American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Lomonosov's Literary Debut

Author(s): John Bucsela
Source: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Winter, 1967), pp. 405-422
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/304858
Accessed: 26-07-2016 16:21 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/304858?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut

John Bucsela, Emory University

At the end of 1739 or early in 1740 Lomonosov, then a student of mining

engineering at Freiburg University, sent home to the Russian Academy
of Sciences his Pis'mo o pravilax rossijskogo stixotvorstva, which was accompanied by his first full-length original ode Oda blactennyja pamjati
gosudaryne Imperatrice Anne loannovne na pobedu nad Turkami i Tatarami
i na v2jatie Xotina 1739 goda.1 The Letter, written in direct response to
Trediakovskij's 1735 Novyj i kratkij sposob k slozeniju rossijskix stixov,
established the basic concept of Russian accentual poetry ;2 Xotin ushered
in a new era of Russian literary style.
Xotin was written to commemorate the Russian victory over the Turks

on the outskirts of the city of Xotin (in Moldavia); Xotin fortress was
taken on 19 August 1739. The outcome of the battle (involving close to
140,000 troops, with the enemy outnumbering the Russians two to one)
had considerable political and military impact, and the event was well publicized both in Russia and abroad. Russian and German newspapers carried
detailed accounts of the fighting, and although abroad, Lomonosov had an
excellent opportunity to familiarize himself with the battle of Xotin before

writing his poetic account of it.

The soaring, ostentatious tone of the ode becomes immediately ap-

parent in the opening lines: "Vostorg vnezapnyj um plenil / Vedet na

ver'x gory vysokoj." The "lofty mountain" is Mount Parnassus, and the
author is "burning with Parnassian fire" as he watches the muses busily
weaving crowns of laurel and listens to the gentle murmur of the Castalian
Spring. Derzavin referred to this section as "lyrical disorder" (Rassuddenie
o liric'eskoj po2zii iii ob ode), since he saw no connection here with the
main theme of the ode. But these seemingly obscure passages do have meaning if the geographical and historical facts are kept in mind: Xotin fortress,

on top of a hill, was protected by a river with numerous tributaries, an

almost impenetrable forest, marshes, gullies, and entrenchments. The
"Muses" can be the Russian troops, who, under cover of darkness, were
quietly preparing a surprise attack.
The main theme of the ode is described in what may be called multiple-

SEEJ, Vol. XI, No. 4 (1967) 405

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

406 The Slavic and East European Journal

aspect imagery. Lomonosov never described anything directly, but always
in terms of metaphors and similes. The endless gallery of conceits is overwhelming. Swiftly moving, swiftly changing images often prevent us from

focusing separately upon any one until we long for a simple line of direct
portrayal. First, the Russian army is depicted as a valiant ship stubbornly
battling its way through the angry waves (the enemy) of a tempestuous
sea. Suddenly, the Russians are fearless lions pursuing a pack of frightened
wolves. The roar of the lions "makes forests and shores tremble." The

enemy within Xotin fortress is pictured as frightened beasts and reptiles

who crouch and tremble as the mighty eagle of Russia, soaring "high above
lightning and tempests," threatens to swoop down on them. Then, stanza

5 (p. 19):
He xeAL aH B ipese 3TaHI paeT
H, c cepoio IanI, EXOco'eT?

He ag ,H TIHEREH y3I pBeT

H -qexioCTH pa3HHyTL XOXIeT'

To poA oTBepmeHaOH0 pa6M,

B ropax orHeM HanOJImBB pBI,

MeTauxx H axeMHL B ox 6pocaeT,

rAe B Tp A s6paHHITiI Ham HapoO
CpeAH BparoB, cpeAH 60ooT

'Ipe3 6LICTpOi TOK Ha orHL ep3aeT.

Note the synaesthesia-with fantastic images that surge forth like incandescent rocks from a volcano-as he compared Xotin fortress, still in the hands
of the enemy, to Hell, whence brass projectiles, boiling and sizzling with
explosive charges "hurl down flame and liquid metal." Occasionally the
images refuse to become an organic part of the whole. Take away any line,
or sometimes even a whole stanza, and the poem will not suffer greatly, in
spite of the intention that everything in it contribute to the major theme.
This is not surprising since Lomonosov's images were not the product of
genuine inspiration. Unlike Pindar, Lomonosov was never really "transported" by the subject matter of his odes. He always remained aloof and
sober, forging and embroidering his verses with the poetic devices at hand.
Only in rare instances, as when he spoke of Peter I, is true poetic inspiration manifest in the lofty grandeur of his lines.
From the above verses, it is evident that Lomonosov was not concerned
with clarity and concreteness. He wanted to appeal to the senses rather
than reason and intellect, striking and arousing the reader by a series of
impressionistic pictures. L'harmonie imitative was another artistic device
used by Lomonosov. The line "Metall i plamen' v dol brosaet" is so successful in conveying the sound of the cannons and mortars (the repetition of the
l) that, in the opinion of Blagoj, "no Russian poet would be ashamed to

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut 407

write his name under it."3 However, Zapadov points out that although the
line by itself is quite euphonic and appropriate for the sound it describes,
in context it loses some of the power and sonority it is intended to convey,

which may be because the repetition of I after several words with o, u, y,

and r (v c'reve PAtny rzet, klokoc'et, uzy rvet, raby, rvy) reduces the intensity

of the resonance. It is the result, according to Zapadov, of "Lomonosov's

lack of poetic experience. In 1759 he wrote differently: 'I serdce gordogo
Berlina / Neistovogo ispolina / Peruny, bliz gremja, trjasut,' conveying
both the hissing of the flying shells and the roar of the artillery fire."4
Lomonosov was the first Russian poet to try to exploit both the phonetic
and the semantic qualities of Russian on a wide scale. Jurij Tynjanov observed that in Lomonosov's odes one can detect ideas expressed not only
by almost purely phonetic means, but even by phonetic metaphors, e.g.:

"Za xolmy, gde paljasia xljab'" (st. 6) and "Smu''aet mrak i strax

dorogu" (st. 15).5 Deriavin and, especially, Pu'kin developed this poetic
art to greater perfection, but it was Lomonosov who paved the way.

