In Stsenarii peremen (Scripts of Change), Kirill Zubkov has produced a fascinating study on the evolution of drama during the second half of the nineteenth century through the lens of the Uvarovsky prize, which included an award for plays from 1856 to 1876. Given the context of Aleksandr II's sweeping reforms during that period (the abolition of serfdom, the establishment of self-government at the regional level, the institution of a jury system in the courts and more), together with the growth of Russia's intelligentsia and revolutionary movements, Zubkov's study logically concentrates on drama as a reflection of societal and political tensions within the country. The archeologist and historian, Aleksei Uvarov, established the prize to honor his father as the former president of the Academy of Sciences. Initially, awards were available in two categories, drama and historical research, with the inclusion of plays making the Uvarovsky the first literary award in Russia.

The judges represented a governmental and civil coalition, comprised of Academy members and experts from among the editors and critics at the leading so-called “thick” journals. Their overall goals included the promotion of high art within the theatrical arena and drama as an educative force in society. However, they were “frankly perplexed” (137) by the multiplicity of dramatic forms and the wide range of content submitted annually by dramatists for their consideration, leading them to exclude works that they considered to be low forms of art, such as farces with no purpose other than entertainment, and politically provocative plays, such as those about nihilism. The judges also dismissed women playwrights and works from the diverse cultures of the far-flung empire, preferring plays by and for Russians. Thus, despite the high number and rich artistry of submissions (as detailed in Appendix 1), only four plays were chosen for awards in twenty years of competitions. Two went to Aleksandr Ostrovsky for his tragic Groza (The Storm) in 1860 and his comic Grekh da beda na kogo ne zhivet (Sin and Grief are Common to All) in 1863. Aleksei Pisemsky won for his realistic portrayal of peasant life in Gor΄kaia sud΄bina (A Bitter Fate) in 1863 and Dmitrii Minaev (Molière's Russian translator) in 1874 for Razorennoe gnezdo (The Devastated Nest), a satire reflecting moderate political views that was later retitled Spetaia pesnia (The Sung Song). In these four winners, the judges found support for Russian culture and educative value. As Zubkov observes, the small number of prizes awarded to plays, in contrast to the many in history, testifies to the fact that the Uvarovsky was “a complete failure” (529) in its attempt to bring about a productive relationship between the Academy and the public sphere in artistic matters concerning drama. In 1876, when Aleksei Uvarov withdrew his financial support, the Academy dropped the dramatic category, but continued to make awards in history until the Bolshevik Revolution.

Zubkov brings a creative point of view to his thesis and scrupulous analysis of the copious archives, including published and unpublished plays by known and unknown writers, discussion notes, critical reviews and correspondence from the judges. Rather than focusing solely on the winning plays, he identifies the trends and values that led the judges to exclude so many submissions that are now part of the dramatic canon. For example, Zubkov's analysis of the rejection of Smert΄ Ionna Groznogo (The Death of Ivan the Terrible), the first play in Aleksei Tolstoi's now famous historical trilogy, uncovers the divisive argument between the Academy members, who valued accurate depictions of the past, and the civil experts, who sought for analogies to contemporary issues within artistic treatments of Russian history (535).

Without a doubt, Zubkov's prodigious archival study of the Uvarovsky prize for drama and his analysis of its underlying values and tensions will contribute significantly to future literary, political, and cultural studies that treat one of the most important and complex periods in nineteenth century Russia.