published between 1824 and 1830, and especially those published in 1829, appeared not in journals but in almanacs: 5.1.10(b) Favorite Publication V enues for Friendly Epistles Written 1816-30, by Year of Publication 1200 1000 i n ® 800 = 600 ( 0 o 400 H 200 1 r I ll nlaL H i llln ■ . i l l l i i l l l U . : □ Almanacs i H Other venues: 265 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Almanacs were generally pocket-sized, so almanac editors may have sought shorter poems for reasons of space. If so, the popularity of almanacs in the late 1820’s may have encouraged poets to write shorter epistles, or reinforced an existing trend towards shorter poems. It is surprising to see how many friendly epistles appeared in almanacs given poets’ claims that they disliked almanacs. Pushkin wrote in an 1826 letter that his new arrangement with Nicholas freed him from having to worry about editors of almanacs and other “overscrupulous literary impressionists” (Pushkin XU!: 312). Pushkin later entreated Pogodin, in an 1827 letter, not to “throw himself after profit” by publishing almanacs (Pushkin XIII: 341). Viazemskii wrote disparagingly of almanacs in his 1829 poem “Tri veka poetov,” according to which the contemporary age is marked by almanacs: Co B c e x C T O pO H , H K C T aT H H H eK C T aT H , B c to to jio co b 3B yH H T b ero yrnax: «IIo>KajiyHTe c t h x ii b m o h ajn>M aHax!» B e jtm iK nooT nepiateT j ih h t o o t c k v k h - 3a h h m , npea h h m yxc EpnapeH C TopyK H H , Ceii xH iitH H K pH(J)M , ceii ajibMaHauiHbm oec, X B a T a e T B e e , h , a c e p T B a B e n H b ix c i p a x o B , IIo j i i o t o c t h p a 3 r a e B a H H b ix H e o e c , no3T b ceii B e x - o 6 p o H H H K a jib M a H a x o B . [From all sides, for good reason and without reason, [the contemporary poet's] ears ring with the sound of a hundred voices crying: «Please give me verses for my almanac!» If the poor poet should happen to scribble something down for them out of boredom, before him the hundred-armed Titan appears, that predator of rhymes, that almanac demon, taking everything. The victim of eternal fear of the infuriated heavens, the contemporary poet is the day-laborer of the almanacs.] 266 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It seems to have been standard practice that any profits from almanacs went to the publisher, not to the poets {Putevoditel’, 37). At the same time, the professionalization of literature meant that the best poets could make real money by publishing their works in other forums. According to Pushkin’s correspondence, he was paid thousands of rubles in the 1820’s for publishing his collected verse, long poems and Evgenii Onegin (Pushkin XIII: 217, 255). Friendly epistles were included in some of the publications that earned Pushkin income: Pushkin’s collected works included sections entitled “Poslaniia” that included friendly epistles. But if many friendly epistles were published in almanacs, as chart 5.1.10(b) suggests, it is reasonable to conclude that even as literature became more professional, authors were rarely compensated for friendly epistles. Russian literature was increasingly professional, but friendly epistles seem to have been resistant to the change. Perhaps because friendly epistles celebrated the leisurely twenty-four-hour day of a gentleman-poet, and because they were based on letters to friends, this was a genre that was unsuited to professional compensation.' J f 5 It may be a given that genres are always undergoing change, and that is natural for evolving genres to go through periods of ascent and decline. But why did this particular genre go into decline in these particular years? The Napoleonic wars, which may have encouraged Russian friendly epistles, concluded. This conclusion 267 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was disappointing to some, since Alexander’s new sway over European affairs was combined with his old indecisiveness. In addition, the prodigious output of friendly epistle lines between 1812 and 1815, especially by Zhukovskii and Pushkin, was probably unsustainable. There also seems to have been a generation gap at work. Senderovich, following the poets themselves, refers to the friendly epistles of the early 1810’s as representative of a Golden Age: When the symposium of the 1810’s wore itself out, it turned into the legendary Golden Age [mourned by] Romanticism and became the subject of nostalgia, i.e., nostalgia as a poetic motif and generator of the next poetic wave (95). In this chapter, we will follow Senderovich’s designation of friendly epistles written in the early 1810’s as “Golden Age” friendly epistles, which should not be confused with the usual term “Golden Age” in reference to poetry written by Pushkin and others in the 1820’s and 1830’s. Poets who had participated in the “Golden Age” exchanges of epistles remained open to friendly epistles whenever an occasion presented itself (praise for the addressee’s cook, invitations, travel plans), time and friendliness permitting. However, poets of a slightly younger generation - bom after 1800 - seem to have been too steeped in romanticism to feel comfortable with friendly epistles. Examples of the romantic generation might include Baratynskii (b. 1800) and Lermontov (b. 1814). The main exception seems to be lazykov, who was too young to participate in friendly epistle exchanges in the 1810’s but who nevertheless tried his hand at imitations of “Moi penaty” and eventually developed a wide epistolary repertory. 268 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Even those poets who had participated in the “Golden Age” of friendly epistles seem to have found that conditions of life in 1820’s Russia, or conditions related to aging, were inimical to the rosy worldview and cult of friendship necessary for friendly epistles. Exile, tuberculosis, syphilis, and schizophrenia were some of the real-life events taking a toll on authors and addressees of friendly epistles from the late 1810’s onward. Not only did such factors eliminate individuals from circles of potential authors and addressees, but each loss dampened the mood of the remaining members. These reasons might adequately account for the friendly epistle’s decline, but it would have been difficult to predict the decline in 1814 or 1815. Even factors like “exile” do not necessarily lead to fewer friendly epistles. Baratynskii may have been too steeped in romanticism, and too predisposed personally to pessimism and depression, to ever take to the friendly epistle genre, regardless of whether he had been sent to Finland. On the other hand, Pushkin’s friendly epistle output remained healthy in exile. Though he was also busy with duels and political problems, love affairs and writing poetry in other genres, exile from a desirable place for Pushkin (St. Petersburg) to less desirable places (Kishinev, Mikhailovskoe) may have made his distance from friends even more conducive to writing friendly epistles. The basic theme of this chapter, then, is the evolution of the friendly epistle genre, its merging with other genres, and its eventual disappearance. Therefore, this chapter covers poems that are ever more divergent from prototypical, “Golden Age” friendly epistles. Section 5.2 examines friendly epistles written between 1816 and 2 6 9 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1830, some resembling prototypical friendly epistles and some bearing marks of the mixing of genres. Section 5.3 wraps up the dissertation with poems that are clearly related to friendly epistles, but whose relation is primarily one of negation. These include epistles that are friendly towards the addressee but suffused with Romantic alienation towards the rest of the world, epigrams and elegies attacking principles of friendship, and parodies of friendly epistles. These are the forces that made the friendly epistle more or less unviable after 1830: handfuls of Russian friendly epistles appeared in the decades after 1830, but the genre never again succeeded in engaging the imagination of poets and readers on a wide scale. II. Friendly Epistles, 1816-1830 Todorov’s recommendation that we discuss only those genres that “have been perceived as such in the course of history,” using as our criterion the existence of “metadiscursive discourse” on the genre (162), yields mixed results when applied to 1820’s friendly epistles. On the one hand, many poems continue to bear titles referring to themselves as epistles, letters, or answers to epistles (“Poslanie,” “Pis’mo,” “Otvet...”). However, there is less discussion of epistles within the body of the poems. One exception occurs in Pushkin’s 1821 “N. I. Gnedichu,” in which Pushkin gives a description of his life in Kishinev: H ,H py>K 6e Jieriaie nocnaH bH IlHmy 6e3 CTpororo CTapaH bH . 270 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [And, without exerting myself too much, I write light epistles to Friendship.] Pushkin’s metadiscourse not only mentions epistles, but could also be interpreted as discussing how the poem in question was itself being written. “How this poem is being written” was a favorite topic of 1810’s friendly epistles, but such metaliterary discussion all but disappears in the 1820’s. More friendly epistles were now addressed to non-poets, or to poets who chose not to write friendly epistles (70% of late friendly epistles, up from 60% of epistles written between 1800 and 1815).V I Though this did not result in fewer poems, it did result in fewer exchanges, and probably contributed to the genre’s decline. It is also arguable that the fewer exchanges, the less the chance that a new form would be echoed. This might explain why no wave of epistles set in new forms emerged in the 1820’s, such as the Hussar epistles set in trochaic tetrameter appearing in the 1800’s, or anacreontic epistles set in iambic trimeter appearing in the 1810’s. This may be why Senderovich describes late friendly epistles as “isolated” or “uncoordinated” (“pa3po3HeHHwe”; Senderovich, 95). Friendly epistles’ mixing with other genres, which contributed to the their loss of generic identity, is probably also reflected in the absence of metadiscourse. Late friendly epistles’ “isolatedness” complicates their organization, but we may make a preliminary division of late friendly epistles according to two categories: 1) those that continued to develop along the tangent of Golden Age friendly epistle lexicon and themes, and 271 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2) those that abandoned Golden Age friendly epistle poetics for new ground. The second category lumps together a divergent group of texts, ranging from political statements and travelogues to epistles exploring camivalesque lexicon and themes. The first category, friendly epistles developing along the tangent of Golden Age poetics, can be further divided into just two subcategories: those set in the spirit of Golden Age friendly epistles, and those that use the basic Golden Age template while shifting, or negating, some of its manifestations. Epistles set in the spirit of Golden Age friendly epistles were almost all written by obscure authors, appeared between 1820 and 1824, and adhered to the most familiar word-combinations and theme progressions. For example, the friendly epistles of Iakov Tolstoi employ limited and, by now, highly familiar lexicon. The basic contours of Tolstoi’s fund of word-combinations are suggested in 5.2.1 below: 5.2.1 Typical Word-Combinations in Iakov Tolstoi’s 1819-21 Friendly Epistles: Addressee The author’s country house Friendly atmosphere npttHTeJIb M H JIblH Xn'/KHHa npocTaa CeHb apyacbbi flp y r jno6e3HE>iH / juooe3H£>iH Ttpyr CMHpeHHMH yrOJIOK MnpHaa cem> 0 ztpyr moh / o moh apyr OSbHTHa jrpyacSbi [Translations:] Dear friend / dear friend / O my friend Sim ple hut / m odest com er Friendship’s sh elter/ peaceful shelter / friendly embraces Many of these word-combinations are synonymous, the rest nearly so. Some involve synonym adjectives (“liubeznyi, milyi”) modifying the same noun (“drug”); some 272 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. simply reverse the word order of a previous word-combination (“liubeznyi drug / drug liubeznyi”). Others explore different expressions (“hut,” “comer”) that are nevertheless used for the same concept (“the poet’s quiet, unpretentious living space”). Words linked to friendship (“drug, druzhba”) appear in many of the combinations, and there are other repeated words (“sen”’ ). Of course, a limited lexical range is inherent to the concept of word- combinations: if all word combinations were unique, there would be no reason to speak of formulaic word-combinations, and no way (or reason) to track their frequency. However, the monotony of the combinations in 5.2.1 suggests that by the early 1820’s, the lexical area carved out by Golden Age friendly epistles had been depleted of meaning by overuse. This may explain why late friendly epistles set in the spirit of their Golden Age predecessors were not a particularly productive category of poems. In “White Mythology,” Derrida argues that metaphors depleted of meaning may have their “tropic energy” restored by reinvesting them with their original, often non-Westem, meaning. This argument, based on the metaphor of a coin whose inscription had been effaced, consciously places value judgments on metaphors. The original coin is inscribed with value, just as original metaphors are rugged, colorful, and endowed with “semantic ‘depth’,” while the metaphor in contemporary (Western) usage has been the object of “progressive erosion, regular semantic loss, an uninterrupted exhausting of the primitive meaning” (“White,” 209-15). 273 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Perhaps it is also possible for a metaphor depleted of meaning to be reinvigorated, not by its original meaning, but by a new semantic system. Or perhaps Romanticism and realism set themselves the same project for Golden Age poetics as Derrida sets for Western philosophy: to recover primitive meaning lost over years, or centuries, of depletion. Whatever the case, slight shifts could have the effect, as Ginzburg describes it, of “reviv[ing]... long extinguished literal meaning” (O lirike, 45) in formulaic word-combinations, themes and friendly epistles as a whole. In fact, had Romanticism not been inherently hostile to themes such as “friendship” and “interconnectedness,” such shifts in Golden Age friendly epistle poetics could have resulted in a new chapter in friendly epistles’ history. Thus, Kiukhel’beker’s 1819 “K Pushkinu, iz ego netoplennoi komnaty” (“To Pushkin, from his unheated room”) is stacked with components specific to Golden Age friendly epistles, including domestic gods (“penaty”), a formulaic description of the poet’s room (“bratskaia khata”), and even formulaic rhymes.V 1 ‘ These formulaic word-combinations and rhymes can easily be described as “worn-out metaphors which have become powerless to affect the senses” (Nietzsche, quoted in Derrida, “White,” 217). But when shifted from foreground to background, they are optimal as a setting against which references to prosaic reality can be incongruously, and therefore humorously, contrasted. In this case, “prosaic reality” is represented as Pushkin’s unheated room, in which Kiukhel’beker’s hand has already frozen while he has been composing his note: ITraK, npomaHTe b h , neHara Ceii SpaTCKoii, ho He Tenjioii xaT&i, 274 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cero cBOToro yroiuca, T^e cbiHy oreieHHoro Oe6a, JIio6HMuy, H36paHHHKy He6a, He H y> K H o apoB, h h KaMentKa... [And so, I take my leave of you, domestic gods of this brotherly, but not warm, hut, this holy comer, where the son of fiery Apollo, the favorite, the darling of the heavens, needs neither firewood nor hearth...] This excerpt fits Grekhnev’s description of the comic tension resulting from a collision between spirit or fantasy and real things. In this case, the collision is between Pushkin’s poetic genius and his cold room. Kiukhel’beker’s shifting of Golden Age components undermines them, thereby reinvigorating them. According to Grekhnev, such humor represents part of the “generic object” of friendly epistles, and its presence is a signal of friendly epistles’ continued relevance (71). While Kiukhel’beker exploits friendly word-signals for their humorous potential, shifts could also endow them with political innuendo. This is the shift Pushkin makes in his 1824 epistle to Iazykov “K Iazykovu” (“Izdrevle sladostnyi soiuz”), as he coaxes Iazykov to visit him in exile at Mikhailovskoe: H Hama TpoHua npocnaBHT I fe rH a H b fl TeM H biH j t o j i o k . .. [And our trinity / threesome will glorify the dark comer of exile...] In this excerpt, the phrase “temnyi ugolok” (dark comer) is highly reminiscent of friendly word-combinations describing “the author’s rooms or humble hut.” These include “mimyi ugolok,” “schastlivyi ugolok” and “ukromnyi ugolok” (peaceful / happy / cozy comer), all of which appeared in Pushkin’s 1815 friendly epistles, as well as “smirennyi ugolok” (humble comer) from Batiushkov’s “Moi penaty.” 