Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T16:15:38.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

N. M. Iazykov as a Slavophile Poet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Ian K. Lilly
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On his return to Russia in July 1843 after a period of convalescence in Western Europe, Iazykov was confronted by a literary situation which bore little resemblance to the one he had left in July 1838, five years earlier. Many important nineteenth-century poets had already died by the time of Iazykov’s departure: Ryleev (1826), Venevitinov (1827), Griboedov (1829), Delvig (1831), Gnedich (1833), Pushkin, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, the fabulist Dmitriev (all in 1837), and Polezhaev (early 1838). Nevertheless, poetry continued to be the dominant form of literary expression, at least until April 1840, when Lermontov first published the full text of Geroi nashego vremeni. By late 1843, however, the tide had turned decisively in favor of prose. Many more poets had died—Davydov and Alexander Odoevsky (1839), Kozlov and Stankevich (1840), Lermontov himself (1841), and Koltsov (1842). Baratynsky and Krylov were to die in 1844.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 797 - 804
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1972

References

1. For a discussion of why Tiutchev, Fet, and the other so-called art-for-art's-sake poets stand apart from the main currents of Russian poetry after 1840 see Braun, Maximilian, “Der Daseinskampf der russischen Lyrik im 19. Jahrhundert,” Die Welt der Sloven, 1, no. 3 (1956): 308–21Google Scholar. A treatment of the trends in poetry in the 1840s more detailed and sophisticated than mine is given by B. la. Bukhshtab in his introduction to Poety 1840-1850-kh godov (Moscow and Leningrad, 1962; Biblioteka poeta, malaia seriia, 3rd ed.), pp. 5-86. Note added to galley proof: The bol'shaia seriia, 2nd ed., of this collection has just become available (Leningrad, 1972). Bukhshtab here introduces some new material on Slavophile poetry, but otherwise made few revisions (pp. 5-60).

2. A term first used by M. K. Azadovsky, in his introduction to Iazykov, N. M., Sobranie stikhotvorenii (Leningrad, 1948; Biblioteka poeta, bol'shaia seriia, 1st ed.), p. xvi.Google Scholar

3. One of these, “Zemletriasen'e,” can be considered a Slavophile manifesto. See also note 11.

4. See, for example, D. N. Sverbeev, “Vospominaniia o Petre Chaadaeve,” Russkii arkhiv, 1869, no. 6, cols. 092-93.

5. Orlov, V. N., at least, devotes the last two pages of his article on Iazykov to the period beginning in 1833: “Iazykov,” in Meilakh, B. S. et al., eds., Istoriia russkoi literatury, vol. 6 (Moscow and Leningrad, 1953), pp. 430–47 Google Scholar. However, Meilakh, writing in Gorodetsky, B. P., ed., Istoriia russkoi poezii, 2 vols. (Leningrad, 1968-69), 1: 329–42Google Scholar (“N. M. Iazykov”), limits his discussion almost entirely to the Derpt (Tartu) period, 1822-29. And in the chapter on Iazykov in her book Poety pushkinskoi pory (Moscow, 1970), pp. 181-220, I. M. Semenko concentrates on the more purely lyrical aspects of the poetry.

6. The logical conclusion of Ivan Kireevsky's thesis was that Russia had a great destiny. See Alexandre Koyré, La philosophie et le problime national en Russie au début du XIXe siiécle, Bibliothéque de l'lnstitut français de Léningrad, vol. 10 (Paris, 1929), pp. 174-93 (chap. 6: “L'Européen”).

7. See the section by A. D. Soimonov on Pushkin in Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vol. 79: Pesni, sobrannye pisateliami: Novye materially is arkhiva P, V. Kireevskogo (Moscow, 1968), pp. 171-230, 8. See Iazykov, Sobranie stikhotvorenii, p. xxv (my translation). Iazykov's main collecting activity was during the years of his semiretirement in Simbirsk Province (1832-38).

