Studia Metrica et Poetica sisu 2_1.indd “Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik (following Osip Brik’s, Boris Jarcho’s and Andrei Fedorov’s remarks on the Russian translations from Heine) Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov*6 Abstract. Th is paper develops some of the ideas that were expressed at the meeting of the Translators’ Section of the Soviet Writers’ Union (28 December 1934) where Osip Brik’s talk on new Russian translations from Heinrich Heine was presented and dis- cussed. Brik argued for equirhythmical translations of Heine’s dolniks and maintained that equimetrical translations are impossible due to the diff erences between the Russian and the German systems of verse. His opponents, on the contrary, argued for equi- metrical translations and maintained that equirhythmical translations are impossible due to the diff erences between the accentual systems of the Russian and the German languages. Boris Jarcho, who presided the meeting, developed a theory, according to which every versifi cation system is characterised by primary and secondary fea- tures. Th e primary features represent a determinist norm and should be reproduced in translation to the full extent, while the secondary features represent a statistical norm: they may be reproduced in a proportion that the language and the poetic tradition can aff ord and that is at the same time similar to the proportion found in the original text. Th e authors of the present paper discuss three Russian poetic translations of Heine’s celebrated “Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam...” from the point of view of their equimetricity/equirhythmicity, and compare their metrical and rhythmical structures with various rhythmic types of the Russian dolnik. Keywords: dolnik, equimetricity, equirhythmicity, poetic translation * Authors’ addresses: Igor Pilshchikov, Tallinn University, Estonian Institute of Humanities, Uus-Sadama 5, Tallinn 10120, Estonia, email: pilshch@tlu.ee; Sergei Liapin, Pulkovskaia str. 19–50, St. Petersburg 196158, Russia, email: liapin@mail.ru. Studia Metrica et Poetica 2.1, 2015, 58–80 doi: dx.doi.org/10.12697/smp.2015.2.1.03 dx.doi.org/10.12697/smp.2015.2.1.03 59“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik [Brik] used to say that rhythm is, fi rst and foremost, a property, an attribute of motion. I know that people in Europe and America, who are now creating a new theory of rhythm, forget to fi x the name of the man who gave them an idea how to revise the approach to this topic. (Shklovsky 1978) Th is paper develops some of the ideas that were expressed at the meeting of the Translators’ Section of the Soviet Writers’ Union (28 December 1934) where the ex-formalist left ist critic Osip Brik’s (1888–1945) talk on new Russian translations of Heinrich Heine’s Deutschland: Ein Wintermährchen was pre- sented and discussed (see Brik et. al. 2012). At the beginning of the 1930s, this poem was translated into Russian by several translators, including a prominent translator, writer and literary theorist, Yurii Tynianov (1894–1943), one of the leaders of the Petrograd association of the formalists – Opoyaz (the Society for the Study of Poetic Language). Th e prominent literary theorist Boris Jarcho (1889–1942), a former member of the Moscow association of the formalists, the Moscow Linguistic Circle, presided over the meeting, which was attended by the leading Russian translators – in particular, Dmitri Usov (1896–1943) and Lev Penkovsky (1894–1971). Brik’s talk was focused on the rhythm of Heine’s dolnik verse and its Russian equivalents. As we shall see further, Brik argued for equirhythmical translations of Heine’s dolniks and maintained that equimetrical translations are impossible due to the diff erences between the Russian and the German systems of verse. Usov and Penkovsky, on the contrary, argued for equimetrical translations and maintained that equirhythmical translations are impossible due to the diff erences between the accentual systems of the Russian and the German languages. Th eir practice was supported by the theory developed by Andrei Fedorov (1906–1999), a disciple of Tynianov at the Institute of the History of Arts and later a classic fi gure in Soviet translation studies (the Petersburg State University Centre for translation studies is named aft er him). He was not present at the discussion, but published a few articles on the same topic (see Fedorov 1928; 1935). ‘Dolnik’ (дольник) is the Russian term that describes various forms of non-syllabo-tonic metrics. Its defi nition, which was proposed in the 1960s by a prominent Russian verse theorist, Mikhail Gasparov (1935–2005), diff ers from earlier descriptions of similar forms in Russian verse theory, including those dis- cussed in the present article. We will, however, attempt to combine the existing 60 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov approaches and use their respective accomplishments in order to develop them and achieve a deeper understanding of the phenomena under consideration. Unlike the ‘classical’ syllabo-tonic (syllabic-accentual) metres (such as iam- bic, trochaic, dactylic, anapaestic, and amphibrachic metres), the length of the inter-ictic interval in a dolnik line is not constant. In syllabo-tonics, the amplitude of the variation of inter-ictic intervals is equal to zero (the inter-ictic intervals are invariable), while in dolniks the amplitude of the variation of inter- ictic intervals is equal to one (the inter-ictic intervals can be either monosyllabic or disyllabic). Th us, syllabo-tonic metres are ‘stricter’ than the dolnik. In the same sense, accentual verse, or ‘stress-metre’, where the amplitude of the varia- tion of inter-ictic intervals is one or more, is ‘looser’ than the dolnik (hence the English descriptive term for dolnik: ‘strict stress-metre’, see Tarlinskaja 1993). Nevertheless, “‘dolnik’ is a metre in its own right, not just a looser variant of iamb, or a stricter variant of accentual verse” (Tarlinskaja 1992: 3). Th is term is sometimes used in English-language scholarship and applied to Russian as well as English and German verse (Tarlinskaja 1992, 1995, 2002; Duff el 2008; Plungian 2011; Attridge 2012, 2013). Historically, however, the Russian dolnik is characterised by an isosyllabic tendency that Gasparov noticed but whose value he did not fully appreciate (cf. Liapin 2014, reviewed in Pilshchikov 2014: 153). We have to take into account not only the tonic factor, but also the syllabic factor, if we want “to situate the rise of dolnik in the historical tendencies characteristic of, specifi cally, Russian verse lines: the tendency of Russian verse to favour medium length and roughly equal lines, and its rejection of sharp deviation from syllable-counting in favour of stress- counting regularities” (Klenin 2008: 274). Like a syllabo-tonic line, a dolnik line may contain unstressed ictuses (or, in other words, it may skip schematic stresses). Here the linguistic factor seems to play its role. Russian words are long enough, and compound words (with rare exceptions) do not bear a secondary stress (unlike most compound and some polymorphemic words in German or English). Th e average number of syllables per word in Russian is ca 2.5–3,1 i.e. an average Russian word is almost twice as long as an average English word (ca 1.5 syllables).2 Th is is why one or more metric stresses in Russian disyllabic metres (iambs and trochees) and in the 1 2.8, according to Tomashevsky (1919: 32). To be more precise: 2.74 for nouns, 3.11 for verbs, 3.44 for adjectives, 2.68 for adverbs, 1.98 for pronouns, 2.21 for other parts of speech, for an average of 2.72 (Gasparov 1984: 173). Or, using a diff erent corpus and a diff erent classifi cation: 2.6 for content words, 1.9 for pronouns, 1.0 for form words (Zubkova 2010: § 3.1). 