lomonosov's "vecherneye razmyshleniye"

Lomonosov's "Vecherneye razmyshleniye"Author(s): Charles A. MoserSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 49, No. 115 (Apr., 1971), pp. 189-199Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206365 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 19:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.210 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:51:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4206365?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Lomonosov's

Vecherneye razmyshleniye

CHARLES A. MOSER

Mikhail Vasil'yevich Lomonosov was a man of many talents. Not

least among them was his poetic gift, which enabled him to produce one of the most impressive bodies of poetry to be left by a Russian

writer of the 18th century. Of all his poetic works, perhaps the best

and in many ways most characteristic is the Vecherneye razmyshleniye o Bozhiyem velichestve pri sluchaye velikogo severnogo siyaniya, whose

standing is such that it must be given at least passing mention in any discussion of Lomonosov's literary work. Unfortunately, however, the notice it receives is rarely more than passing. As an accurate

comprehension of the poem is vital to an understanding of Lomono?

sov's literary and philosophical position this article offers a more detailed reading of the work and an interpretation which runs in

large measure counter to the generally accepted view of it.

In dealing with the Vecherneye razmyshleniye and its companion

piece, the Utrenneye razmyshleniye o Bozhiyem velichestve, Soviet scholars

usually emphasise what they consider statements of Lomonosov's scientific views. For this purpose they carefully select only stanzas

lacking any direct references to the 'Divine majesty' which figures so largely in both titles. Thus A. A. Morozov confines himself to

remarking that in the Utrenneye razmyshleniye Lomonosov was far

ahead of his time in describing the sun's surface and that in the

Vecherneye razmyshleniye he upheld the doctrine of the multiplicity of worlds.1 Boris Menshutkin descries in these odes 'the sincere emotion of the naturalist as he stands in the presence of the majestic pheno? mena of nature'.2 Lomonosov specialists who are a trifle more subtle or who allot more space to the poem?for instance, Aleksandr

Zapadov in his Otets russkoy poezii?may go beyond this to mention the rather hypothetical nature of the explanations for the Northern

Lights which Lomonosov advances in the Vecherneye razmyshleniye, but the general thrust of their interpretation remains the same: Lomonosov is a scientist expressing wonder at natural phenomena and seeking to comprehend them in rational terms.3 Even a western

Charles Moser is an Associate Professor of Russian in the Department of Slavic Languages at the George Washington University. 1 A. A. Morozov, Mikhail Vasil'yevich Lomonosov: 1711-1765, Moscow, 1965, pp. 435-6. 2 Boris N. Menshutkin, Russia's Lomonosov, Princeton, 1952, p. 41. 3 Aleksandr Zapadov, Otets russkoy poe ziy i: 0 tvorchestve Lomonosova, Moscow, 1961, pp. 122-5. For an analogous reading by a pre-Soviet Russian investigator, see V. Tukalevsky, 'Glavnyye cherty mirosozertsaniya Lomonosova (Leybnits i Lomonosov)', in V. V. Sipovsky, ed., M. V. Lomonosov: sbornik statey, Petersburg, 1911, p. 15.

2?S.E.E.R.



igO CHARLES A. MOSER

student of Lomonosov who is under no compulsion to minimise the

religious aspect of the two odes thinks it significant that 'the name of

the Deity ... is mentioned only twice' in the Vecherneye razmyshleniye,

though he does make the obvious point that the Utrenneye razmy?

shleniye was designed as a glorification of the Creator.4 Now the

scientific interpretation of both odes, and the Vecherneye razmyshleniye in particular, is correct so far as it goes, but it is so incomplete as to

become false if it is advanced as the only reading of the poem. In

fact, although the two poems do indeed express Lomonosov's awe

at the universe and his desire to arrive at a rational understanding of

it, they were written primarily for the purpose of praising the Creator.