9. For the full text see Iazykov, N. M., Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii (Moscow and Leningrad, 1964 Google Scholar; Biblioteka poeta, bol'shaia seriia, 2nd ed.), pp. 367-69. This, the latest and best researched edition of Iazykov, will be referred to below simply as the 1964 edition.

10. For a thorough account of his attitudes toward German literature based on published materials see Wytrzens, Gunther, “Nikolaj Michajlovič Jazykov und die deutsche Literatur,” Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch, 10 (1963): 73–85Google Scholar. Professor Wytrzens used as his main source E. V. Petukhov, ed., Iasykovskii arkhiv, part 1: Pis'ma N. M. Iasykova k rodnym za derptskii period ego shisni (1822-1829) (St. Petersburg, 1913). However, Iazykov's voluminous correspondence with his family for the remaining years of his life is of even greater significance for this and many other themes. As yet unpublished, these letters are housed in the Manuscript Section of the Institute of Russian Literature of the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad (Pushkinskii dom), fond 348, 19.4.9-19.4.27. Much of the factual information presented in this article is taken from these materials.

11. See his two religious poems, “Zemletriasen'e” (1844: 1964 edition, pp. 384-85) and “Sampson” (1846: 1964 edition, pp. 411-13).

12. There is a discussion of lazykov's neologisms in Dmitrij Tschizewskij, “Einige Aufgaben der slavistischen Romantikforschung,” Die Welt der Sloven, 1, no. 1 (1956): 23-24. See also his more recent analysis in Russische Literaturgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1: Die Romantik, Forum slavicum, vol. 1 (Munich: Eidos Verlag, 1964), pp. 82-83.

13. “The Poetics of N. M. Jazykov” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1970), p. 88.

14. See my M.A. thesis, “Druzheskie stikhotvornye poslaniia N. M. Iazykova: K izucheniiu literaturnogo byta 1820-1840-kh godov” (Monash University, Australia, 1971).

15. “Baronu Del'vigu”: 1964 edition, pp. 262-63. Delvig shared Iazykov's view on the matter.

16. Without sufficient documentation, Kseniia Bukhmeier, the editor of the 1964 edition, proposed the beginning of 1845 as the date of composition of this poem. However, already in mid-December 1844 lazykov indicated in a letter to his family that he had written a poslanie to Shevyrev (Pushkinskii dom, f. 348, 19.4.25, letter 83).

17. 1964 edition, pp. 401-2.

18. 1964 edition, pp. 396-97. Aksakov rejected Iazykov's accusations. His reply (in verse) was first published only quite recently, in Poety kruzhka N. V. Stankevicha (Moscow and Leningrad, 1964; Biblioteka poeta, bol'shaia seriia, 2nd ed.), pp. 383-84.

19. 1964 edition, pp. 400-401.

20. 1964 edition, pp. 402-3,

21. 1964 edition, pp. 394-95, and see the notes, pp. 665-66. For further reactions by contemporaries to “K nenashim,” see M. I. Gillel'son, “N. V. Gogol’ v dnevnikakh A. I. Turgeneva,” Russkaia literatura, 1963, no. 2, p. 143.

22. 1964 edition, pp. 397-98.

23. M. I. Zhikharev, “Petr Iakovlevich Chaadaev: Iz vospominanii sovremennika, II,” Vestnik Evropy, 1871, no. 9, p. 46.

24. For details, see my thesis, pp. 127-37.

25. See Nekrasov's parody of the Gogol poslanie in Russkaia stikhotvomaia parodiia (XVIII-nachalo XX v.) (Leningrad, 1960; Biblioteka poeta, bol'shaia seriia, 2nd ed.), pp. 458-61. See also the article by B. la. Bukhshtab, “Nekrasov v bor'be so slavianofil'stvom: K istorii stikhotvoreniia Nekrasova ‘Poslanie k drugu (iz-za granitsy), '” Doklady i soobshcheniia Filologicheskogo instituta Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 3 (Leningrad, 1951), pp. 55-69.