2 To compare: 1.5 for content words, 1.15 for pronouns, 1.05 for form words (Zubkova 2010: § 3.1). 61“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik Russian dolnik are more oft en than not skipped (as opposed to, say, English disyllabic and strict-stress meters). Th us, we are dealing with the problem of unstressed ictuses: not all the downbeats are actually stressed. Th e structure of the 3-ictus dolnik may be presented as (0/1/2) × (1/2) × (1/2) × (0/1/2/3) Here × denotes ‘strong’ positions (ictuses), numbers denote a number of syl- lables in ‘weak’ (metrically unstressed) inter-ictic positions, anacruses and clausulae, and variable intervals are divided by slashes and bracketed. Th is metre has fi ve rhythmic forms, as described by Gasparov (1968: 67–70; 1974: 223–225): I (0/1/2) × 2 × 2 × (0/1/2/3) II (0/1/2) × 1 × 2 × (0/1/2/3) III (0/1/2) × 2 × 1 × (0/1/2/3) IV (0/1/2) × 1 × 1 × (0/1/2/3) V (0/1/2) × 4 × (0/1/2/3) Th e last ictus is normally stressed (exceptions will be discussed further). Forms II, III, and IV can either be fully stressed or skip the stress in the fi rst ictus. In Forms I and IV, the stress can also be skipped in the second ictus (in rare cases, it can be skipped on both the fi rst and second ictuses, although in Form I, with its disyllabic inter-ictic intervals, a skip of metrical stress is less probable due to the average length of Russian words). Form V is a very peculiar form with a virtual (or movable) unstressed ictus or a prolonged inter-ictic interval as an ‘equivalent of stress’ (see discussion below). Forms II and III would turn into Form V if their second ictus were not stressed. Th us, in Form V, the syllabic factor prevails over the tonic factor. Some rhythmic forms of the 3-ictus dolnik are isomorphic to syllabo-tonic lines. Form I with a zero anacrusis is isomorphic to the 3-foot dactyl; Form I with a monosyllabic anacrusis – to the 3-foot amphibrach; Form I with a disyllabic anacrusis – to the 3-foot anapaest (that is, dactylic, anapaestic, and amphibrachic trimeters). Form IV with a zero anacrusis is isomorphic to the 3-foot trochee (trochaic trimeter); Form IV with a monosyllabic anacrusis – to the 3-foot iambus (iambic trimeter); Form IV with a disyllabic anacrusis – to the 4-foot trochee (trochaic tetrameter) with a skip of stress in the fi rst ictus. Form II with a zero anacrusis (with or without stress in the fi rst ictus) is isomorphic to the 2-foot anapaest (anapaestic dimeter). Only Forms II with monosyllabic and disyllabic anacruses, as well as Forms III and V are specifi c 62 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov to the dolnik, i.e. the lines of these forms are never isomorphic to classical syllabo-tonic lines (cf. Gasparov 1974: 235).3 Let us consider the rhythm of the most well known poem of Heine, “Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam...” From the ‘Russian’ point of view, the metre of “Ein Fichtenbaum...” is 3-ictus dolnik. In the following schemes, Roman numerals denote its rhythmic forms, Arabic numerals denote the number of unstressed syllables between stressed syllables, underlined Arabic numerals denote the number of syllables in anacruses and clausulae, and bullets denote the stressed syllables that coincide with ictuses.4 Th e “accentually ambiguous” words (as Viktor Zhirmunsky called them), such as articles and pronouns, are considered stressed when they are placed on ictuses, but are considered unstressed when they emerge in the inter-ictic positions (Zhirmunsky 1925: 90–130; Gasparov 1974: 131–138). Both main and secondary stresses are inter- preted as metrically relevant accents. Ictic positions are henceforth italicised, syllables in anacruses and clausulae underlined: Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam Im Norden auf kahler Höh’. Ihn schläfert; mit weißer Decke Umhüllen ihn Eis und Schnee. Er träumt von einer Palme, Die fern im Morgenland Einsam und schweigend trauert Auf brennender Felsenwand. IV III III III IV IV III III 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • Th e prominent Russian linguist Lev Shcherba (1880–1944) did not consider the secondary stress on the fi nal syllable of the compound word Fíchtenbaum a full- fl edged, metrically relevant accent. Moreover, he regarded the rhyming syllables of the second quatrain (Mórgenland and Félsenwand) as unstressed (Shcherba 1936: 106–107). Nevertheless, we interpret such lines as fully accented, follow- ing Brik, who stated that “In the German language, the number of unstressed syllables around the stressed syllables is very small, and, for instance, com- pound words, such as Sommermorgen [...], have two stresses, which cannot be 3 In fact, form V with a disyllabic anacrusis, a disyllabic clausula and a compulsory caesura aft er the fi ft h syllable – 2 × 2 | 2 × 2 – is isomorphic to the so-called “Koltsov’s pentasyllabic meter” (“penton III”) used in imitations of Russian folkloric verse, but a detailed discussion of non-classical syllabo-tonic metres lies outside the scope of our paper. 4 Gasparov used dots instead of bullets. 63“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik skipped. [...] Th e Germans use additional stresses, which sometimes are no less strong than the primary accents” (Brik et al. 2012: 289; see also Bailey 1969: 19, note 22). Th e consensus in modern phonological theory is that such words do have fi nal secondary stresses (to cite just a few examples: Giegerich 1985; Eisenberg 1991; Wiese 1996; etc.). Shcherba also admitted that “in Russian, weak and strong accents are functionally diff erent from German accents” (1936: 108), so that he was, in a somewhat self-contradictory way, not unwilling to qualify the secondary accent in German as metrically and rhythmically relevant: It is particularly important to point out that all content words [in Heine’s ‘Ein Fichtenbaum...’] bear a full-fl edged stress, which is not blurred in the phrase, due to which every word is as if hammered in the listener’s head. Th e number of such full- fl edgedly stressed syllables, in proportion to the total number of syllables [in the poem], is about 35% (and if the syllables with the secondary accent are reckoned in the stressed syllables, it will increase to 41%). (Shcherba 1936: 106–107) We count the line “Er träumt von einer Palme” as having three stresses, not- withstanding the (probably justifi ed) opinion of Shcherba who considered the article einer a proclitic (Shcherba 1936: 107). Here we also accept Brik’s opin- ion that, in such lines of Heine as “Zu Aachen langweilen sich auf der Straß’,” the prepositions and articles should be regarded as stressed: “We have got four stresses here, not three. If you sputter and mumble, no good will come of that. [Th e preposition] auf [...] should also be stressed here” (Brik et al. 2012: 289). Let us compare the rhythm of “Ein Fichtenbaum...” with the rhythm of Usov’s translation of this poem. It is found in his private letter of 8 June 1942 and remained unpublished until recently (in Brik et al. 2012: 318–319): На Севере кедр одиноко на голом холме растёт. Он дремлет. Покровом белым одел его снег и лёд. Всё снится ему, что пальма в полуденной стране, Молча, одна тоскует на знойной крутизне.5 5 Here and henceforth, unstressed ictuses in forms I to IV are both italicised and double- underlined. Vowels of tetrasyllabic inter-accentual intervals in form V will be double-underlined without added italics. 