Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Russian Literature LXXII (2012) I

www.elsevier.com/locate/ruslit

ET IN ARCADIA EGO: TOWARD A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

OF THE RUSSIAN PASTORAL MODE

NATHAN KLAUSNER

Abstract
By investigating the origin, character, import, and ultimate fate of the web of
associations and reader expectations that is the Russian pastoral mode, this study
attempts to determine how and why certain pastoral themes, tropes, and other
literary conventions derived from the Classicist tradition of idyll and eclogue
became divorced from their original generic context before eventually developing
into crucial aspects of the Russian Romantic and Realist conceptions of the
countryside. Particular emphasis is placed on the role of Aleksandr Pushkin in
adopting, transforming, and propagating pastoral associations, which in turn
provides insight into his own oeuvre and legacy.
Keywords: 18th-Century Russian Literature; 19th-Century Russian Literature;
Pastoral; Pushkin; Karamzin; Batiushkov; Gessner

Aleksandr Pukin was ambivalent about the idyll. One day, after quarreling
with close friend and fellow poet Vilgelm Kjuchelbeker during his school
days at the Lyceum, Pukin composed a devastating epigram in which he
referred to his friend as, among other things, more nauseating than an idyll
( ).1

0304-3479/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ruslit.2012.06.020

110

Nathan Klausner

As an adult, Pukin again directed his epigrammatic wit at an alleged

idyllist, namely V.I. Panaev, the only Russian to publish a book of idylls
(1820), whom he mockingly addressed as the Russian Gessner (1827):

To the Russian Gessner

!
!
!
!
,
:
!

How can you be so cold and dry!

How prissy and pale your style is!
The poverty of your invention!
How you weary my ear!
Your shepherdess, your shepherd
Should go about in sheepskin coats:
Youre freezing them to death in that
breezy getup!
Where did you find them, at the Schsterklub,
Or at Krasnyj Kabaok?

: -,
?

In light of the comparison of Panaev to Salomon Gessner, 3 the GermanSwiss author of sentimental, moralistic prose idylls that had enjoyed enormous success in Russia in the 1770s-1780s, and the sarcastic reference in the
final two lines to middling St. Petersburg eateries whose ownership and
clientele were almost exclusively German, it would seem that Pukin associated the idyll as such with a certain stiff, archaic, prim, and stereotypically
German literary sensibility that he frequently mocked in his German friend
Kjuchelbeker.
Given Pukins reception of the idyll as a genre, it should come as no
surprise that he never wrote a poem or other literary work that announced
itself as an idyll or an eclogue. Despite his avoidance of overt pastoral
genre markers, however, Pukins works abound in poetic elements borrowed
directly from the pastoral literary tradition. This feature is particularly striking in his juvenilia (typically referred to as his Lyceum verses), which,
thanks largely to the profound influence on the young Pukin of French 18thcentury poetic models such as Evariste Parny, Jean-Baptiste Rousseau, and
Voltaire, are replete with themes, topoi, and imagery native to the French
classical eclogue. 4 For example, shortly before his brief boyhood feud with
Kchelbecker, Pukin had published a poem entitled Blaenstvo (Bliss)
that triumphantly embraced the norms of 18th-century pastoral poetry:
, ,
, ,
,

5
.

In a grove dark and shady,

Where, burbling in the fragrant grass,
A clear little stream meanders,
One night, to the tune of a simple pan-flute
Sang a lovesick shepherd.

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

111

Other early poems such as Rassudok i ljubov (Reason and Love)

and Favn i pastuka. Kartiny (The Faun and the Shepherdess. Pictures)
also featured fundamental elements of classical pastoral, including shepherdlover protagonists, mythological furniture, and an emphasis on sententious,
gallant, and playful wit in matters of love. 6
There is thus a telling contradiction between Pukins seeming distaste
for the idyll as a genre and the centrality of pastoral themes in his early
poems. This paradox is not restricted to his juvenilia, however although the
unmediated, wholesale invocation of classical pastoral norms is a phenomenon unique to his Lyceum verses, images, themes, and tropes derived from
the pastoral mode remain permanent fixtures of his mature works as well.
The shepherds pan-flute (, ), for example, is the instrument that post-lyceum Pukin consistently employs to represent his own
unique poetic idiom, and the pastoral locus amoenus (a detailed description
of an ideal natural setting) informs the ubiquitous Pushkinian image of the
rustic retreat from wordly cares:
,
,
;
, ,
,
[...]
7
(Orlovu [To Orlov], 1819)

I shall hide away with my secret

freedom,
With a pan-flute, with repose and
nature
Under the canopy of my grandfathers woods;
By a lake, in a peaceful cottage,
Or in the grass of thick meadows,
Or on the lush slope of a hill [...]

In fact, the image of the poet as a pipe-playing shepherd relaxing in a verdant

locale occurs with such frequency in Pukins early works that it would not
be amiss to describe the young Pukin as cultivating a pastoral self-image. In
Muza (The Muse, 1821), the poet recalls his first attempts at versification
as the metaphorical gift of a pan-flute from his muse:
,
.
,
,

, ,
8
.

Although pastoral imagery remained a part of Pukins poetic selfprojection even in his fully mature period (O bogi mirnye polej, dubrav i

112

Nathan Klausner

gor [O Peaceful Gods of Field, Grove, and Hill, 1824], Vertograd

moej sestry [My Sisters Garden, 1824], etc.) the trope of poet as
shepherd largely disappeared from his active poetic repertoire soon after his
stay in Kishinev. When it appears for the last time in an unused variant to
Otryvki iz puteestvija Onegina (Fragments from Onegins Travels,
1830), the image of the poets pan-flute, now associated with his lost youth,
has faded into the past and become an object of wistful remembrance.
Recalling his youthful drinking bouts with Jazykov on a friends country
estate, Pukins narrator ends the poem with the bittersweet lines:
, / , , /
.9
How can the apparent contradiction between Pukins ostensible disdain for the idyll and his own frequent and purposeful invocation of pastoral
imagery be resolved? Moreover, why, after he had so purposely embraced the
pastoral tradition in his early poetry, did he eventually lay aside his shepherd
mask?
Given that these questions revolve largely around the reception and
transformation of genre norms, any attempt to answer them requires that we
first determine what Pukin, or at least one of his literate contemporaries,
would have associated, consciously or unconsciously, with terms like idyll,
eclogue, bucolic, and pastoral. Despite the breakdown of the Classicist
genre system that had occurred toward the end of the 18th century, countless
images, devices, and tropes that had once served as inseparable components
of the classical pastoral genres still persisted in Pukins day (frequently with
their original connotations and associations intact) in a host of highly disparate formal and generic contexts. Any attempt to answer questions about
the fate of natively Classicist literary norms in the context of full-blown Romanticism on the basis of generic typology will thus be extremely problematic. A conscientious, informed, and productive answer to the complex
phenomenon of Pukin-era pastoral thus demands a conception of pastoral
not as a genre archetype (however unstable), but rather as a shifting, historically mediated web of associations existing within the context of a reciprocal
relation between the reception, production, and evolution of literary expectations. In short, pastoral must be understood as a mode of literary expression, and as such it must also be grounded both in diachronic relation to its
own previous incarnations and in synchronic relation to other post-generic
modes, particularly the elegiac and epistolary.
I believe that the goal, thus stated, of reconstructing the historical
evolution of the Russian pastoral mode can best be attained by employing a
theoretical apparatus based largely on the Constance schools contribution to
the literary-historical facet of reader-response criticism as developed by H.R.
Jauss in the lecture Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory
(1967). In this work, Jauss proposes a version of the Formalist concept of