More important in the present context, in the Vecherneye razmyshleniye Lomonosov accomplished this end, not by writing a paean to man's

intellectual capabilities, but by emphasising the limitations of the

human mind, the great gulf which separates man's understanding from God's intellect.5

In order to interpret the two Razmyshleniya correctly, one must

know something of Lomonosov's general attitude toward creation

and the Creator. Though a complete treatment of the subject is

beyond the scope of this article, several points should be made here.6

When they pause to consider the subject, most people reason as

follows: All 18th-century scientists were deists. Lomonosov was an

18th-century scientist. Therefore Lomonosov was a deist. Unhappily, this formula is too neat for Lomonosov. To be sure, he did hold that

the universe had been created by a supernatural being external to it

who had caused it to function according to certain discoverable

laws. But he did not believe that God took no further interest in his

handiwork once he had set it in motion. Just as Lomonosov is

reminiscent of an Old Testament figure, so was Lomonosov's God

an Old Testament God, one who did not hesitate to interfere in the

internal affairs of his chosen people, be they Jewish or Russian.

Lomonosov's God directed the course of internal Russian politics. Once, for instance, upon discovering the Russian people in 'most

gloomy night,' He proclaimed:

'fla 6y;jeT cbct.' H 6bicTb! O TBapH 06jiaflaTejib!

4 Harold B. Segel, The Literature of Eighteenth-Century Russia, New York, 1967, I, p. 202. 5 Investigators have occasionally noted this in passing but done little with it. A. Popov,

for instance, remarked briefly upon the 'traditional note of distrust for science' in the two odes: 'Nauka i religiya v mirosozertsanii Lomonosova,' in V. V. Sipovsky, op. cit., P. 3- 6 For a more detailed discussion of this matter, see the extensive article by A. Tubasov, 'Religioznyye vozzreniya Lomonosova,' Khristianskqye chteniye, 1880, III, nos. 9-10, pp. 355-92; and A. Popov, 'Nauka i religiya v mirosozertsanii Lomonosova,' in V. V. Sipovsky, op. cit., pp. 1-12.



LOMONOSOV S VECHERNEYE RAZMYSHLENIYE 191

Th naKH cBeia HaM Co3AaTejn>, Hto B3Beji Ha TpoH EjiHcaBeT.7

Lomonosov's God is a being with volition, who may express His will

both through the codified forms of law and in unmediated form. He

is the type of the enforcer of justice upon earth, as Lomonosov points out in comparing Elizabeth to Him:

Korâ b HeM mhjiocti> npeACTaBJiaeM, EMy no/jo6Hbix bhahm Bac; KaK rHeB Ero H3o6pa?caeM, Opyaora BauiHx cjihihhm rjiac; Korâ HenpaBAM Oh KapaeT, To cHjiw BaniH onojiâeT; Ero ? 3eMJia h HeGeca, 3aKOH h bojia noBceMecTHa, IloKonb HaM GyAeT HeH3BecTHa Ero meApoTa h rp03a. (VIII, p. 636 [1757])

It might be possible to dismiss the Old Testament God of Lomono?

sov's odes as a mere literary convention were it not for the fact that

he also inserted elements of orthodox Christian doctrine into his

writing. Indeed it is only reasonable to expect this, since he received his elementary education in a church academy, and much of what

he learned there remained with him. Thus at the conclusion of his

Slovo pokhval'noye Petru Velikomu {1755) he spoke in terms which may be interpreted as referring to the immortality of Peter's soul (VIII,

612). More unambiguous and more startling is the passage on the

redemption of the world through Christ's sacrifice which he inserted in the midst of his scientific popularisation Pis'mo 0 pol' ze stekla

(1752):

Kojib co3AaHHbix Bemefi npocTpamio eciecTBo! O KOJib BejiHKo hx co3AaBuie EoacecTBo! O KOJib BejiHKa k HaM meApoT ero nyHHHa, Hto Ha 3eMjiK> nocjiaji B03JiK>6jieHHaro Cbraa! He norHymajicfl Oh Ha Majioii map cotth, Hto 6bi noraGinaro erpaAaHHeM cnacra.