To further enhance the dramatic and virtually theatrical effects, Lomonosov employed various devices, including asyndeton: "Dym, pepel',
plamen', smert' rygaet" (st. 6). The piling up of nouns and verbs is even
more striking in some of his later poems: "Nadeida, radost', strax, ljubov' /
Zivit, krepit, pecalit, klonit" ("Oda na toriestvennyj den' vos'estvija ...
Elisavety Petrovny" [1752], 506). Another method was the introduction
of naturalistic details, often expressed in hyperbole: "Iz lyv gustyx vyxodit
volk / Na blednyj trup v Tureckij polk" (st. 8); "V krovi drugov svoix

leia8Eix" (st. 13). On occasion Lomonosov's naturalistic elements are

reminiscent of those employed by the authors of The Song of Roland and

The Iliad: "Smesiv'is' s praxom, krov' kipit; / Zdes' 'lem s glavoj, tam trup

legit, / Tam med', s rukoj otbit, valitsja" ("Oda na pribytie . . . Elisa-

vety Petrovny" [1742], 91). Swords are drenched in blood, the river is
churning from the blood of the Tartars, even the Moldavian mountains are

drowning in blood. Natural phenomena, too, appealed to Lomonosov's

poetic imagination, and earthquakes, volcanoes, thunder and lightning are

depicted more often than landscapes. In evoking them, he was able to

portray "momentous" events as well as to express poetic admiration and

awe at the wonders of nature. Mt. Etna (Phoenician origin, meaning

"mouth of the furnace") in particular must have suited the occasion here,
since, in the words of another writer, its eruption hurls "incandescent rocks

large as ordinary houses, which one follows in the aerial ascension as one
would follow a bomb issuing from a mortar."6 Etna's immense crater, full
of flame and smoke and incandescent boiling sulphur and alum, no doubt
reminded Lomonosov of Hell, just as it had Virgil and Dante.
Lomonosov's descriptions of nature on the rampage are strikingly

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

408 The Slavic and East European Journal

parallel to Biblical descriptions of these phenomena. Xotin depicted as Hell
reminds one of "The heathens are sunk down in the pit that they made"

(Ps. 9:15); "Hell had enlarged herself and opened her mouth without
measure" (Is. 5:14). The boiling of brimstone and sulphur is common in
Biblical depictions of Hell (Is. 30:33; Rev. 14:10 and 21:8, Ps. 11:6, etc.).
Lomonosov's use of such descriptions should not surprise us, for his early
education was based almost solely on the Holy Scriptures. He knew the
Bible, particularly the Psalms, almost by heart, and they later became one
of his almost inexhaustible sources of poetic expressions. Biblical elements
permeate his entire literary output. His use of rod and vragov (st. 5), both
referring to the Turks, the heathens who were "rejected by the Deity," is
clearly Biblical. Rod 'progeny' is an allusion to Hagar, the outcast Egyptian
slave from whom the Turks, in Lomonosov's belief, had descended. Later
in the ode he contemptuously referred to them as the children of Hagar and

asked them to prostrate themselves before Empress Anna: "Celujte nogu

tu v slezax, / i~to vas, Agarjane, poprala, / Celujte ruku, cto vam strax /
Me'em krovavym pokazala" (st. 17). His violent hatred for any opposing
force, whether it be an enemy of Russia or a personal rival, is quite in
keeping with the Old Testament spirit, particularly the Psalms, and it was
not by accident that he chose to adapt such Psalms as 26, 34, and 143, with
their call for revenge and punishment. Russia, on the other hand, like the
righteous in the Old Testament, was cherished by the heavens, by the
Almighty Himself.
Biblical personification of nature is another of Lomonosov's favored
devices. His poetry teems with activity; everything in nature is alive, and
his world is full of motion and vigor: "Puskaj zemlja, kak Pont, trjaset, /

Puskaj vezde gromady stonut" (st. 7); "Pustynja, les i vozdux voet!"
(st. 9); "Dunaj revet / I Rossov plesku otveiEaet" (st. 15). (For similar
passages in later poems see, e.g., 86-87, 93, 137-138, 562.) The Biblical

examples, of course, are numerous, e.g.: "The mountains skipped like rams,

and the little hills like lambs" (Ps. 114:4); "Let the floods clap their
hands; let the hills be joyful together" (Ps. 98:8). Apparently the meek
spirit of the New Testament did not appeal to Lomonosov as much, for few
instances of its stylistic influence are to be found in his works (but see

518-519).

As a poet, Lomonosov was not interested in the spiritual nature of

the Bible nor man's relationship to God but solely in the grandeur and
vitality of the Old Testament, particularly the descriptions of nature. Like
Wordsworth, he saw all of nature as a reflection of the greatness and

omnipotence of God. He felt, as did Leibniz, with whose philosophy

Lomonosov became acquainted through Christian Wolff, that without God

there would be chaos in the universe instead of order. His wonder at the

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut 409

marvelous order of the universe is particularly evident in his Utrennee

raxzymlenie and Vecernee razmyvlenie o Bo'iem Velivestve (117-119,

120-123).
Another aspect of Lomonosov's poetry is his belief that the ruler of a
country is more than just a representative of the State; he is the actual
embodiment of the ideas and ideals, character and personality, hopes and
aspirations of the people he represents. Thus, when Lomonosov praised a
Russian monarch, he was actually glorifying Russia's greatness and her
glorious future:
JlIo6oB1 PoccHi, cTpax paroB,
CTpaHII inojHOUot PepoiHa,
CeAMH 1 POcTpaHHBIX iTmpV 6peroB

HlaAeAa, paAoTm i BorHHH,

Beaima A na, TM ~o6poT

CHiaem cBeToMr n HLeApoT. (CT. 28.)

Xotin, he wrote in the preface to his Letter, "is no other than the fruit of
that most elated joy which the glorious victory of our most invincible
Monarch over the enemy inspired in my ardent and loyal heart." This
patriotic sentiment is indeed the essential nature of the ode.
The greatest and most colorful personality in Xotin is Peter the Great,

looming over Russia and the Russian troops like Zeus over the Greek
army. Lomonosov always regarded Peter I as his idol, his god, the man
who, by an almost supernatural power, lifted Russia out of its ignorance
and obscurity and placed it in the current of Western civilization. "He

was God, he was your God, O Russia!" he wrote in 1743. Peter's appearance in Xotin is bold and fantastic: with a flash of lightning as sudden
and as explosive as the eruption of Etna itself, the "heavens were opened"
and Peter I, pursuing the enemy with "sword bathed in blood," thunders

through the clouds like an apocalyptic personage; even the plains and
forests tremble at his approach (st. 9). We find similar hyperbolic visions,
of course, in the Bible.
The commanding figure of Peter I enriches the artistic value of the
ode, adding eloquence and evoking an atmosphere of grandeur likely to
appeal to the imagination and emotion of the reader. The supernatural
element of the vision also has explicit didactic value. It is a metaphorical
identification of Peter I with the greatness and boldness of Russia, just as