64 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov Or, schematically: H e i n e U s o v IV III III III IV IV III III 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • I III III III III IV III IV 1 • 2 • 2 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 3   • • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 3   • Usov’s translation does not take into account anything of what Brik was trying to say at the Heine meeting.6 In eff ect, Brik formulated a new concept of metro- rhythmic equivalence in the poetic translation from German (and some other languages) into Russian, using the example of one of the most understudied metres – the dolnik. At the same time, Usov’s translation eloquently reveals the most important aspects of metro-rhythmic equivalence that Brik wanted to problematise: It seems to me that, in order to reproduce a rhythmic-intonational structure in translation, it is wrong, as we get used to doing, to confi ne ourselves to a merely external calculation of syllables, to establish certain external features of the metre. It turns out that the metre, the rhythmic-intonational structure is a much more complicated thing, and we have to fi nd, in the Russian language and Russian versifi cation, such possibilities that would not contradict our versifi cation, on the one hand, and what is found in the original, on the other. In particular, in this case, I would not, for example, overuse the skipped stresses, I would attempt to imitate the high number of stresses, characteristic of the German language, because otherwise, when you read [...] translations, you oft en get an impression that the metre is lost and the line somehow fi nds itself out of the structure. (Brik et al. 2012: 291) In the 1930s a systematic study of dolniks did not yet start, but contemporary verse theory can clear up and specify Brik’s statements. First and foremost, two 6 Even if Usov translated Heine’s poem before December 1934, he had an opportunity of revising his translation by 1942 (if he had been convinced by Brik’ s arguments). 65“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik of his ideas should be pointed out: the high number of stresses in the German dolnik (as compared to the Russian dolnik) and the observation concerning the rhythmic heterogeneity of the Russian translations from Heine, which creates “the impression that the metre is lost”. According to Brik, the “basis” of the German dolnik is “the iamb [...] complemented with additional unstressed syllables” (Brik et al. 2012: 288). In Heine’s “Fichtenbaum”, Form IV of the 3-ictus dolnik, which is isomorphic to iambic trimeter, is used in the fi rst, fi ft h and sixth lines (therefore, each of the two quatrains begins with an ‘iambic’ line). Other lines belong to Form III, in which the fi rst inter-ictic interval is longer than an iambic interval by one syllable. However, the 7th line, which has a zero anacrusis (and not a monosyl- labic anacrusis, as all other lines) can also be interpreted diff erently: it sounds like an iambic trimeter with a trochaic inversion in the fi rst foot.7 Since all the eight lines of Heine’s poem are fully stressed (all ictuses bear accents, no stresses are skipped), there are no trisyllabic, tetrasyllabic or pentasyllabic interaccentual intervals in the text. Th erefore, argues Brik, in translation we should not ignore this rhythmic-intonational structure and cannot overuse what we oft en overuse in the Russian language, i. e. skipped stresses. Such skips of stresses on the downbeats8 cannot be admitted because when we start skipping the downbeats, the rhythmic-intonational structure will be violated. (Brik et al. 2012: 289) Indeed, Usov’s translation features a diff erent repertoire of rhythmic forms in comparison with Heine’s, and a completely diff erent rhythmic composi- tion – that is, the arrangement of these forms. At the same time Usov faithfully reproduces the structure of the anacruses and clausulae. Th e translation begins with an ‘amphibrachic’ line (Form I) instead of the ‘iambic’ line (Form IV), whereas Form I is not at all featured in the German original. Th e next three 7 Cf. Gasparov’s description of Aleksandr Blok’s poem “Голос из хора” (“A Voice from the Chorus”, 1910–14), “where, side by side with additional syllables (‘И вéк послéдний, ужáсней всéх...’), a shift of the initial stress is used (‘Хóлод и мрáк грядýщих днéй’)” (Gasparov 1974: 317; accents and bold italics belong to us. – SL, IP). 8 Udarnye doli in the original; hence dolnik. Contemporary Russian verse theory, following Andrei Kolmogorov and Mikhail Gasparov, interprets dolia as an entire tact, which contains both the ictus and the ‘weak’ syllables, rather than the ictus itself. Kolmogorov (1903–1987), one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century, was among the partisans of the statistical-probabilistic approach to the study of verse (on dolniks see Kolmogorov 1963; Kolmogorov, Prokhorov 1963, 1964). 66 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov lines belong to Form III, in compliance with the original. Th e second quatrain of the translation presents a crisscross rhythmic composition III-IV-III-IV (instead of the contiguous composition IV-IV-III-III in Heine). Moreover, in the original, the second stanza begins with Form IV and ends with Form III, whereas in the translation, just the opposite, the opening line belongs to Form III and the concluding line belongs to Form IV. Furthermore, in both ‘iambic’ (Form IV) lines of the Russian translation, the stress skips the second ictus, and a trisyllabic interaccentual interval emerges. ‘Long’ interaccentual intervals are very rarely featured in the German dolnik, so that their appear- ance drastically changes the sound of the poem and creates a substantially diff erent intonational expression. Speaking of the rhythm of Heine’s dolnik, Brik emphasises the fact that, distinctly from the Russian language, “in German this rhythmical impulse, [...] this rhythmical scheme [...] is very easily formed by the verbal material” (Brik et al. 2012: 289). Th e concept of “rhythmical impulse” was exposed in detail by Boris Tomashevsky (1890–1957), an active participant in both Opoyaz and the Moscow Linguistic Circle, who borrowed this term from Brik’s ear- lier papers. Th e impulse emerges on the way from metre to rhythm and back: the poet obeys the