(VIII, pp. 518-9)

Lomonosov also studied the Church Fathers very closely, as he showed when he cited St Augustine in the Pis'mo 0 pol'ze stekla. He could display his skill at theological analysis not only for its own sake, but also for polemical reasons, to demonstrate that he was as good a

theologian as his ecclesiastical opponents. Thus he quoted exten?

sively from the Fathers and from Scripture in an important appendix to his treatise on Venus' solar transit of 26 May 1761 (IV, pp. 370-6).

7 Ode to Elizabeth of 1746, in M. V. Lomonosov, Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy, io vols., Moscow-Leningrad, 1950-1959, VIII, p. 140. All further references to Lomonosov's work will be to this edition unless noted otherwise.



192 CHARLES A. MOSER

In this article Lomonosov maintained that God has given man two

books: the visible universe, in which He expresses his majesty

{velichestvo), and the Bible, through which He states His will. Just as

the Church Fathers and theologians interpret the Scriptures, so natural scientists investigate the mysteries of the universe. There can be no conflict between science and theology rightly understood, for

they are simply variant paths to the same end, the glorification of

God through understanding. In this particular article Lomonosov trained his fire upon repre?

sentatives of the church because his main opposition came from that

quarter, but if it had been necessary he would very likely have

attacked quite as vigorously any fellow scientists who held that new

scientific discoveries invalidated Christian doctrine, for Lomonosov

was persuaded that the heavens declared the existence of God.

Perhaps he doubted this for a time in his middle years, but if so he

was again convinced by the end of his life. The proof of this is a

passage from an ancient Greek poet which he cited in his own trans?

lation at the end of the appendix:

# AOJiro pa3MbiiHJiflji h AOJiro 6mji b coMHeHbe, Hto ecTb jih Ha 3eMnio ot bmcotm CMOTpeHbe; Hjih no cjienoTe 6e3 p^Ay Bee TeneT, PI npoMbicjiy c He6ec bo bcck BcejieHHoii HeT. OAHaKO, nOCMOTpeB CBeTHJI HeGeCHblX CTpOHHOCTb, 3eMJiH, Mopeii h peK AoGpoTy h npHcroiiHOCTb, IIpeMeHy Aneii, HoneS, HBjieHHH jivhm, npH3HaJI, HTO 60ECeCK0H Mbi CHJIOH C03AaHbI.

(VIII, p. 695 [1761])

Lomonosov did not believe only that God's hand moved in the

history of Russia and the world; he did not limit himself to the

acceptance of Christian doctrine and the reading of the Church

Fathers: he even seems to have thought that his dedication to science

resulted from God's intervention in his individual life. God, he felt, had entrusted him with the task of advancing the cause of science in his homeland. In a curious letter of 30 January 1761 to G. N.

Teplov?one which in several places contains virtual political de?

nunciations of a rival?Lomonosov declared:

I would quite willingly have remained silent and lived in peace if I had not feared punishment from justice and almighty Providence, which has not deprived me of talent and diligence in study and has now

given me the opportunity, patience with noble stubbornness and bold? ness to overcome all obstacles hindering the propagation of the sciences in my fatherland, which is the most precious thing in life for me (X, p. 548).

When Lomonosov began his literary and scientific career in the

1740s his religious bent was stronger than it was to be in the 1750s



LOMONOSOV S VECHERNEYE RAZMYSHLENIYE I93

and 1760s. This may be seen most graphically from the large number

of Old Testament odes he composed during that decade. Culling

passages from the Old Testament emphasising what one investigator has called 'ecstatic astonishment at God's power and wisdom,'8 Lomonosov reworked extensively both the psalms and the book of

Job (D. S. Mirsky termed his Oda, vybrannaya iz Tova the 'finest

example of his eloquence, his "mighty line," and his "curious

felicity" of diction'9). Certainly the prominence of the Old Testa?

ment odes in his writing at this time is a fact which cannot be ignored in any consideration of the Razmyshleniya.