Virgil's Aeneas is synonymous with the boldness and greatness of the

Roman Empire. The image of Peter I becomes a kind of mystical force
intended to implant fear in the enemies of Russia, as is illustrated in the
following lines: "V poljax krovavyx Mars straiilsja, /Svoj med' v Petrovyx
zrja rukax, / I s trepetom Neptun 6udilsja, / Vziraja na Rossijskij flag"

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

410 The Slavic and East European Journal

("Oda na den' vos'estvija . .. Elisavety Petrovny" [1747], 200). Since
Lomonosov regards Peter as the father of Russian civilization, the man
commissioned by God to raise Russia up to the heavens, his image becomes
an authoritative stamp of approval of the Russian sacrifices necessary for
the country's future greatness. The spirit of Peter pervades Lomonosov's
odes. Other Russian rulers are great because they descended from him and,
like him, are divinely ordained to rule (84, 488, 506, 633, etc.). Lomonosov
saw, or at times tried to see, Peter the Great in all of them: "Velikij Petr iz
mertvyx vstal!" ("Oda na den' vos'estvija ... Elisavety Petrovny" [1746],
143). In stanza 7 of the same poem, the reign of Elizabeth is compared with
the Creation (p. 140), another of the Biblical borrowings by means of
which Lomonosov demonstrates that Russia is God's chosen land.7

The battle over, Lomonosov paints an idyllic picture in the concluding

lines:

HacTyx cTa)a roHeT B yr

H ecoM 6e3 60~3HH XOAHT;
IIpHmeA, oBeI IaceT rAe pyr,
C HHM IneCH1O HOBYIO naB3aHT,

CaraTcIcy xpa6pocTm XBaJHT B HeC,

H EHS3HH 9aCTm 6a aHT CBoeH,

H BeIHO THmHHII ITeaeT.... (CT. 27.)

In a few such passages Lomonosov achieved a surprisingly high degree of

poetic simplicity and sincerity. The diction and tone seem to blend with
the mood he was trying to create. One gets the feeling that Lomonosov, a
city dweller, secretly longed for the quiet, serene country life. Here we are
introduced to another of Lomonosov's favorite themes: vosljublennyj mir
(or vozljublennaja tisina; for Lomonosov, both terms are synonymous),
when nations, living in peace with one another can fully enjoy, through
free trade, the commodities produced by each. The Russian rulers are

peace-loving monarchs ("... mirnoju rukoju / Ty celoj udivila svet";

"Oda na den' vos'estvija . . . Elisavety Petrovny" [1748], 220), under

whose rule, in peacetime, "Mlekom i medom napoenny, / Tuinejut vlainy

berega" ("Oda na pribytie iz Golstinii . . Petra Feodorovica" [1742],

67). Milk and honey, again, is an Old Testament image (Ex. 3:8; Ps.

65:13; Ps. 107:37). In his odes, Lomonosov often raises the olive branch
and at the same time threatens woe to those who refuse to live in peace:

"Narody, nyne nau'ites', / Smotrja na strasnu gordyx kazn', / Sojuzy

razrunat' bljudites', / Xranite iskrennju prijazn'" ("Oda na pribytie . . .
Elisavety Petrovny" [1742], 91).
The themes and stylistic features of Xotin are repeated essentially un-

altered in all Lomonosov's subsequent odes. Morozov observes: "The

salient features of Lomonosov's poetic style were clearly formulated in

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut 411

his first original ode, On the Taking of Xotin, and did not change essentially

in the course of his entire life."8 It is also significant that many phrases

were carried over from Xotin into later works almost word for word:
Xotin:

Elsewhere:

rAe B TpYA H36paHHI"ii Ham HapoA

Jho6OBL POCCHH, cTpax Bparon
Z1tejaeT BCaK IIporIIT BCIO 1 POBI
He a aJ TjHMICHH y3LI pBeT
OT peBy jee H 6per Apo0rHT
IToan PoccRaa ymacHa nCHJa

E TpyAaa H36panHHIii nam r apoA (47)

Poccia paAoTT, cTpax BparoB (94)

BOau ipoT CBOIO IIPOJMT rTOB (94)

HanpacHo TaIaI H ya pse3 (638)

IlyCTiHin, ayr H 6per ApoS~ T (48)

Roan Poccio BOuHCTBO ymacHo (90)

The same thing is true of some images and illusions Lomonosov borrowed
from J. C. Giinther's Eugen ist fort! Ihr Musen nach! (see below).
A divergence of opinion exists regarding the literary school to which
Lomonosov belongs. The analysis of Lomonosov's odes by most Western
Slavists and a few Soviet critics leads them to the conclusion that Lomono-

sov was essentially a Baroque poet, writing in accordance with the poetic
principles of Nicolaus Caussinus (1580-1651) and Franqois-Antoine Pomey

(1619-1673). Like the Baroque poets, Lomonosov was more concerned

with poetic effects than with facts and clarity; the frequent lyrical digressions, overindulgence in metaphors, mythological and allegorical figures,

rhetorical questions and exclamations, synaesthesia, the attribution of emotional qualities to poetic meter and even to individual Russian letters-all
these qualities link Lomonosov with the Baroque literature.Y On the other
hand, the majority of Russian critics (and some Western scholarship)
considers Lomonosov a Russian Classicist. Zapadov regards Lomonosov as
the architect of Russian Classicism, since Xotin "opened the way for classical ode writing."'l "In literature," writes Trubetzkoy, "Lomonosov was
a faithful Classicist.""' The lofty "poetic ecstasy" of his odes, the Parnassian
ardor, the extravagant poetic embellishments, the praise of enlightened
monarchs, and the suppression of the author's personality-all indicate,
according to these scholars, that Lomonosov followed French Classicism.
The ode is itself a classical genre in which the writer, observing the classical

concept of stylistic division, must deal only with "high" subjects.'2 Gukovskij, almost alone in his appraisal, saw elements of the Renaissance
literary style in Lomonosov's odes: "vivid metaphoric pictures," "Titanic
images," and "grandiose sweep" in the portrayals of the ideal monarchs.'3
Another view was Belinskij's observation that, for the most part, Lomonosov's poetry grew out of the "barbaric scholastic rhetoricism" of the Russian

ecclesiastical schools of the seventeenth century.' Karamzin came to similar conclusions, characterizing Lomonosov's style as "uncouth, barbaric,
entirely unsuitable for our age."'5 Others in Russia, especially Germans,