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

113

literary evolution that describes literary change in terms not only of the
interaction of literary and non-literary series (as in the Formalist model), but
also of reader reception within the context of a constantly shifting horizon of
expectations, thereby seeking to more precisely and dynamically describe
both the immanent process of literary innovation and the relation between
literary history and general history. 10
An exhaustive historical study of Russian pastoral in general and the
shepherd persona in particular would thus seek to describe as accurately as
possible the process by which innovative and influential writers such as
Aleksandr Sumarokov, Nikolaj Karamzin, Konstantin Batjukov, and Pukin
himself each adopted, confronted, manipulated, and/or altered the reigning
horizon of expectations in their respective invocations of the pastoral mode.
Such a theoretical framework would in turn require the reconstruction of
synchronic cross-sections of the horizon of expectations roughly before and
after the reception of important works and work-groups by each writer, as
well as the careful analysis of the works themselves, in order to produce a
description of the interplay of literary innovation and horizonal change.
A thorough application of the theoretical apparatus that I have outlined here would, of course, far exceed the scope of the current work. That
being said, I believe that profit can be derived from performing a more
general, cursory, and necessarily abbreviated realization of this method in
order not only to acquire valuable insight into the history of the Russian
pastoral mode and its import for our understanding of Pukins oeuvre, but
also to lay a foundation, however incomplete, for the further theoretical and
methodological refinement of this approach to literary-historical analysis.
Pukin was not, of course, the first poet to cultivate a literary
representation of himself as a carefree shepherd. In fact, the shepherd persona
may actually be almost as old as the pastoral tradition itself. The exemplary
text for the allegorical reading of pastoral characters has historically been
Virgils first Eclogue, which takes the form of a dialog between two
herdsmen, Tityrus and Meliboeus, the former of whom has been forced to
vacate his ancestral homeland. The impetus for their conversation is Tityrus
recent visit to Rome, during which a certain god became his benefactor.
Although the deity in question is probably meant to represent Octavian, there
is no scholarly consensus as to whether Tityrus is intended to be read as a
mouth-piece for the poet himself. Regardless of Virgils intent, however, the
identification of poet with shepherd became a central component of a longstanding interpretation of the poem that arose during the Renaissance. Given
the Renaissance assumption of the exemplary nature of classical literary
artifacts, this allegorical interpretation of ancient pastoral naturally led to the
purposeful, normative instantiation of the allegorical reading as the genres
default orientation. Petrarchs Bucolicum Carmen (1346-1349), a series of
pastoral elegies based on themes borrowed from Virgils first, second, and

114

Nathan Klausner

fifth Eclogues, was thus meant to be received by contemporaries as an

autobiographical confession, and Boccaccios pastoral novel Ameto (after
1341) featured a cast of shepherds and shepherdesses who were designed to
be decoded as public figures of Italian past and present.11
One consequence of the evolution of Renaissance pastoral norms was
thus the development of a horizon of expectations whereby the informed
reader of a pastoral work was encouraged to speculate about the real
identities of the shepherds being depicted. Thanks to the fact that the people
obliquely referenced were generally public figures attached to the court, the
potential group of suitably informed Renaissance readers might have been
relatively large. During the Baroque period in France, however, the emergence of the salon as a refuge from the intensely partisan court of Louis XIII
led to a more private and intimate literary sensibility that naturally influenced
the evolution of pastoral. Inspired in part by Honor dUrfs Astre (16071627), a pastoral roman-fleuve of over 5000 pages that celebrated gallant
flirtation, ideal love, and subtle wit, members of the Marquise de Rambouillets famous Chambre bleue would playfully adopt pastoral names and
modes of behavior as a way to recall, when appropriate, the characters and
situations of dUrfs novel in a real-life context. This dynamic inter-relationship of private social life and pastoral literary norms continued during
the latter half of the 17th century, when major poets such as Jean Regnault de
Segrais and Bernard le Bouvier de Fontenelle composed and published
eclogues that abounded in obscure references and allusions intelligible only
to regulars of their respective salons. The pastoral identities assumed in these
works by the poet and his female addressee were frequently employed to add
a suggestive nuance to their real-world relationship. In Fontenelles third
eclogue, for example, the poets guise of simple shepherd enhances his
humility and insignificance before his lady: Vous tes nymphe, et moi qui
sous vos loix me range, / Je ne suis quun simple Berger.12 A horizon of
expectations was thus established by which pastoral conventions entailed a
dual resonance, existing simultaneously as a delightful stage for literary play
and as a public venue in which to explore intimate associations. The constant
in both fields was, of course, a ubiquitous preoccupation with love in all its
aspects.13
The relationship between literature and life in Russia, however, was
quite different. While French neo-classical literary trends had, since the 17th
century, become inextricably linked with a social milieu whose nexus was the
private, intimate salon, no real salon culture had yet developed in Russia by
the onset of Classicism in the mid-18th century. The real-world locus of
literary activity in Russia was still the court, and as such it remained the focus
of any personal allusion in literature. The assumption that pastoral was by
nature an allegorical genre persisted, however, in the legacy of the Baroque
tradition, which was transmitted as a component of Kievan scholasticism.

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

115

Feofan Prokopovi made this assumption explicit in his De Arte Poetica

(1705-1706):
Bucolic poetry is almost always allegorical [...] the poet imagines two
or more rustic personages, under the guise of which he suggests entirely
different people [...] For example, Virgil in his first Eclogue represents
himself under the name of Tityrus as well as his own good fortune and
14
his benefactor Caesar, whom he calls a god.