By the author's own testimony, the Vecherneye razmyshleniye was

composed in 1743,10 although it was only published in the Ritorika

of 1748. Given the similarity of their titles and subject matter, it is

reasonable to assume that the Utrenneye razmyshleniye was written at

roughly the same time, although it appeared initially only in the

1751 collected edition of Lomonosov's works.

The interpretation of the Utrenneye razmyshleniye is a relatively

straightforward matter. In the initial stanza the author describes

the dawn, when the sun 'discovers God's deeds' and causes him to

meditate upon what the Creator must be if the sun He created is so

impressive. The sun is an analogue of the Divinity, pointing the way to our knowledge of Him. In the second and third stanzas the eye of

Lomonosov's imagination depicts the solar surface as an 'eternally

burning ocean,' with 'fiery whirlwinds' and 'rocks boiling like

water.' In the fourth stanza the author exclaims in wonderment that

the massive, burning sun is a mere 'spark' by comparison with God, who made it as a 'lamp' to enable man to accomplish his daily round

and carry out God's commands, to light God's creation so that man

may view it and glorify Him for it. In the sixth stanza Lomonosov

contrasts God's vision with the sun's light: whereas sunlight illu?

minates only the surfaces of things, the light of God's eyes penetrates everywhere unhindered and bestows 'joy' upon His creatures. In the final stanza the poet asks for the Divinity's personal intervention in his life, in the process drawing a parallel between the ability of the

sun's rays to scatter the earth's physical darkness and the power of God's illumination to dispel his own moral gloom:

TBOpeij! IlOKpblTOMy MHe TbMOK)

IlpOCTpH npeMVApOCTH JIVHH H hto yroAHo npeA T06010 BcerAa tbophth HaynH. (VIII, p. 119)

8 Vera Dorovatovskaya, 'O zaimstvovaniyakh Lomonosova iz Biblii,' in Sipovsky, op. cit., p. 36. 9 D. S. Mirsky, A History of Russian Literature, New York, 1949, p. 45. 10 'Iz'yasneniya, nadlezhashchiye k Slovu o elektricheskikh vozdushnykh yavleniyakh,5 III, p. 123. The article was published in 1753.



194 CHARLES A. MOSER

In the poet's view, then, the sun was brought into being for an

ultimately moral end by a Divinity who had only the good of His

creature, man, at heart. The universe is man-centered, created for

man. Man may trace nature's laws, but at the same time he is over?

whelmed by the immensity of the universe and the majesty of the

Divinity.11 For the Vecherneye razmyshleniye, in contrast with the Utrenneye

razmyshleniye, a fair amount of information exists about the author's

intentions in writing it and some difficulty arises in its interpretation. It is seldom noted that the Vecherneye razmyshleniye, like several of

Lomonosov's other poems, was not written entirely for its own sake, but rather in order to illustrate a scholarly point. Moreover, in this

instance Lomonosov told his readers explicitly what it was intended

to convey: he originally designed the Vecherneye razmyshleniye as a

poetic illustration of a type of syllogism, the enthymeme, which he

was analysing in his Ritorika of 1748. 'Instead of a minor premise,' he wrote in introducing the work, 'one may include the development of some Idea which is related to the terms comprising the major

premise, as in this Enthymeme [a syllogism in which one premise is

unexpressed]: It is impossible to know the Creatures, therefore the Creator

is also incomprehensible, one may develop Ideas about the night, the

world and the Northern Lights, as is done in the following ode'

(VII, 315). Taking the proposition that the Creator may be under?

stood only if His creation may be understood as self-evident, Lomonosov used his poem to expound on the premise 'it is impossible to know the Creatures' and to draw the conclusion that 'the Creator

is also incomprehensible.' The conclusion, however, was relegated to the poem's final line and all but lost sight of after the poet's elaboration upon the human mind's inability to fathom the universe.