275 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Modifying the formulaic “comer” with “darkness” and “exile” shifts the phrase just enough to reinvigorate and personalize it, without forcing the poem to forfeit too much friendliness. By the end of the 1820’s, it is difficult to find glorifications of the poet’s pleasant comer or humble hut. In Kol’tsov’s 1829 “Pis’mo k D. A. Kashkinu” the hut offering refuge is “ugly”: IIpHIOT H36yiIIKH HeKpaCHBOH... [The refuge of an ugly hut...] while in Polezhaev’s 1829 “K druz’iam” the poet’s “hut” is actually a military camp: ...CpeflH ropniKOB, 6a6bn, nocyztbi, Ilojiypa3JiermHct Ha flocice Hjib Ha CK aM be, K aic B aM yroflHO, B H36e HeroflHoit h x o jio ^ h o h , B CMepTenBHOH CKyxe h tockc Iln m y k BaM , B eT p eH b ie a p y r H ! [In the midst of pots, women, and dishes, half-reclining on a plank, or on a bench if you prefer, in a worthless and cold hut, in utter boredom and depression, I am writing to you, my flighty friends!] While Kol’tsov retains friendly epistles’ notion of that a humble hut offers the poet “refuge,” Polezhaev makes a mockery of friendly epistles’ usual description of the poet’s rooms. This mockery is underlined by the adjective Polezhaev chooses to describe his addressee-friends, “flighty” or “frivolous” (“vetrenye”). Both of these excerpts show a shifting from friendly epistles’ semantic systems towards those of Romanticism, under which a “hut” was more readily associated with crushing poverty and blows of fortune than as a euphemism for a well-stocked gentleperson’s country house and the site of poetic symposia. As Mann 276 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. argues, Romanticism replaced the “stereotypical, ideal landscape” - the idyllic hut with a young beloved - with “concrete landscapes” (Mann, 152) - e.g., a hut filled with pots, women, and dishes (in that order). Such replacements may have helped to re-establish what Derrida calls the “primitive meaning” (“White,” 215) effaced by friendly epistles’ formulaic, idealized descriptions of “huts.” Cold, dark, ugly and worthless huts provide a glimpse of how components of Golden Age semantic systems were appropriated, re-oriented, and finally subsumed, by Romanticism. If friendly word-combinations such as the “humble hut” underwent a shift from straightforward use, to tongue-in-cheek humor, to complete reversals in meaning, what kind of shifts were in store for friendly epistles’ traditional thematic progressions? Virolainen claims that a typical friendly epistle’s theme progression ends with “a specifically shaped motif of death” (41). This usually involves the author foreseeing his own death, and takes one of two possible forms. Either the author lives life fully, so that he had no regrets when death comes for him at his country estate; or, the author describes his future gravesite, which usually consists of a pleasant grove near running water, where a passerby will later stop and reflect on the author’s life. As with word-combinations in late friendly epistles, we again find that it was mainly second-tier poets who treated traditional friendly epistles themes in straightforward, traditional ways. For example, A. A. Krylov’s 1821 “K Pletnevu” explores the theme of “the author’s future gravesite”: Kor/ta a K O H ny m en TeueHte, E b lT h M O H C e T , T b I, n03T M JiaflO H , 277 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. HaCKyHHB HiyMHOIO CTOJIHUeH, rip H ^ e n ib b cTpaH y, ryte apyr t b o h jk h ji, H H a rt e r o n p o c T O H r p o S H H iie f i rip o H T e m B c jio B a : o h c u a c T J iH B 6 b u i! [When I finish the course of my days, perhaps you, a young poet, having grown bored of the noisy capitol city, will come to the land where your friend lived. And on his simple headstone you will read the words: He was happy!] The strictness with which Krylov adheres to the genre’s model, and the epigonic nature of the resulting lines, supports the argument that the friendly epistle had exhausted possibilities for innovation in the traditional treatment of themes by the early 1820’s. What kinds of shifts did other authors of late friendly epistles discover, to reinvigorate traditional treatment of themes? Pushkin negates several of the usual components in the “future gravesite” theme in his 1817 “K Del’vigu” (“Blazhen, kto s iunykh let uvidel pred soboiu.. Instead of concluding with the prediction that a passerby will stop by his gravesite and think of him, Pushkin predicts oblivion: IIOTOMCTBO rp03H O e He BCnOMHHT 0 6 0 MHe, H r p o 6 HecnacTHoro, b nycTbiHe MpanHon, tjh k o h , 3 a 6 B e H b a n o p a c T e T n o ji3 y m e H h o b h j i h k o h ! [Cruel posterity will not remember me, and over the grave of this unhappy [poet], in a dark, savage wilderness, oblivion will grow in the form of parasitic herbs] Friendly epistles’ usual gravesite setting, the verdant grove, has also been replaced by a savage wilderness and parasitic creeping herbs. Another means of shifting traditional treatment of “death” was to shift attention from the author’s death to that of the addressee. For example, Viazemskii 278 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. concludes his 1817 “K Batiushkovu” (“Shumit po roshcham vetr osennii) by reproaching his addressee for isolating himself. Viazemskii advises that it is better to die in the company of friends than to live alone and die spiritually, while remaining physically alive: Koraa a ce C M epT b H aM b a n e p b 3 a r jia H e T 3 B a T b b 3aT O H eH H e c B o e , r i y c T b J i y u m e H a n n p y 3 a c T a H e T , HeM MepTBbiMH h /to Hee. [When death looks in our door to call us to its incarceration, let it find us at a symposium rather than already dead.] Friendly epistles were not usually an accepted forum for giving advice, unless balanced by humor or friendly caveats, absent in Viazemskii’s poem. But Viazemskii’s approach, though it may violate the etiquette of friendly epistles, does suggest that personalizing overused themes, albeit in the form of advice to the addressee, can reinvigorate them. Friendly epistles were not accustomed to discuss the state of death itself, preferring instead to discuss the poet’s ease with the concept of dying (before death) or the poet’s pleasant resting-place (after death). These 1817 poems by Pushkin and Viazemskii, however, both discuss the actual state of death, as an “incarceration” of an “unhappy” person (“zatochenie,” “grob neschastnogo”). This may reflect a darker view of death under the influence of Romanticism. The most developed Romantic view of death, involving physical decay (e.g., rotting flesh) does not appear in friendly epistles, but the depiction of “blood congealing” in Baratynskii’s 1820 “K<rylo>vu” comes close: 279 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Elite nonHa, apyr m h j ib i h m o h , ripea H aM H Hama jkh3hh cjia^Kon; Ho CMepTt, 6 b it b m o > k c t , ceii x < e nac Ee c H acM em K O H onpoKHHeT - H M H roM b ceptme tcpoBt o c t m h c t , H ^om no/oeMHtiH cKpoeT Hac! [Before us, my dear friend, the sweet cup of life is still full. But perhaps at this very moment, death will overturn it, and in that instant the blood will congeal in our hearts and our underworld home will conceal us!] In Baratynskii’s poem the afterlife is conceived not in terms of a passerby reflecting on the poet’s life, but in terms of burial underground (“dom podzemnyi skroet nas,” “our underworld home will conceal us”), reminiscent of being buried alive, since the lyrical hero apparently retains consciousness during this burial. Though Baratynskii’s poem retained enough friendliness to allow it to be classified as a friendly epistle, it nevertheless provides an example of how romantic genres slowly appropriated previous territory of friendly epistles, enriching their own thematic and lexical range at the declining genre’s expense. This survey suggests that, while Golden Age friendly epistles had exhausted their lexical and thematic range, shifting or negating Golden Age approaches could produce innovation. But therein lies the rub: when too many aspects of friendly epistles are negated, especially those core components like “friendship toward the addressee,” “the principle of friendship” and “an optimistic worldview,” the resulting text is no longer a friendly epistle. What solutions lay beyond upholding, or negating, the Golden Age model? Many of the most interesting late friendly epistles abandoned the middle-style 280 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lexicon of “Moi penaty” and “Gorodok.” Instead, they cultivated the more experimental and lower-style lexicon and themes seen earlier in unofficial friendly epistles by L’vov and Zhukovskii. Experimental friendly epistles in the 1820’s stretched these unofficial friendly epistles’ lower range by making recourse to camivalesque words and themes. Emphasis varied according to author. Zhukovskii’s 1820 “K K. F. Golitsynu,” for example, asks his addressee for information on a deceased dog, whose epitaph Zhukovskii has agreed to write: Bo-nepBbix: icaic o h Ha3BiBajica? I I o t o m : nopoflbi 6 b u i Kaicon: flBOpOBM H, rO HH Hit, HJIB JIflraBO H ? Hjib nyztejib c tojioboh KypnaBOH?... J la, CBepx Toro, kbkob 6 b u i cbohctbom: IIpH BeTeH 6 bui jih juih ceouxl Y m cji jih JiaaTB Ha nyotciaP. [In the first place: what was the dog’s name and breed? Was it a house dog, a hunting dog, or a guard dog? Or a curly-headed poodle? And also, what was its character like: was it friendly towards its owners'? Did it know how to bark at strangers?] Here, Zhukovskii explores the humorous potential of the collision between low and high (an epitaph is based on the dog’s barking habits) identified by Grekhnev (71), using a friendly tone and many prosaic details (“curly-headed”). However, as with many of his court epistles, Zhukovskii addresses the recipient formally (“Vy”), and we have no record of a response. It may be that this particular theme, a dog’s epitaph, lent itself especially well to a colloquial and humorous style. Other themes that lent themselves well to experimental or lower-style lexicon were food and travelling. Food is the main 281 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. theme of Viazemskii’s 1818 “Tolstomu,” which also marks something of a turning point for friendly epistles, not only because formulaic word-combinations are nearly absent, but also because there is something slightly condescending in Viazemskii’s description of his addressee, F. I. Tolstoi (“the American”): A M epm caH eit a n s ir a n , Ha CBeTe HpaBCTBeHHOM 3arajtK a, K o T o p o ro , KaK Jin x o p am ca, M aTeacH bix CKJioHHOCTeS nypM aH H uh cT pacT eit K H ium m x cxBaTKa B c e r a a H3 x p a a M eneT b icpait, H 3 p a a b a a , H3 a a a b p a n ! [American and gypsy, [you are] a puzzle for moral society. Like a fever, the narcotic of [your] rebellious disposition, or the pull of [your] boiling passions, is constantly casting you this way and that, from heaven to hell and back again!] Viazemskii brings himself into the drama in a farcical role, as authors of low genres are wont (Lotman, “Poeziia 1790-1810,” 30), describing the dangers of scribbling verse on the road: .. .Ily c T b c a o p o r a C ra x o M a p a H b a j h o t b i h 6ec K n j t a j i M eHfl t o b p o B , t o b Jie c , Ho a, x o t b n o H 3 6 n B iim H o r n , f lo ixejiH HaKOHeit n o jie 3 . [What does it matter if the angry demon of verse-scribbling threw me from the road into a ditch or a forest. Even though I broke my legs, at least I have finally reached my goal.] At the end of “Stantsiia,” Viazemskii announces his putative object: to ask the addressee for his chef: M H e HyxceH n o B a p - o t T o j i c t o t o 9 l t o j i b k o n o B a p a n p o m y ! [I need a cook — I am only asking Tolstoi for his cook!] R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Though it is theoretically possible that Viazemskii might have borrowed a friend’s cook for a special occasion, Viazemskii sent this poem from Warsaw to his addressee in Moscow. It seems more likely that Viazemskii was thanking his addressee for a farewell dinner, or letting him know his hospitality was missed. Viazemskii’s “Tolstomu” certainly represents the lower end of the friendly epistle range, according to Lotman’s definition of “low” genres, since its main theme is the stomach and since the author brings himself into the epistle’s drama in a farcical role. The absence not only of formulaic word-combinations, but also of clear indications as to the relationship between author and addressee that word- combinations often provided (e.g., “my dear friend”) may even lead readers to wonder whether this poem is a friendly epistle at all. Finally, though the poem refers to the addressee mainly in the second person, the penultimate line cited above refers to the addressee in the third person (“I am only asking Tolstoi for his cook!”). Third- person references are usually used in epigrams and invectives, on the one hand, or panegyric verse and odes, on the other, so that Viazemskii’s third-person reference further destabilizes the poem’s generic identity. But instability can itself be invigorating, and Viazemskii’s entertaining poem, with colorful metaphors and compressed syntax, may have served as a model for innovation in friendly epistles. In fact, many of the most interesting late friendly epistles are more colorful and more compressed than those written in the early 1810's. It is almost as if they were following the advice laid out by Zhukovskii, in one of his 1814 friendly epistles to Viazemskii and V. L. Pushkin (“Vot priamo odolzhili,” discussed in chapter 4) 283 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that friendly epistles be shorter, more colorful, and stay on topic. This seems particularly true of Pushkin's late friendly epistles.v m Indeed, Pushkin’s 1826 “<Iz pis’ma k Sobolevskomu>” (“U Gal’iani il’ Kol’ioni”) is brief, colorful and focused on a single topic: places the addressee can eat (and particular dishes to order) along the route from Moscow to Novgorod. Its topic thus combines two of the themes that lend themselves best to experimental lexicon, food and travel: Y T a n t a H H H i i t K o j ib o h h 3aKaacu ce6e b TBepn C napM a3aHOM M aicapoHH, Jfa H H X IiH H Ity C B ap it. Ha /toeyre oToSeztaH Y EtoHcapcKoro b Topaoce, )KapeHbix K O TJier O TB ezrau ( h m c h h o k o t j ic t ) H OTnpaBbca Ha nence... [At Galiani’s or Cologne’s in Tver’ order for yourself macaroni and parmesan, and have an omelet prepared. Dine at Pozharskii’s in Torzhok at your leisure. Try fried cutlets (be sure it is cutlets), and set off, not weighted down... (translation from Shaw, 331)] The second