No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Mirza and Mistress in Derzhavin's “Felitsa” Poetry
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
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.
Encumbered by an accumulation of rhetorical devices, the panegyric ode seemed an unlikely vehicle for poetic innovation. Yet when Gavriil Derzhavin, after more than a decade of literary activity, turned once again to the celebration of that most illustrious of subjects, the Empress Catherine, he was rewarded with the immediate recognition of both his fellow writers and the monarch herself for his impressive success in the genre. Although odes previously written had given evidence of the poet's competency in working with this form, it was with “Felitsa” and “A Mirza's Vision” that he demonstrated his capacity for transcending its limitations. While seeming to accept the conventions of established genres, he subtly subverted them through recombinations which stressed the importance of a more subjective poetic vision.
Of particular significance was Derzhavin's introduction of both thematic and stylistic elements from the “oriental tale,” a prose genre which enjoyed considerable popularity throughout much of the eighteenth century. In terms of narrative stance, this provided the poet with an alternative to the traditionally anonymous role of the panegyrist. Clad in the disguise of the oriental moralist or mirza, he could address his sovereign in direct and uninhibited fashion and simultaneously create an impression of his own worth as a poet. In both odes it was the relationship between mirza and mistress or, more specifically, the poet's conception of his role in the service of the empress which lent much of the freshness to these works.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1972
References
1. According to la. Grot, before the publication of “Felitsa” Derzhavin had written some ten odes in which the portrayal of Catherine was a prominent feature. See Derzhavin, G. R., Sochineniia, ed. la. Grot, 4 vols, in 7 (St. Petersburg, 1864-83), 1 : 150.Google Scholar
2. Strictly speaking, two additional odes should be considered as belonging to this cycle of poems, for “Thanksgiving to Felitsa” (1783) and “A Portrayal of Felitsa” (1789) were written during the same period ajid reflect upon some of the same events. Since the purpose of this essay is to determine the impact of the oriental tale on the Felitsa cycle, I have restricted my discussion to the two works in which this influence is most clearly in evidence.
3. For a discussion of some original compositions by Russian authors in this genre see Kubacheva, V. N., “Vostochnaia povest’ v russkoi literature XVIII-XIX veka,” XVIII vek (Moscow and Leningrad, 1962), 5 : 295-315.Google Scholar
4. Ernest J. Simmons, English Literature and Culture in Russia (1553-1840) (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), p. 119, notes that Addison's tale enjoyed considerable popularity in translation and had been published twice before Derzhavin began his “Felitsa” cycle. I have been unable to find any direct evidence that Derzhavin knew of these translations, although his general familiarity with English authors of the day would suggest that he did. Veselovsky, Aleksei, Zapadnoe vliianie v novoi russkoi literature (Moscow, 1916), p. 11 Google Scholar4, asserts that “in all probability” the translation of Addison's work inspired Derzhavin, but he offers no supporting evidence to prove the point. The question of sources, at least insofar as “Felitsa” is concerned, is complicated by the poet's deliberate use of Catherine's Tale of Prince Khlor as a point of departure. The ode's full subtitle clearly implicates Catherine's tale as a source for some of its oriental coloration : “An ode to the august Kirghiz-Kazak Princess Felitsa, written by a Tatar mirza who, having long resided in Moscow, now lives in St. Petersburg, attending to his affairs. Translated from the Arabian. 1782.” (The concluding mention of translation from the work of an unidentified Eastern writer introduces another convention of the oriental tale.)
5. As Conant, Martha Pike, The Oriental Tale in England in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1908), pp. 227–32 Google Scholar, points out, the satiric form of the oriental tale was more favored in France, whereas in England a more openly philosophic or moralizing variant was common. The importance of the satiric tradition for Russian writers would appear at least partially attributable to the fact that French models predominated in the literature of that day.
6. Such inclusion is unusual in the oriental tale proper. In Ivan Krylov's Kaib, for example, the narrator gives some indication of being an aesthetically sensitive person, but he maintains a clear distinction between himself and the totally untalented writers at the court.
7. Derzhavin, Sochineniia, vol. 1. The texts for “Felitsa” and “A Mirza's Vision” are on pages 129-49 and 157-68 respectively. In the case of “Felitsa” the passages cited are indicated in the text by stanza number in parentheses. The lines quoted above are from stanza 2. Since “A Mirza’s Vision” has no stanzaic divisions, the passages cited from it are indicated by line number.
8. In the absence of any evidence to prove that Addison’s tale was a direct source, it might be argued that both works reflect, in their contemplative narrative frames, the new sentimentalism which was becoming prominent in the literatures of England and Russia.
9. See Kubacheva, “Vostochnaia povest',” pp. 304-7.
10. G. Makogonenko, Ot Fonvisina do Pushkina (Moscow, 1969), pp. 377-89, has compared the first prose draft for this poem, written in 1783, with the final version, which was published in 1791. On the basis of this comparison, he concludes that Derzhavin's original intention was to advise Catherine on matters of state through his poetry but that external circumstances forced him to concentrate instead on a defense of the poet's autonomy.
You have
Access