The beginning of Vecherneye razmyshleniye returns to the nature

description of the Utrenneye razmyshleniye in a stanza so deftly con?

structed and skilfully sound-orchestrated (especially in the last two

lines) that it has become a classic nature depiction from the 18th-

century poetic repertory. In the first line the day is personified; then

the moving shadows of the night attract the eye first to the nearby fields, next to the mountaintops (where the rays of the setting sun

linger longest), and finally into the depths of the infinite, star-

studded universe, suddenly 'revealed' to the beholder after its con?

cealment during the day:

Jfonje cBoe CKpbiBaeT AeHb; nona noKpbijia MpanHa HOHb;

11 For an analysis of the poem, see Petr Kalaydovich, 'Rassmotreniye ody Lomonosova: Utrenneye razmyshleniye o Bozhiyem velichestve,' Trudy Obshchestva lyubiteley rossiyskoy slovesnosti pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom universitete, part XIII, book XIX, 1819, pp. 65-81.



LOMONOSOV S VECHERNEYE RAZMYSHLENIYE I95

B3ouuia Ha ropbi nopHa TeHb; JIvhh ot Hac CKjioHHjiHCb npoHb; OTKpbiJiacb 6e3AHa 3Be3A nojiHa; 3Be3AaM HHCJia HeT, 6e3AHe Ana.12

In the second stanza the poet constructs an extended simile for

the ultimate purpose of arriving at himself, since he is in some sense

the centre of the universe (recall the man-centred universe of the

Utrenneye razmyshleniye):

IleCHHHKa KaK B MOpCKHX Bojraax, KaK Majia HCKpa b bchhom jibAe, KaK b CHjibHOM BHxpe tohkhh npax, B CBHpenoM KaK nepo orHe, TaK a b cen 6e3AHe yrjiy6jieH Tepaiocb, MbicjibMH yTOMjieH!

The simile of the first four lines is intricately constructed, with the

second couplet being almost the mirror-image of the first. Each of

the initial four lines consists of a noun (in the middle lines accom?

panied by an adjective), the conjunction kak, the preposition v plus

object of preposition. In every instance a natural force of great

magnitude is contrasted with something small and light (a grain of

sand, a spark, a particle of dust, a feather), whose impotence is

clearly stressed. However, there is a major difference between the

persona and the objects to which he compares himself: he may be

powerless, but he possesses the ability to think. After commencing with the repeated 'kak . . . kak . . . kak . . . kak,' the poet completes the circle of his simile with a 'tak' at the beginning of the fifth line, and also returns us to the corresponding lines of the first stanza by his choice of the word bezdnaP

YcTa npeMyApbix HaM rjiaciiT: TaM pa3Hbix MHoacecTBO cbctob; HecneTHbi cojimja TaM ropaT, HapoAM TaM h Kpyr bckob :

^jia o6m;eH cjiaBbi 6o?cecTBa TaM paBHa cnjia ecTecTBa.

The interpretation of the entire Vecherneye razmyshleniye hinges largely

upon a reading of the third stanza's opening line. In my opinion, it

is meant sarcastically. Lomonosov might easily have phrased the

line's idea quite neutrally, writing something like 'some scholars

say,' 'certain scientists tell us.' Instead he deliberately uses archaic

diction, and especially the rather highflown word premudryy, precisely

12 The text is cited from Lomonosov's Sobraniye raznykh sochineniy v stikhakh i v proze of

13 This stanza, unquestionably one of Lomonosov's best, was inscribed upon a monu? ment to him in Archangel: see M. V. Lomonosov, Sochineniya, 8 vols., Petersburg- Moscow-Leningrad, 189i-i948, I (edited by M, I. Sukhomlinov), p. 240.