stanza’s extrametrical, parenthetical remark “(im en n o kotlet)” (“be sure it is cutlets”) is echoed a few stanzas later, when Pushkin inserts a second aside in prose recommending herrings upon the addressee’s arrival in Valdai (but only if the herrings are fresh). Such extrametrical insertions interrupt the poem’s rhythm, and resemble the kind of last-minute note that a letter-writer might jot down. This emphasizes the poem’s affinity to prose letters.1 * 284 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mann has observed that friendly epistles make use of prosaic inserts to encourage a literal, rather than abstract, interpretation of “things” mentioned (149). Mann’s example is Karamzin’s 1794 epistle to A. A. Pleshcheev: .. .y a a jiH M c a n o a b c t b h c h x 3 ejieH t.ix h b * . . . *Chh c t h x h n u c a H b i b caMOM ztejie n o a T e m n o h b . [...We’ll retreat beneath the boughs of these green willows*... *These verses were actually written in the shade of willows.] Such parenthetical notes distinguish between poetic generalizations (willows serving as metaphors for a pastoral landscape) and tangible, precise referents attached to words (willows that are actually willows). But, where “willows” easily traverse the line between high genres of poetry and prose, lower-style words like “cutlets” would be out of place in all poetry genres except the lowest, such as fables or bourimee. That is not to say that all mention of food in friendly epistles was associated with humor. On the contrary, abstract mention of food (e.g., “piry,” “feasts”) was ubiquitous. More concrete food was also tolerated: Derzhavin’s epistles named higher-style foods like sterlet, lobster and caviar (1795 “Priglasheniu k obedu” and 1807 “Evgeniiu: zhizn’ zvanskaia”), while Batiushkov’s 1812 “K Zhukovskomu” listed the addressee’s hypothetical dinner menu: Te6e i t o j i h o c h t b h h b i H nopiep b m iih c h o h , M eoH H bi anejibC H H M , H c Tpio^uiaMH nnpor... [You will be served wines and imported port, juicy oranges and a mushroom pie...] 285 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. But Batiushkov’s dinner menu was intended to poke gentle fun at the addressee’s hypocrisy, according to Senderovich: [Batiushkov] cheerfully points out that it is fine for Zhukovskii to preach about asceticism while himself living satiated and happy (88). As a general rule, the more concrete the food in a friendly epistle, the greater the chance it functions in a humorous capacity. Tynianov argues that friendly epistles brought prosaic themes and details into poetry (93), and Pushkin’s late friendly epistles serve as proof that these prosaic themes could be expressed in the lowest, most prosaic registers. Pushkin’s innovation in this regard, which Grekhnev describes as “seditious, from the point of view of the [friendly] epistle’s former orientation,” stems from the prosaic elements themselves, based in “unpredictable reality.” In Grekhnev’s view, tangible prosaic elements give Pushkin fresh material to work with, as yet undiscovered by other authors of friendly epistles (73). Thus, the absence of any “connection to the sphere of real life” in earlier friendly epistles (Grekhnev, 29) can now be corrected with one or two parenthetical statements (“only if the herrings are fresh”). These let the addressee and other readers know that it is not abstract “symposia” under discussion, but cutlets and herrings (really, cutlets!). While Pushkin’s letter to Sobolevskii emphasized food over travel, Viazemskii’s 1825 “Stantsiia” (The Station) reverses the emphasis. The most interesting aspect of Viazemskii’s poem may be his mixture of not only French, but also Latin, Italian and Polish words and phrases, with Russian. This involves setting words in the Latin alphabet and mixed-language rhymes, as the opening lines show: 286 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. flocaflH O cjiB im aT t: «Sta v ia to r ! » H j i b , h 3 b j i c h s 5i c h npocT eH : « H 3 6 0 iib m e J ic d a m b , H em n o i u a d e u » , — K or.ua ryoepHCKHH p e r a c r p a T o p , IIOHTOBOH CTaHIXHH flHKTaTOp (E\iy THnyH 6 b i H a jo bnc!), C eii pentK) craBH T Bac b TynHK. [It’s tiresome to hear “Sta viator!” [“Stop, traveler!”] Or, more simply put: “Please wait, there are no horses,” when the provincial clerk, the post-station’s dictator (a curse on his tongue!) puts you in a dead end with this phrase.] Viazemskii’s complaints about travel systems in the Russian empire yield to reflection on Polish hospitality, and he describes the meal that a stationmaster’s wife in Poland might serve: IIpH T O M Hbmjiaia, paicn, cnap»ca, H j i h T ex H H H ecK H c K a a c y H MecTHOCTb K pacoK yaepjK y: «Kurczeta, raczki i szparagi» (Hero He CTepiiHT jihct oyMarn H pH([)Ma nojt m ohm nepoM ?)... [Also, chicken, crayfish, asparagus. Or, I’ll say it technically and preserve the local color: “Kurczeta, raczki i szparagi.” (Is there any limit to what a piece of paper and rhyme won’t tolerate under my pen?)] In these excerpts alone, we find quotes in three languages: the Latin epitaph “Sta viator”; the station clerk telling the lyrical hero that there are no horses in Russian; and the stationmaster’s wife reciting the day’s menu (first in the narrator’s translation, then in the Polish original). There is no doubt that dialogicity - or polylogicity - played a prominent role in friendly epistle poetics. The multilingual polylogues in “Stantsiia” emphasize the “local color,” as Viazemskii claims, but also broaden the scope of the discourse R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. across time and languages, from a Polish stationmaster’s menu to travelers in the Roman world facing similar delays (“Sta viator!”). Friendly epistles’ multivoicedness also proved important for other literary genres. Senderovich argues that friendly epistles’ discoveries in the realm of dialogic language were the genre’s most lasting consequence, allowing elegies the luxury of subtlety, since readers had been “prepared by [friendly epistles] for intimate participation in poetic events... [T]he reader understands from half a word” (95, 109). Yet multilingual quotes by themselves may be inherently unfriendly, especially if they “emphasize difference” between the author and uninitiated readers. This is the conclusion of Gary Dyer in a study of Byron’s Don Juan, where words appear from “at least six national languages besides English...” Byron, like Viazemskii in “Stantsiia,” calls attention to his foreign quotes by “rhyming words from disparate sources, pairing Greek with English, elevated language with vulgar, literary language with colloquial, and so on” (Dyer, 573-4). On the other hand, Dyer also identifies “affirmation or optimism in the poet’s movement among languages: it advertises his learning and his knowledge of ‘life’; it reflects and endorses cosmopolitanism” (574). This seems to be the spirit in which Viazemskii’s “Stantsiia” was written, especially if we interpret the poem’s main theme as a tribute to Polish culture (Dyer’s “optimism,” “cosmopolitanism”), at a time when many Russians coveted strong anti-Polish sentiment/ Viazemskii’s “Stantsiia” is clearly an example of polyglottic, polylogical verse. But is it a friendly epistle? Viazemskii addresses his readers in only two 28S R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. places (“my dear friends,” “my Pushkin”). In metaliterary dialogue, Viazemskii assures Pushkin that there are pretty feet in Poland, worthy of Pushkin’s verses, addresses his readers with numerous questions, and lectures his critics on the best method of translation for idiomatic phrases. Yet the poem is subtitled a “travelogue in verse” (“puteshestvie v stikhakh”). Indeed, it would not be difficult to argue that “Stantsiia” is a travelogue, rather than a friendly epistle, because of the absence of a specific addressee. M. Gasparov’s inclusion of “Stantsiia” in a list of friendly epistles (Ocherk, 113), however, suggests basic critical recognition that this poem should be seen as part of the friendly epistle tradition. For these reasons, “Stantsiia” was classified as a friendly epistle. Viazemskii’s 1826 “Koliaska,” also something of a hybrid between travelogues and friendly epistles, addresses his readers three times (“Druz’ia” / “Friends”), so that by analogy “Koliaska” was also classified as a friendly epistle. However, travelogues with fewer, or even less direct, nods to an addressee (such as Iazykov’s 1823 “Chuvstvitel’noe puteshestvie v Revel’,” “Sentimental Journey to Revel’ [Tallinn]”) were not classified as friendly epistles. So far, the “experimental” friendly epistles cited besides “Stantsiia” had not been intended for publication. But this was not because they had something to hide: themes like “was your dog curly-headed?” or “where you should eat” are relatively mild. However, Byron’s exotic lexicon — which, Dyer argues, hid references to sodomy (563) - brings us to the topic of rhetorical transgressions, which often appear hand in hand with experimental, foreign, or otherwise coded lexicon. 2S9 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For example, Viazemskii used Polish phrases in his 1820 “<Tabashnoe poslanie>” (‘Tobacco Epistle”), sent to N. I. Turgenev with a package of Spanish tobacco. This time, however, the Polish phrases did not serve as an endorsement of cosmopolitanism, as they had in “Stantsiia.” Rather, they seem to have served as a code, helping Viazemskii communicate his dissatisfaction with Russia’s social policies while keeping himself out of trouble: Bo h m a XapTHH, c b o o o u b i, Bcero, nero y H a c nie m a . .. [In the name of the Magna Carta, of freedom, of everything that “nie ma” [is lacking] for us...] In other cases, the friendly epistle genre itself seems to have functioned as a “code.” As in the 1790’s, in the 1820’s friendly epistles may have been presumed to be an innocuous genre consisting of formulaic vows of friendship. To the extent this was true, friendly epistles provided a promising forum for smuggling in seditious references. Viazemskii’s 1820 “Vasilii L’vovich milyi! Zdravstvui!” (“Dear Vasilii L’vovich! Hello!”), for instance, appears to be a harmless New Year’s greeting. However, in the midst of a list of New Year’s wishes for the addressee, Viazemskii adds a complaint about “white slavery”: n y c T b o e.ib ix H erpoB n p e K p a m T c a n p o n a a c a Ha c batch P v c h. [Let the sale of white slaves in holy Russia come to an end.] Not all of friendly epistles’ transgressions involved criticism of the government. In fact, some of most interesting rhetorical transgressions involve the camivalesque, represented here by excerpts from three poems by Pushkin written 290 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. between 1823 and 1825. In his 1825 “<Iz pis’ma k Viazemskomu>,” Pushkin complains that a Lenten diet has afflicted him with diarrhea: B r a y u m , H 3M ynacb }KH3Hbio nocT H oft, H 3 H e M o r a a > k h b o to m . He napio - cmicy opnoM H ooneH npa3/tH O C TbK ) noHOCHon. ByMarn 6epery 3 a n a c , HaTyry BztoxH O BeH tH H yacubiH, Xoacy a pe/tKO H a Ila p H a c , H TOilbKO 3 a SoJIbUIOK) Hy/KHOH... [In the wilderness, tormented by Lenten life, my stomach exhausted, rather than soaring, I am sitting like an eagle, sick with diarrhea- induced idleness. I guard a supply of paper in reserve, and, alien to the strain of inspiration, I visit Parnassus only rarely, and even then, only out of great necessity...] In his “<K Rodzianke>” of the same year, Pushkin consoles his addressee: Rodzianko had recently written Pushkin that his affair with A. P. Kern seems about to end, since Kem has decided to return to her husband in order to bear legitimate children. Pushkin advises Rodzianko not to despair, since an alternative to bearing legitimate children is bearing illegitimate children under the cover of marriage: XBaino, m o h jpyr, ee o x o t v , nooTztoxHVB, p oH caT b jeTeii. flo zto o H b ix MaTepti cBoeii; H CHaCTJIHB, k t o p a 3 j e j n i T c Hefl Cnio npHH TH VIO 3aO O T V : He H aB eaeT OHa 3eBOTy, 2I a S 6or, h t o o To.ibK O T H M eH eii Me* Te.M npojuiHJi c b o i o zipeM O Ty. [My friend, I applaud [Kern’s] enthusiasm, now that she has rested up, for bearing children who resemble their mother. And whoever shares this pleasant task with her is lucky: it won’t bring on yawns, and God grant that Hymen continue to sleep in the meantime.] R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, Pushkin’s 1823 “<Iz pis’ma k Vigel’iu>” takes up the topic of homosexual sex. Pushkin had just left Kishinev for Odessa, and wrote to VigeF, now visiting Kishinev, comparing Kishinev unfavorably to the ancient Biblical city of Sodom. Pushkin claims he would have been happy in Sodom: IIpoBeji 6bi a CM npeH H O Beic B naptrae BeTxoro 3aBexa! Ho b KmiiHHeBe, 3HaeinB caM , HeJIB3K H aH T H H H M H JIb lX ^aM, Hh C B O flH H , H H KHHrOnpoaaBIta. — ... O flH aK O H c Koe-KaK, moh Jtpyr, Jlnmb Tojibico 6yaeT M H e ztocyr, ilBJiioca a nepefl toSoio; Te6e cny>K H Tb a 6yay pazt - CraxaMH, npo3O0, Bceit ztymoio, Ho, Bnrejib - nomaztH moh 3an! [I would have lived out my life contentedly in [Sodom,] the Paris of the Old Testament! But in Kishinev, as you know, one can’t find nice women, procuresses, or booksellers... Nevertheless, my friend, one way or another, as soon as I have time, I’ll appear before you. I’ll be happy to serve you with verse, with prose, with all my soul, but Vigel’ — spare my rear!] One connection between these three epistles by Pushkin, besides sharing a camivalesque component, is their emphasis on concrete referents. Grekhnev explains that, in Pushkin’s late friendly epistles, he freed prosaic elements of “layers of conventionality, to return it to its original nature, without being embarrassed... by the ‘anti-poetic’ material of reality” (73). Poetic conventions might have dictated that religious or classical themes - Lent, Parnassus, Hymen, the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah — be set in an abstract, higher-style context. However, Pushkin provides uses high-style themes to represent “anti-poetic reality” as experienced by himself and his addressees. Lenten diet leads to 2 9 2 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. indigestion; Parnassus is implied to be a toilet, whose palpability is underscored by the “extra paper” (“[b]umagi beregu zapas”) kept handy. Hymen no longer represents marital bliss in the abstract; rather, it represents Kem’s husband not realizing that children she bears may not be his (“[p]odobnykh mated svoei”). Finally, where Sodom usually represents sexual excess in the abstract, in Pushkin’s epistle to Vigel’ “Sodom” serves as a metaphor for actual sexual practices by Pushkin and his addressee (Pushkin is interested in brothels but not in sex with Vigel’). By bringing his own rear into the narrative (“poshchadi moi zad”), Pushkin further concretizes his references, much as his parenthetical aside “(imenno kotlet)” had in his short friendly epistle to Sobolevskii. Grekhnev calls the “mismatch” of prosaic and poetic elements in Pushkin’s late epistles ironic, and sometimes satiric; it is also humorous, and highly attuned to the addressee. Grekhnev and Brown concur that Pushkin’s authorial voice changes in the 1820’s: according to Grekhnev, Pushkin’s late epistles have fewer characterizations of the author or addressee as “types” (e.g., “lazy philosopher”; 73). Brown, in arguing that Pushkin’s late epistles were highly adapted to the addressee, explains that the more personal tone in Pushkin’s 1820’s verse epistles “...does away with the need for characterizing formulas and epithets such as abound in earlier friendly and personal verse epistles.” Thus, instead of declaring his friendship through epithets such as “My friend!” Pushkin “buil[t] his answering poem on the original conceit” of the addressee’s previous letters or verse, to which Pushkin’s epistles were often replies (Brown, 481). 