Lomonosovs Polidor. Idillija (Polydorus. An Idyll), the first published Russian idyll (1750), represents the realization of Prokopovis allegorical conception of pastoral in regard both to its semiotic structure and its
intertextual ties to Virgils first Eclogue. The action of Polidor is simple:
Calliope, the muse of epic poetry, Leukia, a river nymph, and the shepherd
Daphnis converse in a lavish natural setting about the titular character, a
shepherd of particular excellence whose position has recently been greatly
elevated by a certain goddess. As its dedication makes explicit, Polidor is
addressed to Kirill Razumovskij, a courtier who had recently been appointed
Hetman of Ukraine.15 The titular shepherd thus represents the poems addressee, while the goddess in question is, of course, the Empress Elizabeth.
Beyond this transparent allegory, however, lies another level of intertextual allusion. In Virgils first Eclogue, Tityrus report to Meliboeus links
the gods beneficence with the tribute paid him and the abundance that has
resulted from it in the following lines:
Hic illum uidi iuuenem, Meliboee,
quot annis

Here I saw the youth, Meliboeus, for whom

bis senos quoi nostra dies altaria

yearly / Our altars smoke for twice six
fumant,
days.
hic mihi responsum primus dedit
Here he replied at once to my petition:
ille petenti:
pascite ut ante boues, pueri,
Herd your cows as before, my children,
submitte tauros.
rear your bulls.

Tityrus also claims that the youth/gods face will never leave his memory:
Ante leues ergo pascentur in
aethere cerui
freta destituent nudos in litore pisces,

Sooner, then, shall the nimble stag graze in

the air,
And the seas leave their fish bare on the
shore,
ante pererratis amborum finibus exsul Sooner, each wandering over the others
frontiers,
aut Ararim Parthus bibet aut
Shall the exiled Parthian drink the Arar,
Germania Tigrim,
and

116

Nathan Klausner

quam nostro illius labatur pectore

16
uoltus.

Germany the Tigris, / Than his features

shall fade from my heart.

Lomonosovs Leukia expresses gratitude to her goddess in very similar

terms: , /
.17 Just as Tityrus had traveled to Rome for an
audience with his god, Daphnis hymn to Polydorus begins with Calliopes
insistence that he , , .18
Daphnis song, which recalls Tityrus encomium, describes Polydorus as occupying a position near the goddess, whose face he saw and who is the ultimate source of the abundance that he enjoys:
,
,

19
.

O how I now rejoice

That I have seen the eyes and lips
That are the source of such joy
For the broad northern fields.

The intertextual parallels between Lomonosovs idyll and Virgils first

Eclogue fulfill several functions simultaneously: not only do they situate
Lomonosovs poem within a broader context of pastoral poetry that extends
into antiquity, but, in light of the Baroque interpretation of the Eclogues as
allegorical poems concerned with determining the relationship between their
author and his imperial patron, the parallels between the two poems also
serve to enhance the association between the two gods in question (Octavian and Elizabeth). This implicit comparison, flattering though it is to the
empress, also cleverly provokes another: if Tityrus is read as a mouthpiece
for Virgil, Daphnis is, by extension, a stand-in for Lomonosov himself, which
plays up the poets role as humble, grateful, yet celebrated poet-courtier.
Though nominally an idyll, Polidor can thus be seen as a variant on the
Russian solemn ode ( ) in that it exploits the pastoral
repertoire in service to a primarily odic function.
Between the early 1760s and the Russian discovery of Gessners idylls
in the mid-1770s, Russian pastoral was dominated by the figure of Aleksandr Sumarokov. Influenced by the eclogues of 17th-century French Classicists such as Segrais and Fontenelle, Sumarokovs pastoral sensibility embraced the neo-classical horizon of expectations whereby pastoral functions
as a playground for light-hearted wit, fancy, playful eroticism, galanterie,
and escapism. Since the primary outlet for literary social life during this
period was still not the female-oriented salon of 17th-century France, but
rather the male literary circle (), the intimate allegorical reading of
pastoral characters promoted by Fontenelle had as little relevance for Sumarokovs pastoral sensibility as the Lomonosovian Baroque-influenced
pastoral panegyric. His eclogues and idylls are thus purely studies of the

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

117

emotions that attend the vicissitudes of love in the context of a golden age
of natural beauty and carefree pastoral otium, with no real-world referent
behind either poet or addressee.20
Although some efforts had been made by French men of letters of the
16th and 17th centuries to draw a clear generic distinction between idyll
and eclogue on the basis of dramatic vs. narrative structure, no such division was observed either by Boileau or Fontenelle, who served as Sumarokovs theoretical and practical pastoral models respectively. It was thus
probably the Russian poets original notion to disentangle the two terms, as
his own pastoral poems show a purposeful disambiguation of the generic
terminology. 21
Sumarokovs original pastoral corpus is divided into seven idylls and
66 eclogues. Whereas his eclogues are stylistically and thematically extremely homogeneous, his idylls vary greatly in the specifics of their subjectmatter and poetic structure. Unlike the eclogues, all of which feature a
happy ending in which the lovers are finally united, the idylls are generally
dedicated to the exploration of emotional states related to other, less pleasant
stops along the route to reciprocated love. These poems thus tend to partake
of imagery, themes, and tropes shared with the elegiac mode to a greater
extent than the eclogues, employing pastoral phenomena in service to a
primarily elegiac end. Idyll VI, for example, is a very brief poem comprised
almost entirely of an extended iteration of the locus amoenus topos:
,
:
.
22
, etc.

Already spring embellishes nature,

Having let forth Zephyrs on the
meadows:
Eye and ear are lulled by pleasantness.
Streams froth, playing in their banks, etc.