I96 CHARLES A. MOSER

because he wishes to downgrade the 'learned ones' who assert that

the universe contains many other worlds like ours and that God's

laws are valid throughout creation. It follows that the second line

cannot be used?as many scholars have tried to use it?to prove that

Lomonosov believed in life on other planets without qualification. To be sure, the poet did not declare the premudryye wrong in their

assertions. But he was sufficiently balanced to realise that there was

no certainty at all in their conjectures, and he objected to the con?

fidence with which they advanced them. However plausible they

might be, they remained only hypotheses, and as such a lasting reminder of the limitations of the human mind.14

Having moved from nearby fields through the visible universe to

conjectures about what is within the visible universe and beyond it, Lomonosov returns the discussion to earth, in one of the alternations

between the distant and the nearby characteristic of the poem as a

whole. How can one possibly assert so firmly, he asks?though he is

addressing nature directly, by implication he queries the premudryye? that the laws of nature hold for worlds beyond our ken when we see

them violated in the skies before our eyes:

Ho rAeac, HaTypa, tboh 3aKOH? C nojiHOHHbix crpaH BCTaeT 3apa! He cojrarjejib craBHT TaM cboh TpoH? He jibAHCTbijib MemyT orHb Mops? Ce xjiaAHHH njiaMeHb Hac noKpbiji! Ce b HOHb Ha 3eMjiK> AeHb BcrynHJi!

The phenomenon of the Aurora Borealis contradicts the terrestrial laws of nature. Dawn appears in the north, not the east; flame is cold, not fiery; day breaks in the midst of the night. This stanza serves to set the stage for the interrogation of the natural philosophers, whom Lomonosov now addresses both directly and sardonically:

O Bbl, KOTOpblX 6bICTpbIH 3paK IIpoH3aeT b KHHry BenHbix npaB, KoTopbiM Majibiii BemH 3HaK ^BjiaeT ecTecTBa ycTaB: BaM nyTb H3BecTeH Bcex njiaHeT; CKaacHTe, hto Hac TaK matct?

Just as before, the poet here resorts to circumlocution and archaism in speaking of the learned. In fact, he thinks their 'vision' is far from

'quick' and mocks their pretended ability to draw wide-ranging conclusions from a few small hints. 'You know the paths of all the

planets,' so distant from us, and thus you must surely be able to

14 In the appendix to his article on the Venus transit of 1761 Lomonosov still adhered to this position: the existence of other worlds was doubtful, but the fundamental tenets of Christianity would not be shaken if they did exist.



LOMONOSOV'S VECHERNEYE RAZMYSHLENIYE I97

account for the apparent contradictions of the Aurora Borealis, so

near at hand, he says. The important address to the premudryye in the fifth stanza is framed

in scepticism: the sixth stanza reverts to the same sort of paradoxical

questions as those set in the fourth:

^TO 3bl6jieT HCHblH HOHbK) JIVHb? Hto tohkhh njiaMem> b TBepAt pa3HT? KaK MOJIHHfl 6e3 rp03HbIX TVHb

CTpeMHTCH OT 3eMJIH B 3CHHT? KaK MoaceT 6bm>, hto 6 Mep3Jibiii nap CpeAH 3hmm pa)KAaji no)Kap?

The sixth stanza (containing two questions introduced by chto, then

two introduced with kak) emphasises the Aurora Borealis' ethereal

qualities but also pursues the apparent contradiction of nature's

laws involved in its very existence. The most striking image in the

stanza is that of lightning produced without thunderclouds and

darting from earth to sky rather than the other way around. The

last couplet reverts to the cold-heat dichotomy prominent in the

fourth stanza and emphasizes the link between the fourth and sixth

stanzas.

The seventh, penultimate, stanza contains the mumbled replies of

the premudryye, who plainly do not know what to say. Though the rest

of the poem presents only minimal problems in the interpretation of

detail, the poet sees to it that this stanza is lacking in clarity:

TaM cnopHT acnpHa Mrjia c boaoh; Hjib cojmeHHbi jivhh 6jiecTHT, CKJIOHJICb CKB03b B03AVX K HaM TVCTOH; Hjib tvhhmx rop BepbXH ropaT, Hjib b Mope AyTb npecTaji 3e(j)Hp, H TJiaAKH BOJIHbl 6bK>T B e^Hp.

The first and third hypotheses are so vague as to be nearly worthless; the second (refraction of the sun's rays) and the fourth (a resonance

of some sort with the sea's waves), each given two lines instead of

one, are more plausible, but only the second really makes much

sense.