rhythmical impulse and fi nds for it “an expression in the actual rhythm of individual lines”, while the listener grasps it “due to his/her perception of a sequence of verse-lines” (Tomashevsky 1923: 83). Rhythmical impulse is not a determinist, but a statistical type of norm (Červenka 1984: 30). From the point of view of the reader of the poem, the rhythmical impulse is the same as rhythmic inertia (as Viktor Zhirmunsky called it). Scholars of Russian verse also defi ned this phenomenon in statistical terms, as a rhythmic tendency or a stressing profi le (Kiril Taranovski), a rhythmic profi le of the metre (Mikhail Gasparov), or the “image of the metre” (Andrei Kolmogorov).9 In this case we can speak of diff erent ‘national images of the metre’. Th is problem was ardently debated at the meeting on 28 December 1934. Th e fi rst discussant was Usov, who opposed Brik’s thesis about the inadmiss- ability of skipping stresses in the ictuses: I do not fully agree with [Brik] here. Th e thing is that a double-beat line sometimes has an equivalent of the third accent, a phenomenon already noted by the acmeists and symbolists. Consider, for example, the following line: ‘На 9 On these terms see Rudy 1976: 510; Brik 2012: 535–536 (Marina Akimova’s note); Gasparov 2012: 505; Liapin, Pilshchikov 2013: 54. Taranovski and Gasparov’s stressing/rhythmic profi le is not, in fact, identical with the statistics of rhythmic forms and does not usually describe the diff erences between various types of rhythm adequately (Dobritsyn 2014). 67“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik шелковом одеяле’. You can fi nd similar things in both Tynianov’s translation and [Penkovsky’s] translation. In the Russian language, they very oft en animate the motion of verse. Why [...] shouldn’t we use what is allowed: stresses on two syllables? Sometimes the two-stress lines sound very good. (Brik et al. 2012: 301) Th e term ‘equivalent (of text/metre/stress)’ was introduced by Tynianov (1924: 22 sq.) and developed by other Opoyaz members. Tomashevsky explained that, in what will be later called ‘dolnik’, a skip of metrical stress is possible: “Th e accent is a feature of the rhythmical unity, [or] the rhythmical group”; how- ever, “a group of unstressed syllables [...] can form a rhythmical group even without stressing. Long unstressed series of syllables can become an equivalent of rhythmical stress” (Tomashevsky 1925: 100). A poetic line quoted by Usov is taken from a poem composed by the acmeist Anna Akhmatova in 1914 (incipit “Бесшумно ходили по дому...”). Th e metre of this poem is 3-ictus dolnik, but the line “На шёлковом одея́ле” contains only two stressed sylla- bles with a tetrasyllabic interval between them. Th is example was also analysed by Tynianov (1924: 75). Th ere is no surprise then that, in Usov’s translation of “Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam...”, skipped stresses are found. Th e stress skips the second ictus twice, in the 6th and the 8th line: “в полýденной странé”; “на знóйной крутизнé”. Let us now compare the rhythm of Akhmatova’s poem mentioned by Usov and the rhythm of his translation from Heine. To make the sizes of the texts comparable, we take only two quatrains from Akhmatova’s seven-stanza poem (the opening stanza and the fourth stanza – the one quoted by Usov): A k h m a t o v a U s o v Бесшумно ходили по дому, Не ждали уже ничего. Меня привели к больному, И я не узнала его. [...] Казалось, стены сияли От пола до потолка. На шёлковом одеяле Сухая лежала рука. I I III I II V V I 1 • 2 • 2 • 1 1 • 2 • 2 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 1 • 4 • 1 • 4 • 1 1 • 2 • 2 • I III III III III IV III IV 1 • 2 • 2 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 3 • • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 3 • Th e total number of accents in each of these texts is 22: both Usov’s translation and two quatrains from Akhmatova’s poem contain two two-stress lines. (In compliance with Zhirmunsky’s rule of the “accentually ambiguous” words, we do not ‘count’ the extra-schematic stresses on the pronouns он, его and всё in the third, fourth and fi ft h lines of Usov’s translation.) For comparison: 68 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov the German original is fully stressed, it contains 24 stressed syllables (three stressed syllables in each of eight lines). However, the diff erence between Akhmatova’s rhythm and Usov’s rhythm is drastic. Gasparov identifi ed three types of the 3-ictus dolnik, according to their frequency in the works of three outstanding poets of Russian modernism (the epoch when dolniks began to fl ourish): “Esenin’s type” with predominant forms I and III, “Gumilëv’s type” with predominant forms III and II, and “Cvetaeva’s type”, in which forms III and V stand out (Gasparov 1968: 100–102; 1974: 241–242). Akhmatova’s poem is a standard example of an ‘average’ Russian 3-ictus dolnik, which combines the features of all three above-described types. A high frequency of Form V is characteristic of “Tsvetaeva’s type”, a combina- tion of Forms II and III is typical for “Gumilëv’s type”, whereas an abundance of ‘amphibrachic’ forms (Form I) characterises “Esenin’s type”. Usov’s translation does not refl ect any of these tendencies: it is a sponta- neous juxtaposition of the German and Russian ‘images’ of dolnik. On the one hand, Form III, which is signifi cantly less frequent in Akhmatova, pre- dominates both in Heine’s original and Usov’s translation. On the other hand, Usov departs from the original rhythm by skipping schematic stresses (twice). However, the two-stress lines in his translation do not belong to Form V, as in Akhmatova, but present Form IV with a skipped stress, the frequency of which is vanishingly small in both Akhmatova and Heine. Th ey sound as a dis- sonance against the background of either Heine’s or Akhmatova’s dolnik. But Usov did not apparently intend to imitate the rhythm of Akhmatova, whose authority he cited. When he pointed to Akhmatova’s dolnik, he only meant skipping ictic stresses, rather than preference for particular rhythmic forms. Lev Penkovsky shared a similar position. On the one hand, he empha- sised the diff erence between the rhythm of inter-ictic intervals in Heine and Akhmatova: What is the diff erence between Heine’s dolnik and Akhmatova’s and other [Russian poets’] dolnik? Th e diff erence is that his dolnik contains many purely [...] iambic lines. [...] Moreover, the peculiarity of Heine’s rhythmical construction consists in the fact that he sometimes gives 2 to 2½ iambic stanzas one aft er another, two stanzas of pure iambs, and sometimes inserts an additional [syllable] in this or that line. (Brik et al. 2012: 309) Penkovsky was not against reproducing such dolnik forms in translation and even using them in original Russian poetry (Brik et al. 2012: 309). Nevertheless, he utterly opposed the idea of imitating Heine’s fully stressed lines. If Heine’s line is isomorphic to a classical Russian syllabo-tonic metre, e.g. iambus, then 69“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik why, Penkovsky argues, should we reproduce this iambus retaining all sche- matic accents? Th e real Russian iambus is very seldom