In the final two lines, however, the melancholy elegiac protagonist

appears, and it becomes retroactively apparent that this detailed landscape has
been so lavishly elaborated with the sole purpose of producing a jarring
juxtaposition with his contrasting emotional state: ,
: / .23 The elegiac protagonists vernal surroundings, described via the accumulation of detail
associated with the pastoral mode, thus serves in this poem as a means to
render the feeling of melancholy alienation, which is the poems true object
of representation, all the more telling and evocative. Like the bulk of Sumarokovs idylls, this work could be considered to represent an essentially
hybrid genre, or perhaps a pastoral variation on the elegy. Although Sumarokovs eclogues dominated the Russian pastoral space of his time, it was
actually his idylls that exercised a more lasting and significant influence on
the future of the Russian pastoral mode, facilitating the development of a

118

Nathan Klausner

horizon of expectations whereby the proximity of the pastoral and elegiac

modes was greatly increased. 24
After the works of Salomon Gessner (already tremendously popular in
the German-speaking countries and France) began to be circulated and
translated in Russia in the 1770s, a rapid transformation occurred in regard
to pastoral reader expectations and associations that ultimately paved the way
for a new vision of the pastoral ideal. Although the Gessnerian equation of
the pastoral world with virtue and moral purity was antithetical to Pukins
more Epicurean and libertine sensibility, the opportunity for ironic play with
and critique of the Gessnerian idyll would ultimately come to provide him
and his followers with the potential for a new take on Russian reality.
Contemporary readers initially experienced Gessners idylls as an
unprecedented and refreshing novelty. Whereas the French neo-classical
pastoral (and its Russian offshoot in the Sumarokovian tradition) had embraced wit and artificiality, Gessners short prose idylls depicted a world in
which the shepherd represented the embodiment of unsophisticated, spontaneous, natural simplicity and virtue. Although Gessners idylls still celebrated
love, new themes such as the importance of familial relationships, labor, and
unpretentious kindness began to garner equal significance within the context
of the pastoral world. Despite the longevity and widespread influence of the
French Classicist pastoral model, by the mid-18th century critics such as de
Fontaine and Marmontel had begun to complain about the stifling ubiquity of
gallant love in pastoral poetry. Gessners idylls were thus received as a conscious reaction against reigning pastoral norms, a fact to which Gessner himself referred in the introduction to his 1756 book of idylls, where he overtly
contrasts his prose-poems with the poetry of wit.25 The Gessnerian pastoral
ideal, rendered especially relevant by virtue of the dissemination of compatible ideologies such as the virtuous Christian moralizing of Freemasonry and
the ostensibly Rousseauan assumption of mans morally perfect origins, was
wholeheartedly adopted and proliferated by Russian writers such as M.M.
Cheraskov and N.M. Karamzin. 26
In light of this shift in pastoral associations, it should come as no
surprise that, while shepherds and shepherdesses are frequently employed in
the works of the Russian Pre-Romantics as representations of simplicity,
virtue, and natural beauty (see, for example, Cheraskovs Selskaja muza
[The Rustic Muse] or Muravevs Dve grobnicy. Idillija [Two Graves.
An Idyll]), the explicit pastoral persona as such became much less common.
After all, if the shepherd is seen as a paragon of virtue, then the poets selfidentification as a shepherd would naturally be perceived as rather immodest.
Ironically, by the time salon culture had fully emerged in Russia during the
last decade of the 18th century, the reader expectations governing the reception of pastoral themes and characters had already changed in such a way that

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

119

the gallant pastoral mask of Fontenelles day, though originally a product of

salon etiquette, had no relevance in the Russian scene.
There were, however, some more or less ancillary literary contexts in
which a pastoral persona could still be perceived as palatable and appropriate.
One such potential theme was that of a first-person recollection of a pastoral
setting, occupation, or existence that, insofar as it has been projected onto the
past as something rendered irretrievably lost or retroactively fragile, creates a
dissonance between the protagonists idyllic past and current loss. This is the
(elegiac) conceit underlying Karamzins Otstavka (Retirement, 1796), a
poem inspired by the first stanza of Schillers Resignation. Eine Phantasie
(1786) with its recurring phrase Auch ich war in Arkadien geboren (I too
was born in Arcadia). In this work, the poet addresses himself in the guise of
a shepherd exiled from Arcadia by virtue of his unhappy affair with the
shepherdess Chloe:
, !..

And so, you have retired!..

, ?
, ;
: ; !
, [...]

What can you do, gentle shepherd?

Only take up your cap and walking-stick;
Say: thank you; Ive had enough!
And go without shedding a tear []

, !

...
27
, , !..

I lived in Arcadia with you

Not for an hour, but for a full forty days!
Its enough even the best nightingale
Sings no longer than the end of spring
And thus I sang of you, Chloe!..

Another available Pre-Romantic literary context for the identification of

poet as shepherd was that of the literary encomium. Whereas Karamzin might
have painted himself as a shepherd only under very specific circumstances, he
was much freer in the application of pastoral imagery to other poets,
including Gessner himself. In Pozija (Poetry, 1787), Karamzin depicts
Gessner, who had recently died, as the Alpine Theocritus, playing his
simple songs upon a rustic pan-flute: [] /
, , /
.28 In an obituary to Gessner published in Moscow Journal (1790),
Karamzin again painted Gessner as the ideal pastoral man, a poet who
perfectly embodied the virtues he had imparted to his shepherds: []
, ?
; , , , []
, c...29
In Protej, ili nesoglasie stihotvorca (Proteus, or a Poets Contradictions,
1798), Karamzin, asserting the necessary connection between a poets state

120

Nathan Klausner

of mind and the generic/thematic character of his verse, describes a generalized poet who, inspired by nature to pursue idyllic motifs, metaphorically
teams up with a pipe-playing Gessner: [the poet N.K.]
/ .30
Given the degree to which Karamzins reading in the pastoral mode
determined his general literary expectations, it should not be surprising that
his pastoral expectations and associations should also have influenced his
reception and literary depiction of actual lived experience. This is particularly
evident in the semi-autobiographical epistolary travelogue Pisma russkogo
puteestvennika (Letters of a Russian Traveler), where the narrators experience of Switzerland, having been conditioned to a very high degree by the
expectations generated by immersion in Swiss pastoral literature, results in
descriptions of locales, personalities, and events that combine to produce the
impression of a Swiss Arcadia. At one point, the travelers pastoral reading of
Switzerland leads him to an extended monolog in which he wistfully
expounds on the lost golden age he sees embodied in the Swiss shepherds,
whose simplicity of manners and proximity to nature provide for an
uncluttered spontaneity of feeling superior to that found in modern life:
, ! ( ),
31
.