2 9 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Brown supports this claim with plenty of evidence from Pushkin’s late friendly epistles. For example, Pushkin’s friendly epistle to Sobolevskii gives “a purely gastronomical cast to [the travel] itinerary. This is appropriate for Sobolevskii, whom Pushkin on another occasion accused of becoming ill through overeating, for it emphasizes [Sobolevskii’s] delight in food.” (Brown, 485) Pushkin’s epistle on diarrhea and constipation was written in response to an 1825 letter from Viazemskii, which included an epigram comparing bad poetry to manure (“navoz”) and other references to feces (“slabit,” “govno”; Brown, 470-4). Likewise, Pushkin did not initiate the topic of homosexual sex in his correspondence with Vigel’. In an 1823 letter to Pushkin, Vigel’ marvels that Pushkin had survived several years in Kishinev, and alludes to his own homosexuality in this regard: “[Although my sins, or rather, my sin, is great, it is not so great that fate would sentence me to live in such a garbage pit [as Kishinev]” (Pushkin XU!: 68). By way of contrast, neither taboo themes like excrement and sodomy, nor scabrous language, appear in Pushkin’s friendly epistles to addressees like Gnedich or V. L. Pushkin. Brown concludes that ...this is evidence of the fact that the addressee has an important influence on the means that Pushkin uses to express himself and that he could successfully adapt his style to persons having differing language sensibilities (491). Pushkin’s cultivation of colorful, prosaic, and highly personal friendly epistles suggests so much potential that it seems surprising that his production of friendly epistles, along with that of other poets, ended in the late 1820’s. It may be that the friendly epistle genre, or the general cultural atmosphere and cult of 2 9 4 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. friendship’s sway, led Pushkin to address his recipients more warmly, and depict their relationship as closer, than their actual relations warranted. The job of assessing whether or not a friendly epistle’s tone matched the tone of the real-life relationship should be left to scholars of biography, but of the poems cited in this section, Pushkin’s epistle to Rodzianko nonetheless comes to mind as an example of a friendly epistle addressed to a non-friend. It may also be that Pushkin stretched the usual forum of friendly epistles to cover topics that did not fit comfortably under an attitude of friendliness. Authors of earlier friendly epistles had limited themselves to “friendly themes” like invitations. Potentially controversial topics were discussed in prose letters (e.g., correspondence between Dmitriev and Karamzin over a small amount of money owed for a subscription), rather than in friendly epistles, keeping the list of topics suitable for friendly epistles suitably “friendly.” Grekhnev’s description of Pushkin’s late friendly epistles shedding layers of conventionality to “return... to [their] original nature” appears strikingly analogous to the implication in Derrida that faded metaphors might be reinvigorated by restoring their original meaning. By mining realia for colorful sources of material for friendly epistles, by restoring to metaphors such as “piry” and “Sodom” some of their “primitive meaning,” ruggedness and color (“White,” 211-3), Pushkin also restored the genre, albeit only in his own circle and only temporarily, in the 1820’s. However, in the long run, using friendly epistles to address non-friends on non-friendly topics was probably just as unsustainable a practice as writing hundreds 295 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of friendly epistle lines had been in 1814 and 1815. Stretching friendly epistles’ range invigorated the genre and produced many fascinating poems; Pushkin’s friendly gestures to non-friends did not themselves put the genre at risk. However, addressing friendly epistles to acquaintances and non-friends may have exaggerated the warmth of the “friendship.” This, in turn, may have set up poets, and in particular Pushkin, for disillusionment, whether the source of that disillusionment was in the friends and non-friends themselves, or in the waning of the friendly ideal. III. Other Genres Borrow From, and Negate, Friendly Epistles; Conclusion When friendly epistles were at their peak, between 1810 and 1815, innovations were made in the realms of exotic and humorous rhymes, palpable “thinginess” and polylogicity, as they were in later friendly epistles. Yet innovations made at the genre’s peak did not disturb the core components of the friendly epistle: its friendly tone, friendly word-combinations geared toward the addressee and generally optimistic worldview. However, the hybrid epistles appearing in the 1820’s - accompanied by parodies of friendly epistles and negations of the Cult of Friendship - soon evolved into a genre of their own right, which we will call “Romantic” or elegiac epistles. Parodies, epigrams, critical attacks, and other manifestations of the rejection of friendly epistles in the 1820’s have been organized into three categories: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1) those that show changes in literary systems, e.g. negation of Golden Age friendly epistles and manifestations of Romanticism; 2) those that show changes in the cultural atmosphere, namely, the waning of the cult of friendship; and 3) those that show changes in literary and literary-critical discourse, including violations of the “gentleperson’s” understanding of criticism. Analysis of these texts will lay the groundwork for conclusions about the friendly epistle’s rise and fall, its accomplishments and influence on the literary language and on other genres. The first group of texts consists of those that negate the word-signals and themes of Golden Age friendly epistles. These are similar to the group of texts surveyed in the previous section (5.2), except that here the negations permeate the texts to such a degree that the resulting epistle can no longer be classified as “friendly.” The speed with which slight negations and shifts in Golden Age friendly epistle poetics turned into wholesale negation of those poetics in favor of Romanticism suggests that Romanticism did not like to share the stage with other worldviews. Instead, Romanticism seems to have required that Golden Age references be set in the past, while the lyrical hero in the present experiences alienation, solitude, depression, disdain, betrayal, loss of feeling, and hopelessness in the face of unmerciful Fate and unkind nature (snakes, heat, cold). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus, Iazykov, in Estonia and suffering from a late stage of syphilis (Lilly, 52) “Romanticizes” the traditional friendly-epistle marker “penates” by calling his domestic god “alien,” in his 1823-4 “N. D. Kiselevu: K novomu, 1824 godu”: IlorH O H y jib jfcepTBOio 6 < JiazteH > E to n KpoBOM n y a c a o r o n e H a T a ? [Will I perish as a whore’s victim under the roof of alien domestic gods?] In this example, “alien” serves to negate the friendly-epistle marker “penate.” Friendly epistle markers can also be negated by setting them in question form, such as: “Where are [my friends / our former feasts]?” or by claiming they have been forgotten. These two devices appear in Baratynskii’s 1820 elegiac epistle to Del’vig, “Gde ty, bespechnyi drug?” (“Where are you, carefree friend?”): H r u e ac 6 p e r a H e B b i? D i e n a m B e c e jib m cT yic? 3a6t>iT apy3baMH npyr 3aonHbiH... [And where are the Neva’s banks? Where is the merry clanging of cups? Friends have forgotten their friend far away...] These two examples by no means exhaust the possibilities for negation. Friendly epistle markers could be negated by being set in the past (“Byvalo...” “It used to be that...”), or could be negated outright by being prefaced with “not” or “no.” Iazykov’s 1824 “N. D. Kiselevu” (“Skazhi, kak zhit’ mne bez tebia?”) makes use of both these devices: M e iib K a rm dhicTpo hhh moh: .H 3Haji He KynneHHoe cnacTbe... [My days flew quickly by: I knew happiness that was not bought...] 298 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The presence of a negative marker (“not”) technically negates the phrase “bought happiness.” Yet its implications are nevertheless negative: today’s happiness must be purchased. The fact that something must be negated indicates that, on some level, it is exerting power. In fact, Blanchot argues that genres evolve by negating themselves: [A shattered genre develops] not by engendering monsters, formless works without law and without rigor, but by provoking only exceptions to itself, which establish a law and at the same time suppress it... (Blanchot, quoted in Todorov, 160). In the early 1820’s, the friendly epistle was still one of the literary dominants, a “law” provoking “exceptions to itself.” This is why Kiukhel’beker aimed his 1824 criticism of light poetry at its two leading genres, the friendly epistle and the elegy. When it is “penates” that are negated as “alien,” it is the friendly epistle’s system of references being negated, indicating that this system of references was still exerting power. Similarly, Senderovich explains the relations between the friendly epistle and the Romantic elegy as self-justification by means of differentiation. By “mourning” the Golden Age of poetry, by which Senderovich means friendly epistles in the spirit of “Moi penaty,” elegies justified themselves, according themselves those generic functions not associated with friendly epistles (111). However, as the 1820’s progress, it is more often unfriendly, or Romantic, words and ideas that are negated. Thus, we find in Pushkin’s 1821 “K moei chemil’nitse” a string of negations: 9 { B ecen o KJienM mi 3omia h HeBeacay rb lT H O M TBOHX H e p H H JI... 2 9 9 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ho H X He pa3BOflHJI Hh t e h h o h 3 j i o c t h neHOH, Hh H flO M K JieBeTbi. H cep^ua npocTOTbi Hh JieCTblO, H H H 3M C H O H He 3 aM ap a n a t h . [I happily branded Zoils and ignoramuses with a blotch of your ink... But I did not dilute [the ink] with the scum of secret malice, or with slander’s venom. And you did not blemish purity of the heart with either flattery or betrayal.] Pushkin’s negations lead readers to assume that other poets’ inkstands are, unlike Pushkin’s, “diluted with malice,” leading to venomous slander and betrayal. Kozlov, in his lengthy 1822 epistle “K drugu V. A. Zh<ukovskomu>...” also uses negations to explain how he has been overcoming depression since losing his eyesight, though his conclusions themselves could bring on depression: H3Beflan a, hto y6nBaTb He Moryr rpo3Hbie cipajtaHba... [I learned that terrible suffering is not lethal...] Pushkin’s negations of unfriendliness may help him make a point about literary polemics, but it does not make the literary scene any friendlier; similarly, Kozlov’s denial that he is in the grip of depression inadvertently underscores the seriousness of his struggle. In other cases, friendly epithets are used in a straightforward way, but the rest of the poem is suffused with Romantic lexicon and themes. This is the case in N.M. Konshin's 1823 “Boratynskomu”: HanpacHO a, apyr M H Jibrn moh, )Kejiaji HaH TH Hayicy cnacTba... R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [My dear friend, in vain I sought a science of happiness...] Konshin's epistle ends with a revisionist view of a hallmark friendly epistle theme, the friendly symposium. Instead of inviting friends to join the poet for a feast held in his cozy comer, Konshin advocates enjoying the ...“symposium of life” alone: CnacTJiHB, k to b yrojiKy yioTHOM... 0 ,h h h n u p y e T > kh3h h n a p . .. [Happy is he who lives in a cozy comer... and enjoys life’s feast alone...] Konshin’s stated reluctance to share life’s feast is in accordance with his addressee’s 1821 claim that he is reluctant to share his poetry, like a bee hoarding honey (“Tvoi detskii vyzov mne priiaten...” “Your childish appeal is pleasant to me...”). The Romanticization of friendly epistles’ themes (alien penates, unbought happiness, solitary feasts) soon results in these themes’ dominance. But the dominance of the Romantic worldview involves more than negations of friendly epistles. As Grekhnev explains, friendly epistles envision a unity (“nerazdel’nost”’) of things and souls and unavoidable connections to everything in existence (70). This goes against the alienation, betrayal and disdain inherent to the Romantic worldview. This is a crucial distinction when one is trying to classify texts by genre, since tallying up the number of friendly word-combinations, as opposed to their negations, can lead to “not seeing the forest for the trees.” In particular, there emerges a transitional epistle, friendly toward the addressee but full of conflict towards the rest of the world, that resembles the friendly epistle but should probably 301 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. not be classified as such. Grekhnev’s explanation clarifies this boundary, and explains why friendly epistles must, by definition, be based on a friendly (or rosy- colored) worldview, as well as on a friendly attitude towards the addressee. To turn now to our second question, what was happening in wider cultural systems in 1820’s Russia, and how did that affect friendly epistles? Or, did the shift from friendly epistles to Romantic epistles itself affect 1820’s culture? The ascension of Romanticism in Russia was concurrent with the waning of the cult of friendship, but causality is difficult to determine. Perhaps Romanticism, with its emphasis on alienation, isolation and betrayal, directly caused the cult of friendship to fade. Or perhaps it was biographical circumstances of the 1820’s, such as exile and schizophrenia, that led to the waning of the cult of friendship. Such biographical circumstances could have themselves encouraged acceptance of Romanticism, since Romanticism’s semantic system was better equipped to explain “betrayal” and “blows of fate.” Cries of “betrayal” appear to increase in poetry and letters of the 1820’s as opposed to earlier decades. Yet again, it is difficult to pinpoint cause and effect: were friends betraying one another more in the pre- and post-Decembrist years? Was betrayal linked with the increased commercialization of literature, so that everything was “for sale”? Or, did friends’ “betrayal” simply become more noticeable under the influence of a literary system that harped on it (Romanticism)? Perhaps it was not betrayal that increased, but nai've faith in friends and the world’s benevolence that decreased, as that faith turned out to be unwarranted. 3 0 2 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To draw conclusions about why “betrayal” is mentioned more often, and whether faith in friends was unwarranted, we might first ask what distinguished friends from non-friends. While the “Beseda” was meeting, it seems that there were rather clear distinctions, and the Beseda-Arzamas opposition also made it relatively easy to choose the appropriate genre for any given addressee: friendly epistles would be addressed to friends, while Besedists would be recipients of epigrams and parodies. But the case of V. L. Pushkin shows that friends could also be subjected to hurtful attacks. In 1816, as punishment for writing verses “unworthy” of Arzamas, it was proposed that V. L. Pushkin’s membership in Arzamas be revoked. In his plea for reinstatement, an epistle to Arzamas (“K***”), V. L. Pushkin argued that Arzamasians should not attack one another, but remain united against common enemies. The fact that he was forced to make these arguments at all suggests how early the Arzamas brotherhood itself began dismantling precepts of loyal friendship. This brings us to the role that friendly circles played in the decline of the cult of friendship. Though friendly circles were instigators and beneficiaries of the cult of friendship, their vows of camaraderie may have led to an exaggerated, unrealistic sense of friendship. Such an exaggerated sense of friendship may have led to Pushkin’s complaints to Iakov Tolstoi about the faithlessness of “Zelenaia lampa” members (5.2). The fact that Tolstoi himself broke off relations with Pushkin in 1824 (Pushkin XIII: 84) and eventually became a government informant {Pu.tevod.iteV, 379) suggests how stacked the deck was, in 1820’s Russia, against friendship. 