fully stressed. “I have the ready-made metres – why should I look for another equivalent?” Is a “diff erent number of accents” the only reason? (Brik et al. 2012: 310). And what happens if we imitate the German rhythm? In Penkovsky’s opinion, such literalism is of no use: “Such an iambus is impossible to observe, or it will be a clumsy iambus which nobody can read” (Ibid.). Brik’s point of view is that of a “rhythmist”, and from this point of view, to state the iambic base of Heine’s dolnik is not enough. Th e concept of the rhyth- mical impulse or rhythmic-intonational structure also includes the number of the actual accents in the line of verse: 4-3-4-3 for Deutschland, 3-3-3-3 for “Ein Fichtenbaum...” (Brik et al. 2012: 288–289). For Brik, the issue of fully-stressed lines is of utmost importance, whereas Usov and Penkovsky, whose practice was supported by Fedorov’s theory, considered a lack of equirhythmicity in the poetic translation not only possible, but even necessary, provided that the metre is preserved (i.e. the principle of equimetricity is observed). Such a deviation is, to their opinion, dictated by the pressure of the Russian poetic tradition. Th eir position is that of the “metrists”. An equimetrical translation necessarily involves some features of the original rhythm, but other features of the original rhythm can be ignored (in this case the feature to be ignored is the predominance of fully stressed lines). Th e main thing is to reproduce the metre. With all this in view, Fedorov argues, “an absolute rhythmical fi delity seems to be needless”: “What is important is not the actual alternation of strong and weak elements of sound, but a principle and а sign of the system” (Fedorov 1928: 52). For Brik, however, an abstract metrical scheme only means the “external features of the metre”, a reproduction of which is not suffi cient: the translators quite oft en focus on them and “simply destroy the rhythmic- intonational system found in the original” (Brik et al. 2012: 288).10 Th e scholar who discussed the problem of correspondence between equi- rhythmicity and equimetricity six decades later, using the Russian translations of “Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam...” as examples, was a leading Russian verse theorist Maksim Shapir (1962–2006). In 1994 he attempted to translate Heine’s 10 Besides equimetrical and equirhythmical translations, an equiprosodic translation is possible, “which conveys the versifi cation system of the source text” (Lotman 2012: 447). We assume that the Russian and German dolniks (as well as the Russian and German syllabo-tonic metres) belong to the same versifi cation system, although they represent diff erent national systems of verse (as parts of diff erent national poetic cultures). Th e German tradition of verse theory might give a diff erent metrical interpretation to what we refer to as the German dolnik (cf., e.g., Heusler 1929). 70 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov poem equirhythmically, but, according to his own evaluation, succeeded in a complete equirhythmicity only in four lines out of eight (lines 3, 5, 6 and 7): 11 12 S h a p i r ’ s t r a n s l a t i o n H e i n e ’ s o r i g i n a l Стоит на севере кедр11 Один на склоне крутом. Под белым он спит покровом, Укутан снегом и льдом. Он видит сон о пальме. Одна в чужой земле Молча она тоскует На раскалённой скале.12 II II III II IV IV III I 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 1 3 • 2 • IV III III III IV IV III III 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • In 2005 Shapir delivered a lecture course to the seminar on verse theory at Moscow State University. One of the lectures was devoted to the comparative rhythmics of German, English and Russian iambs and dolniks. He used his own translation to substantiate the conclusion: “A complete equimetricity is possible, but equirhythmicity is not, and this is language pressure”.13 Indeed, as has already been stated, he managed to observe the rhythm of the original only in half of the lines. It is interesting to note that in all other lines he used Form II, which is not found in the original. Moreover, in three cases Form II is fully stressed, while in the last line, the stress skips the fi rst ictus. As a result, the concluding line begins with a sequence of three unstressed syllables, which obviously contradicts the ‘rhythmical impulse’ of Heine’s poem. Furthermore, in two of the four lines, which Shapir translated equirhythmically, the syntax of the original is transformed. In the German original, the third line has a strong syntactic pause aft er the third syllable, and there is an enjambement 11 “Кедр” is a disyllabic word here, with a syllabifi ed [r̥]. 12 Formally, the concluding line of Shapir’s translation can be also interpreted as form II, with a monosyllabic anacrusis (‘На раскалённой скале’). Th e stress skips the fi rst ictus in both interpretations. 13 We quote the notes from the course compiled by the members of the seminar. Th is lecture was taken down by Anastasia Belousova, Alina Bodrova, Riva Evstifeeva, Kirill Golovastikov, Vera Polilova, Maria Rachinskaia and Mikhail Trunin. Preparatory notes for the course written on numbered cards are preserved in the family archive of Maksim Il’ich Shapir. In particular, card 9 contains a thesis: “Metrical equivalence is attainable, a complete rhythmical [equivalence] is apparently not”. 71“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik between the third and the fourth line: “Ihn schläfert; mit weißer Decke...” [“It slumbers; with a white cloak...”]. Cf. Usov’s translation: “Он дремлет. Покровом белым...” [“It slumbers. With a white cloak...”]. In the original, the fi rst sentence of the second quatrain does not end with the fi ft h line – in the next line a subordinate clause begins: “...von einer Palme, / Die...” [“...of a palm, / which...”]. Both Usov and Shapir failed to reproduce this construction. Other available Russian translations are less faithful than those two.14 Th e authors of the present article tried to take into account the pluses and minuses of Usov’s and Shapir’s translations and ventured to put forth their own attempt at an equirhythmical translation of Heine’s poem: 15 O u r t r a n s l a t i o n H e i n e ’ s o r i g i n a l Один на голом склоне на севере кедр15 растёт. Он дремлет; покровом белым одел его снег и лёд. Всё грезит он о пальме, что там в чужой земле молча одна тоскует на знойной крутой скале. IV III III III IV IV III III 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • IV III III III IV IV III III 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 1 1 • 2 • 1 • Nevertheless, even this translation is equirhythmic only to a certain extent. Th us, in the fi ft h line we managed to place an ‘accentually ambiguous’ word (the pronoun он ‘he’) in the second ictus, in accordance with an ‘accentually ambiguous’ word in the original (the indefi nite article einer, which can be recited with a weaker stress or as an unstressed word). However, in the very fi rst line of Heine’s poem the stressed monosyllable steht occupies a weak position. Such a confi guration is quite common in German verse, but very rare in the Russian