Although the travelers youthful sentiments were probably originally

intended to be read as an earnest outpouring of feeling, Karamzin later
experienced an intense personal crisis (1793-1794) corresponding with a loss
of faith in the artistic relevance of the undiluted pastoral mode that can be
tellingly illustrated by tracing the fate of the passage quoted above. The
Letters were re-published in editions of 1797 and 1801, each of which
featured significant variations that have been cataloged by V.V. Sipovskij,
who describes the Letters as accumulating a series of layers over the course
of their publication. Karamzins gradual disillusionment with the golden
age and increasingly uncertain literary stance toward the existence of any
objective reality associated with it can be seen in the changes made to this
passage over time: in the 1797 edition he added a footnote to it:
(a dream of the imagination), which in 1801 was replaced
with the cryptic -? (when was this anyway?). The existence of
other, similar changes to the Letters has led Danilevskij to state that generally speaking, the early layer represents the [travelers] reception of the
countries of the Alps as a pastoral Arcadia.32
Even before his crisis, however, one can find in Karamzins mature
works a palpable and growing sense of uncertainty about the real possibility

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

121

of engagement with Arcadian purity. This tendency, which corresponded

with a new shift in the horizon of expectations that would later come to
provide for the ironic take on pastoral norms typical of Realist fiction, is
particularly visible in Karamzins most famous artistic work, Bednaja Liza
(Poor Liza, 1792). Like the traveler of the Letters, rasts non-literary expectations have been shaped to a significant degree by his reading of (presumably Gessnerian) pastoral. The reigning pastoral horizon of expectations
thus colors his reception of Liza, whom he dubs his shepherdess 33 in the
belief that she is, in essence, an Arcadian.
Although rasts pastoral expectations seem to be fulfilled during the
brief period in which his love affair with Liza remains platonic, physical
intimacy, in departing so drastically from (Gessnerian) pastoral norms and
recalling to rast more familiar, less edifying associations, destroys the
illusion, which eventually leads to his loss of interest in and dismissal of
Liza.
rasts abandonment of Liza thus results not only from her inability to
realize his pastoral expectations, but also from his own incapacity for full and
consistent engagement with Arcadian life as he understands it; in short, he is
ultimately disillusioned with his own ability to meld with the pastoral world,
that is, to become a shepherd himself. 34
Liza, on the other hand, actually is a shepherdess. In terms of her
capacity for pure love, her devotion to family life, her union with nature, and
many other lesser factors, she fulfills the archetype of Gessnerian pastoral
shepherdess.35 Her expectations concerning pastoral courtship and romance
are thus identical to rasts she is a pastoral character experiencing the idyll
from within. The dilemma that precipitates her eventual banishment from
Arcadia is thus not that rasts expectations are not her own, but that rast is
not and cannot be the shepherd she needs him to be. He is an alien presence
in her pastoral world:36
If only he who now occupies my thoughts had been born a simple
peasant, a shepherd, if only he could drive his flock by me right now:
oh! I would give him a bow and say to him with a friendly smile:
Hello, dear shepherd! Where are you driving your flock? Here too
there grows green grass for your sheep and red roses from which I
37
would weave a wreath for your cap.

Karamzins works thus succeeded in expanding reigning pastoral expectations first by openly embracing and propagandizing Gessnerian norms
on Russian soil, then by questioning these assumptions and imbuing them
with an ironic potential that would be fully exploited only by Pukin.
The pastoral sensibility propagated by Karamzin and his followers
helped to create a horizon of expectations whereby nature and natural life

122

Nathan Klausner

came to be associated with a virtuous, unpretentious simplicity that stood in

opposition to the vice and pomposity of the city. This set of pastoral
expectations was essentially that received by Konstantin Batjukov, one of
the first and most influential Russians to adopt and vocally campaign for the
pan-European Romantic movement. In works such as the extremely popular
and influential Moi Penaty (My Penates, 1814), Batjukov espoused a
literary value system that included an emphasis on a personal preference for
humble rural retirement:
,
!
,

,


;
,
,
38
.

Penates of my fathers,
Oh, my mentors!
You are not rich in gold,
But you love your
Lairs and dark cells,
Where, as part of our housewarming
celebration,
You were placed here and there,
In this corner and that;
Where I, a homeless wanderer
With perpetually modest desires,
Have found for myself a refuge.

However, in defiance of Karamzinian pastoral expectations whereby

rustic obscurity was read as a refuge from urban vice, Batjukov, inspired primarily by the rugged sensuality of Petrarch and Ariosto, depicts his country
retreat as a venue for hedonistic delight.39 His rustic mistress thus appears (in
terms profoundly antithetical to the Gessnerian ideal) as an alluring, seductive shepherdess:

,

,

:

40
!

She entered and her martial garb

Fell at her feet,
And her curls, now loosed,
Twined about her shoulders,
And her bosom was exposed
In all its lily-whiteness:
The sorceress now appeared
Before me as a shepherdess!

By conflating earlier pastoral conventions with his own erotic preoccupations, Batjukov created a new conception of the countryside as a place for
unpretentious solitude and delight that did much to shape Pukins unique
take on the pastoral ideal. Although Pukin is perhaps less inclined to play up
any erotic overtones in his application of the pastoral mode, he, like Batjukov, treats the country estate as a venue for delight in the sensual en-

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

123

joyment of nature rather than moral purity. See, for example, Uedinenie
(Solitude, 1826):41
, ,
,

42

Greetings to you, vacant little spot,

Refuge of peace, labor and
inspiration
Where the invisible stream of my
days flows
Upon the bosom of happiness and
oblivion.

This tendency, which, thanks to Pukins frequent use of an epistolary frame,

is presented more as a personal inclination than a universal truism, thus owes
more to Batjukovs vision of the Epicurean rustic retreat than to the Karamzinian expectation that moral and natural beauty are essentially concomitant.
Pukin did not, however, merely adopt and propagate Batjukovs
vision of the country refuge, but also brought into his pastoral repertoire
thematic material previously unassociated with the mode. One of the more
original and important augmentations that Pukin made to reigning pastoral
expectations during his mature period was the conception of the country not
just as a refuge from urban debauchery as previously conceived, but also as a
place of voluntary exile and freedom from ignorance and perfidious persecution: , , / [] /
.43 Although Pukins literary persona during this period
would seem to bear little resemblance to the playful, carefree shepherd-lover
of the juvenilia, it nevertheless remained closely tied to a literary tradition
tightly bound up with the evolution of the pastoral mode.
Like Karamzin before him, Batjukov had insisted that the sentiments
expressed in lyric poetry mirror those personally experienced by the poet,
whom he advised to write as you live, and live as you write.44 This insistence on the congruity of the poets art and lived experience served to dull
the distinction between author and literary persona even further in the minds
of contemporary readers and writers, who thus tended to equate poets such as
Batjukov and Pukin with their heavily pastoralized personae. Thanks to the
confluence of this phenomenon with the ascendency of the cult of friendship
(a literary fact engineered primarily by Karamzin and later exploited very
effectively by Pukin and his pleiade in their epistles), the phenomenon of
subtle, winking reference to specific individuals in ones public poetic
utterance again became relevant, albeit in a milieu other than that of the salon
from which it had originally sprung. In Elegy (1829), Pavel Katenin thus
described the life of the Greek warrior-poet Eudorus in terms intended to be

124

Nathan Klausner

decoded by knowledgeable contemporaries as a mixture of autobiographical

allegory and bold political allusion. 45 In describing Eudorus society of
fellow poets, Katenin recounts their disrespect for antiquity and inability to
appreciate the protagonists genius. While Eudorus naturally despises these
tasteless ignoramuses, there is nevertheless one member of a certain
pleiade of poets with whom he enjoys an understanding:
:
, ,
;
,
( ) ,
46
.

