Vasily Zhukovsky in the literary criticism of 1803–1819

This article surveys critical and informational materials in the Russian periodical press from 1803 to 1819, dedicated to the persona and work of Vasily Zhukovsky. In the early stage (1803-1812), critical reviews were sporadic and reflected isolated facets of the writer's reputation: the notability of his first attempts (Pyotr I. Makarov), the merit of his translations (Mikhail T. Kachenovsky), the success of Vestnik Evropy and its individual publications (Pyotr I. Shalikov, reviewers for Ulei [The Beehive] and Tsvetnik [The Flower Garden], Sergey N. Glinka), and the reception of the anthology A Collection of Russian Verses (Pyotr A. Vyazemsky). Between 1813 and 1819, critical attention to Zhukovsky became far more consistent. During the period, the poet gained recognition both with the public and at the imperial court. In an artistic sense, the union of poetry and power gave rise to the phenomenon of "visionary lyricism," the specifics of which critics - such as the anonymous reviewers of Syn otechestva [Son of the Fatherland] and Russkii invalid [Russian Invalid], as well as Pavel M. Stroev and Vladimir V. Izmailov - sought to comprehend. The persistent critical framing of Zhukovsky's most ideologically charged and court-sanctioned poems helped sustain a broader interpretive context, which allowed the public to interpret even the most official brief notices about the poet's new works on events of court life or about new marks of the Tsar's favor toward him as acts of a special nature - as fragments of a discourse linking the poet, the state, and Providence. A second important vector of criticism was the definition of the distinctive features of Zhukovsky's artistic manner. Critics identified, firstly, a transcendental aspiration, ideality, and dreaminess, embodied in heightened symbolism, and secondly, pictorial quality and a "painterly" character. Reviewers found these traits in various combinations across all genres, but especially in his idylls and ballads. The reception of the latter marked a profound receptive shift in criticism - away from the aesthetics of late Classicism and the tenets of Karamzinian Sentimentalism, and toward the Romantic illusionism of the younger Karamzinists. Articles by Nikolay I. Gnedich, Aleksandr S. Griboedov, and Aleksey F. Merzlyakov on the ballad reveal new trends associated with this change in orientation: the assessment of French and German influence, and the logic of the national adaptation of genres. Further- more, the controversy over the hexameter drew Zhukovsky's work into the conceptual sphere of Neoclassical artistic movements in the spirit of Johann J. Winckelmann. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References