dolnik. None of the existing translations (including ours) reproduces this extra-schematic stress. In lines 6 and 8 Heine rhymes the compound words Mórgenland and Félsenwand, in which the last (rhyming) syllable bears a weaker, secondary stress (Nebenton, Nebenakzent), and we were unable to reproduce this eff ect. At the end of the dispute aft er Brik’s talk, Boris Jarcho suggested, perhaps drawing from Tynianov’s experiments, that 14 See http://www.ruthenia.ru/tiutcheviana/publications/trans/heine-fi chte.html. 15 In this text, “кедр” is a monosyllabic word, with a nonsyllabic [r]. http://www.ruthenia.ru/tiutcheviana/publications/trans/heine-fi chte.html. 72 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov the rule of “the compulsory stress on the last downbeat of the line”16 might sometimes be deliberately violated in translation: Let us say, I will rhyme ‘кóсть’ [‘a bóne’] and ‘вúдимость’ [‘illúsion’], such as, for example: То, что пёс не гложет кость, / есть одна лишь видимость [‘Th e fact that the dog is not gnawing a bone / is a mere illusion’]. Th e question is where such [dactylic] endings can be placed. If they are placed on strong syllables, they will sound good. If I translated [German poetry], I would play upon such accents because they would create an impressive sound eff ect. (Brik et al. 2012: 315) In his translations from Heine, Tynianov used heteroaccentual (разноударные) rhymes such as “существó : имýщество” or “привестú : сóвести” (quoted and discussed in Fedorov 1928: 56).17 Very few translators, however, use this device when translating from German into Russian, so we can only agree with Shapir who stated: But even if some wonderworker succeeds in making the rhythmical structure of the Russian translation correspond precisely to Heine’s original, this text would be an exception, not a rule.18 A way to a solution of the problem of equimetricity and equirhythmicity was outlined by Jarcho in his closing statement on 28 December 1934. Jarcho, who was not only an outstanding theorist, but also a fi ne translator himself,19 pointed out “a certain confusion” in the theories of metre developed by the participants in the discussion: Of general questions I venture [...] to touch upon the issue of rendering the verse [in translation] because, as far as I can see, there is a certain confusion here. Th is confusion mainly consists in the continuous mix-up of the [syllabic] principle with the tonic principle. (Brik et al. 2012: 313) 16 As formulated later by Roman Jakobson (1955: 168). Th ere and elsewhere (in “Linguistics and Poetics”) he called this rule one of the “constants” observed “in the classic pattern of Russian syllabic accentual verse (‘syllabotonic’ in native nomenclature)” (Jakobson 1960: 361). Th e violation of this rule (which is also applied to dolniks) is very rare and is perceived as exceptionally unusual. 17 On Russian heteroaccentual rhymes (разноударные рифмы) see Sherr 1986: 204–205. 18 Preparatory notes for the course on verse theory (card 15). 19 Brik also translated poetry (from French, Spanish, English and German), but the amount of his translation is much less signifi cant in comparison with Jarcho’s (see Polilova 2014). 73“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik By the “syllabic principle” of the construction of the dolnik Jarcho means the number of syllables in a particular dolnik line (the number of ictuses, and the maximum and minimum length of inter-itic intervals). Th e tonic principle comprises secondary features: (1) a particular distribution of strong and weak positions in the line; and (2) skipped ictic stresses and extra-schematic stresses (that is, accents on weak syllables). However, these principles and the series of features that they condition are not equal hierarchically. To demonstrate this, Jarcho developed a theory, according to which every versifi cation system is characterised by primary (constant) and secondary (variable) features (Brik et al. 2012: 314). Th e primary features represent a determinist norm and should be reproduced in translation to the full extent, while the secondary features represent a statistical norm: they may be reproduced in a proportion that the language and the poetic tradition can aff ord and that is at the same time similar to the proportion found in the original text (Jarcho 2006: 32, 50, 621– 622n52, 638n133). Various individual instances of metre are diff erent from each other due to the diff erent statistical distributions of secondary features. From the point of view of Jarcho, the syllabic principle is the primary feature of the dolnik line, which is necessary and suffi cient for defi ning the text as a dolnik and distinguishing it from all other metres. Th is feature is necessarily present in poetic work written in this metre, and it should be compulsorily preserved in the translated text. Reproduction of variable fea- tures is not compulsory, but desirable. It is advisable to preserve them as far as the language allows: Is it necessary to observe the constant number of accents [...] in translation? It turns out that the Russian dolnik admits a certain freedom in this respect, but I think it is possible to reproduce this in Russian without great diffi culty. (Brik et al. 2012: 315) Th us, according to Jarcho, when we render the German dolnik in Russian, we should faithfully reproduce the primary features, and this is equimetricty. Th e secondary features may be reproduced “approximately” (Brik et al. 2012: 315). We should defi ne which features constitute the national image of the metre and use them in an approximately equal proportion. Th is is equirhythmicity. In translation, it is possible to lean on particular variations of the metre already available in the recipient national tradition. As recent studies have demonstrated, several rhythmic types (‘images’) of the 3-ictus dolnik, which can be justifi ably compared to Heine’s type sensu stricto, are possible and actu- ally exist in Russian poetry. Th is is, for example, the dolnik Marina Tsevetaeva’s uses in many of the poems from her émigré period and, in particular, of the 74 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov fi rst poem from the verse cycle entitled “Магдалина” (“Th e Magdalene”, 26 August 1923): Меж нами – десять заповедей: Жар десяти костров. Родная кровь отшатывает, Ты мне – чужая кровь. Во времена евангельские Была б одной из тех... (Чужая кровь – желаннейшая И чуждейшая из всех!) К тебе б со всеми немощами Влеклась, стлалась – светла Масть! – очесами демонскими Таясь, лила б масла И на ноги бы, и под ноги бы, И вовсе бы так, в пески... Страсть по купцам распроданная, Расплёванная – теки! Пеною уст и накипями Очес и пóтом всех Нег... В волоса заматываю Ноги твои, как в мех. Некою тканью под ноги Стелюсь... Не тот ли (та!) Твари с кудрями огненными Молвивший: встань, сестра! IV III (IV)20 IV III (IV?)21 III (IV)22 IV IV V IV IV III IV V (III) III III V III IV III III III IV III III 1 • 1 • 1 • 3 • 2 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 3 • 2 • 1 • 3 • 1 • 3 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 3 1 • 4 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 3 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 3 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 • 4 • 3 1 • 2 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 3 1 • 4 • • 2 • 1 • 3 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 3 • 2 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 2 1 • 1 • 1 • • 2 • 1 • 3 • 2 • 1 • 20 21 22 20 In a diff erent rhythmical context this could also be interpreted as an ‘iambic’ Form IV with an extra-schematic stress on the monosyllable (Жáр десятú кострóв.). 