No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Eighteenth Century Narrative Variations on “Frol Skobeev”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
Extract
One of the most striking innovations in late eighteenth century prose fiction was the introduction of a distinct narrator's voice. To throw some light on the emergence of this innovation, I will compare three works: “Povest’ o Frole Skobeeve,“ an anonymous work from the 1720s; Ivan Novikov's “Novgorodskikh devushek sviatochnyi vecher,” which appeared in a 1785 collection of his short stories; and Nikolai Karamzin's “Natal'ia, boiarskaia doch',” which appeared serially in his Moskovskii zhurnal in 1792. These works will be viewed as representative of three stages in the eighteenth century development of narrative prose structure.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1987
References
1. This innovation has been convincingly established in, for example, Serman, I. Z., “Stanovleniei razvitie romana v russkoi literature serediny XVIII veka,” Iz istorii russkikh literaturnykh otnoshenii XVIH-XX vekov (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1959, pp. 82–95 Google Scholar; Gukovskii, G. A., Ocherki po istorii russkoi literatury i obshchestvennoi mysli XVIII veka (Leningrad: GIKhL, 1938 Google Scholar, and in several articles by Titunik, I. R., “The Problem of skaz in Russian Literature of the Eighteenth Century,” Forum at Iowa on Russian Literature 2 (1977): 87–103Google Scholar and “Russian Sentimentalist Rhetoric of Fiction ('Image ofAuthor’),” Semiosis: Semiotics and the History of Culture, ed. M. Halle et al., Michigan Slavic Contributions, 10, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984), pp. 228–239.
2. “Povest’ o Frole Skobeeve,” Russkaia povest’ XVII veka, ed. I. P. Eremin (Leningrad: GIKhL, 1954), pp. 155–166. The 1720s is given as the most likely date of origin in N. A. Baklanova, “Kvoprosu o datirovke‘Povesti o Frole Skobeeve',” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 8 (1957): 511–518.Ivan Novikov, “Novgorod skikh devushek sviatochnyi vecher sygrannoi v Moskve svadebnym,” inPokhozhdenie Ivana gostinago syna, i drugiia povesti i skazki, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1785), 1: 112–152.References to these editions will henceforth appear parenthetically in my text. N. M. Karamzin, “Natal'ia, boiarskaia doch',” Moskovskii zhurnal, 1792. References within my text are to the secondedition, 8 (I803): 5–74 and 238–279, which differs in significantly from the first edition, but significantly from the version in Karamzin, N. M., Izbrannye sochineniia, 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1964), 1: 622–660Google Scholar.
3. Compare, for example, Kanunova, F. Z., Iz istorii russkoi povesti (Istoriko-literaturnoe znachenie N. M. Karamzina) (Tomsk: Izdatel'stvo Tomskogo universiteta, 1967), pp. 72–100Google Scholar. Kanunovaattributes “Novgorodskikh devushek” incorrectly to N. I. Novikov. I wish to stress that I am notattempting to prove any direct links between the three works. I am merely using them as representative types of narration. Thus, for instance, the question whether Karamzin actually read Ivan Novikov's specific tale does not concern me here. I believe, however, that it is safe to assume that Karamzin wasfamiliar with this type of tale adaptation.
4. See especially Bakhtin, M. M., Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo, 3rd ed. (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaialiteratura, 1972 Google Scholar, and Voloshinov, V. N., Marksizm i filosofiia iazyka, 2nd ed. (Leningrad: Priboi, 1930 Google Scholar.
5. A caveat is perhaps appropriate here. One could argue that no speech is absolutely neutraland that any utterance will by necessity reveal something about its speaker. “Frol Skobeev” is, ofcourse, no exception, and one could perhaps argue that this narrator does stand out as a fairlyun educated person, tied perhaps to the chancellery in some capacity, not unlike that of Frol. This identification could be inferred by the bure aucratic turn of phrase, the choice of vocabulary, themixture of styles, and other factors and by the selection of topic at large, demonstrating that guts andcleverness get you further in life than class or erudition. By this token, “Frol Skobeev” represents a “democratic” point of view. Many Soviet scholars take this position and use “Frol Skobeev” as ademonstration of the inherently egalitarian and realistic roots of Russian literature among the lower classes, as opposed to the elitist ideology typical of the “high” western-inspired literature. On the other hand, Frol's author in no way stands out among his contemporaries—a mixture of styles, including vulgarisms and bureaucratese, would seem to be the norm in popular prose fiction, ratherthan the exception. By this token, the narrator of “Frol Skobeev” would not have been especiallyperceptible to the early eighteenth century readers. Indeed similar narrative voices can be found inmost contemporary secular “democratic” tales, for instance in “Povest’ o Shemiakinom sude,” “Povest’ o Ershe Ershoviche,” “Povest’ o Karpe Sutulove,” “Povest’ o krest'ianskom syne,” “Povest’ o brazhnike,” “Skazanie o kure i lisitse,” and many others (for texts, see the recent collection Russkaia demokraticheskaia satira XVII veka, ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretts, 2nd. ed. [Moscow: Nauka, 1977]).Thus Frol's narrator is “neutral” within the proper chronological and “generic” context. This is notto say that the stories do not convey a moral, but that that moral is conveyed by means other than amoralizing narrator.