3 0 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The rhetoric of friendship which marked friendly epistles (“my dear friend! O friendship!”) may have also led friendly epistle authors or addressees to believe that the friendship between them was warmer than was actually the case. This was especially true when a poet’s circle of addressees was wide. Applying epithets like “my dear friend” to distant friends, or gambling partners, could have led to disappointment and accusations of betrayal when the “dear friend” turned out to be just a distant friend, or just a gambling partner, after all. According to Lotman, friendly circles developed into secret societies “in accordance with the evolution of the theme of friendship and the friendly epistle genre.” Friendly epistles represented a forum easily adaptable to seditious discourse: their “intimacy turned into a coded script, while the language of friendly hints [inside references] turned into the language of political conspiracy” (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 57). Lotman points to Pushkin’s 1821 “<V. L. Davydovu>” as an example of the fruitful links between friendship, friendly epistles and political conspiracy. Politics also played a role in the cult of friendship’s decline by splitting “friends” into literary and political factions, a split that was often discussed in verse epistles. For example, Pushkin’s acquaintance V. F. Raevskii, imprisoned in 1822 for spreading revolutionary propaganda among soldiers under his tutelage, wrote several verse epistles, addressed in large part to Pushkin, from prison. In his 1822 “K druz’iam,” Raevskii entreats Pushkin to give up light poetry: OcTaBb npyrHM neBitaM jno6oBb! J h o 6 o B b j i h n e T b , r j t e 6 p b i 3 a c e T K p o B b . . . 3 0 4 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [Leave “love” for other poets! Can one sing of love, when blood is being spattered...] The fact that this poem, as well as Raevskii’s “Pevets v temnitse” (“A Bard in Prison”), was actually written in a prison may have made writing a response in defense of light poetry more difficult: Pushkin’s answers remained fragments. In this case, epistles represent not the fruition of the links between friendship, epistles and politics, but the tension between them. Raevskii’s and Pushkin’s epistles and epistle fragments to one another are not set in a friendly tone, and this underscores Grekhnev’s point that “real complications of social existence” were beyond the scope of friendly epistles. Friendly epistles’ inability to discuss politics, let alone to bridge factions along political lines, can also be seen in Pushkin’s 1827 “19 oktiabria 1827,” one of his annual commemorative poems to his lycee class. The poem’s addressees are divided into two groups: those living more or less carefree lives, and those in exile or prison (Pushchin, Kiukhel’beker). Each group is accorded a stanza: Bor n o M O H b B aM , ,ztpy3bji m o h , B 3a6oTax > k h 3 h h , papcKOH cjiy>K 6bi, H Ha nnpax pa3rynbHOH /rpyxcSbi, H b cnaflKHX TaHHCTBax jiioSbh! Bor noMOHb BaM, ttpy3ba m o h , M b 6ypax, h b h c h t b h c k o m rope, B Kpaio nyacoM, b nycTbiHHOM Mope, H b MpaHHbix nponacTax 3eMJin! [God help you, my friends, in life’s worries, in serving the tsar, at feasts of dissolute friendship, and in the sweet mysteries of love! // God help you, my friends, in storms, in life’s sorrows, in alien lands, in the desolate sea, and in the earth’s dark abysses!] R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This short verse accommodates divergence in the addressees’ fates where friendly epistles could not, since it was beyond the capacity of friendly epistles to explore topics like exile. Accompanying real-life threats to friendship, trust and commonality were attacks on friendship in the abstract. The earliest expressions of the new anti friendship sentiment were imports from Western romanticism, such as the epigram “Vinnaia druzhba” (“Friendship Based on Wine”), translated from German and published in Blagonamerennyi in 1819: Kor,na nepe3 b h h o kto c K eM -H H 6y.ni> npyacHTca, To n p y a c b a , KaK b h h o , H a yT po n cn a p H T ca. [When a friendship is struck based on wine, that friendship, like wine, will evaporate by morning.] A. A. Krylov used a stronger version of this theme for an 1821 friendly epistle (“Vakkhicheskie poety: K A. E. Izmailovu” “Bacchic Poets: To A. E. Izmailov”), wishing “oblivion” on poets who continue to write epistles tying friendship to inebriation. Krylov thereby managed to write a friendly epistle that was set against the genre’s main principles, or the “laws” of friendly epistle poetics: friendship, symposia, wine. Friendly epistles set against the genre’s principles were rare; epigrams and elegies were preferred genres for expressing feelings such as disillusionment (“razuverenie”), which, according to Grekhnev, better answered the spirit of the times (78). Senderovich analyzes excerpts from an epigram, an elegy and variant lines to an elegy written by Pushkin in the 1820’s on “disillusionment with 3 0 6 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. friendship based on wine” (112-3). In these, Pushkin ties friendship to hangovers, to betrayal, and to heavy-headed regret: T t o /ip y a c S a ? JlencH H n w ji n o x M e jita ... («flpy>K6a» 1824) 5 i cjifciruy b h o b b a p y 3 e ii n p e ^ a T e jib C K H H n p H B e r . .. (variant lines to «BocnoMHHaHHe» 1828) Be3yM H bix JieT yracmee Becejibe M H e T aacejio, x a x CMyTHoe n o x M e n b e ... («3jieraa» 1830) [What is friendship? The light dust of a hangover... (“Druzhba,” 1824] [And again I hear the traitorous greeting of friends... (variant lines to “Vospominanie,” 1828)] [The fading merriment of reckless years distresses me, like a vague hangover... (“Elegiia,” 1830)] Notwithstanding his 1824 “Druzhba,” Pushkin went on to write one of the pinnacles of the “friendship based on imbibing” mode of friendly epistles, his 1827 “Poslanie Del’vigu” (also called “Cherep,” “The Skull”). However, such celebration of poets’ symposia fueled by alcoholic drinks was soon replaced, under Romanticism and realism, by cruder images of drinking. Thus, we find drunk peasants in Lermontov’s 1841 “Rodina”: H b npa3aH H K , B enepoM pocncT biM , CMOTpeTb JX O nOJIHOHH rOTOB Ha njiacKy c TonaHbeM h c b h c t o m n o a rOBOp nbJIHbIX MyJKHHKOB. [And on a dewy holiday evening, I am ready to stay up until midnight watching a dance, complete with stamping and whistling, [and] accompanied by the sound of drunk peasants’ speech.] 307 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is but half a step from the narrator’s condescending account of drunken peasants to realist representations of drunkenness through characters such as Dostoevskii’s Marmeladov. The mainstays of the friendly epistle genre, then, had all been negated by the 1830’s, including “friendly symposia” (drunken camaraderie leaves only a hangover, and some poets prefer to eat “alone”) and the poet’s comer (the hut is now dark, cold, and ugly, or forced on the poet by exile). The innocent male-male idyll described in friendly epistles also became untenable as it became sexualized. Pushkin’s phrase “But Vigel’, spare my rear” undercuts the innocent male-male idyll by suggesting that without this phrase, Vigel’ might come to the wrong conclusion about Pushkin’s proposed visit. In the 1830’s, Pushkin also ridiculed earlier manifestations of the male-male idyll, in his marginalia to Batiushkov's poetry: Batiushkov (1817 Opvtv): Pushkin’s marginalia: O t b c t T — u y .. .T b o h / t p y r T e 6 e H aB ex o t h b ih c C p y x o io c e p tm e O T ^aeT . . . * * E a T io m x o B aceH H T ca H a TH e ^ n n e ! [«Answer to G<nedi>ch»: ...From now till eternity, your friend offers you his heart and his hand.. .* *Batiushkov is marrying Gnedich!] % From the culture of friendship we make a transition now to the culture of print, and the economics and ethics of publishing. The major trends under discussion 3 0 8 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. so far - the transition to Romanticism and waning of the principle of friendship - manifest themselves in print culture as well. Ginzburg describes the print atmosphere of early nineteenth-century Russia as narrow and congenial: The fact that texts filled with biographical realia and inside references could appear in print is somewhat connected to the fact that, in the first third of the nineteenth century, the literary circle in Russia was still narrow and generally consisted of people personally acquainted with one another (“Pushkin,” 146). Few would take issue with such a description for the years from 1790 until 1815 or 1820. However, it is probably an exaggeration to claim that publishing remained more or less all-in-the-family for the first third of the nineteenth century - in other words, up until 1833. For example, a rather innocent friendly epistle exchange between Del’vig, Kiukhel’beker and Baratynskii inspired a parody by Boris Fedorov, “Soiuz poetov” (“A poets’ union”), published in both Vestnik Evropy and Blagonamerennyi in 1822. Friendly epistles written in 1819 by Baratynskii and Del’vig had both begun by comparing Del’vig to Horace: Tax, J iio 6 e 3 H b m m o h T o p a i t H H ... (EapaTbiHCKHH, « /(ejib B H ry » 1819) [So, my dear Horace... (Baratynskii, «Del'vigu,» 1819)] 3 a to jib , E B re H H H , a T o p a itH H ^ T O n b JIH b lH , B MHpTOBOM B eH K e, noiO BHHO, JHOSOBb, H r p a it H H ... C IJe jib B H r, «K E B r e H H io » 1819) [Evgenii, do you call me Horace because I sing of wine, love and poetry while drunk and wearing a myrtle wreath... (Del’vig, “K Evgeniiu” 1819)] R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fedorov reflects these themes in his parody, wherein Del'vig is the first, Kiukhel'beker the second, and Baratynskii («Barabinskii») the third friend: 0 ,zi;h h H a n n m e T : mou ropaifuu! JipyroH b O T B eT : m o d u A teij apayuu! H TpeTH H npyr, Bo3bbichb ayx, KpHHHT: 6bl, 6bl JltoSttM lfbl ZpaifU u! A Te eM y: o Ham ropaiiuii! [One writes: “my Horace!” The second answers, “favorite of the Graces!” And the third friend, his spirit raised, shouts: “You, you are favorites of the Graces!” And the first two respond: “O, our Horace!”] Fedorov’s attack strikes at the core of friendly epistles: affirmations of friendship and that “you are a poet!” Without affirmation that one has supportive friends who care about one’s work, we are left with unmitigated indifference, the state to which Romanticism ultimately leads, as expressed in Lermontov’s 1839 “Ne ver’ sebe” (“Don’t trust yourself’): KaKoe aejio H aM , CTpanan t b i h j i h h c t . .. [Who cares whether you suffered or not...] Faced with such indifference, it is no wonder the favorite themes of Romanticism include isolation, loss of feeling, alienation and despair. Fedorov's 1822 poem ridiculing affirmations of friendship suggests that Russian literature had already shown signs of becoming commercialized, democratized, and professionalized... [as] an aristocratic system of patronage yielded more and more to a mercantile system of book publishing and book trade» (LeBlanc, 103). In other words, Russia was developing a public sphere, as Habermas describes it, involving autonomy from court and church “that turns conversation into criticism 310 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and bon mots into arguments” (Habermas, 31). Thus, the informal “conversation” that Del’vig, Kiukhel’beker and Baratynskii were holding via the friendly epistle genre was now appropriated as a forum for public literary criticism. If Fedorov's parody was auspicious for Russia's public sphere, it was something of a death knell for friendly epistles themselves. His parody lends support to Grekhnev's argument that, in the 1820's, the friendly epistle's raison-d-etre exhausts itself, and its approach to reality is irrelevant for Romanticism (78-9). Furthermore, what epistles revered and believed in, perhaps naively, turns out to be deeply problematic (79). One of the principles that epistles “revered and believed in” was the etiquette shared by gentleperson-poets, writing for one another or for a larger audience of exclusively gentle readers. Gentleperson-poets produced texts without expecting compensation, but also without expecting harsh criticism, especially for poetry set in private or light genres (e.g., Karamzin’s “trifles”). According to Lotman’s analysis of early nineteenth-century culture, criticism further restricted itself to mentioning only those texts that had appeared in print (“Poeziia 1790-1810,” 29). None of Del’vig’s friendly epistles to Kiukhel’beker or Baratynskii had been published, so Fedorov violated etiquette not only by choosing a private, light genre to parody, but especially in parodying texts that would have been off limits to parodists or critics under the “gentleperson’s rules” to literary discourse by which Del’vig was playing. Del’vig responded to Fedorov’s attack, and his response is also telling. Instead of attacking Fedorov directly, in print, Del’vig sent a private verse 311 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. epistle to A. E. Izmailov, the editor of Blagonamerennyi, where Fedorov’s poem appeared. Del’vig’s 1822 “K A. E. I.” asks why Izmailov “armed a herd of bards against the product of innocent merriment,” though Del’vig retains a friendly tone, addressing Izmailov as “my older brother in poetry” and “my friend.” Voicing a reproach did not change the score, however: Baratynskii, Del’vig and Kiukhel’beker had exchanged five friendly epistles between 1819 and 1821, but did not exchange any more with one another after Fedorov’s attack appeared. In fact, though Baratynskii and Kiukhel’beker went on to write a handful of friendly epistles to other addressees, Del’vig abandoned the genre entirely. Instead, Del’vig turned to publishing an almanac, Sevemye tsvety, where many friendly epistles appeared in the late 1820’s. Perhaps Del’vig was hoping to spare his friends’ friendly epistles from exposure to the increasingly unfriendly world of journals. Del’vig’s abandonment of friendly epistles after the appearance of Fedorov’s parody shows that the desire to write friendly epistles may wither under fire. Indeed, any literary genre depending for its viability on “friendliness” is vulnerable to cultural shifts, attacks and parodies, as well as anything in writers’ lives that suggests unfriendliness. Financial difficulty, sorrow, injustice or betrayal can shatter the mood of epicurean optimism necessary for friendly epistles. According to Maikov, this was a discovery made by Batiushkov: Until [1815], Batiushkov had considered happiness to be his life’s goal, and he sought it in pleasures of the mind and heart, spirit and flesh... But life experience showed him the ‘value’ of this teaching. Earlier in his verse, and especially in his letters, complaints about the unattainability of such longed-for happiness sometimes burst out. But 312 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. now that his youth was spent, he came to the bitter realization that he had been cruelly deceived by his ideal (Maikov, 153). Friendly epistles do thrive in a friendly atmosphere, as charts of poems produced between 1812 