21 Th e logical stress on the personal pronoun ты ‘you’ (‘Ты мне – чужая кровь’ [You, to me, are foreign blood]) does not allow us to interpret the rhythm of this line as Form IV, as some readers insist (*‘Ты мне – чужая кровь’ [You, to me, are foreign blood]). 22 If we suppose that the stress skips the fi rst ictus (fi lled by the preposition во), the line then 75“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik Let us consider briefl y the rhythmical composition of Tsvetaeva’s poem. Of course, it is not easy to compare its rhythm with the rhythm of “Ein Fichtenbaum...” intuitively, by ear, due to the hyperdactylic clausulae in “Th e Magdalene”, but for the rest the rhythmic-intonational similarity between the two poems is striking: “Th e Magdalene” “Ein Fichtenbaum...” Form I Form II Form III Form IV Form V 0% 0% 50% 37.5% 12.5% 0% 0% 62.5% 37.5% 0% Forms I and II are utterly absent from both the 3-ictus dolnik of Tsvetaeva’s “Th e Magdalene”23 and the 3-ictus dolnik of Heine’s “Fichtenbaum”. Th e frequency of the ‘iambic’ forms (Form IV with a monosyllabic anacrusis) is equal in both poems: 37.5%. Gasparov described a high frequency of Form IV as a peculiar feature of the German dolnik and pointed to its dysillabic (iambic) basis as opposed to the trisyllabic basis of the Russian dolnik (Gasparov 1968: 88–89, 91; 1974: 234–235). At the same time he did not notice the existence of a very similar type of dolnik in Russian poetry: apparently, the reason is that, when he started to examine this metre in the 1960s, he did not have access to the majority of Tsvetaeva’s émigré poems, which were banned in Soviet times. Meanwhile, the share of Form IV in these poems is as high as in the average German dolnik. Th e most frequent form in all widespread types of the Russian dolnik is Form III. Its share is even higher in Heine than in Tsvetaeva, who also uses Form V, so that the proportion of Form III decreases. Th e proportion of Form V in Tsvetaeva is 12.5%, but this does not contradict a ‘Heine-like’ rhythmical impulse of the poem thanks to a specifi c structure of ‘secondary features’. Th e fi rst line of Form V appears amid the fully stressed ‘iambic’ lines (Form IV). Th ey make it possible to perceive it as verse that is constructed à la Heine, that is by inserting an additional syllable to one of the iambic ‘feet’: И чýж- ¦ дей-ша+я | из всéх! 2+(2+1)+2 belongs to Form III. If we suppose, however, that the stress skips the second ictus (which is less likely for linguistic reasons), the line could belong to Form IV. 23 Th is is not to be confused with “Tsvetaeva’s type” in Gasparov’s classifi cation. Th e type with predominating Forms III and V, described by Gasparov, should rather be called “the early Tsvetaeva type”. 76 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov Th e second line belonging to Form V reads as follows: И нá-ноги-бы, | и пóд (-ноги-бы)24 But it can be recited as Form III with an unstressed second ictus fi lled by the particle бы, which in this case acquires the quality of rhythmical ‘ambiguity’: И нá-ноги бы̀, | и пóд (-ноги-бы) Th e third and last instance of Form V ‘catches up’ the inertia determined by the fi rst two. It has the same verbal-rhythmical structure – a word boundary aft er the fi ft h syllable, forming a pentasyllabic phonetic word with the second syllable stressed: Расплёванная | теки́! 5+2 Cf.: И-чýждейшая | из всéх! 5+2 И-нá-ноги(-)бы̀, | и-пóд (-ноги-бы) 5+2(+3) Th e lines of Form V, the frequency of which in “the early Tsvetaeva type” (see note 23) yields only to that of Form III, have low frequency in “Th e Magdalene”, while the lines of Form IV, absent from “the early Tsvetaeva type”, are as frequent here as in German dolniks. A dolnik of this type could be used as a good approximation of the German metre. At the same time, some features that form an integral part of the “image” of the German dolnik (such as a relatively high frequency of extra-schematic stresses) are diffi cult to render in Russian. Th e question of the admissibility of Form V in equirhythmical translations from German also needs further discussion. Another signifi cant diff erence between Tsvetaeva’s and Heine’s dolniks seems to be a high level of isosyllabism in “Th e Magdalene” (80% of its lines either belong to Form IV or have the same syllabic length) as compared to “Fichtenbaum” (50%). We are going to focus on this phenomenon in our next study.25 24 Each of the two phonetic words in this line consists of a stressed preposition + an enclinomen (unstressed noun) + an enclitic. 25 Th is research was made possible by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant 14-06- 00034 and the Russian Foundation for Humanities grant 15-04-00541. We want to express our gratitude to Ivan Eubanks and two anonymous reviewers of Studia Metrica et Poetica for their critical and stylistic comments. 77“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik References Attridge, Derek 2012. Th e case for the English dolnik; or, How not to introduce prosody. In: Poetics Today 33(1): 1–26. Attridge, Derek 2013. Moving Words: Forms of English Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, James 1969. Blok and Heine: An episode from the history of Russian dol’niki. In: Th e Slavic and East European Journal 13(1): 1–22. Brik, Osip Мaksimovich 2012. Ritm i sintaksis (materialy k izucheniju stikhotvornoj rechi). Edited with introduction and notes by Marina V. Akimova. In: Prokhorov, Aleksandr V.;  Skulacheva, Tat’jana V.  (eds.), Slavjanskij stikh IX. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamjatniki drevnej Rusi, 501–550. [Brik, Osip Мaksimovich, et al.] 2012. Doklad O. M. Brika o novykh perevodakh “Germanii” Gejne i ego obsuzhdenie na sektsii perevodchikov Sojuza pisatelej (1934). Published with notes by Tat’jana F. Neshumova. In: Philologica 9(21/23): 280–333. URL: http://rvb.ru/philologica/09pdf/09brik.pdf. Republished in: Belousova, Anastasia; Pilshchikov, Igor (eds.), Res Philologica: Essays in memory of Maksim Il’ich Shapir (Pegasus Oost-Europese studies 23). Amsterdam: Pegasus, 2014, 341–400. Červenka, Miroslav 1984. Rhythmical Impulse: Notes and Commentaries. In: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 14: 23–53. Dobritsyn, Andrei Aleksandrovich 2014. Raspredelienie form jamba i ritmicheskaja entropija. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference Slavjanskii stikh [Slavic Verse], Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia), June 20–24, 2014. Duff ell, Martin J. 2008. A New History of English Metre. London: Modern Humanities Research Association and Maney Publishing. Eisenberg, Peter 1991. Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent: Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10(1): 37–64. Fedorov, Andrei Venediktovich 1928. Zvukovaja forma stikhotvornogo perevoda (Voprosy metriki i fonetiki). In: Poetika: Vremennik Otdela slovesnykh iskusstv (Gosudarstvennogo instituta istorii iskusstv) 4. Leningrad: Academia, 45–69. Fedorov, Andrei Venediktovich 1935. “Germanija” Gejne v chetyrekh perevodakh. In: Zvezda 5: 222–230. 78 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov Gasparov, Mikhail Leonovich 1968. Russkij trekhudarnyi dol’nik ХХ veka. In: Kholshevnikov, Vladislav E. (ed.), Teorija stikha. Leningrad: Nauka, 59–106. Gasparov, Mikhail Leonovich 1974. Sovremennyj russkij stikh: Metrika i ritmika. Moscow: Nauka. Gasparov, Mikhail Leonovich 1984. Ritmicheskij slovar’ i ritmiko-sintaksicheskie klishe. In: Grigoriev, Viktor P. (ed.), Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki 1982. Moscow: Nauka, 169–185. Gasparov, Mikhail Leonovich 2012. A. N. Kolmogorov v russkom stikhovedenii. In: Gasparov, Mikhail Leonovich, Izbrannye trudy, vol. IV: Lingvistika stikha; Analizy i interpretatsii. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 503–513. Giegerich, Heinz 1985. Metrical Phonology and Phonological Structure: German and English (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 43). Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Heusler, Andreas 1929. Deutsche Versgeschichte: Mit Einschluß des altenglischen und altnordischen Stabreimverses, Bd. 3: Teil IV und V: Der frühneudeutsche Vers; Der neudeutsche Vers (Grundriß der germanischen Philologie 8/3). Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Jakobson, Roman 1955 [1979]. Russian Binary Meters [Review of: Taranovski, Kiril. Ruski dvodelni ritmovi, I–II. Belgrade: Naučna knjiga, 1953]. In: Jakobson, Roman, Selected Writings, vol. V: On Verse, Its Masters and Explorers. Th e Hague & Paris: Mouton, 167–169. Jakobson, Roman 1960. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In: Sebeok, Th omas A. (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Th e M.I.T. Press, 350–377. Jarcho, Boris Isaakovich 2006. Metodologija tochnogo literaturovedenija: Izbrannye trudy po teorii literatury (Philologica russica et speculativa 5). Edited, with notes (pp. 611–807), by Marina V. Akimova, Igor A. Pilshchikov and Maksim I. Shapir (general editor). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskikh kul’tur. Klenin, Emily 2008. M. L. Gasparov and the Defi nition of Verse. In: Th e Slavic and East European Journal 52(2): 208–222. Kolmogorov, Andrei Nikolaevich 1963. K izucheniju ritmiki Majakovskogo. In: Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 64–71. Kolmogorov, Andrei Nikolaevich; Prokhorov, Aleksandr Vladimirovich 1963. O dol’nike sovremennoj russkoj poezii (Obshchaja kharakteristika). In: Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 84–95. 79“Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik Kolmogorov, Andrei Nikolaevich; Prokhorov, Aleksandr Vladimirovich 1964. O dol’nike sovremennoj russkoj poezii (Statisticheskaja kharakteristika dol’nika Majakovskogo, Bagritskogo, Akhmatovoj). In: Voprosy jazykoznanija 1: 75–94. Liapin, Sergei Evgenievich 2014. On an understudied mechanism of formation of the Russian dolnik (against the background of German and English poetic traditions). In: Lotman, Maria-Kristiina; Lotman, Mihhail (eds.), Frontiers in Comparative Metrics 2: in memo riam Lucyllae Pszczołowskae: Conference abstracts. April 19–20, 2014, Tallinn University, Estonia. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press, 38–39. Liapin, Sergei Evgenievich; Pilshchikov, Igor Alekseevich 2013. O trudakh Miroslava Chervenki po teorii i istorii stikha (K vykhodu pervogo russkogo izdanija ego rabot). In: Izvestija Rossijskoj Akademii nauk, Serija literatury i jazyka 72(3): 53–65. Lotman, Maria-Kristiina 2012. Equiprosodic translation method in Estonian poetry. In: Sign Systems Studies 40(3/4): 447–472. Pilshchikov, Igor 2014. Frontiers in Comparative Metrics 2, in memoriam Lucyllae Pszczołowskae (April 19–20, 2014, Tallinn University, Estonia). In: Studia Metrica et Poetica 1(2): 144–157. Plungian, Vladimir Aleksandrovich 2011. Two Requiems, or the English Dolnik on Russian Soil. In: Scherr, Barry P.; Bailey, James; Kazartsev, Evgeny V. (eds.), Formal Methods in Poetics: A Collection of Scholarly Works Dedicated to the Memory of Professor M. A. Krasnoperova. Lüdenscheid: RAM-Verlag, 173–181. Polilova, Vera Sergeevna 2014. Osip Brik i stikhotvornyj perevod (k probleme ekviritmicheskogo perevoda). In: Vekshin, Georgii Viktorovich (ed.), Metodologija i praktika russkogo formalizma (Brikovskij sbornik 2). Moscow: Azbukovnik, 158–169. Rudy, Stephen 1976. Jakobson’s Inquiry into Verse and the Emergence of Structural Poetics. In: Matejka, Ladislav (ed.), Sound, Sign and Meaning: Quinquagenary of the Prague Linguistic Circle (Michigan Slavic Contributions 6), Ann Arbor: Th e University of Michigan. Department of Slavic Studies, 477–520. Shcherba, Lev Vladimirovich 1936 [1957]. Opyty lingvisticheskogo tolkovanija stikhotvorenij: II. “Sosna” Lermontova v sravnenii s ee nemetskim prototipom. In: Scherba, Lev Vladimirovich, Izbrannye raboty po russkomu jazyku. Moscow: Uchpedgiz RSFSR, 97–109. Sherr, Barry P. 1986. Russian Poetry: Meter, Rhythm, and Rhyme. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press. 80 Sergei Liapin, Igor Pilshchikov Shklovsky, Viktor Borisovich 1978 [2014]. [Osip Maksimovich Brik]. Published with notes by Georgii V. Vekshin. Commentary by Sergei S. Shaulov. In: Vekshin, Georgii Viktorovich (ed.), Metodologija i praktika russkogo formalizma (Brikovskij sbornik 2). Moscow: Azbukovnik, 499–502. Tarlinskaja, Marina 1992. Metrical typology: English, German, and Russian dolnik verse. In: Comparative Literature 44(1): 1–21. Tarlinskaja, Marina 1993. Strict Stress-Meter in English Poetry: Compared with German and Russian. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Tarlinskaja, Marina 1995. Beyond ‘loose iamb’: Th e form and themes of the English ‘dolnik’. In: Poetics Today 16(3): 493–522. Tarlinskaja, Marina 2002. Verse text: its meter and its oral rendition. In: Küper, Christoph (ed.), Meter, Rhythm and Performance – Metrum, Rhythmus, Performanz: Proceedings of the International Conference on Meter, Rhythm and Performance, held in May 1999 at Vechta (Linguistik International 6). Frankfurt/M., Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford & Wien, 39–58. Tomashevsky, Boris Viktorovich 1919 [1923]. Pjatistopnyj jamb Pushkina. In: Ocherki po poetike Pushkina. Berlin: Epokha, 7–143. Tomashevsky, Boris Viktorovich 1923. Russkoe stikhoslozhenie: Metrika (Voprosy poetiki 2). Petrograd: Academia. Tomashevsky, Boris Viktorovich 1925. Teorija literatury (Poetika). Moscow & Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo. Tynianov, Yurii Nikolaevich 1924. Problema stikhotvornogo jazyka (Voprosy poetiki 5). Leningrad: Academia. Wiese, Richard 1996. Th e Phonology of German. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. Zhirmunsky, Viktor Maksimovich 1925. Vvedenie v metriku: Teorija stikha (Voprosy poetiki 6). Leningrad: Academia. Zubkova, Liudmila Georgievna 2010. Printsip znaka v sisteme jazyka. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoi kul’tury.