6. Grandfather's grandmother could be seen as a parody not only of the traditional muse, butalso of the usual ancestral sources for family chronicles, some of which have been suggested ashistorical sources for Karamzin: A. [P.] S[umarok]ov's “Zapiski otzhivshago cheloveka” and L. P.Segur's account of the marriage between Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Natal'ia Naryshkina. Onesource for the former is “grandmother, who heard about him from her mother.” Segur's source was asimilar elderly lady, the ninety-year-old granddaughter of A. S. Matveev. Karamzin's absurd granny, coupled with the pervasive play on “historical fact” in “Natal'ia” supports the claim that he was atleast partly parodying these kinds of family chronicles. For further details on Karamzin's historical sources, see Brang, P., Studien zu Theorie und Praxis der russischen ErzShlung 1770–1811 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1960, pp. 158–159 Google Scholar; Krestova, L. V., “Romanicheskaia povest’ N. M. Karamzina‘Natal'ia, boiarskaia doch” i russkie semeinye predaniia XVII veka,” Drevnerusskaia literatura i ee sviazi s novym vremenem (Moscow, Nauka, 1967), pp. 237–259Google Scholar.
7. For an analysis of the more Sternian aspects of Rytsar” , see Hammarberg, Gitta, “Metafectionin Russian 18th Century Prose: Karamzin's Rycar’ naSego vremeni or Novyj Akteon, vnuk Kadma i Germonii” Scando-Slavica 27 (1981): 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. The titles of the individual stories in Novikov's collection, such as “O dvukh druz'iakh zhivshikhvo Florentsii i o zhenakh ikh,” “O Persidskom shakhe Ali Bee i liubimtse ego pomrachivshemdobryia dela svoi prelest'mi odnoi zhenshchiny,” “O dervishe Garame i o Turchanine nedovol'nomsvoim sostoianiem,” speak for themselves. The stories read like chapters from adventure novels like F. Emin's Nepostoiannaia Fortuna, Hi Pokhozhdenie Miramonda, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1763)Google Scholar.
9. For good, concise outlines of the development of eighteenth century Russian prose fiction, see Serman, I. Z., “Zarozhdenie romana v russkoi literature XVIII veka,” htoriia russkogo romana, ed.A. S. Busmin et al., 2 vols. (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1962) 1: 40–64Google Scholar and Goodliffe, J. D., “Some Commentson Narrative Prose Fiction in Eighteenth Century Russian Literature, with Special Reference to Culkov,” Melbourne Slavonic Studies 5–6 (1971): 124–136Google Scholar. The first extended controversy on the literarystatus of prose fiction occurred around 1760. See Serman, “Stanovlenie i razvitie” on all aspects ofthe controversy; V. V. Sipovskii, Ocherki iz istorii russkogo romana, 1 vol., 2 parts (St. Petersburg: Trud, 1909–1910) 1, 1: 21–31Google Scholar, on the opponents of the “new” prose; Shamrai, D. D., “Ob izdateliakhpervogo chastnogo zhurnala (Po materialam arkhiva Kadetskogo Korpusa),” XVIII vek 1 (1935): 377–385Google Scholar, on the controversy as it involved the “new” translators’ group; Serman, I. Z., “Iz istoriiliteraturnoi bor'by 60-kh godov XVIII veka (Neizdannaia komediia Fedora Emina‘Uchenaiashaika’),” XVIII vek 3 (1958): 207–225Google Scholar and Gukovskii, G. A., “Emin i Sumarokov,” XVIII vek 2 (1940): 77–94Google Scholar, both of which pertain specifically, but not exclusively, to the Sumarokov-Emin controversy;I. R. Titunik, “The Problem of skaz” his “Mikhail Chulkov's ‘Double-Talk’ Narrative (Skazka o rozhdenii taftjanoj mushki),” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 9 (1975): 30–42, and “Matvej Komarov's Vanka Kain and Eighteenth-Century Russian Prose Fiction,” Slavic and East European Journal 18, 4 (1974): 351–66, on both general and specific aspects of the controversy.