In an 1836 letter to Pukin, Katenin took the extra step of making the already
transparent reference explicit: [...] , : ; et ce
nest pas le baron Delvig, je vous en suis garant.47
While the allegory is clear enough, what are we to make of Katenins
reference to Pukin as Theocritus, the Hellenistic poet whose Idylls served as
the foundation of all pastoral poetry? Although its intended significance may
be difficult to pin down, the Theocritian persona that Katenin forces Pukin
to don may be active on two planes at once: on the one hand, Katenin simultaneously refers both to Pukins earlier shepherd persona and to the
closely related Horatian strain in Pukins poetry, that is, the persistent
conception found throughout his works of an idyllic countryside as the setting
for the joyous solitude, relaxation, creative labor, and love of the poetprotagonist that owes its origins largely to Batjukovs My Penates.48
On the other hand, the identification of Pukin with Theocritus may
have less to do with any specific aspect of Pukins poetics than with Katenins own reception of antiquity and the literary values he equated with it,
much of which represented a common ground between Pukins taste and his
own. Although Katenin had translated Gessners idyll Die Nacht in 1809,
he later rejected the Pre-Romantic idyll in favor of a conception of ancient
pastoral as a sui generis, idiosyncratic phenomenon whose unique spirit could
be retained by re-engineering an archaized literary Russian appropriate to its
expression. Katenin may have seen some aspect of this spirit or tendency in
Pukins works; regardless, it is clear that Pukin valued Katenins mature
approach to pastoral. In regard to the latter poets Idyll of 1831, Pukin
wrote: [] ,
, , , , , , .49 Based on
this and other references to contemporary experiments in pastoral poetry that

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

125

attempted to return to the source of the tradition and create from it a new
Russian poetic idiom, it is safe to say that Pukin situated Katenins idyll
among works such as Delvigs Kupalnicy (The Bathers, 1824), ukovskijs Ovsjanyj kisel (The Oat Porridge) and Derevenskij storo v polno (The Country Guard at Midnight, both 1818), and Gnedis Rybaki
(The Fishermen, 1821), all of which he praised highly. 50 A divide had thus
been established in Pukins mind between these poems and the opposing
tradition of Salomn Gessners idylls (most recently invoked by Panaevs
book of 1820), which he considered pretentious and false.
Based on the historical evolution of the pastoral persona and its
attendant associations and reader expectations, what can we determine about
Pukins own pastoralized poetic self-image and its fate within the context of
his antipathy to the Gessnerian idyll? Since Pukin received from his reading
a combination of diverse associations derived from various aspects of the
legacy of European and Russian pastoral norms, his unique pastoral sensibility cannot be neatly ascribed to any single, unitary source. From lyric poets
of the French 18th century (especially Parny), and to a lesser extent from the
Sumarokovian tradition, he acquired associations inherited from the 17thcentury French pastoral tradition, including those of the shepherd as carefree
lover and the pastoral locus amoenus as the appropriate setting for repose and
amorous play. These themes then blended with another idyllic strain that
greatly influenced his oeuvre as a whole, namely the Epicurean/Horatian
topos of the countryside as the poets hedonistic refuge that is most famously
associated with Batjukov. From the prominent idyllic tendency in Karamzins poetry and prose, Pukin extracted the notion of the countryside as a
place for solitary introspection while quietly ignoring any Gessnerian association of the shepherd and his rural environs with virtue, moral purity, or
philanthropy. In short, Pukin cobbled together from these various sources a
pastoral persona that resembled the image of himself as easygoing lover,
casual poet-dilettante, and hedonist that he wanted to cultivate in his poetry,
and, to some extent, in his life. Since the popularity of Gessners idylls had
largely begun to fade during the early 19th century, no competing pastoral
associations were in play that might confuse or challenge this image. Once
ukovskij, Gnedi, and others had begun to develop a new archaizing take
on pastoral and Panaev had released his popular book of idylls, however, the
pastoral horizon of expectations changed. As much as Pukin respected
archaizing pastoral poems such as Gnedis Rybaki and Delvigs Kupalnicy, he had no desire to emulate them, and Panaevs antiquated Gessnerian idylls were the last thing he wanted to be associated with. This literary-historical state of affairs, combined with new literary influences and the
simple fact of Pukins natural maturation and changing life situation, assured
that the persona of carefree shepherd had lost much of its former relevance
for the construction of Pukins poetic self-image.

126

Nathan Klausner

Although the pastoral persona as such may have disappeared from

Pukins work after 1830, certain pastoral tendencies and associations remained active aspects of the poetic idiom of his late works that would have
far-reaching consequences for Russian literature as a whole. The ironic take
on pastoral norms developed most visibly by Karamzin infused the ironic
perspective on Russian country life seen in Zima. to delat nam v derevne?
Ja vstreaju (Winter. What is there for us to do in the country? I
meet) or the second chapter of Evgenij Onegin, which would in turn
greatly influence the developments of the motif in Gogol (Mertvye dui
[Dead Souls], Starosvetskie pomeiki [Old-World Landowners]) and
later Realist fiction: Selo Stepanikovo (The Village of Stepanikovo),
Dvorjanskoe gnezdo (A Gentry Nest), etc. Many of Pukins most celebrated
mature works (Pora, moj drug, pora [Its time, my friend, its time],
Vnov ja posetil... [Again I have visited]) also retain an image of a
country refuge, a place of freedom and contentment an
x , albeit one that has either been rendered impossibly
distant or projected onto a past that is forever lost.51 Among its obvious elegiac associations, this image also represents at once a final Pushkinian engagement with the pastoral mode and a thematic nexus that has since exercised
a profound influence on Russian literature and literary expectations.

NOTES
I would like to thank Professors Vladimir Alexandrov and Bella Grigoryan of Yale
University for proofreading and helping to improve this article.
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8

Pukin (1937-1959, I: 234).