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

412 The Slavic and East European Journal

labeled some of Lomonosov's odes (particularly Xotin) as imitation-in
iambic tetrameter and poetic embellishment, as well as conventional descrip-

tion of the battle scenes--of J. C. Giinther's 1718 ode Eugen ist fort! Ihr
Musen nach!16 Morozov writes that Lomonosov's poetry represents an
harmonious synthesis of Western Baroque poetry and Russian literary and

cultural tradition. This would make Lomonosov unique as a Russian

Baroque poet.17
This lack of concensus may be explained in part by the present con-

fusion in the definition of French Classicism. As is the case with Russian

"Classicism," traditional views concerning this period of French literature

are now being challenged. Critics and scholars are now discovering that
order, rule, reason, and perfection do not, after all, characterize French
Classicism. Instead we have "vigour and even violence, restless activity,"
"elements of surprise and shock," "broidered conceits," "the ornate," and
"jargon of rhetorical love." All of this indicates, writes Moore, "that much
the greater part of the literary production of the age was not classical, was
indeed the reverse of classical.""18 Boileau, like Longinus, was more concerned with "elevation," "transport," and "surprise" than with pure intellect

and persuasion.19 Thus, while to some Racine, Molieire, La Fontaine,

Boileau, Corneille are Classicists, to others they are Baroque. "French

'classical' literature," writes F. B. Artz, "should be seen inside the framework of the Baroque Age," which extends from 1600 to 1750; the period
1530-1600 is the Age of Mannerism, which includes Marinism, Gongorism,
the French preciosite, and the English Metaphysical Poets.20 However,
most scholars still refer to Artz's "Age of Mannerism" as "Baroque" and
to a greater portion of his "Baroque" as "Classical." This bewilderment is
further complicated by the lack of an adequate definition of Baroque litera-

ture,21 for obviously Artz's "Baroque" is not the same as the "Baroque"
of those who disagree with his views.

Eighteenth-century Russia was supposedly by-passed by both the

Renaissance and the Baroque. Yet, strangely enough, Lomonosov does not
seem to fit into the framework of Classicism. Calm, clarity, polish, and
symmetry, so characteristic of Classicism and Renaissance, are not what
we find in Lomonosov's poetry. The energetic nature, the multiple-aspect
imagery, the orgy of metaphors, the appeal to the emotions by emphasizing

horror, surprise, and synaesthesia, are all strong features of most Baroque
poets and of Lomonosov. So are the theatrical and naturalistic tendencies
and the mixture of Christian and mythological elements. Super-patriotism
and messianism can be found in some Baroque poetry, especially in the
poetry of Herrera, a Spanish Gongorist. The spirit of antagonism that
saturated the literary atmosphere of eighteenth-century Russia was also
typical among Baroque poets, who were violent in polemics: "Malherbe

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut 413

slashed the verses of Ronsard and Despartes; and Quevedo, Jaurequi, and
Lope attacked G6ngora's style with all the bitterness of personal rancour."22

The same can be said of Lomonosov and his contemporaries. It is indeed

no surprise that the epigram flourished in such an atmosphere. (But it was
very popular among French "classical" writers as well.) One can hardly

deny Lomonosov's own skill in vituperation: "0 strax! O uzas! Grom!

Ty dernul za itany !" he wrote in one of his epigrams addressed to Sumarokov (p. 627), an outburst calculated to shock the reader.
Poetic composition as a part-time occupation dominated the Baroque
Age of literature. The Baroque poet "saw himself as a cultivated gentleman,
for whom poetry was one accomplishment among many . . . the audience
that he addressed, likewise composed of amateurs, the richest of whom
might offer the less exalted his patronage, secretaryship, or a pension."23
This condition, too, can be applied to Russian literature of the eighteenth
century, especially to Lomonosov, whose literary activities were secondary
to his pursuit of science.
Unlike the Age of Renaissance, the Baroque saw man as a victim of
fate and nature-hence the preoccupation of the Baroque poet with death,

carnal sensuality, and metaphysical speculations. They (especially the

Marinists) loved nature when it was most violent (earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions), stirred by impersonal forces. When not preoccupied by natural

phenomena, they (particularly the English) depicted nature as if its

principles were mechanical (the Baroque Age saw the birth of the New
Science). Lomonosov felt the impact of this sudden upsurge of science,

and its effects can be seen in his astonishment at the wonders of nature

(Utrennee razmys'lenie, Vec'ernee razmyslenie), as well as in his occasional

treatment of nature as if it were governed by artifice ("Pis'mo k ... Suva-

lovu," 289). Moreover, like Lomonosov, Baroque poets would prefer

peaceful countrysides, farming, and the shepherd's life to the town, yet
"none was capable of making a true reading from nature": they "saw the
world through the lenses of literary conventions."24

Although Baroque poets considered man a helpless tool of fate

(Lomonosov was never afflicted with the Vanitas, hence the nonexistence
of carnal love and metaphysics), they accepted the world as the creation of
God, and therefore, it is only natural that they extensively employed material taken from the Holy Scriptures, just as did Lomonosov. In fact,
many of the Biblical features of Lomonosov's odes can be traced to Western

Baroque poets. Regardless of the complexities and contradictions they

found in life and art, these poets believed that everything in nature resolves

itself into a coherent, meaningful unity (thus John Donne's famous lines:
"No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent,

a part of the maine"; Deviations). Baroque literature, too, achieved a cer-

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

414 The Slavic and East European Journal

tain unity: "The Baroque, despite its enjoyment of surprise and contrast

and movement, ultimately succeeds in resolving its complexities into

unity."25 This is certainly true of Lomonosov's odes. The frequent lyrical
digressions in Xotin are subordinated to the major motif-the capture of

Xotin fortress-and collaborate to form a massive action.

Although the ode as a poetic form and such devices as metaphors,

similes, mythological and allegorical elements are quite common in classical
literature, they are by no means typical of Classicism only, since poets have

used them for centuries, in all ages. The symbols and devices themselves
are not so significant as the manner in which they are employed. In Classical and Renaissance literature, mythological figures are an almost organic
part of the work-they seem to grow out of the poet's own imagination and
add majesty and beauty to their own invention. With Baroque poets (espe-

cially the less talented) "these evocations and imitations of classical

mythological symbols are not recreated and seem to serve only as ornament

or a display of erudition."26 Lomonosov's odes, too, are crowded with

Greco-Roman deities (Apollo, Mars, Neptune, Phoebus, and so on) and
obscure allusions to Russian history and military campaigns. The allegorical
evocation of Peter seems the most successful. Indeed, it is a splendid vision.
Baroque poets had a passion for metaphors to express intangible ideas
in concrete terms. Instead of abstractions, we thus have concrete images
that appeal to our senses. All this is diametrically opposed to the tenets of
Classicism. Sumarokov, as a Classicist, was irritated by Lomonosov's allusions and metaphors as too obscure and too bombastic. Sumarokov commented at some length on the following passage from one (the 1747 one) of
the odes to the ascension of Elizabeth:
Iapefi gHapnCTB 3seMH1X oTpa~a,
Bosmo6eHnHa TJ nHHa,
BxameiaecTBO cer, rpaAoB orpaAa,

IKoxn Tm noxe3Haa ipacHa!