In the case of the fourth explanation, incidentally, in this text the

heavenly waves appear when the oceanic ones vanish, but in a

variant reading they occur simultaneously:

Hjib BeeT no Mopio 3ec[)Hp H ABHECeTCfl OT BOJIH E(J)Hp.15

In 1753 Lomonosov argued that precisely these lines established his

priority in advancing the hypothesis that the Aurora Borealis 'may 15 Variant from the manuscript Ritorika of 1747, VIII, p. 123, note.



I98 CHARLES A. MOSER

be caused by motion of the Ether' (III, p. 123). In view of the entire

poem's sceptical tone, however, it is difficult to accept this as a

firm statement of a scientific hypothesis advanced in 1743. Moreover, the connotations of the word 'ether' are so unclear that these lines

will hardly support the claim that Lomonosov thought that 'the

phenomenon [of the Aurora Borealis] is caused by electrical force',16 even though the author himself tried to argue this way.

CoMHeHHH nojiOH Bani otbct, O TOM HTO OKpeCT 6jIH?CHHX MeCT.

CKaaarreac, KOJib npocTpaHeH cbct? H hto MajieiiHiHx AaJie 3Be3A [?] HecBeAOM TBapeii BaM KOHen;? CKa3KHTe)K, KOJib BeJIHK TBopen;?

Lomonosov summarises his viewpoint in the concluding stanza. If

the premudrye, he says, are unable to account satisfactorily for things close at hand, how can they pretend to gauge the extent of the uni?

verse and speak of what lies beyond the stars? Moreover, these

questions involve matters of fact and might conceivably be settled

in the future, but it is harder to answer the teleological question in

the penultimate line, a query which deals with matters heretofore

absent from the poem and a trifle out of context even here. Does any? one know the purpose of creation? And can anyone define how great the Creator is if he cannot comprehend His creation ? Those who

miss the sceptical note of the entire poem occasionally feel that the sense of the concluding stanza demands an exclamation point rather than a question mark at the end: How great God is! Indeed A. V. Kokorev prints it thus in his standard Soviet anthology of 18th-

century Russian literature, but entirely without justification.17 The last line was printed with a question mark in all publications of the

poem during the author's lifetime, and the Ritorika version of 1748

(Kto)k 3HaeT, KOJib BejiHK TBOpen;?) makes it even plainer that the author wished to conclude his piece with a query. Indeed the prob? lem of this one mark of punctuation is vital to an understanding of the whole poem. Those who read it primarily as a statement of

Lomonosov's wonder at the mysteries of the universe are more com? fortable with an exclamation mark at the end. Those who read it as a statement on the limitations of the human intellect perceive that it is most appropriately concluded by a question mark, for the entire work is a query. The author always printed it with a question mark.

Thus, the Vecherneye razmyshleniye shows Lomonosov as an inquirer struggling to read the book of the universe which God has set before

16 Segel, op. cit., I, 203. 17 A. V. Kokorev, ed., Khrestomatiya po russkoy literature XVIII veka, fourth edition, Moscow, 1965, p. 140.



LOMONOSOV'S VECHERNEYE RAZMYSHLENIYE I99

him. Though he writes in the spirit of scientific investigation, he also

knows how little man can really understand. He is humbly conscious

of the way in which apparently well established explanations may be

disproved by some new discovery. He wants conjectures to be labelled

as such, not passed off as dogma. And because he believes that the

universe will never be entirely comprehended, he thinks that neither

can the purpose of life or the essence of God's being be understood

by man's finite mind. Although in the 1750's Lomonosov probably valued the purely scientific, as opposed to the philosophical, element

in the poem more highly than he did when he wrote it, still the ratio

of the philosophical to the scientific within the author's mind prob?

ably was recognisably the same when he died in 1765 as it had been

when he wrote the piece in 1743. And philosophically the Vecherneye

razmyshleniye was a discourse on the limitations of the human intellect

rather than a glorification of its powers.



lomonosov's "vecherneye razmyshleniye"

Documents