Pukin (1937-1959, III: 454).
Panaevs title of Russian Gessner had already become widespread by this
time, although the comparison was usually intended to be laudatory (see
Vacuro 1978: 121).
Tomaevskij (1990, I: 95-99).
Pukin (1937-1959, I: 42).
The prevalence of the love theme in Pukins early works owed much to the
influence of Parny in particular (Scheffler 1968: 10, 13-14).
Pukin (1937-1959, II: 80).
Ibid.: 150. Translation: During my youth she loved me, / And gave to me a
pan-flute of seven reeds. / She would attend me with a smile and gingerly, /
My weak fingers moving along the clear-tuned stops of the hollow reed, / I

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

26

27

127

soon came to play both grand hymns inspired by the gods / And the peaceful
songs of the Phrygian shepherds.
Pukin (1937-1959, VI: 506). Translation: And there I too left my mark, /
There, as a gift to the wind, on a dusky pine / I hung up my clear-toned panflute.
Jauss (1982: 3-45). The horizon of expectations is a concept borrowed from
Husserl denoting the historical set of unconscious expectations that cannot be
observed or analyzed by those who share it.
Coleman (2003: 74); Lambert (1976: 51-61); Chaudhuri (1989: 58-64).
Quoted in Klejn (2005: 41). Translation: You are a nymph, and I, who am
subject to your laws, / I am but a simple shepherd.
Howarth, Peyre, Cruickshank (1974: 3); Landy, Morlin (1993: 3-34); Gerhardt (1950: 249-279); Klejn (2005: 27-31, 40-47).
Quoted in Klejn (2005: 20).
Drage (1978: 82).
Vergil (2003: 44).
Lomonosov (1965: 266). Translation: For as long as the Dnepr rushes in its
banks will our altars smoke for her.
Translation: Sing now of what you saw when you were in the great city.
Ibid.: 269.
Brown (1980: 118).
Camp (1974: 362).
Sumarokov (1935: 158).
Ibid. Translation: Only I, I alone have not a new lot: always my anguished
life is the same.
For examples of this phenomenon in the pastoral poetry of Sumarokovs
followers, see A.A. Revskijs idylls and elegies (which are not, for the most
part, generically distinct from one another), I.F. Bogdanovis Eclogue
(1761) and Idyll in Blank Verse (1763), and Cheraskovs early poems,
especially the Philosophical Odes.
In regard to Theocritus, whom he takes as his model, Gessner wrote in the
introduction to this book: [his shepherds] dialogs display no epigrammatic
wit, or scholastic precision [...] a pointed and epigrammatic style was not then
considered the zenith of perfection, nor had the allurements of wit then
obtained a preference over the more solid acquirements of judgment and
taste (1802: v-vi).
Hibberd (1976: 6-8, 26, 32, 87), Klejn (2005: 38-39). Over the course of the
18th century all of Rousseaus important works were published in Russia,
where certain ideas associated (rightly or wrongly) with him, including the
moral superiority of the noble savage, naturally became intertwined with the
concept of the utopian golden age inherent in the pastoral mode in general
and Gessners idiom in particular. As Gorbatov writes, Rousseau acquired in
Russia a reputation as the singer of the golden age and propagandist of mans
natural state (1991: 27).
Karamzin (1966: 195-197).

128

28

29

30
31

32
33
34

35

36

37
38
39

40
41

42

Nathan Klausner

Ibid.: 62. Translation: In ecstasy you sang to us / Of innocence, simplicity,

and the ways of shepherds, / And delighted our tender hearts with your panflute.
Moskovskij urnal (1802-1803, VI: 279). Translation: [...] after all, who
would be good, if not a man such as he? Gessner was amiable in every moral
sense; his friends, spouse, and children loved him passionately [] in the
embrace of his family he knew neither despair nor unease
Karamzin (1966: 243). Translation: Then, along with Gessner, he takes up
his pan-flute / And summons people from the din of the cities into the fields.
Karamzin (2005: 150). Translation: Why were we not born in those days
when all people were shepherds and brothers! I would happily give up many
comforts and conveniences (for which we have to thank the enlightenment of
our times) in order to return to mans primordial state.
Sipovskij (1899: 158-236, 205, 214); Danilevskij (1984: 100).
Karamzin (2002: 22).
Hammarberg writes that rast wants to pride himself on Platonic love, pure
enjoyment of nature, simple pleasures, good, unselfish deeds, and generosity,
all qualities that we have seen repeatedly in the idyllic hero (1991: 156). As
she points out, he fails in this endeavor, in part because of his concern for
public opinion (140-141). His disillusionment is ultimately in his own capacity to realize his pastoral expectations.
Nebel describes Liza as being in the tradition of the idyllic heroines: a
delicate and refined creature who thrives on pure love. He also finds her
attitude to her mother reminiscent of Gessners Myrtillis and her mothers
love for her deceased husband similar to Palemon (1967: 126-127).
Erast is conscious of playing a part. Not so Liza: she, too, weaves her own
pastoral, but for very different reasons... It is this realization that a happy love
with Erast is impossible which makes Liza think in terms of shepherds and
shepherdesses; for her, they are not bookish, unreal characters, but a part of
her reality, her possible happiness (Cross 1971: 102).
Karamzin (2002: 20).
Batjukov (1964: 134).
Ibid. As Brown points out, Batjukov also owes much to Parny and the
Roman poet Tibullus for his conceptions of nature and the erotic respectively
(1986: 232-235). Batjukov actually went beyond his influences in his penchant for love and eroticism, enhancing these elements in his translations and
imitations of Tasso, Tibullus, and Parny (Fridman 1964: 26).
Batjukov (1964: 136).
This poem was originally composed in 1819 as the first half of a longer work
entitled Derevnja (The Countryside). As Newlin has pointed out, the second half of Derevnja, which remained unpublished during Pukins lifetime, takes the form of a scathing condemnation of social inequality (including serfdom) that can be read as effectively calling into question the values
underlying the first half (Newlin 2001: 100).
Pukin (1937-1959, II: 81).