Boxpyr Te6JI IBeTEr neCTpelOT

H EXRacL Ha HnoJHx meTeIoT;

CoEpoBHI IInoiHnu xopa6UH

Aep3salT B mope sa T060Io;

Th cIInemnu Igexpoio pynoIo
CBoe 6oraTCTBO nO semaH. (CTp. 196.)

Sumarokov wrote: "I don't know what sort of tisina ograda is. I think
ograda grada means military defense, not peace."27 Lomonosov, as a poet,
looked at it differently, wishing to convey with poetic concision the idea
that peace among nations is the best defense of cities. The differences between the ideas of Gottsched, the professed Classicist, and the practice of

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut 415

the Baroque poet Giinther were similar. Clearly, Giinther's poetry appealed
to Lomonosov's stylistic sensibilities.

Thus in many ways Lomonosov aligned himself with the Baroque

poets-borrowing from other traditions when it suited his need but, for
the most part, employing the features which characterize the Baroque Age.
Lomonosov's art was also in keeping with the poetic and linguistic traditions of his native country. "Lomonosov is linked with the preceding native

tradition--with the poetry of Simeon Polockij and, even further back, with
old Russian oratorical literary art, by thousands of threads."28 The pompous and ornate style had always been the hallmark of Old Russian literature
and Old Church Slavonic was usually associated with this style. Old Russian literature, which was predominantly ecclesiastical, had always prided
itself on vysota i izvestie sloves and a writer who tried to descend to ordi-

nary language and expressions was accused of "writing plainly like a

peasant."29 Metaphors, allegories, hyperbole, naturalism, and personification

of nature abound in the Slovo o polku Igoreve, as does the mixture of

religious and mythological elements. Archpriest Avvakum's Life is saturated with figurative language and grotesque naturalistic elements. All
these artistic devices and the ornate rhetorical style had come to Russia
from Byzantium and predominated through the eighteenth century. The
messianic concept (the Third Rome) was formulated during the Muscovite
period when Ivan the Terrible considered himself God's vicar on earth,
divinely ordained to lead the chosen people.

Polockij pioneered in panegyric verses praising enlightenment and

glorifying Russia and its rulers. He also first attempted ethopoeia, the
embodiment of the national ethos. In Polockij's poetry, writes Eremin:
"The Tsar and the State are concepts that are freely interchangeable with
one another. The Tsar is the symbol of the Russian government, the living
embodiment of its universal glory, the living personification of its political

might."30 Similar ideas are expounded in Feofan Prokopovi6's Vladimir

and his Ars Poetica. Polockij's works also contain hyperbole, cosmological
and messianic elements, especially in Rifmologion (1660).31
Polockij's verses are essentially Church Slavic, lacking in poetic intonation and imagination, and they demonstrate that Russian, as a literary
language, was not yet cultivated to any significant degree. Antiox Kantemir

was the first Russian poet to develop a simple style. Being a satirist, Kantemir detested panegyric verses, and for him the only worthwhile literary
genre was the satire. Only here could one present the "truth" effectively
without sugar-coating it with numerous poetic devices and flowery expressions. "Truth," "naked truth" was Kantemir's express aim in literature.32
As a result, in a frantic effort to simplify and de-poetize his satires, he
saturated them with vulgarisms and obscure street jargon, juxtaposed with

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

416 The Slavic and East European Journal

no feeling for literary syntax, as is clearly seen, for example, in lines 147156 of Satire I. Kantemir's attempts at conversational style constitute a
step forward in comparison with the conventional, recitative, ponderous
Slavonism of Polockij and Feofan Prokopovic', but his verses are sterile
and pedestrian, resembling journalistic writing more than poetry. His

"simplicity" and "irony" ("Smejus' v stixax, a v serdce o zlonravnyx

plac'u")33 eventually bore fruit, but the impact of his satires was not felt
until years later, for they were not published in Russia until 1762.
The earliest verses of Sumarokov suffer from the same weaknesses as

those of Kantemir, since he too tried to oversimplify his poems, stripping

them almost completely of poetic embellishment and describing everything
in a dry, factual, at times naive style:
11aI TenepL, HaiamT AHHy no3~paBIHaTa,

He MoryHry ora coB TauHx CICaTH,

H3 IHOTOpLIx eM HOXBaJy cnjIeTaTH,

Iam HeBoiei O He 6yAeT npoorJoIaTH?

Ho Cemo0aTs HeJIL3JI TO z1a mHe B3eIT L 3a cpeATBO,
He ymea a nfeTr, 1T0o6 He BnaCTH B 6eATBO,
Tex, To el AOJIMHa HoxBaja TroxIHa,

Ro0m oHa CIaBHa B CBeTe H BexIHa?34

Trediakovskij, although a talented poetic theorist (the author of the

first treatise on modern Russian prosody), was a poor and uninspiring poet.
His lack of poetic talent coupled with his excessive erudition, scholastic
pedantry, and addiction to Latinized syntax and archaisms made his verses
tortured, to say the least:
AeBJITEH apHaccmHX cecTp, ynIHo reaHHoHa,
O Hana-aLHHHR AnIIOJJHH, H fnepxecc~ a 3BOHa

O POAHTeab CeaARHX CJIOB, cepAge Bece~iHMx,

IIpocT cxor H He yIpameH BcaRIeCH EpacaHAHx!

HocIIaIO TH OHIO, Poeca 1093H3,

JIaH.aSac AO SeCJH, AOJaHO P'TO, caLaI.35

Others wrote in similar fashion, "in that horrible broken Russian in which
most people wrote at that time."36 The verses of a certain Xar'kov professor, Vitynskij, are of special interest to us, since he, too, dealt with the
capture of Xotin fortress, and at about the same time.
TIpe3BLrIaHiHaJI jeTIT---TO TO sa upeCeHa!
COaBa, HOIIcga BeTBb 4HHHIHCa 3eHeHa;

Hop~Hpono 6zeIeT BCO, 6zeieT BOa or sJaTa,

OT 3HCna H~ pa B Co0HeI HeCeca RpWzaTa,
BOOTOR, 3anaA, GeBep, IOr, 6perH c oIeaHOM,

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut 417

HoBylo CJymaiiTe BsecCT, To 0 na MycyaMaHOM
IloaJylo pOCCHiCiHfi Mme, KO L xpa6pIfi, TOJIL CJaBHIMi,
BHKTOPHIO IAYno1yir, H aBaHTaa aImanBHiA
IIo no6eAe n XOTHH ropoA B3aIT TOJIL CJaBHJnlIi

JEoJl cTeHaMH orpaicAenH EpeuIiRMI, IOJL AaBHLIua.37

Against this background the striking originality of Lomonosov's Xotin

is evident. Although it was not published until 1751,38 Xotin was known
in Russian literary circles prior to that date and created considerable stir
among Lomonosov's contemporaries. "The novelty of style, the power of

expression, the almost living pictures astounded the readers," related

Radiiev.39 Even Trediakovskij and Sumarokov marveled at the freshness
of Lomonosov's language, the precision of his iambic meters, and the novelty

of his poetic diction. "In quality, in the musical nature of its verses, and in
meter, Lomonosov's ode surpassed everything Russian poetry had hitherto
produced."40 It is not surprising, therefore, that Trediakovskij lost favor
and drifted into obscurity. His present reputable position in Russian literature rests on his theoretical and linguistic contributions, rather than his
poetry.