and 1820 show. They may still appear in a less friendly atmosphere, but they disappear entirely when a poet feels constrained by criticism, like Del’vig, or that he has been “cruelly deceived,” like Batiushkov. It seems only a matter of time before the majority of poets felt thus constrained or deceived, given the encroachment of Romanticism and its rather unfriendly ideology, given political factioning in the Decembrist years, the waning of the cult of friendship, and the commercialization of literature. What were some of the genre’s longer-lasting achievements? Grekhnev argues that friendly epistles’ championing of private life and prosaic details offered a “bridge to the new Romantic conception of the artist” (78), and Senderovich, that the friendly epistle’s decline strengthened its “legal and nostalgic heir,” the elegy (97). But its achievements went much farther. A few lines from an 1830 poem by Pushkin may suggest the extent to which friendly epistles paved the way for multivoicedness, metaliterary asides, colloquial and prosaic lexicon necessary for realist prose: .. .H a .ztBope acHBOH co 6 aicH HeT. B o t, npaB ,na, M yxam oK , 3 a h u m jtBe 6 a 6 b i B cn ea. Ee3 m anKH oh; HeceT noflM bniiK O H rpo6 pedeHKa H K JinneT H3flajm jieHHBoro nonemca, H/rod t o t OTita no3B an n a uepKOBb o tb o p h ji. CKopen! xcnaT b H e K o r^ a ! jjaB H o 6 b i cx o p o H H Ji. H to x c tm HaxM ypHJica? - Hejib3H jih dnaxcb ocTaBH Tb! H neceH K O K ) Hac Becejion no3adaBHTb? [«.. .In the courtyard there is not a soul, not even a dog. True, here is a peasant-man, followed by two peasant women. He is hatless; he carries 313 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a child’s coffin under his arm and calls from afar to the lazy priest’s son, to call the priest and open up the church. Hurry! No time to wait! He could have buried [the child] long ago. But why are you frowning?” “--Couldn’t you abandon this folly, and entertain us with a merry little song?”] This excerpt is taken from Pushkin’s “Rumianyi kritik moi, nasmeshnik tolstopuzyi” (“My ruddy critic, the potbellied mocker”), a poem that is related to friendly epistles in its colloquial language (“Vot,” “Chto zh”), in its dialogues between individuals in the courtyard (“Skorei!” “Hurry!”), as well as between the lyrical hero and his listener (“Nel’zia li blazh’ ostavit’!” “Couldn’t you abandon this folly!”). However, Pushkin’s “Rumianyi kritik...” is clearly not a friendly epistle: its tone is not friendly, its lexicon includes words unfamiliar to friendly epistles such as “folly,” “peasant man” and “underarm”; a child’s coffin (“grob rebenka”) would be completely out of place in the rosy world of friendly epistles. Finally, the poem’s purported listener (the “ruddy critic”) wants to hear about none of this, in contrast with the easy, friendly dialogue that friendly epistles depict between author and addressee. Yet neither does “Rumianyi kritik” represent a rejection of friendly epistles. Instead, Pushkin seems to have moved past the “friendly epistle / anti- friendly epistle” issue. In this “epistle” to a critic, Pushkin approaches a loaded theme - a [peasant] child’s funeral - with realist detail and detachment, as a prose sketch might, e.g. mentioning that the peasant carrying the coffin is hatless (“bez shapki on”). Gukovskii, discussing late eighteenth-century Russian poetry, notes that the presence of a landscape does not mean that real Russian nature and peasants will be 314 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. described. Instead, poets stylized “poetry of fields and groves, poetry of inspired nature - and this style, enveloping the represented reality, consumes it, becoming the poet’s imagined reality” (“U istokov,” 292). Pushkin’s 1830 poem shows just the opposite: a real Russian courtyard, complete with peasants. As Ginzburg puts it, “Pushkin progressed from the set styles of the 1810’s... to the ‘naked’ language [‘nagoe’ slovo] of his late lyrics” (O lirike, 39). “Rumianyi kritik” represents a hybrid between a simulated epistle and realist prose, elucidating the link between friendly epistles and prose genres. Todorov writes that “[a] new genre is always the transformation of one or several old genres: by inversion, by displacement, by combination” (161). Thus, though early Russian friendly epistles were modeled after Western friendly epistles, their linguistic components had to come from Russian literature, and their sources included Russian prose letters, neoclassicist epistles and galimatia. When the friendly epistle began to outlive its purpose, a similar phenomenon resulted: other genres took advantage of the friendly epistle’s discoveries, and new genres were generated. These new genres incorporated many elements of the friendly epistle, while answering the needs of the new generation of poets and readers. Friendly epistles’ particular qualities - mixtures of high and low, a conversational tone, comfort in the world of everyday things - encouraged development in many literary spheres. Prose letters benefited, and friendly epistles paved the way for polylogic literature, used in genres from the elegy (Senderovich, 113) to the realist novel. Friendly epistles’ conversational asides led to metaliterary 315 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. asides in Evgenii Onegin (Mann, 150; Iezuitova, 237), while friendly epistles functioning as literary criticism, like Zhukovskii’s “Areopagu,” led to the 1830’s thick journals. Finally, friendly epistles’ “everyday setting” and “everyday lexicon" (“povsednevnaia obstanovka,” “bytovoe slovo,” O lirike, 39) reveled in realia and tangible, “thingy” referents, which brought Russian poetry from the neoclassical heights of Parnassus down to “cutlets” and “herrings (but only if they are fresh).” In other words, friendly epistles readied the Russian literary language for prose realism: just as the poet’s cozy hut turned out to be just a blink away from Romanticism’s poverty-stricken hut, cutlets and herrings are, on a scale of realist tangibility, just a breath away from the “coffin” of Pushkin’s 1830 poem. Treatment of cutlets, coffins, and a “listener’s” protests - these happen to be some of the developments in literature and in the literary language necessary for Dostoevskii’s novels. According to Grekhnev, Tiutchev’s 1829 “Silentium!” shows that “the phenomenon of the ‘other’ had now appeared...” (79): .. .Kax c e p m i y B b icK a3 an > c e o a ? X lpyroM y KaK n o m r r b T e o a ? ... [How can a heart express itself? How can another person understand?] Once the conviction that communication is futile takes root, friendly epistles are impossibly anachronistic. A few friendly epistle exchanges, or verse epistle exchanges reminiscent of friendly epistles, nonetheless crop up in the years after 1830. For example, Viazemskii wrote friendly notes in verse for the rest of his long life; Pavlova 316 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exchanged verse epistles, some of which were friendly, with Baratynskii, Iazykov and A. K. Tolstoi. Silver Age poets developed a version of the friendly epistle, modernist verse epistles that were intended more as tributes to the addressee than as actual letters. In the late twentieth century, friendly epistles seem to have surfaced once again, this time with a postmodernist sensibility, in the poems of Timur Kibirov and his contemporaries. Though it may seem that the friendly epistle is one genre that, in Grossman’s phrasing, disappeared without a trace (“Iskusstvo,” 45), friendly epistles developed multi voicedness and widened the literary language’s access to everyday lexicon. Friendly epistles influenced elegies, prose letters, realist prose, and Evgenii Onegin - in other words, some of the most famous Russian texts in all genres - leaving a rich legacy to this more or less forgotten genre of light poetry. I As friendly epistles’ average length drops in the 1820’s, extremely short friendly epistles show up with greater frequency. Pushkin wrote about a dozen poems during these years that exhibit characteristics typical of friendly epistles, but which are only 10-IS lines in length. These poems raise a methodological question: do they represent a separate genre (“notes in verse”) that happens to closely resemble the friendly epistle? Or. are these a form of “late friendly epistles,” and if so. should the criterion that friendly epistles be 20 lines in length be relaxed as the genre evolves? Ultimately, many of Pushkin’s short poems turned out to be either unfinished or part of longer prose letters, testifying to the idea that friendly epistles were not perceived as a short genre. For this reason, it seemed appropriate to maintain the 20-line minimum for a poem to qualify as a friendly epistle. I I In the case of “Zelenaia lampa." all memberships were dated to the year of the group's inception (1819). In the case of Arzamas, membership was generally defined as the year the poet was inducted, according to Arzamas' extensive records. However, two exceptions were made: V. L. Pushkin was not officially initiated into Arzamas until 1817, but he seems to have been accepted as an unofficial member much earlier. As evidence, we cite the 1816 controversy over whether his membership in Arzamas should be rescinded, which could not have taken place had he not been considered a member. Something similar seems to have happened in the case of A.S. Pushkin, who was officially initiated in IS 17 along with his uncle, but who had followed Arzamas closely from its inception and may have attended meetings as an unofficial member from 1816 (Putevoditel'. 45). In the case of both Pushkins, then, the year of Arzamas membership was set at IS 16. 317 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In chart 5.1.8, the “other” category includes friendly epistles by authors who would become members of either group, but who were not yet, as well as authors who were not members of either group. I V In charts 5.1.12(a) and (b), no poems are represented for the year 1816, because none of the poems written in 1816 was published that same year. v With increasing professionalism in Russian literature in the 1820’s came a decrease in “friendliness,” and with increasing commercial gains to be had in publishing came a blurring of the boundary between public and private. For example, Pushkin’s 1824 correspondence contains complaints against those who publish their private letters: “Who knows what might come to my mind when I’m writing to a friend - but they are set on publishing everything” (Pushkin XIII: 90). Pushkin did not break off correspondence with everyone, as he threatened to do in that same letter, but he may have determined to keep private texts private, as Brown’s analysis suggests (67). V 1 When assessing total lines, we find that even fewer early nineteenth-century friendly epistles were addressed to non-poets (only 50% of total lines). The percentage of later friendly epistles addressed to non-poets remains 70% whether we measure total poems or total lines. Apparently, not only were more of the friendly epistles written between 1800 and 1815 exchanged between poets, but friendly epistles addressed to a poet between 1800 and 1815 tended to be longer than those addressed to a non poet (or to a poet who chose not to write friendly epistles). ™ Ginzburg cites an 1830’s critic complaining about overuse of one of the rhymes present in Kiukhel’beker’s poem, specifically, “Febu/ nebu,” represented in Kiukhel’beker’s poem in a different grammatical case, “Feba / neba” (O lirike, 49). v m Zhukovskii’s 1814 “Vot priamo odolzhili” was not published, but Viazemskii had read this epistle, being one of its addressees. It is possible that Pushkin read “Vot priamo odolzhili” in manuscript form, since he was close to its author and both addressees. It is also possible that Pushkin and Zhukovskii came to the same conclusion (that friendly epistles should be brief, colorful, and organized) independently. I X Pushkin’s <Iz pis’ma k Sobolevskomu> also bears many characteristics of the song. Pushkin’s poem is set in stanzas of trochaic tetrameter, a stanzaic setting and meter associated with songs (M. Gasparov, Ocherk, 113, 120). Further, Pushkin indicated in the letter’s margins that this verse was to be sung to a particular melody (“Na golos: ‘Zhil da byl petukh indeiskoi...’”). * As a final point on friendliness and multilingual quotes in poetry, Dyer argues that it was Byron’s intention that some readers miss the meaning of foreign phrases, so that foreign phrases in Don Juan were comprehensible to only a subset of readers. However, Viazemskii seems to have the opposite intention. None of Viazemskii’s Polish or Latin phrases goes without a Russian translation within the text of the poem, and Viazemskii’s explanatory footnotes further ensured that his references were accessible to all readers. 318 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Works Cited Alekhina, L. A. “Arkhivnye materialy M. N. Murav’eva v fondakh otdela rukopisei.” Zapiski otdela rukopisei. 49. Moscow: Knizhnaia palata, 1990. 4-87. Bakhtin, M. M. “Slovo v romane.” Voprosv literatury i estetiki: Issledovaniia raznvkh let. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1975. 72-233. Batiushkov, K. N. Sochineniia K. N. Batiushkova. Ed. P. N. Batiushkov, L. N. Maikov, V. I. Saitov. 3 vols. St. Petersburg: Kotomin, 1886. Belykh, N. “Zhanr druzheskogo poslaniia i dukhovnoe obshchenie K. N. Batiushkova i N. I. Gnedicha.” Tvorchestvo pisatelia i literatumvi protsess. Ivanovo: Ivanovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1981. 228-242. Bernstein, Lina. “Avdot'ia Petrovna Elagina and her Contribution to Russian Letters.” Slavic and East European Journal 40.2 (1996): 215-235. Blagonamerennvi. 6 (1819): 33-39. Brailovskii S. N. Odin iz pestrykh XVII stoletiia: Istoriko-literatumoe issledovanie v dvukh chastiakh s prilozheniami. Vol. 5. St. Petersburg: Zapiski imperatorskoi Akademii nauk, 1902. Brissenden, R. F. Virtue in Distress: Studies in the Novel of Sentiment from Richardson to Sade. London: Macmillan; New York: Harper & Row, Barnes & Noble, 1974. Brown, James E. ‘The Verse Epistles of A. S. Puskin.” Diss. U. Wisconsin, 1983. 319 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chubukova, E. V. “Zhanr poslaniia v tvorchestve Pushkina-litseista.” Russkaia literatura 1 (1984): 198-209. De Geest, Dirk and Hendrik van Gorp. “Literary Genres from a Systemic- Functionalist Perspective.” European Journal of English Studies 3.1 (1999): 33-50. Denby, David J. Sentimental Narrative and the Social Order in France. 1760-1820. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1994. Derrida, Jacques. “The Law of Genre.” Trans. Avital Ronell. Critical Inquiry 7 (1980): 55-81. “White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy.” Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: U Chicago Press, 1982. 207-271. Derzhavin, G. R. Stihkotvoreniia. Biblioteka poeta, Bol’shaia seriia. 2n d ed. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel'. 1957. Dubrow, Heather. Genre. The Critical Idiom. 42. London: Methuen, 1982. Dyer, Gary. “Thieves, Boxers, Sodomites, Poets: Being Flash to Byron’ s Don Juan." PMLA 116.3 (2001): 562-78. Frye, Northrop. “Towards Defining an Age of Sensibility.” Ei ghteenth-Centurv English Literature: Modem Essavs in Criticism. Ed. James L. Clifford. New York: Oxford UP, 1959. 311-8. Gasparov, B. M. Poeticheskii iazvk Pushkina kak fakt istorii russkogo literatumogo iazvka. 1992. St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt, 1999. 320 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gasparov, M. L. Metr i smvsl: Ob odnom iz mekhanizmov kul'tumoi pamiati. Moscow: Rossiiskii Gos. Gum. Universitet, 1999. Ocherk istorii russkogo stikha: Metrika. Ritmika. Rifma. Strofika. Moscow: Nauka, 1984; Moscow: Fortuna Limited, 2000. “Poslanie.” Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia. Moscow: Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, 1975. Gershkovich, Z. I. Annotations. Sobranie stikhotvorenii. By A. Kantemir. Biblioteka poeta, BoFshaia seriia. 2n d ed. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisateF, 1956. Gessen, Sergei. KnigoizdateF Aleksandr Pushkin. Leningrad: Academia, 1930. Ginzburg, Lidiia. O lirike. 1974. Moscow: Intrada, 1997. “Pushkin i liricheskii geroi russkogo romantizma.” Pushkin: Issledovaniia i matedaly. 4. Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiia nauk, 1962: 140-153. Goodman, Dena. The Republic of Letters: A Cultural History of the French Enlightenment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1994. Grekhnev, Vsevolod. Mir pushkinskoi liriki. Nizhnii Novgorod: 1994. Grossman, Leonid. “Iskusstvo anekdota u Pushkina.” Pushkin: Etiudv o Pushkine. Vol. 1 of Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh. 4 vols. 1928. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1973. 45-79. “Madrigaly Pushkina.” Pushkin: Etiudv o Pushkine. Vol. 1 of Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh. 4 vols. 1928. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1973. 115-130. Gukovskii, G. A. Russkaia literatura XVIII veka. 1939. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1962. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “U istokov russkogo sentimentalizma.” Ocherki po istorii russkoi literaturv i obshchestvennoi mvsli XVIII veka. Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1938. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1991. 235-314. Habermas, Jurgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger et al. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991. Hammarberg, Gitta. From the Idyll to the Novel: Karamzin’s Sentimentalist Prose. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1991. Iezuitova, R. V. Zhukovskii i ego vremia. Leningrad: Nauka, 1989. Karamzin, N. M. Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii. Intro., ed. Iu. M. Lotman. Biblioteka poeta: Bol’shaia seriia. 2n d ed. Moscow-Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1966. Keen, Paul. The Crisis of Literature in the 1790s: Print Culture and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1999. Kiukherbeker, V. K. “O napravlenii nashei poezii, osobenno liricheskoi, v poslednee desiatiletie.” Puteshestvie. Dnevnik. Stat’i. Leningrad: Akademiia nauk, 1979. 453-9. Kulakova, L. I. Introduction. Stikhotvoreniia. by M. N. Murav’ev. Biblioteka poeta: Bol’shaia seriia. 2n d ed. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1967. 5-49. Kusiak-Skotnicka, Lucja. “The Verse Epistle: On the Problem of the Generic Peculiarities of Pushkin’s Lyrical Verse.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 29.2-3 (1987): 198-209. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Larionova, E. O. “K istorii stikhotvoreniia V. A. Zhukovskogo ‘Imperatoru Aleksandru’: Pis’ma A. I. Turgeneva V. A. Zhukovskomu.” Russkaia Iiteratura3 (1991): 75-81. Lazarchuk, R. M. “K probleme genezisa zhanra druzheskogo poslaniia v russkoi poezii XVm veka.” XXVI Gertsenovskie chteniia: Literaturovedenie: Nauchnve dokladv. Leningrad: Len. gos. ped. inst., 1973. 11-16. LeBlanc, Ronald D. “A la recherche du genre perdu: Fielding, Gogol, and Bakhtin’s Genre Memory.” Russian Subjects: Empire. Nation, and the Culture of the Golden Age. Ed. Monika Greenleaf et al. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 1998. 101-22. Lepikhov, I. A. “Evoliutsiia ritmicheskikh form vol’nykh iambov v lirike V. A. Zhukovskogo: Formal’nyi i zhanrovyi aspekty.” Filologicheskie nauki 2 (1996): 17-23. Levin, Iu. D., ed. Istoriia russkoi perevodnoi khudozhestvennoi literaturv: Drevniaia Rus’. XVIH vek. Tom II: Dramaturgiia. Poeziia. St. Petersburg: Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk; Cologne: Boehlau Verlag, 1996. Lilly. I. K. “Druzheskie stikhotvomye poslaniia N.M. Iazykova: k izucheniiu literatumogo byta 1820-1840-kh godov.” Master’s thesis. Monash U, Australia, 1971. Liustrov, M. Iu. Starinnve russkie poslaniia (XVII - XVIII vek). Uchenye zapiski. 1310. Philology. Moscow: Moskovskii kul’turologicheskii litsei, 2000. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lomonosov, M. V. Izbrannve proizvedeniia. Intro., ed., annotations by A. A. Morozov. Biblioteka poeta: Bol’shaia seriia. 3rd ed. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1986. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Ed. V. V. Vinogradov, A. I. Andreev, G. P. Blok. 11 vols. Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk, 1950-83. “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tser’kovnykh v rossiiskom iazyke.” Izbrannve proizvedeniia. Biblioteka poeta, Bol’shaia seriia. 3rd ed. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1986. 473-8. Lotman, M. Iu. “Poeziia 1790-1810-kh godov.” Introduction to Poetv 1790-1810- kh godov. Biblioteka poeta: Bol’shaia seriia. 2n d ed. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1971. 5-62. “Poeziia Karamzina.” Introduction to Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii. By N. M. Karamzin. Biblioteka poeta: Bol’shaia seriia. 2n d ed. Moscow- Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1966. 5-52. Sotvorenie Karamzina. Pisateli o pisateliakh. Moscow: Kniga, 1987. L’vov, N. A. Izbrannve sochineniia. Ed. K. Iu. Lappo-Danilevskii. Cologne: Boehlau Verlag: St. Petersburg: Pushkin House “Acropolis.” 1994. Maikov, L. Batiushkov: ego zhizn’ i sochineniia. 1887. 2n d ed. St. Petersburg: A. F. Marks, 1896. Mann, Iu. V. Poetika russkogo romantizma. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. Marker, Gary. Publishing. Printing, and the Origins of Intellectual Life in Russia. 1700-1800. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Markin, A. V. “Druzheskoe poslanie 1780-1820 gg. i traditsii Anakreona i Goratsiia v russkoi literature.” Modifikatsii khudozhestvennvkh sistem v istoriko- literatumom protsesse. Sverdlovsk: 1990. 18-26. Martin, Alexander M. Romantics. Reformers. Reactionaries: Russian Conservative Thought and Politics in the Reign of Alexander I. Dekalb, 1 11. : Northern Illinois UP, 1997. Nemirovskii, I. V. “Biograficheskii podtekst v druzheskikh poslaniiakh Pushkina perioda iuzhnoi ssylki.” Russkaia literatura 3 (1988): 165-70. Ostolopov, N. F. Slovar’ drevnei i novoi poezii. 1821. Wilhelm Fink Verlag: Munich, 1971. Panchenko, A. M. Russkaia stikhotvomaia kul’tura XVII veka. Leningrad: Nauka, 1973. Poetv 1790-1810-x godov. Biblioteka poeta: Bol’shaia seriia. 2n d ed. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1971. Pushkin, A. S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. 17 vols. Moscow, Leningrad: Akademiia nauk, 1937-59. Putevoditel’ po Pushkinu. 1931. St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt, 1997. Rosslyn, Wendy. Anna Bunina (1774-1829) and the Origins of Women’s Poetry in Russia. Studies in Slavic Language and Literature. 10. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1997. Russkaia periodicheskaia pechat’ (1702-1894). Ed. A. G. Dement’ev et al. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1959. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sandler, Stephanie and Judith Vowles. “Beginning to Be a Poet: Baratynsky and Pavlova.” Russian Subjects: Empire. Nation, and the Culture of the Golden Age. Ed. Monika Greenleaf et al. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 1998. 151-72. Senderovich, S. “Vino, pokhmel’e i zhanry romanticheskoi liriki.” Russkie pirv. Ed. D.S. Likhachev et al. St. Petersburg: Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk, 1998. 70-122. Shaw, J. Thomas, trans. The Letters of Alexander Pushkin. By A. S. Pushkin. Madison, WI: U Wisconsin Press, 1967. Todd, Williams Mills El. The Familiar Letter as a Literary Genre in the Age of Pushkin. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1976. Todorov, Tzvetan. “The Origin of Genres.” New Literary History 8 (1976): 159-70. Tomashevskii, B. Pushkin. Kniga pervaia (1813-1824). Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiia nauk, 1956. Tynianov, Iu. N. Pushkin i ego sovremenniki. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. Vatsuro, V. E. Ed. Stikhotvoreniia litseiskikh let: 1813-1817. By A. S. Pushkin. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994. Viazemskii, P. A. Stikhotvoreniia. Biblioteka poeta: Bol’shaia seriia. 3rd ed. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1986. Vinokur, G. O. Izbrannve rabotv po russkomu iazvku. Moscow: Gos. uchebno- pedagogicheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1959. 326 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Virolainen, M. “Dve chashi (O druzheskom poslanii 1810-x godov).” Russkie pirv. Ed. D. S. Likhachev et al. St. Petersburg: Rossiiskaia akademiia nauk, 1998. 40-69. Wachtel, Michael. The Development of Russian Verse: Meter and its Meanings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1998. Zhukovskii, V. A. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 12-ti tomakh. 12 vols. in 4. St. Petersburg: Izdanie A. F. Marksa, 1902. Sobranie sochinenii v chetvrekh tomakh. 4 vols. Moscow-Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1959-60. Sochineniia v trekh tomakh. 3 vols. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1980. Stikhotvoreniia. Ed. N. V. Izmailov. Biblioteka poeta, Bol’shaia seriia. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1956. Zorin, A. L. “K. N. Batiushkov v 1814-1815 gg.” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Seriia literaturv i iazvka. 47.4 (1988): 368-78. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21! 22 ! 23! 2 4 1 25! 26! 27! 28! 29! 30! 31! 32| 33! 34| 35! 36! : Russian Friendly Epistles Catalogued in Database, 1770-1830. Y ear W ritten, Mm. Yea* I Autnoi Written, j Max. I Trtie iTolat |Lines 1770 1779;Murav’ev K ego prevoskhoditel'stvu Alekseiu Vasil'evichu Naryshkinu ! 48 1770 OiMurav'ev Druzhba: K Ivanu Petrovichu Turgenevu I 22: 1774 i789!M urav'ev Epistola k ego prevoskhoditel’ stvu Ivanu Petrovichu Turgenevu : 86 ! 1774 1775!Murav'ev O da vtoraia k A.M. Brianchaninovu ! 50! 1774 blsum arokov Pis’mo ko priiateliu v Moskvu ! 49: 1774 OiSumarokov Stikhi Diuku Bragantsy ! 36: 1776 OiMurav’ev Epistola k N. R. R*** i 106! 1780 0!Murav'ev "Itak, opiat' ubezhishche gotovo.." 88! 1781 iMurav’ev Pis'mo k Feone 56! 1783 0;Murav'ev Poslanie 0 legkom stikhotvorenii: K A. M. Br<ianchaninovu> : 214! 1786 oYkniazhnin Pis'mo: K G. D. i A. : 195: 1787 djLVov N.A. Pis’mo kG .R . Derzhavinu (L'vov, 1787) ! 23! 1788 OiKaramzin Gospodinu D<mitrievu> na bolezn' ego ! 20: 1788 Oikaramzin Anakreonticheskie stikhi A. A. P<etrovu> ; 73! 1788 OiKaramzin K D<mitrievu> i 32! 1790 1799! L'vov N.A. "Liubeznyi drug! N as sani i 35! 1790 17991 LVov N.A. "Pomilui, graf” i 21! 1790 1799: Krylov Poslanie 0 pol’ ze strastei (Gasp: 1794-5, 122) I 168! 1790 1797: LVov N.A. Ego siiatel'stvu Grafu Aleksandru Andr<eevichu> Bezborodke ! 25! 1790 0!Karamzin Mishen’ke ! 57; 1791 OiDmitriev K A. G. S<everino>l ! 44! 1792 OlL'vov N.A. Gav<rile> Romanovichu otvet 53! 1792 0: Derzhavin K N.A. L'vovu ! 65! 1793 OIKhrapovitskii Oda milomu tovarishchu i sosedu ! 40! 1793 0 i LVov N.A. Goriachka: Elizavete Markovne Oleninoi na rozhdenie pervogo syna e e Nikolaia. ! 50! 1793 0!Pushkin V.L. !K kaminu ! 100: 1793 0: Krylov K sch ast’iu ! 229! 1793 0: Krylov K drugu moem u A. N. K<lushinu> i 289! 1793 0;Karamzin Otvet moemu priiateliu, kotoryi khotel, chtoby ia napisal.. Odu.. Ekaterine ! 26; 1793 b:Derzhavin Khrapovitskomu ('Tovarishch davnii, vnov’ sosed..) ! 36; 1794 0:Slovtsov Poslanie k M.M. Speranskom u ! 86! 1794 OiKaramzin Poslanie k Dmitrievu v otvet na ego stikhi, v kot on zhaluetsia na skorotechnost ; 170; 1794 0! Dmitriev K <A. G. Severinoi> na vyzov e e napisat' stikhi 36; 1794 0: Karamzin Poslanie k Aleksandru Alekseevichu Pleshcheevu ! 192! 1795 1799! Krylov Pis'm o 0 pol'ze zhelanii (Gasp: 1794-5, 122) : 140! 1795 1799!Dmitriev Poslanie k Arkadiiu Ivanovichu Tolbuginu 28 328 of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37: 1795 OiDmitriev [K priiateliu I 24! 38: 1795! 0! Karamzin [Poslanie k zhenshchinam ! 392! 39: 1795 0!Derzhavin iPriglashenie k obedu 70! 40: 1795 0! Derzhavin IDrugu ! 24! 41: 1796 1797! Dmitriev I Poslanie k N. M. Karamzinu 70! 42! 1796! 0!Slovtsov [Dopolnenie k vcherashnem u razgovoru I 40! 43; 1796: 0: L'vov N.A. [Otryvok iz pis'm a k A.M. B<akuninu>, kot. k soch. prislal iz derevni stikhi... [ 69[ 44: 1796 0!Pushkin V.L. iPis'mo k 1.1. D<mitrievu> I 48[ 45: 1796! 0! Karamzin K bednom u poetu [ 130[ 46; 1797! OiLVov N.A. [Ivanu Matveevichu Murav'evu, edushchem u v Etin [ministrom, v otvet na pis'm o... 96[ 47! 1797! 0! LVov N.A. I Epistola k A.M. Bakuninu iz Pavlovskogo, iunia 14, [1797 [ 223[ 48! 1797s 0!Khrapovitskii [Liubeznomu avtoru G. R. D. ! 48! 49! 1797! OiPushkin V.L [K bratu i drugu ! 66! 50! 1797 0 [Derzhavin [Khrapovitskomu (Khrapovitskoi! Druzhby znaki..) 36! 51! 1797; OiDerzhavin [Kapnistu 80! 52! 1798! 1800!0zerov [Otvet (Ozerov-Khrapovitskii) I 49! 53! 1799! 0!L'vov N.A. [G.R. Derzhavinu (L'vov, 1799) ! 40! 54! 1799 OiTurgenev [Andrei [S. I. P<leshcheev>u i 26 i 55! 1801! 0[L'vov N.A. [Tri "Net".. Poslanie nachem o k A.M. <Bakuninu> [1801 oktiabria 1-go [ 127[ 56! 1801! 0!L'vov N.A. iP.V. Lopukhinu I 37! 57! 1803 OlZhukovskii [Stikhi, sochinennye v den' m oego rozhdeniia. K imoei lire i k druz'iam moim. [ 40 [ 58! 1803: OiDmitriev [K <A. G. Severinoi> pri soobshchenii ei drugikh istikhov 53; 59! 1804! 1805 [Batiushkov [Poslanie k Khloe: Podrazhanie 74! 60! 1804! OiDerzhavin [Leto ! 24! 61: 1804 OiDerzhavin iOsen' ! 40! 62! 1804 OiDerzhavin [Oleninu ! 48! 63! 1804 OiDerzhavin IZima ! 40! 64: 1804 OiDerzhavin iVesna ! 44! 65! 1804 0: Davydov [Burtsovu: Prizyvanie na punsh [ 28 [ 66: 1804 OiDavydov iBurtsovu (Vdym nom pole, na bivake..) 55! 67! 1804 0[ Davydov [Gusarskii pir I 25! 68! 1805 0! Khvostov [V.L. Pushkinu: Na prebyvanie v Kostrome 70! 69! 1805 OiDmitriev !KG. R. Derzhavinu ! 20! 70: 1805 OiBatiushkov I Poslanie k N. I. G nedichu I 119! 71: 1805 0! O zerov [Blagodamost' avtora "Edipa" V.V. Kapnistu za [prislannye stikhi [ 26 [ 72! 1806 OiBatiushkov [Sovet druz'iam 69! 73! 1806 OiBatiushkov [K Gnedichu 34! 74: 1807 OiBatiushkov l<N. I. Gnedichu> 1807 ! 25! 75: 1807 OiDerzhavin lEvgeniiu. Zhizn' zvanskaia ! 252! 329 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76= 1807 OiBatiushkov iPastukh i solovei 4 1 1 77: 1807 0:G nedich [K K. N. Batiushkovu 68! 78! 1807 0! Ivanov !Na ot"ezd K. N. Batiushkova v amniiu 28! 79: 1808 OiBatiushkov !<N. I. Gnedichu> 1808 54: 80: 1808! OZhukovskii ;<K Viazemskomu> (No byt' k tebe na imeniny..) 81; 1808; OlBunina iSumerki: Gavrilu Rom anovichu Derzhavinu, v ego ! !derevniu Zvanku 114! 82: 0: Viazemskii [Poslanie k <Zhukovsicomu> v derevniu (Itak, moi ! milyi drug,) 83: 1808: 0!Gnedich iSemenovoi 55! 84: 1808! 0!Derzhavin l izdateliu moikh pesnei 50; 8 5 ; 1808! OiShalikov iK sosedu 130: 86: 1809! 181 OiBatiushkov [Otvet Gnedichu 24! 87: 1809! OiBatiushkov I Poslanie grafu Viei'gorskomu I 50! 88: 1810! 0!Shatrov I Poslanie k m oem u so sedu 170! 89; 1810! OlPushkin V .L !KV. A. Zhukovskomu 76; 90: 1810! OiVoeikov IK Merzliakovu: Prizyvanie v derevniu 125! 91: iarmiiu) 92: 1810! 0! Khvostov !<l. I. Dmitrievu> (Khvostov) 106[ 93: 1810 OjGnedich [Otvet na poslanie Gr. D. I. Khvostova, inapechatannoe 1810 goda 54; 94: 1810! OiBatiushkov !K Petinu 52! 95: 1811! 1812!Batiushkov I Moi penaty 316; 96; 1811 0 1 Viazemskii !K Perovskom u (Prosti, shalun liubimyi!) 52! 97! 1811! OlZhukovskii !<K P. A. Viazemskomu> 97! 98: 1811! OlPushkin V.L. IK D. V. Dashkovu 82! 99! 1811 OlZhukovskii [Pesnia (: K m oem u drugu / rPodrazhanie !nemetsk<omu>) 24! 100! 1812 0!Viazemskii [K Batiushkovu (Moi milyi, moi poet) 174! 101! 1812 OlZhukovskii [Poslanie k Pleshcheevu: V den' svetlogo !voskreseniia 241! 102: 1812! 