Epochenumbruch focuses on the literature and authors of the Russian empire during the oftentimes disorderly transition from baroque aesthetics to neoclassicism, sentimentalism, and pre-romanticism. Originating in a conference held in 2014 at the University of Greifswald, its collection of essays comprises four thematic nexuses: “Ideas and Concepts,” “Transformation of Genres,” “Authors,” and “Cultures on the Imperial Periphery.” Approximately two-thirds of its essays are in Russian, while the remainder are in German (with the exception of one in English). Helpfully, each essay is preceded by an abstract in a language other than the one in which it was written. In the volume's introduction, Ulrike Jekutsch efficiently recaps previous studies of the period and highlights aspects of linguistic choice, culture, and genre, indicating that the essays included in the collection all proceed from a focus on the period's pursuit of a specifically Russian identity. Additionally, each essay also explores how the era crafted new syncretic forms that ultimately paved the way for romanticism.

The contributions to the volume seek to complicate our understanding of how literature evolved during this complex period. Some interrogate previously held views on authors and genres, eschewing the often simplistic ways in which we have become used to characterizing them. Others introduce little-known authors and are, of necessity, more descriptive. All broaden and deepen our appreciation for the culture that precedes the advent of romanticism. As is frequently the case with such volumes, however, the essays vary in length and thoroughness of coverage. Many of them are exceptionally well researched and offer a meticulous treatment of the author or works under study. Others are shorter and leave the reader wishing for more information and greater detail.

Particular standouts include Andrea Meyer-Fraatz's essay on ambiguity in post-1800 Polish poetry, which showcases Adam Mickiewicz's engagement with contemporary German conceptions of ambiguity and equivocation as elementary characteristics of romantic poetics. Michał Kuziak examines Mickiewicz's unpublished lectures and does an excellent job of explicating the Polish poet's notions of the multivoicedness of Slavic literature, the role of Napoleon in sparking Slavic unity, and the centrality of the Slavs as initiators of a European rebirth. Marcus C. Levitt, in the sole essay written in English, convincingly connects Evgenii Onegin to the eighteenth-century burlesque and mock heroic poems, showing how burlesque discourse provides a precursor to novelistic discourse in both Russia and Europe as a whole. Nikolai A. Gus΄kov nicely nuances our view of a writer we think we know well by arguing for an interpretation of Aleksandr Sumarokov's lyrical hero as a forerunner of romanticism rather than as an exemplar of neoclassicism. Similarly, Petr E. Bukharkin uses Denis Fonvizin's translations from the French to show that a writer we may have unreflectingly thought of as neoclassical is actually very much interested in sentimentalism. Evgenioi M. Matveev's treatment of Aleksei A. Rzhevskii's poetry as a heady combination of baroque, sentimentalist, and pre-romantic elements likewise enriches our view of the period's complexities.

Britta Holtz's essay is particularly rewarding for introducing us to one of the outstanding women of the period, Anna P. Bunina, who began her career in letters in 1799. Bunina was one of the first women in the empire to cultivate a professional approach to poetry, studying and writing on the poetics of Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux and Charles Batteux as well as critiquing the Russian poets of her day. Natalie Schneider writes on another relatively unknown phenomenon, short plays based on proverbs, which challenged their audiences to guess the proverb in question. Schneider does a particularly impressive job retrieving these plays from the relative obscurity they have languished in and documenting how they spread from St. Petersburg to the provinces. V.A. Pozdeev also documents the spread of literature into the provinces, taking religious pieces penned by seminary students in Viatka as his subject matter. He argues persuasively in favor of two explanations for the literary activities of these seminarians: the influence of writers and intellectuals who had been exiled to Viatka and the availability of journals published in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Last but not least among the standouts, Nazar Fedorak writes on the transition from the baroque to neoclassicism and romantism in Ukraine and connects this development with the transition from Old Ukrainian to the vernacular, which, he contends, was pivotal in reviving Ukrainian national culture in the face of aggressive imperialism.

Epochenumbruch unquestionably represents a valuable contribution to our knowledge of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century culture. That said, the volume would have benefitted from more rigorous proofreading. Specifically, it is marred by a number of annoying typos. Additionally, its editors should have adopted a single system of transliteration and adhered to it. Of somewhat greater concern is the unexplained decision to include contributions on Polish and Ukrainian literature. The editors will surely have had their reasons, but since they have not shared them, the decision seems somewhat arbitrary. As it stands, readers may be left with the misimpression that eighteenth-century Poland and Ukraine should properly be understood within the context of Russian cultural hegemony. However, none of the authors actually espouses this view, and their individual contributions to the volume are topnotch.