Poetic taste has changed considerably since Lomonosov's time, and

his odes have long since lost their aesthetic force. Lacking the author's
personality, his soul or emotions, or any human psychology, his faceless
characters are mechanical objects of metaphorical manipulation. Even his
favorite hero, Peter the Great, never comes alive as a human being. We
prefer, as a rule, the natural in literature. If we enjoy complexity, it must
result from the complex ideas and emotions conveyed, rather than from a
display of erudition and sophistication. We are no more impressed by the
flowery ostentation of Lomonosov's odes than we would be by the wigs,
duels, and professed sophistication of eighteenth-century Russian society.
Lomonosov's verses were enjoyed in his time because people loved pomp.
Also, his language and poetic style were new and revolutionary for the
time. The significance of Lomonosov's odes, then, is more historical than
intrinsic.

Lomonosov's ability to fuse the most desirable and productive elements of Church Slavic with Russian, a task on which other Russian
writers had labored fruitlessly, was one of his greatest achievements.
Slavonicisms, instead of burdening his style, as was the case with his predecessors, ennoble it, while Russian popular speech refreshes and invigorates

it. "No one among Lomonosov's predecessors or contemporaries," wrote

Solosin, "could combine the elements of Church Slavic and Russian so
successfully as did Lomonosov."41 Pu-kin, a severe critic of Lomonosov as
a poet,42 wrote that Lomonosov "discovered the true sources of our poetic

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

418 The Slavic and East European Journal

language .... His even, ornate, and picturesque style derives its principal
quality from a profound knowledge of the written Slavonic language and
from the felicitous fusion of the latter with Russian popular speech."43

Still, Lomonosov's literary language is somewhat stilted and strained.

No doubt, in his attempt to preserve the heritage of Church Slavic and to
free the Russian literary language from the excesses of foreign elements,
Lomonosov somewhat overrated the role of Slavonicisms in Russian, but
this is evident more in his theory than in practice. Xotin does suffer from
occasional archaisms, both in grammar and in lexicon (dubravy, koi, paki,
tol', soldatsku), and occasional obscure regionalisms (krasoul, lyva, etc.),
but these almost completely disappeared in his later odes. The defects,
however, are too few to lessen the distinctness and polish of Lomonosov's
language. It is true that a more desirable balance in the language was obtained in the nineteenth century, with Puskin's poetic genius setting the
trend as he tapped the popular folk tongue and transmitted it into literature.

But Pu'kin's reform did not spring from a vacuum; he came on the scene
in a far more favorable literary climate than did Lomonosov. Pu'kin did
not have to concern himself with the historical and linguistic relationship
of Russian and Church Slavic for, following Lomonosov's pioneering work,
the literary language had been further simplified and Russified by other
Russian writers. Also, such questions as orthographic rules, grammatical
forms, and the proper system for versification were already decided for
Pu'kin. Prior to Pu'kin, however, Lomonosov's reform was the most

crucial. As Toma'evskij so aptly put it, "one can already recognize [in
Lomonosov] the elements that determined the works of Pu'kin."44 Martel,
who even suggested that the literary language of Russia might have become German or French had it not been for Lomonosov, wrote: "Thanks
to Lomonosov, the literary language took shape. The evolution of civilization will make his theories subject to revision more than once; the vocabulary will be enriched by new sources, but just the same, all modern Russian
rests on the foundation which he laid."45 Although Lomonosov's linguistic
reform was not set forth in detail until later in Rossijskaja grammatika
(1755) and Predislovie o pol'ze knig cerkovnyx v Russkom jazyke (1758),
the practical application of the theory was already brilliantly demonstrated
in his first ode.

Xotin also put an effective end to the syllabic system in Russian versifi-

cation: Lomonosov, by example more than by precept, permanently established syllabo-tonic versification. The iambic tetrameter of Xotin became
the most popular poetic form in Russian.

Although Lomonosov was not the first to employ the theme of Peter
the Great, he provided the first important examples and exerted a powerful

influence on subsequent poets. The theme continues through many of his

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut 419

later works, including one unfinished epic on Peter. "No one among the
eighteenth-century Russian writers captured so broadly the theme connected with Peter as did Lomonosov."46

Lomonosov seldom achieved perfection in employing metaphors, that

virtually indispensable tool of poetry and his most cherished device, but one

can readily perceive his special gift in such lines as these: "Zlatoj uie
desnicy perst / Zavesu sveta vskryl s zvezdami" (st. 18). In this respect,
Lomonosov can definitely be considered Russia's first poet. Although his
conceits are often overdrawn to the point of absurdity, he was the first to
apply the Petrarchan principle extensively in Russian verse: "The task
of a poet is to adorn truth with beautiful veils." To be sure, he overemphasized this precept, a weakness that survived among Russian poets to
the end of the century and beyond.47 "Holding Lomonosov's talent in high
esteem," eighteenth-century Russian poets "adopted all the features characteristic of Lomonosov's odes. ... Quite frequently, they repeated the

very same words and phrases and employed the same terms, without

departing from the limited sphere of his phraseology."48

Taste changed during the reign of Catherine II, and poets included
more and more "low" subjects in their odes, even the author's own personality and sentiments. The "unadorned truth" and down-to-earth simplicity advocated by Sumarokov and his followers became, however, a
fusion of these elements with Lomonosov's style, and not always in good
taste. In the main, Russian poetry long followed the stylistic path outlined
by Lomonosov-in meter, in rhetorical intonation, and in language. Indeed,
so marked was Lomonosov's influence that critics have seen in Xotin a clear

foretaste of Pu'kin's poetry. S. P. Sevyrev wrote in 1843:

First we have the syllabic verses of Simeon Polockij, Feofan [Prokopovi'], and
Kantemir. Then, the first clumsy experiments in the tonic measure by the assiduous
but ungifted Trediakovskij. . . . Suddenly, out of this awkwardness and discord we
have, for the first time resounding in the Russian ear, such sounds as: "Talc 6NICTpuI
iOHI ero cicaicax. / IorAa o n e noaar TonTaI, / rAe apHAI BCXOAIy i HaM AeHHHIgy."