0!Zhukovskii [K A. N. Arbenevoi 112; 103: 1812 OlZhukovskii [''Khorosho, chto v ashe pis'm o korotko / Istratili !naprasno" 83; 104; 1812: OlKapnist !Staromu dobromu drugu m oem u: 1812 goda noiabr'; !v 8-i den' 211 105! 1812: 0!Pushkin V.L. IK P. N. Priklonskomu 41! 106! 1812 OiShalikov !K V. L. Pushkinu (Zashchitnik istiny, talanta i u m a ..); 82! 107: 1812: 0!Shalikov INashi stikhotvortsy 85: 108! 1812 OlZhukovskii !K Batiushkovu: Poslanie 678! 109! 1812! OiBatiushkov :K Zhukovskomu (Prosti, balladnik moi) 85! 110: 1812 0!Batiushkov I Otvet Turgenevu (Ty prav! P oet ne Izhets) 64 [ 111: 1813 1814!Zhukovskii [Poslanie k A. A. Pleshcheevu (Drug milyi moi..) 64; 112! 1813; 1814!Zhukovskii [<A. A. Pleshcheevu> (O Negr, chemilami iraspisannyi Naturoi) 58[ 113! 1813 OlZhukovskii ! K Doktoru Foru 79! 330 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114; 1813; 0!Viazemskii ;K podruge (Ot shum a, ot razdorov) 1721 115; 1813; 0;Gnedich jTsiklop, Feokritova idilliia, prinorovlennaia k nashim ; Inravam 60; 116; 1813; OlZhukovskii ;Svetiane 281 117; 118; OlZhukovskii ;K A. P. Kireevskoi, v den' rozhdeniia Mashi 34; 119; 1813; 0 ;Bunina i"khot' bednost' ne porok.." j 144; 120; 1813 OlGorchakov IB eseda o uedinenii: K A. S. Taranovu |d .p . 144; 121; 1813; OiBatiushkov !<Poslanie k A.i. Turgenevu> (Est' d ach a za Nevoi..) I 50; 122; 1814; 1815lZhukovskii jAreopagu 159; 123; 18151 Viazemskii ;K Partizanu-poetu (Davydov, baioven’ schastiivyij 124; 1814; 1815lBatiushkov ! Posianie i. M. Murav'evu-Apostoiu 100; 125; 126; 1814; OiVoeikov iDashkovu (Dashkov! Khranitel' bodryi vkusa) 88! 127; 1814! OlZhukovskii !Poslaniia k Kn. Vlazemskomu i V. L. Pushkinu 2 0 5 1 128; 1814! OlPushkin A.S. IK sestre 122; 129; 1814! OlZhukovskii iZapiska k B aronesse (M. A. C herkasovoij 40! 130; 1814! OlZhukovskii lPis'm o k *** (la sam , moi drug, ne ponimaiu) 54; 131; 1814! OlPushkin A.S. iPiruiushchie studenty 100! 132; b;Zhukovskii ;Poslanie k 1 . P. Cherkasovu (Voiod'kovskii Baroni) ; 133; 1814! 0;Viazemskii ;K Batiushkovu (Ty na puti vozvratnom!) 134; 1814! 6;Zhukovskii ;KKavelinu 135; 1814! OlPushkin A.S. IKniaziu A. M. Gorchakovu 45! 136; 1814; OlZhukovskii IK Pleshcheevu (Nu, kak zhe vzdum al ty, durak) 58; 137; 1814; OlZhukovskii IZapiska k Poionskim (O beshchannoe ispoiniat') 60; 138; 1814! OlZhukovskii ;<A. A. Protasovoi> (Ctito deiaesh ’, Sandrok?) 1 25! 139; 1814! OlZhukovskii ;"Moe postscriptum , brat Dashkov!" 32! 140; 140! 141; 1814! OlPushkin A.S. IK drugu stikhotvortsu 98! 142; 1814! blZhukovskii IK Voeikovu: Posianie 304! 143; 1814! OlPushkin A.S. |K Batiushkovu (Fiiosof rezvyi i piitj 83; 144; 1814! 0;Pushkin A.S. IK N. G. L<omonos>ovu 26! 145; 1814 blZhukovskii IK kniaziu Viazemskomu (Nam slavit drevnost' iAmfiona) 93; 146; 1814 blZhukovskii IK Viazem skom u: Otvet na ego poslanie k druz'iam 1 139! 147; 1814 OlPushkin V.L. IPosianie k Kn. Petru Andreevichu viazem skom u 85! 148; 1814! OlZhukovskii ;K Kn. Viazem skom u i V. L. Pushkinu: Posianie 135! 149! 1814 OlViazemskii ;K Druz'iam (Goniteii moei nevinnoi ieni) 71! 150; 1814; 0 1 Viazemskii | Otvet na poslanie Vasil'iu L'vovichu Pushkinu 38! 151; 1814; blRodzianko IPrizvanie na vecher A. E. R. (Anakreonticheskie Istikhi) 68; 152| 1814; blZhukovskii IK Turgenevu, v otvet na stikhi, prislannye im ivm esto pis'm a 28! 153; 1814 OiBatiushkov liz pis'm a k D. P. Severinu ot 19 iunia 1814 g. 28! 154; 1815 blZhukovskii ;<K T. E. Boku> il, ill: Liubeznyi drug, g u sar i Bok! 58! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155; 1815! OlPushkin A.S. !Poslanie k lu<dinu> 227! 156: 1815 OlZhukovskii :<Neiedinskomu>: "Druz’ia, stakan k stakanui” 46! 157: 1815 0!Pushkin A.S. !Moemu Aristarkhu 121| 158: 6 3 ; 159; OlZhukovskii ;<K Kn. Viazemskomu> (Blagodariu, moi drug, tebia : Iza dostavlenie) 160! 1815! OiViazemskii IK druz'iam (ki'nem pechaii!) 27! 161: 1815! OlZhukovskii iStartsu Eversu 72! 162: 1815! 0!Pushkin A.S. !Gorodok (K ***) 430: 163: 164: OlPushkin A.S. :K G<aiich>u (Puskai ugriumyi rifmotvor) 63: 165: OlPushkin A.S. !K Pushchinu (4 m aiaj 167: 1816! 1817!Bestuzhev- !lz pis'ma k S. V. Savitskoi iMarlinskii 73| 168: 1816! 1817! Viazemskii Ikkniazhninu 77! 169: 18 i 7!Del'vig iBoginia tarn i bog tepeir* (K Savichuj 170: 1817:Voeikov IPosianie k druz'iam i zliene 171; 1816 OlPushkin A.S. !<lz pis'ma k V. L. Pushkinu> (Khristos voskres, ipitomets Feba!) 211 172! 1816! OiBatiushkov Hz pis'ma k P. A. V iazem skom u ot fevraiia 1816 g. 21! 173: OiBatiushkov iPosianie k Turgenevu (O ty, kotoryi sred' obedovj 174! 1816 OlPushkin A.S. !<Poslanie k V. L. Pushkinu> (Tebe, o N estor lArzamasa) 41| 175: 1816! OiViazemskii IKgrafu C hem ystievu vderevniu 128! 176: 1816! OiViazemskii ID. V. Davydovu (1816 goda) (Davydov! G de ty? IChto ty? Srodu) 80; 177! 1816! OlPushkin A.S. !K Sh<ishk>ovu (Shaiun, uvenchannyi Eratoi..) 59! 178! 1817! OiBatiushkov IPosianie ot prakticheskogo m udretsa m udretsu lastaficheskom u s m udretsom pushkin 2 1 1 179! 1817! OlPushkin A.S. ikrivtsovu 20! 180! 1817! OlVoeikov ! Pis'mo A. F. Voeikova A. 1 . Turgenevu 184! 181! 1817! OlPushkin A.S. ;Turgenevu (Turgenev, vemyi pokroviteP) 45! 182! 1817 OiViazemskii !K Batiushkovu (Shumit po roshcham vetr osennii) 50! 183! 1817! OiBatiushkov |K Nikite 59! 184! 18175 OlDeiVig |A. S. Pushkinu (Iz maiorossii) 37! 185! 186! 1817 1817! OIDel'vig IKShul'ginu OiViazemskii IProstichanie s khalatom 24: 120! 187; 1817! OlPushkin A.S. IPosianie V. L. Pushkinu (Skazhi, pam asskii moi lotets) 87; 188: 1817! Olkapnist | Otvet Fedoru Petrovichu L'vovu 42! 189! 1817! OiBatiushkov |<V. L. Pushkinu> (Tot vechno molod, kto poet) 37! 190! 191! 1817! 1818 OlPushkin A.S. !K Kaverinu (Zabud', liubeznyi moi Kaverin) 1821 iPushkin A.S. liudevu (Liubimets vetrenykh Lais) 31! 31! 192; 1818! OlZhukovskii |<K M. F. Oriovu> 23: 193! 1818! OlMiionov IPosianie vV enu k druz'iam 48! 194: 1818 OlDei'vig |Moia khizhina 32: 332 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195; 1818! OiViazemskii ITolstomu 811 196! 1818! OiDel'vig !K lllichevskomu (v Sibir1 ) ! 61! 197: 1818! OiPushkin A.S. :K N. la. Piiuskovoi I 20! 198; 1818! OlPushkin A.S. !Zhukovskomu / K Zh*** po prochtenii izdannykh im Iknizhek 'Dlia nemnogikh' | 22| 199; 1818| OiBatiushkov IKniaziu P. i. Shalikovu (pri poiuchenii ot nego v Ipodarok knigi, im perevedenno) : 31: 200: 1819! 1820jfoistoi Iakov iPosianie k D. N. Fiiosofovu 201: 1819! 1820|foistoi iakov IPosianie k N. V. Vsevolozhskomu (S dachii) I 96: 202: |velichestvu priznat'sia) 203; 1819 OlZhukovskii !<Grafine S. A. Samoiiovoi> (Grafinia, priznaius', Ibol’ shoi bedy vto m net) I 183! 204! 1819! blPushkin A.S. !K Shcherbininu (Zhit'e tomu, liubeznyi drug) 32| 205; 1819 blZhukovskii |K Grafine Shuvalovoi (posle e e debiuta v roli Imertvetsa) I 50| 206I OlZhukovskii iK Stolypinu (Vot vam, sluga Fem idy vemyij 207: 0;Kiukhei'beker:K Pushkinu iz ego netopiennoi kom naty 208! 1819! blPushkin A.S. IPosianie k kn. Gorchakovu I 46! 209: jubedil 2 1 0: 1819! OlZhukovskii iGr. S. A. Samoiiovoi (Uzh dumal ia, cfito ia zabytj I 85! 211! 1819! OiDei'vig IK Evgeniiu 36! 21 213: 214! 1819! 1819! biBaratynskii IDei'vigu biDelVig IE. A. B..voi (Otsyiaia ei za god pred tern dlia nee Izhe napisannye stikhi) 40! 32; 215! 1819! OiViazemskii iPosianie k Turgenevu s pirogom 72! 216! 1819! OIBaratynskii !"ltak, moi milyi, ne shutia" 30! 217! 1819 OlVoeikov IPosianie k D. V. Davydovu 72! 218! 1819! O Toistoi Iakov IPosianie k A. S. Pushkinu 94! 2191 1819! OlPushkin A.S. jVsevolozhskomu (Prosti, schastlivyi syn pirov) 70! 220: 1819! OlPushkin A.S. iStansy Tolstomu 24! 221! 1819 blPushkin A.S. IN. N. <V. V. Engei'gardtu> (la uskoi'znul ot Eskulapa) 311 222! 1819! OlZhukovskii !<Vasiiiiu Alekseevichu Perovskom u> (Tovarishch! 1 IVot teb e ruka!) 116! 223! 1819; OlPushkin A.S. iOrlovu 46! 224! 1820! 1826!iazykov N.M. IK A. A. R-u 67! 225! 1820 1821 iTolstoi Iakov IPosianie k starom u drugu 84! 226! 1820 OiViazemskii I'Vasilii L'vovich milyi! Zdravstvui!" 40! 227! 1820 OlZhukovskii IPis'mo k A. L. Naryshkinu 102! 228! 1820 OlZhukovskii |K K. F. Golitsynu 73; 229! 1820 blZhukovskii IPis'mo k A. G. Khomutovoi 84! 230! 1820! OiViazemskii !<Tabashnoe posianie> 53! 231! 1820 OlZhukovskii |K Kn. A. Iu. Obolenskoi (Kniaginia! Dlia chego ot Inas) 233! 333 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 3 2 i 1820! OlZhukovskii i"Khotia po-russki ia umeiu" 29i 233j 1820! OiDel'vig iEvgeniiu (Pom nish’, Evgenii, tu shum nuiu noch'..) 24i 234; 1820! OlZhukovskii IK Grafine Shuvaiovoi (Uzhe odinnadtsatyi chas!) 50! 235: 1820! 0; Baratynskii iK kjukhei'bekeru (Prosti, poet! Sud'bina vnov'j 20; 236! ilmperatritse Marii Fedorovne) 237; 1820! OiBaratynskii ik<ryio>vu (Liubvi veseiyi propovednikj 24 i 238; 1820; OITolstoi Iakov IPosianie k F. N. Glinke 82; 239; 1820! Oilazykov iK bratu (Stolitsy mimyi zhitel') 138i 240; 1820! OiViazemskii iKatai-valiai (Partizanu-poetu) 40i 241; 1820! OiGnedich iK I. A. Krylovu (Sosed, ty vyigral! Skazhu tep er1 i ia;); 23; 242! 1821! 0 1 Konshin iK nashim 100i 243; 244; 1821! OlPushkin A.S. iK moei chemil'nitse 98; 245; 1821! OlPushkin A.S. i<V. L. Davydovu> 60: 246; 1821! OlPushkin A.S. IDei’ vigu (Drug Dei'vig, moi pam asskii brat) 32; 247; 1821! OiDel'vig iK E. (Ty v Peterburge, ty so mnoij 71 i 248! 1821! OlBaratynskii l''Zhivi sm eiei, tovarishch moi" 23: 249! 1821! OlKrylov A.A. iVakkhicheskie poety (K A. E. Izmaiiovu) 45| 250; 1821! 0 1 Krylov A. A. IK Pletnevu 40! 251! 1821 OlShishkov ;A.A. |N. T. A<ksakov>u 35i 252; 1821! OiKiukhel'bekerlK Baronu Rozenu 39i 253! 1821! 254; 1822! OiPushkin A.S. i"Nedavno ia v chasy svobody" 28; 255; 1822! O i Khomiakov iPosianie k drugu j 80 256; 1822! OiPushkin A.S. i"Moi drug, uzhe tri dnia" 27; 257; 1822! OiViazemskii iK vdove S. F. Bezobrazovoi v derevniu 69i 258! 1822; OlPushkin A.S. i<lz pis'ma k la. N. Tolstomu> 29 i 259! 1822 Oilazykov ila<zykovu> A. M., pri posviashchenii em u tetradi istikhov moikh 55; 260; 1822! OiPushkin A.S. iDruz'iam (Vchera byl den' razluki shumnoi) 24 i 261! 1822! 0 1 Kozlov iK drugu V<asiliiu> A<ndreevichu> Zh<ukovskom u> i ipo vozvrashchenii ego iz pute.. 421 i 262; 1823! 1826ilazykov iKA. D. V-u 42: 263; 1823! Oilazykov iZapiska k A. S. Dirinoi #4 20i 264; 1823! Oilazykov iZapiska A. S. Dirinoi #1 42i 265! 1823 Oilazykov iV. M. K<niazhevich>u (Oni proshli i ne pridut) 44 i 266! 1823! Oilazykov iZapiska k A. S. Dirinoi #3 28; 267! 1823 OiZhukovskii iK Varvare Pavlovne Ushakovoi i Gr. P raskov'e iAIeksandrovne Khilkovoi (Gendrikovo 93! 268! 1823: OiKiukhel'bekenK Krishtofovichu (Bud' schastliv, drug, v svoem ipriiute tikhom) 22; 269; 0;Pushkin A.S. !<lz pis'ma k Vigeliu> 270; 1823! Oilazykov ;Moe uedinenie 134i 271! 1823; OlNechaev |K G. A. R.-K. (Poslano s Kavkazskikh vod) 24! 334 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 /2 : 1823! OiBaratynskii iLutkovskomu 2 /3 : 1823; OiTiutchev ; Poslanie k A. V. Sherem etevu 2 /4 : OiPushkin A.S. iPosianie k L. Pushkinu 275: 1824! Oilazykov :N. D. Kiselevu k novomu, 1824 godu 1 24 i 276: 277: 1824! Oilazykov !"Kogda v m oem uedinen'e" 1 55; 278: 1824! OiPushkin V.L. iK L. S. Pushkinu (Biagodariu tebia, piemiannik moi iliubeznyi) i 40i 2 /9 ; iDanilevskomu 2801 OiPushkin V.L. iPis'mo k V*** (Biagodariu. Vot "Russkii invalid”) 281! 1824! OIGnedich ; inostrantsam gostiam moim i 44 i 282: 1825! OiPushkin A.S. !<K Rodzianke> (Ty obeshchai o rom antizm ej i 34: 283; 1825! Oilazykov !"ia obeshchai - i byi gotov i 35 i 284: 1825! Oilazykov iA. N. Vul'fu (Moi brat po vol'nosti i khmeliu!) I 351 285; 1825! OiShalikov iK Aleksandru Sergeevichu Pushkinu, na ego iotrechenie pet'zhenshchine i 4 5 i 286: 1825! OiBaratynskii i"Pover\ moi milyi! Tvoi poet" i 28 i 287! 1825! OiViazemskii iStantsiia (Glava iz puteshestviia v stikhakh; pisana ] i 1825 goda) i 308; 288: 289: i 49i 290! Oilazykov ;A. S. Pushkinu (Ne vovse chuia boga sveta) i 35i 292: 1826! OiViazemskii iKoliaska (vm esto predisloviia) 221 i 293; 1826! Oilazykov ifrigorskoe 255I 294; 1826! Oilazykov IK Sh<epeiev>u (V delakh vina i prosveshchen'iaj 36! 295; 1826! OiTumanskii lOdesskim druz'iam (Iz derevni) 92 i 296! 1826! Oilazykov iK P. A. Os<ipovo>i (Amin', amin'! Glagoliu vam) 73i 297: 1826! oilazykov iK Sh<epeie>vu (Ty moi priiatel' zadushevnyi) 22! 298: 1827! Oilazykov iK Vul'fu (fe p e r1 ia v Kambi, miiyi moi!) 36! 299: 1827! Oilazykov IK Tikhvinskomu (Liubimets muzy i naukii) 311 300: 1827 Oilazykov IK niane A. S. P<ushkin>a 281 301; 1827! OiPushkin A.S. iPosianie Del’ vigu (Primi sei cherep, Del'vig, on) 142i 302; 1827! Oilazykov iK V<ul'f>u (Pover1 , tovarishch, siadko m nej 22 i 303: 1828! Oilazykov i "Vot vam Naumov -- moi predtecha" 40 i 304; 1828! OiPushkin A.S. iPosianie k Velikopol'skomu, sochiniteliu "Satiry na \ iigrokov" 38; 305; 1828; OiViazemskii iPosianie k A. A. B. 95 i 306; 1828! OiPushkin A.S. iK lazykovu (K teb e sbiralsia ia davno) 26 i 307! 1828! Oilazykov iBaronu Del’ vigu (Inye dni - inoe delo!) 67 i 308: 1828! OiPushkin A.S. iOtvet Kateninu 20; 309: 1828! Oilazykov iA. N. St<epanov>u 48 i 310: 1828! Oilazykov iA. N. V<ul'f>u (Ne nazyvai m enia poetom!) 101 i 311! 1829! OiKoi'tsov i Pis'mo k D. A. Kashkinu 39! 312! 1829! OiKol'tsov IA. D. Vel’iaminovu 20 i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313 1829 oYPushkin V.L. K A. S. Pushkinu (Poet-plemiannik, spravedlivo) 25 314 1829? Ollazykov Ot"ezd 137 315 1829 OiPolezhaev K druz'iam (Igra voennykh sum atokh) /5 316 1830? OiPushkin A.S. <Dei'vigu> (My rozhdeny, moi brat nazvanyi) 144 317 1830? OiPushkin V.L. A. S. Pushkinu (Piemiannik i poet! Pozvol’, chtob diadia tvoi) 34 318 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Pushkin's taste and taste for Pushkin: Toward a reconstruction of taste mechanisms
PDF
Natan Altman and the problem of Jewish art in Russia in the 1910s
PDF
The Russian metahistorical imagination and Russian fiction of perestroika
PDF
Sophia, the wisdom of God conceptions of the divine feminine in Russian culture, 1880--1917
PDF
"Master of many tongues": The Russian Academy Dictionary (1789--1794) as a socio -historical document
PDF
The debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky in early Soviet Russia
PDF
Children in transition: Popular children's magazines in late imperial and early Soviet Russia
PDF
Terrible screeching: Adaptation of Pushkin's "Queen of Spades" in theater, opera and film
PDF
Two plays and a film: The Meyerhold /Faiko collaboration
PDF
Impostors, antichrists, and satanists: Textual strategies of the central and eastern European fin de siecle
PDF
Painting as text: Developments in Russian art during the second half of the nineteenth century
PDF
A cut above: Fashion as meta -culture in early -twentieth -century Russia
PDF
The aesthetics of performance in experimental Russian culture of the 1910's
PDF
A necessary epigone: The fantastic and "dvoeverie" in the works of A. K. Tolstoi
PDF
Metropolis to necropolis: The St. Petersburg myth and its cultural extension in the late 1910s and 1920s
PDF
Linguistic attitudes in the Basque Country: The social acceptance of a new variety
PDF
The face of others, the taste of things: Photogenie and sensation in silent cinema
PDF
Pasternak's Verlaine: The translations as transcripts of influence
PDF
Leonid Andreev through the prism of the literary portrait
PDF
Johann Krieger and sacred vocal music in Zittau, 1682--1735
Asset Metadata
Creator
Taylor, Romy Elyse
(author)
Core Title
The friendly epistle in Russian poetry: A history of the genre
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Slavic Languages and Literatures
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Literature, Slavic and East European,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-233713
Unique identifier
UC11339455
Identifier
3073855.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-233713 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3073855.pdf
Dmrecord
233713
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Taylor, Romy Elyse
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
Literature, Slavic and East European