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

43

44
45
46

47

48

49

50
51

129

Ibid. Translation: Here, freed from the shackles of vain cares, / I am learning
to find bliss in Truth [] and not to envy the fate / Of a villain or a fool in
his unjust pomposity.
Neuhuser (1975: 153).
Tynjanov (1967: 161-162).
Katenin (1965: 188). Translation: These youths revered not their great predecessors: / Homer was naked in their eyes, Aeschylus unskilled, / Sophocles
had little talent, and Pindar little wit; / Praising each other to the stars, / These
youths (seven there were) were called the Pleiade, / Among them Eudorus
esteemed only Theocritus.
Quoted in Tynjanov (1967: 162). Translation: [] you know my opinion
about the luminaries that make up our pleiade: among them Eudorus esteemed
only Theocritus; and this is not baron Delvig, I can assure you of that.
I have in mind the Russian tradition of depicting the poets country retreat in
the style of Horaces second epode. Instantiated by Trediakovskij and perpetuated most importantly by poets such as Cheraskov and Kapnist prior to
Batjukov, the Russian tradition tended to completely ignore the very end of
Horaces epode, where the preceding paean to the countryside is revealed to
have been the hypocritical speech of the moneylender Alfius.
Quoted in Katenin (1965: 694). Translation: [] enlightened readers will
take note of an idyll in which bucolic nature has been attained with a charming veracity; this is no Gessnerian idyll, stilted and mannered, but one that is
ancient, simple, broad, free.
Brown (1986: 163, 228, 264, 267-268); Vacuro (1978: passim).
Translation: a distant dwelling of labor and pure repose.

LITERATURE
Btjukv, K.N.
1964
Pln sbrni stichtvrnij. Vstupitlnja sttja, pdgtvk
tkst i primnija N.V. Fridmn. Biblitk pt. Blja srija, 2- izd. Moskva-Leningrad.
Brown, William Edward
1980
A History of 18th-Century Russian Literature. Ann Arbor.
1986
A History of Russian Literature of the Romantic Period, Vol. 1. Ann
Arbor.
Camp, James
1974
Idyll. Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Enlarged
Edition. Princeton, 362-363.
Chaudhuri, Sukanta
1989
Renaissance Pastoral and its English Developments. Oxford.

130

Nathan Klausner

Coleman, Robert
2003
Introduction. Eclogues. By Vergil (1977). Cambridge.
Cross, Anthony
1971
N.M. Karamzin: A Study of his Literary Career 1783-1803. Carbondale and Edwardsville.
Dnilvskij, R.Ju.
1984
Rssija i vjcrija: Litrturny svjazi XVIII-XIX vv. Rd. Ju.D.
Lvin. Leningrad.
Drage, C.L.
1978
Russian Literature in the Eighteenth Century. An Introduction for
University Courses. London.
Fridmn, N.V.
1964
K.N. Btjukv. K.N. Btjukv, Pln sbrni stichtvrnij.
Vstupitlnja sttja, pdgtvk tkst i primnija N.V. Fridmn. Biblitk pt. Blja srija, 2- izd. Moskva-Leningrad, 5-52.
Gerhardt, Mia Irene
1950
Essai dAnalyse Littraire de la Pastorale dans les Littratures
Italienne, Espagnole et Franaise. Assen. Print.
Gessner, Solomon
1802
The Works of Solomon Gessner, Translated from the German. With
Some Account of his Life and Writings. In Three Volumes, Vol. II.
Liverpool.
Gorbatov, Inna
1991
Formation du concept de sentimentalisme dans la littrature russe:
linfluence de J.J. Rousseau sur loeuvre de N.M. Karamzine. New
York, etc.
Hammarberg, Gitta
1991
From the Idyll to the Novel: Karamzins Sentimentalist Prose.
Cambridge Studies in Russian Literature. Cambridge.
Hibberd, John
1976
Salomon Gessner: His Creative Achievement and Influence. Cambridge, New York.
Howarth, W.D., Peyre, Henri M., Cruickshank, John
1974
French Literature from 1600 to the Present. Ed. D.G. Charlton. Revised. London.
Jauss, Hans Robert
1982
Towards an Aesthetic of Reception. Trans. Timothy Bahti. Minneapolis.
Krmzin, N.M.
1966
Pln sbrni stichtvrnij. Vstupitlnja sttja, pdgtvk
tkst i primnija Ju.M. Ltmn. Biblitk pt. Blja srija. 2- izd. Moskva-Leningrad.
2002
drvnj i nvj Rssii: Izbrnnja prz i publicistik. Sstvil,
vtr vstupitelnoj stti i kmmntriv V.B. Dmitriv. Moskva.

A Historical Analysis of the Russian Pastoral Mode

131

2005
Pism russkg putstvnnik. Moskva.
Ktnin, P..
1965
Izbrnny prizvdnija. Vstupitlnja sttja, pdgtvk tkst i
primnija G.V. rmkvj-Bitnr. Biblitk pt. Blja srija. 2- izd. Moskva-Leningrad.
Kljn, Ichim
2005
Puti kulturng imprt. Trudy p russkj litrtur XVIII vk.
Nun izd. Moskva.
Lambert, Ellen Zetzel
1976
Placing Sorrow. A Study of the Pastoral Elegy Convention from
Theocritus to Milton. Chapel Hill.
Landry, Jean-Pierre, Morlin, Isabelle
1993
La littrature franaise du XVIIe sicle. Paris.
Lmnsv, M.V.
1965
Izbrnny prizvdnija. Rd. .. Mrzv. Biblitk pt.
Blja srija. 2- izdni. Moskva-Leningrad.
Mskvskij urnl
1802-1803 2- izd. Moskva.
Nebel, Henry M., Jr.
1967
N.M. Karamzin: A Russian Sentimentalist. The Hague.
Neuhuser, Rudolph
1975
The Romantic Age in Russian Literature: Poetic and Aesthetic
Norms: An Anthology of Original Texts (1800-1850). Mnchen.
Newlin, Thomas
2001
The Voice in the Garden: Andrei Bolotov and the Anxieties of Russian Pastoral. Evanston, Ill.
Pukin, .S.
1937-1959 Pln sbrni sinnij. Rd. V.D. Bn-Bruvi. 16 t. Leningrad.
Scheffler, Leonore
1968
Das erotische Sujet in Pukins Dichtung. Mnchen.
Sipvskij, V.V.
1899
Krmzin, vtr Pism russkg putstvnnik. Sankt-Peterburg.
Sumrkv, .P.
1935
Stichtvrnija. Rd. .S. rlv. Biblitk pt. Moskva-Leningrad.
Tmvskij, B.V.
1990
Pukin. 2 t. 2- izd. Moskva.
Tynjanv, Jurij N.
1967
rchisty i nvtry. Nachdruck der Leningrader Ausgabe von
1929. Mit einer Vorbemerkung von Dmitrij Tschiewskij. Slavische
Propylen. Texte in Neu- und Nachdrucken. Band 31. Mnchen.

132

Vcur, V..
1978
Vergil
2003

Nathan Klausner

Russkja idillija v pchu rmntizm. Russkij rmntizm. tv.

rd. N. Grigrjan. Leningrad, 118-137.
Eclogues. Cambridge.