[st. 10.] We recall similar verses from Puskin: "IEaE 6iMCTpO B nIOJe, B]pyr OTRpMITOM,
/ IIoAxooaH BaHOBL, MOii IOJ 6e1HT! / RaE B3BOHICO IIOA ero OnITOM / 3emi IIpoMepsxaa

3By'qT! " Wasn't it here, in these verses of Lomonosov, that we find the origin of
that harmony of Russian style which captivates us now in all its beauty in the verses
of our Puskin ?4

Readers familiar with Pu'kin's Poltava and Mednyj vsadnik may well
perceive a definite kinship with Xotin and with Lomonosov's portrayal of
Peter the Great. Supernaturalism, dramatization, dynamism, and personification of nature are, e.g., striking features of Medny]j vsadnik,50 just as
they are of Xotin. Pulkin also employed Slavonicisms and Lomonosov's

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

420 The Slavic and East European Journal

rhetorical diction to superb effect on occasion. Zapadov comments on Xotin,

stanzas 9 and 11: "[These] lines perhaps even more clearly anticipate
Pu'kin.... Not only does the image of the dashing military leader recall
memories from our childhood of the well-known lines of Poltava, but the
faultless writing, the amazing feeling for words, and the phonetic qualities
of the verses tell us that already with Lomonosov's first ode the road to
Pu'kin was opened."51 Xotin, wrote S. M. Solov'ev, "created an epoch in
the history of Russian language and literature."52 Perhaps we can agree
completely with Belinskij's judgment: "There is is no doubt that Russian
literature began . . .with the ode On the Taking of Xotin .... It did not
begin with Kantemir, Trediakovskij, and certainly not with Simeon Po-

lockij.... Lomonosov was the father of Russian poetry.... He was the

Peter the Great of Russian literature."53

NOTES
1 M. B. JIOMOHOCOB, (<IIo0moe co6paHHe co'nmHHeHni (10 TT.; M., J., 1950-1959),

VIII, 16-30. Page references to Lomonosov's poetry in this article are to this
volume, except as noted. Further references to Xotin are to stanzas. Following
established Soviet scholarly practice, the spelling has been partially modernized.
Lomonosov's earlier ode (1738) is a direct translation of Fenelon's ode On
Solitude (1718). Lomonosov may have composed verses earlier, but of these only
a ten-line poem, Stixi na tujasok (1734), was preserved.
2 See J. Bucsela, "The Birth of Russian Syllabo-Tonic Versification," SEEJ, IX
(1965), 281-294.
3 j. A. Baroii, <<HcTopHa pyccooi aJHTepaTypM XVIII B.?> (2-e HBA.; M., 1951), 180.
4 A. 3anaAoB, <OTeg pyccIoim noasHH: 0 TBopeCTBse JIoMoHocoBa> (M., 1961), 24.
5 10. ThiunHOB, "0Oa nau OpaTOPCICHK artap," <<HDTHKa,>> III (3., 1927), 114.
6 A. Dumas, "Etna," Wonders of Nature, Described by Great Writers (N.Y., 1904),
255 (from Le Speronare: Impressions de voyage [Paris, 1836]).
7 See B. opoBaToBscan, "0 3saxMCTBOBaJX JIoMonocoBa H3 B6znHH," <1711-1911,
M. B. JJonMOOCOB: C6opnHH CTaTeiT,>> nA peA. B. B. CrnoBsoro (CIM6., 1911), 33-65.
8 A. MoposoB, "JIOMOHOCOB H 6apomto," <<PyccICS IHTepaTypa,> 1965, X2 2, CTp. 81.

9 See D. Ciievskij, History of Russian Literature: From the Eleventh Century to

the End of the Baroque (The Hague, 1960), 392-428; A. Angyal, Die slavische
Barockwelt (Leipzig, 1961), 309-316; F. Wollman, Slovanstvi v jazykove lite-

rdrnim obrozenti u slovanui (Praha, 1958), 76-77.

10 Zapadov, 20.

11 N. S. Trubetzkoy, Die russischen Dichter des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Graz,
KSln, 1956), 24.

12 See A. A. Biarofi, peg., <<HcTopHrn pyccKoli sHTepaTyptM B Tpex ToMax,>> I (1958),

409-435; II. H. CaRynHH, <<HCTOpna HOBOiA pyCConOi JaTepaTypl: 3noxa ERJIaccHgqHma>>

(M., 1919), 185-306; I1. H. BepIoB, "IIpo6ems H3yIeHfHI pycKOro EIjaCHqHSM3a,"

<Pyccnan aHTepaTypa XVIII B.: ~3noxa uEaccHgHanMa>> (M., JI., 1964), 5-29; ero
ae "Ilpo6zeMa aHTepaTypHoro HanpaBseHra J~oMoHocoBa," <XVIII Bee,>> V (M., JI.,
1962), 5-32.

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Lomonosov's Literary Debut 421

13 r. JyKOBcKHLI, <HICTOPHa pycciKO HTepayp~ ) XVIII seIxca (M., 1939), 108.
14 B. f. BeaHHcKiRH, HloIXHoe co6paHHe cornHHenIHHi (13 TT.; M., 1953-1959), V, 523524.

15 Cited in <Bqepa H ceroAHs: JJHTepaTypHrI c6opHHK,>> COCT. rp. B. A. Coxaory6, I

(CH16., 1845), 58.

16 "Umrn diese Zeit war Giinther der deutsche Haupt-Poet: Lomonosov schrieb hier
vermutlich seine erste Ode auf die damaligen Siege der Russen fiber die Tiirken;
Giinthers Ode 'Eugen ist fort, ihr Musen nach' wurde von ihm mehr fibersetzt als
nachgebildet: aber das wuszte in Ruszland niemand und sein poetischer Rum fing
an"; August Ludwig Schldzer, Offentliches und Privat-leben von ihm selbst
beschrieben (G6ttingen, 1802), 218. V. E. Adadurov and Ja. Ja. Stelin [Stfihlin],
on examining the ode at the Academy of Sciences, "were very much surprised
at the meter of this verse, which had never before existed in the Russian language,
and found, among other things, that this ode was written in accordance with the

poetic measure of Giinther and, more important, in imitation of his popular ode
'Eugen ist fort! Ihr Musen nach!'--even entire stanzas were translated from it
by Lomonosov"; quoted in <<MocKBHTJIHH,>> 1850, M 1, OTA. III, CTp. 4.

17 A. MoposoB, "IIpo6eeMa 6apoiiRo B pyccIoi anITepaType XVI-XVII-HaIaaa XVIII

BseEa," <Pyccia a AHTepaTypa,> 1962, X2 3, CTp. 3-38; see also his "Lomonosov i
barokko," 70-96.
18 W. G. Moore, French Classical Literature (N.Y., 1961), 12-25.

19 See N. Edelman, "L'Art poetique: 'Long-temps plaire, et jamais ne lasser,'"

231-246, and H. M. Davidson, "The Literary Arts of Longinus and Boileau,"

20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27

247-264, in Jean-Jacques Demorest, ed., Studies in Seventeenth Century French

Literature (Ithaca, N.Y., 1962).
F. B. Artz, From the Renaissance to Romanticism (Chicago, 1962), 189.
See Rene Wellek, "The Concept of Baroque in Literary Scholarship," in his
Concepts of Criticism (New Haven, 1963), 69-127.
J. M. Cohen, The Baroque Lyric (London, 1963), 147.
Ibid., 12.
Ibid., 107.
T. Buffum, Studies in the Baroque from Montaigne to Rotrou (New Haven,
1957), 53.
G. Highet, The Classical Tradition (N.Y., 1949), 158.
A. II. CyMapoIcoB, <lloaHoe co6paHHe ncex C0oIHHeHi B CTrxaX n upose> (10 TT.;
2-e Mga.; M., 1787), X, 77-78.

28 Morozov, "Problema barokko," 37.

29 A. H. Co6oeBcIHHi, JIOMOHOCOB B HCToPHH pyccor0 83tIIMaE> (C116., 1911), 2.
30 II. II. EpeMHH, "CHMeoH IoOiFICHHi, 1IO9T ApaMaTypr," B IH. CHMeOH II0~OORHi,
<<H36paHHue COrnHHHHJ>> (M., J., 1953), 245.

31 See, e.g., ibid., 97, 100.

32 "He MorT HHIcaiE xBaAHTL, ITO XyJnI AOCTOiiHO,- / BcJmoy HMK Aaio, I aiioe

IIPHCTOiHO; / He TO B yCTax, ~ITo B cepAe, iHMeTL He 3Halo: / CBHHLIO CBHHcei, a

jaBa aLBOM IIpocTo HaniBalo"; A. JIaHTeMHp, "CaTipa IV," <Co6paHHe CTHXOTBOpeHHrn> (3., 1956), 391.

33 Ibid., 110.

34 A. II. CyMapoIoB, "loa3ApaBHTeJ1IHie oAM B lepBLI AeHL HoBoro roAa 1740,"

<H36paHHIre lpoH3BeAe1HJ>> (JJ., 1957), 49.

35 B. EI. TpeAHaioBcIiHf, "0~3 cTOJa OT POCCHrfICEH II093HH R AnIIOuHy," <<Ha6paHHMIe uIpOH3BeAeHMI> (M., J., 1963), 390-391.

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

422 The Slavic and East European Journal

36 E. AEcaEoB, <<JIoMoHocoB B HCTOPHH pyccI0oi JHTepaTypM n pycc0ioro JI3IEaH (M.,

1848), 322.
37 M. H. CyxOMAnHOB, "IIpHMexaHHnJ," <<Co'qnHeHHa M. B. JooHocoBa,>> I (CII6.,

1891), 36. This edition, eventually completed (in 8 vols.) by L. B. Modzalevskij

and S. I. Vavilov in 1948, contains some annotations which are lacking in the

later Academy edition cited in Note 1.

38 The 1739 version of the ode was lost, and Lomonosov rewrote it for the 1751
edition, with some minor changes, writing, for example, "Boitsja sobstvennogo
sleda," "DaleEe dym v poljax mutitsja," instead of "I svoego boitsja sleda," "Dym
i prax v poljax mutitsja," respectively. The earlier variants were quoted by
Lomonosov in his Ritorika (1744 ff.), making comparison possible.
39 A. H. PaAHIneB, <<IyTemecTBHe sH3 HeTep6ypra B Mocicny> (M., JI., 1950), 196.

40 B. N. Menshutkin, Russia's Lomonosov (Princeton, 1952), 34. The original

Russian edition of this book appeared in 1911.

41 H. H.. CoJocHH, "OTpameHHe 3MICa H o6pa3o0B CB. IIHcaHHH H IHHT 6orocjyze6HIX

B CTHXOTBOpeHHnX JoMonHocoBa," <(H3. OTA. pyc. rA. H ConB.,> XVIII (1913),
238-239.

42 "There is neither feeling nor imagination in Lomonosov's poetry. His odes, written
in imitation of the German versifiers of the time, long since forgotten even in
Germany, are tiresome and inflated. His influence on our literature was harmful,
which is reflected in it even to this day. Bombasticity, artificiality, aversion to
simplicity and precision, the lack of any native element and originality-these are
the vestiges left to us by Lomonosov." A. C. HIymEHH, <<0 nTepaType> (M., 1962),

339.

43 Ibid., 65-66.
44 B. ToMamencIuHii, <<IymIH,> II (M., JI., 1961), 123.

45 A. Martel, Michel Lomonosov et la langue litteraire Russe (Paris, 1933), 80.

46 A. R. MOorbOcIaJH, "IIeTp I B no13HH XVIII sBeIa," <<Yi. 3an. JeeHHHrpaAcIoro
roc. nea. HHCT.,> XIV (1938), 140.
47 See, e.g., Paul I. Trensky, "The Year 1812 in Russian Poetry," SEEJ, X (1966),
283-302.

48 E. rpemnmeBa, "XBsae6HaJI oga B pyccoii nHTepaType XVIII B.," in 1711-1911,

M. V. Lomonosov: Sbornik statej, 94.

49 C. II. IleBlpeB, "A. raiaxoB, coCT., <IIooHaiI pycciasi xpecToMaTHJ, AH 06pasau

EpacHopeX H n non093HH," <MOCIEBHTAHHH,> 1843, X 5, CTp. 242-244 (a review
article, pp. 218-248).

50 See Paul Call, "Puskin's Bronze Horseman: A Poem of Motion," SEEJ, XI

(1967), 137-144.
51 Zapadov, 27.
52 C. M. CoJonBseB, <<HCTopRa PoccHH,>> XI (M., 1963), 547.

53 Belinskij, Poln. sobr. soi'., I, 65; III, 487; VII, 600; X, 8-9.

This content downloaded from 200.62.146.210 on Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms