Printer Friendly

Translation and the emergence of history as an academic discipline in 18th-century Russia.

The Russian 18th century is usually presented as an era of "modernization," "Westernization," or "Europeanization." Notwithstanding the epistemological, methodological, and even moral questions these concepts raise, modernization was indeed the paradigm that guided the policies of the Russian rulers and defined the manner in which their subjects were perceived--positive as well as negative. (1) Translation played a crucial role in that process. (2) Translation, however, was not merely a catalyst for the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge. (3) It was at the center of a cultural transfer that had been going on since at least the 17th century and laid the foundations of scientific and educational institutions in Russia, such as the Academy of Sciences (1724), the University of Moscow (1755), or the Russian Academy (1783). (4)

Translation was also a key factor in the creation of knowledge and led, in the second half of the 18th century, to Russia's integration into the Enlightened "world of knowledge," characterized by the "circulation of knowledge." This was the case with regard to political, economic, social, geographical, cultural, and historical information about Russia, which was in great demand both in Russia and Western Europe and needed to be "extracted" from hitherto unknown, inaccessible, or unused sources.* * 5 The concept of "circulation of knowledge" allows us to describe complex and interactive models of cultural transfer and to present "translation" as an intricate and invasive activity that affects modernization as a whole.

Translation as "transfer" and "circulation" also affected Russian history. In the 18th century "history" was an integral part of the modernization that began under Peter the Great. By the middle of the 19th century, history had become a scientific discipline in its own right--fostered by a host of institutions such as archives, university chairs in history, and historical seminars and by a body of professional historians whose role it was to shape and safeguard the historical consciousness of the Russian state. (6) This process was not unique to Russia but had a lot in common with developments in Western Europe. There history ceased to be a tool in theological debates and the pastime of wealthy, amateur antiquaries and became a professional field, preoccupied with national interests and methodological debates. (7)

Already in 1714, Fedor S. Saltykov implored Peter the Great to use history as a means to strengthen the international position of Russia and its ruler. He wrote that it was necessary to document Russian history by collating sources, turn them into a narrative that placed Russia and the imperial state in a positive light, disseminate historical works through translation, and refute critical remarks about Russia's glorious past and present. (8) Russia, however, lacked the historiographical and intellectual tradition to accomplish this at the desired speed and turned to foreigners and/or translators for help. For the duration of the 18th century, history and translation were closely related, although over time this relationship changed.

It suffices to compare the recent Katalog lichnykh arkhivnykh fondov otechestvennykh istorikov: XVIII vek (Catalogue of Personal Archival Collections of National Historians: 18th Century) with its successor for the first part of the 19th century to see that the number of historians who also functioned as translators radically declined after 1800. (9) Moreover, there is a strong correlation between the activities of historians and the existence of translation services within the Academy of Sciences, such as Rossiiskoe sobranie (1735--43) or Sobranie staraiushcheesia o perevode inostrannykh knig (1768--83). Many of the translators employed by the Academy were also historians in their own right: Semen S. Bashilov, Ivan G. Dolinskii, Aleksei L. Leont'ev, Aleksei la. Polenov, Vasilii G. Ruban, Dmitrii Semenov-Rudnev (Damaskin), Vasilii K. Trediakovskii, and Vasilii F. Zuev. As of 1790, a Translation Department operated within the Russian Academy, but it did not engage in history. (10)

In the present article, I argue that translation played a crucial role in the 18th century, the formative years of Russian history writing. Once the discipline reached maturity in the 19th century, translation was reduced to a mere tool in the historian's toolbox and banished to the adjacent fields of philology and literature. Moreover, the role of translation in the 18th century changed constantly. As the three sections of this article show, translation oscillated between being a tool of modernization--the transfer of knowledge--and political propaganda, a method to come to terms with historical experience, and a means to discuss Russian history itself in an international context. Viewed from a different angle, it can be argued that the first mode mainly focuses on the translation of narrative (a good story), the second mode deals with translation within historiography, whereas the third mode combines the other two.

Each of these different modes can be associated with a particular timeframe, but it would be a mistake to describe the role of translation in the emergence of Russian history in the 18th century as sequential. The development of each new mode did not render the earlier ones superfluous but added a new layer on top of them. In doing so, it created a piece montee that was more than the sum of its layers. Taken separately, each layer--the modes as described above--can be seen as a particular model of transfer of knowledge; taken together, however, the layers represent the complexity of circulation of knowledge.

Translatio instrumentalis: Translation as a Tool of Modernization and Political Propaganda

Fedor Saltykov's 1714 recommendation to Peter I was not revolutionary but instead acknowledged an existing and rapidly expanding practice. The study of history in the 17th and early 18th centuries was not perceived as a goal in itself but as a means to a higher goal: the discovery of (philosophical) "Truth." At best, history was part of broader categories of "knowledge" or "science," which encompassed hard sciences such as mathematics or geography, as well as history and the study of languages. In practice, history was used to unmask false claims in disputes of a political or religious nature and thereby to undermine an opponent's claims. (11) Serving as a tool of religious and/or political propaganda, histories could substantiate the authority of the church and/ or the absolute monarchy. Over time, the political came to prevail over the religious in Europe as well as in Russia. (12) Its importance led in the late 17th century to the creation of the res diplomatica, the critical study of texts that eventually became the science of paleography, or diplomatics, still known in Russian as arkheografiia. (13)

Peter indeed tapped into this hitherto unknown world of knowledge, but like everything else he did, it was a haphazard process of trial and error. (14) At the end of the 17th century, Russia did not possess a scientific tradition worth mentioning, nor did Russians master the constitutive languages of that tradition, Latin and, as of the 17th century, French. (15) Indeed, Russia had yet to discover its own past and relied almost exclusively on translations or adaptations of foreign narratives, such as Innokentii Gizel's Sinopsis (1674), a summary history of Rus' that was widely read well into the 19th century. This was a work that fit the typology of propaganda and information, as it suggested a dynastic continuity--and hence political, religious, and territorial unity--from Kievan Rus' to the present, an idea that suited Russia's rulers. (16)

The 1720 General Regulation (General'nyi reglament), as well as a decree of 23 January 1724, stressed the importance of translators for Russia's modernization. (17) Finding translators, however, proved difficult, precisely because of the lack of language learning in Russia and because the government scrupulously prevented its subjects from mixing with foreigners. Since the time of Aleksei Mikhailovich, the state had relied on foreigners to serve as interpreters and translators. (18) Potential candidates were, for instance, the foreigners living in Moscow's German Quarter (Nemetskaia sloboda), pupils of the German Gymnasium in Moscow, or Swedish prisoners of war entering the Russian service. (19) These people effectively provided the personnel for the translation departments of the Ambassadorial Chancellery (PosoTskii prikaz) and its successor, the College of Foreign Affairs (Kollegiia inostrannykh del), as well as the Senate and the Academy of Sciences. (20)

Peter himself was an avid reader of history and according to the Hannoverian resident Friedrich-Christian Weber "very well versed in history." (21) He was also fascinated by antiquarianism. (22) Later in his reign, the ancient artifacts he felt the need to collect included documents that would help substantiate Russia's historical claims. Accordingly, he issued decrees summoning the collection of chronicles and other "curious" documents in the Senate, the Ambassadorial Chancellery, and the College of Foreign Affairs, while numerous private collections were transferred to the Academy of Sciences and became the core of its library. (23) These were precisely the institutions that were at the heart of the translation business in Russia in the early 18th century.

Peter's initial interest had been in "general history," and he considered a good understanding of this subject crucial for his modernization project. An early example in this genre, written in Russian, was by the printer Il'ia F. Kopievskii, Vvedenie kratkoe vo vsiakuiu istoriiu po chinu istorichnomu ot sozdaniia mira iasno i sovershenno spisanoe (A Short Introduction to All Kinds of History by Historical Rank from the Creation of the World, Clearly and Completely Written; 1699). Kopievskii also wrote a hymn on the capture of Azov, translated manuals on celestial movements, arithmetic, rhetoric, and navigation, as well as works by classical and Byzantine authors such as Aesop, Aristophanes, Leo Thamaturgus, and Leo VI the Wise. He is also credited with a Latin translation of the Sinopsis (1700). In 1707, Kopievskii moved to Moscow, where he worked in the Ambassadorial Chancellery. He translated several historical works, such as Quintus Curtius Rufus's Historia Alexandri Magni (History of Alexander the Great; five Russian editions between 1709 and 1724) and Samuel von Pufendorf's Einleitung zu der Historic der vornehmsten Reiche und Staaten, so itziger Zeit in Europa sich befinden (Introduction to the History of the Principal Kingdoms and Countries in Present-Day Europe; 1684), a book that was instrumental in the development of the philosophy of history throughout Europe. (24) Kopievskii's translation of Pufendorf did not survive, but other Russian translations did, either directly from German or via its Latin translation; they would be reissued several times during the 18th century. (25)

With regard to Russian history, Peter was well acquainted with the Sinopsis and the Stepennaia kniga (Book of Degrees; 1560--63), a genealogy created under Ivan IV in which the Russian rulers were inscribed in a much older dynastic tradition going back to Byzantium and Rome. (26) Although Peter subscribed to the ideology in these works, he was more interested in using history as a justification for Russia's recent military actions and in correcting the European image of Russia as rude and barbarous. With this aim in mind, Peter hired the Westphalian lawyer, historian, and translator Heinrich von Huyssen. Huyssen was well connected to learned societies all over Europe, and he acquainted his employer with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Feeding influential German journals with positive images of Russia, Huyssen helped prompt much of the exalted praise of Peter that appeared in the European press. Thanks to his association with the German Gymnasium in Moscow, Huyssen also had a direct link with Halle, one of Europe's first centers of Russian studies. (27)

After the Battle of Poltava in 1709, Peter wished to advertise his country's success and to publicize the history of the Northern War more generally. He had the field reports of the campaign and statements by foreign witnesses sent to the Ambassadorial Chancellery for translation. The tsar, however, was not satisfied with the chancellery's translations and compilations. (28) Instead, he turned to his Private Cabinet, which he turned into a historical--and translational--seminar. (29) In 1713, it produced Kniga Marsova ili voinskikh del ot voisk Tsarskogo Velichestva rossiiskikh (The Book of Mars or of Military Actions by the Russian Troops of His Imperial Majesty), though work on the final edition of the socalled Gistoriia Sveiskoi voiny (History of the Swedish War) was aborted after Peter's death and resumed only in the reign of Catherine II (see below).

From a historiographical point of view, the Gistoriia was a milestone, because it was the first Russian attempt at writing a historical narrative based on more or less verifiable sources in many different languages. (30) When it was compiled, however, the Gistoriia dealt with contemporary or at least very recent events; its significance lay in its immediate use as a tool of political propaganda. The victory at Poltava had put Russia on the political map, and Peter wanted to pursue this opportunity to increase the country's international status. (31) What interests us here is the role translation and translators played in the process. Although few commentators drew attention to the significance of translation to the Gistoriia, it opened up sources and added new dimensions to the practice of history. Weber, for instance, criticized the almost exclusive use of foreign sources, which he deemed unreliable in nature, and argued that Russian official sources should have been used as well. (32) Huyssen, who was involved as a translator in the project, was the first to suggest that Russian history should be approached rationally--following the principles formulated by Pufendorf--and based on source materials. Huyssen also proposed a scheme for a general history of Russia, which was subsequently elaborated by the founding fathers of Russian history, Vasilii N. Tatishchev, Gerhard Friedrich Miiller, August Ludwig (von) Schlozer, and Mikhail M. Shcherbatov. (33) These ideas produced a new mode of translation, that is, translation as part of the historiographical process. This did not mean, however, that history ceased to be used to political ends!

Translatio illuminans: Translation as Part of Historiography

History Is a Foreign Country. When the Academy of Sciences started to work in 1725, it had to rely on foreigners, mainly Germans, to provide the necessary knowledge and expertise. Of the 13 initial academicians, 9 were of German origin. Between 1725 and 1743, 37 of 50 members were Germans; for the whole of the 18th century, this number increased to 67 out of a total of 111. Until 1773, German and Latin were the languages of communication in the Academy. (34) The proportion of Germans was even higher with respect to the discipline of history: 15 of the 17 historians the Academy employed during the 18th century had German roots; the other two were French and Swiss. (35) The linguistic implications were far-reaching and so, in the longer run, were the nationalistic implications. Many a historian faced difficulties in translation and needed to be directly involved in solving them, not only in their research but also in their day-to-day contacts with Russian colleagues. The foreign origin of Russia's first historians--or, for that matter, any non-Russian commenting on Russian history--would become a hotly debated topic. This was especially true at times when Russians felt under threat: then, history was used to substantiate the state's political claims and/or refute criticism coming from the outside. Last but not least, there was the issue of making history available to Russian readers. For some, this was a matter of principle: Russian nationals were entitled to their history, while others simply catered to compatriots who lacked foreign languages. The 1724 draft of the Academy's structure and the obligations of its members had stipulated that academics' writings should be available in Russian too and mandated that every class of the Academy, as well as its secretary, should have their own translator. (36)

The language problem cropped up as early as 1725, when the Koningsberg orientalist Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer was offered the chair of Greek and Roman antiquities. In 1735, Bayer went on to occupy the newly created chair of oriental history and languages. (37) Bayer himself had been drawn by the promise of endless (library) resources and the prospects of publication, but like most foreign members of the Academy, he never learned Russian. (38) As befitted a "classical scholar" of his days, Bayer wrote in Latin and published in the Commentarii Academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae (Commentaries of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Peterburg; 1726-46), which was hardly accessible, if not utterly incomprehensible, to Russians. An attempt to translate the Latin Commentarii into Russian ceased after only one edition. Muller explained why: "no one wanted to praise the work; they did not understand what they were reading; they blamed the obscurity of the language and the inadequacy of the translator for their own incompetence; and so it was not continued." (39)

Five translators had been assigned the task of translating the Commentarii: Vasilii E. Adodurov, Ivan I. Il'inskii, Ivan S. Gorlitskii, Maksim P. Satarov, and Johann Werner Paus (or Pause). It was the last, recommended by Huyssen, who specialized in history and became Bayer's primary intermediary with his Russian environment. (40) When Bayer turned to Russian history around 1730, he mainly relied on foreign accounts about Russia in the (many) languages he mastered; for Russian sources he turned to translators. Among his sources was the recently discovered Radziwill (Koningsberg) Chronicle, which contained a version of the Primary Chronicle (Povest' vremennykh let). It was transcribed and partially translated into German and Latin by Pause. (41)

Pause would assist Bayer--and his successor Muller--until his death in 1735 and was succeeded by the Dane Burchard Adam Sellius. Sellius specialized in arkheografiia, bibliography, and the translation of old manuscripts into Latin. His translations made many hitherto inaccessible historical documents available for further study, although it is again debatable whether many Russians could actually read them. (42) Sellius, in turn, was succeeded by Kiriak A. Kondratovich. Prior to his appointment by the Academy of Sciences in 1743, Kondratovich had assisted Vasilii Tatishchev with his work on Istoriia rossiiskaia (History of Russia), translating from Polish and Latin. Among his translations were Bayer's Latin articles, which otherwise would have remained inaccessible to Tatishchev. (43)

Translation also helped disseminate the historical findings of Bayer and others, and Muller played an instrumental role. Initially hired as an assistant professor (ad"iunkt) for the newly created academy, he taught Latin, history, and geography in the Academic Gymnasium, took minutes at the Academy's meetings, and was put in charge of Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, which was published by the Academy from 1728. Due to his historical interest, and with Bayer's encouragement, Muller launched (Mesiachnye) istoricheskie, genealogicheskie igeograficheskieprimechaniia v Vedomostiakh (1728-42), which appeared twice a week as a supplement to Vedomosti. In addition to original contributions, it also contained translations, for which Muller relied on Adodurov, Trediakovskii, Johann Caspar Taubert, Mikhail V. Lomonosov, Il'ia P. Iakhontov, and Martin Schwanwitz. (44) In 1732, Muller also launched his Sammlung russischer Geschichte, meant to make Russian history available abroad.

The first volume of Sammlung appeared in installments in the 1730s and contained the first publication--that is, translation--of the Radziwill Chronicle, as well as five articles by Bayer that would make up his History of Azov. (45) These German articles served as the source text for Taubert's Russian translation, which appeared in 1734. (46) Muller wanted to see the complete Sammlung translated into Russian, but the project was only--partly--realized in the 1750s, when Muller created the journal Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia, k pol'ze i uveseleniiu sluzhashchie (1755-64), (47) Moreover, there were numerous parallels between the translations that appeared in Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia, the items that appeared in Mullers Sammlung, and anonymous publications of Mullers writings that circulated abroad. Mullers findings could not legally be published abroad, as they were protected by imperial privilege. (48)

Between 1733 and 1743, Muller participated in the second Kamchatka Expedition. His main task consisted of collecting historical and ethnographical materials, which subsequently served as sources for his history of Siberia. (49) From the detailed instructions he gave in 1740 to his assistant Johann Eberhard Fischer it becomes clear that Muller was well aware of the linguistic difficulties that would emerge from contacts with indigenous peoples, and he recommended the compilation of dictionaries. (50) This recommendation, however, fell short when it came to translating sources. One particularly notorious case is that of the Rodoslovnaia istoriia o tatarakh (Genealogical History of the Tatars) by the Turkmen khan and historian Abulg'ozi Bahodirxon (Abulgazi), which Muller used for his history of Siberia and published in a separate volume in 1768. In 1726, a French edition had appeared in Leyden (Histoire genealogique des Tatars), undertaken by Swedish prisoners of war in Siberia. Trediakovskii translated this French version into Russian but copied the French mistakes. Later the orientalist and translator of the College of Foreign Affairs Georg Jacob Kehr was asked to provide a new translation from the original text, but the result was unsuccessful, because the translation was too literal. It was revised by Fischer, who turned to the French edition to correct Kehr's copy! (51) This episode suggests that translators and their patrons were either unaware of these translational pitfalls or were unconcerned by the possibility that such translation would compromise the reliability of historical sources. Some translation, apparently, was better than no translation at all.

The confusion of tongues, however, did not end there. In the draft of the introduction to his Opisanie sibirskogo tsarstva (Description of the Siberian Khanate; 1750), Muller addressed two other crucial issues. The first arose from discrepancies between the ancient (Old Church Slavic and Old Russian) and modern Russian languages. Apart from some old words and phrases, for which there were perfectly acceptable modern equivalents, Muller claimed, 18th-century Russian was not that different from Old Church Slavic or Old Russian. Instead, Muller blamed difficulties on the language deficiencies of the scribes and the present-day readers' lack of familiarity with old documents. These were the gaps between past and present that translation would help bridge. The second crucial issue was closer to home. Muller, as well as his assistant Fischer, publicized their findings in German first, before translating them into Russian--a task they undertook themselves. (52) Although foreigners commonly translated texts into Russian at this time, due to Russians' lack of linguistic skills, Muller was acutely aware that this was a potential source of mistakes. He anticipated criticism, stressing that he acted in good faith as a translator and pointing out that good history required good translators. (53) Johann Daniel Schumacher, the librarian of the Academy, would have none of it and rejected Mullers draft. He considered Mullers opinion on the old and new Russian language insulting and his claims with regard to translation misleading. According to Schumacher, Muller gave the impression that he himself had performed the translations for the Opisanie sibirskogo tsarstva, whereas in reality the Academy's translators had done the job. The librarian, however, did not elaborate whether these translators were Russians or foreigners. Schumacher's dismissal of Muller as a foreigner (chuzhestrannyi) must have masked personal enmity; after all, was not Schumacher a stranger himself? (54) Eventually Schumacher wrote the introduction to the Opisanie sibirskogo tsarstva himself, downplaying Mullers role and claiming that hiring competent translators--rare birds--was central policy at the Academy. (55)

Can Foreigners Understand Russian History? With historians relying on translators and translations, mistakes were unavoidable, and in most cases the translators got the blame. Tatishchev, for instance, was not satisfied with the quality of Kondratovich's translations, which were heavy-handed and full of Polish and Ukrainian phrases, making him the laughing stock of his colleagues. (56) Muller, too, would blame his translator, Pause, for a mistake he made in Sammlung russischer Geschichte. (57) There Muller had ascribed the Radziwill Chronicle to St. Theodosius of Kiev, rather than to the scribe Nestor. (58) Although he corrected the error in Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia in 1755, the mistake would haunt Muller for the rest of his career. Having been blamed by Muller, Pause retaliated by accusing Muller of incompetence and plagiarism. (59) Sellius, Pause's successor as a translator, took a leaf from Pause's book and charged that Muller had stolen Huyssen's work. (60)

Russian popular history has it that foreigners like Bayer or Muller downplayed Russia's importance in world history and saluted the "real Russian," Lomonosov, for countering them. (61) Specifically, they had in mind Mullers ill-fated thesis on the origins of Russia (Origines rossicae, 1749), but the resultant controversy was far more complex and subtle than the simple opposition between patriotic Russians and hostile foreigners would suggest. (62) It was fueled by personal enmities within the Academy itself, differences in professional standards (Lomonosov, after all, was a mere amateur when it came to history) and sheer bad faith. (63) Lomonosov, for instance, was absolutely convinced that foreigners, such as Schumacher and his son-in-law, the translator Johann Taubert, were conspiring against the Academy and the interests of Russian scholarship in general. (64)

By contrast, Muller considered himself to be a true Russian historian. (65) As early as 1732, the year he founded the Sammlung, he had submitted a "Proposal for the Improvement of the History of Russia" to the Academy. Muller proposed that not only historical sources be systematically collected and publicized, but also that "extracts and translations of all the historical manuscripts and chronicles of Russia" be made available in Russian and German. Moreover, he wanted to disclose and correct "errors committed by foreign authors in the history and geography of Russia." Muller's "Proposal" was deemed significant enough in its time to be read to the Royal Society in London on 8 February 1732! (66) Muller remained committed to these ideas throughout his career, and he repeated them in 1757 in Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia. (67)

Russian Historians Are Strangers in Their Own Country. The first Russian edition of the Radziwill (Koningsberg) Chronicle appeared in 1767--the very same text that had wrong-footed Muller in the early 1730s. By publishing Letopis' Nestora s prodolzhateliami po Keningsbergskomu spisku, do 1206 goda (The Nestorian Chronicle, with Additions to 1206 from the Konigsberg Manuscript), the Academy wanted to compensate for the appalling backwardness of Russian historiography as compared to Western Europe. The publication met with criteria that Huyssen, Pause, Muller, Tatishchev, and Lomonosov had set in numerous programmatic works for the advancement of Russian history. Most recently, they had been joined by August Ludwig Schlozer, appointed in 1765 as professor of history at the Academy of Sciences. (68)

The publication of Letopis 'Nestora was further facilitated by the recent arrival of the Koningsberg Chronicle in Petersburg as a trophy of the Seven Years War. Its arrival made the editors--Taubert, in collaboration with the copyist and translator Ivan S. Barkov--acutely aware of the many discrepancies between the original document and the copies that had circulated since the reign of Peter the Great. (69) In the publication, however, Taubert, following Schumacher (his father-in-law) and Lomonosov, would attribute these discrepancies to the ignorance and malice of foreigners, their disrespect for Russia and its history. Taubert, himself of German descent, did not see the irony:

   This was the cause of numerous mistakes, the result of rude
   ignorance and laughable fables, which we can read in foreign
   German, French, English, Swedish, and even Spanish books about our
   fatherland. They were not fit to write a Russian history; and in
   their wish to fill the void in the general European history, they
   wrote whatever they fancied, and incorrectly at that. They either
   did not have any copies of our chronicles at all, and where they
   did have them, in Abo [Turku], Koningsberg, Wolfenbiittel, and
   Paris, they could not use them for lack of knowledge of Slavic....
   The only thing we can do now is to write our own history ourselves.

Taubert then pleaded for a critical edition of the chronicles, to correct the copyists' mistakes that had misled historians and to accurately interpret the texts. As there were no reliable dictionaries in 18th-century Russia, and few models of what a "good edition" might entail, the quality of the interpretation depended entirely on the linguistic, historical, and geographical competences of the interpreter or editor. (71) Given Taubert's abilities, it entailed adapting spelling and grammar to the norms of the mid-18th century and making numerous "corrections" and additions, not on the basis of other--better--copies of the Primary Chronicle, but on the basis of Tatishchev's Istoriia rossiiskaia. (72)

Schlozer had many misgivings about the 1767 Nestorian edition and blamed the Taubert-Barkov team for the deplorable results. Taubert had obviously paid no heed to the methodological remarks Schlozer and the translator Semen Bashilov had made in the introduction to their own publication of the Russkaia letopis 'po Nikonovu spisku (Russian Chronicle According to the Nikon Copy; 1767). (73) One special basis for Schlozer's criticism was the fact that he had been denied access to copies of the Primary Chronicle when he was working on his Russkaia letopis' in tandem with a critical study of the Russian chronicles, Probe Rufiischer Annalen (1768). He had to content himself with the available literature on the subject and at the same time remain friendly with Taubert, who was the gatekeeper at the archives:

   But then, to my indescribable joy, Taubert introduced me to two
   written folios that were kept in the library of the Russian Academy
   (or the archive, as it was called). They contained the German
   translation of one of the most complete chronicles (I don't know
   which one precisely). Its translator, I was told, had been a German
   scholar named Sellius, who afterwards went mad and became a monk in
   the St. Aleksandr Nevskii Monastery. The handwriting in these
   folios was a scrawl but readable; the translation itself was in
   terrible German, often grotesque and rude, but it was literal and
   above all expectations reliable. What a relief it was for me to
   make excerpts from these folios, as I was looking only for facts to
   create an overview. If only they had come into my possession five
   months earlier, when I was struggling with the chronicles
   themselves! (74)

It seems Schlozer was either unaware of Pause's earlier disputed translation in Sammlung russischer Geschichte, or that he thought Sellius's version superior.

As the 1767 controversy over the Nestorian edition proved, understanding Church Slavic was not deemed a prerequisite for 18th-century editors, even for native Russians. (75) As a result, "translation" (perelozhenie) into modern Russian was necessary for many of the early text editions. The practice became widespread in the second half of the 18th century. It usually amounted to transcribing the old texts into the civil script (grazhdanskii shrift) introduced by Peter the Great. This inevitably meant that part of the original text written in the church script (which Peter permitted for religious texts) became corrupted. Furthermore, the editor corrected the orthography, changed unintelligible passages, and replaced "forgotten vocabulary" with its modern equivalents, all by his own lights due to the lack of fixed rules and established practices. This, for instance, was the case with regard to the 1768 edition of the 1550 Sudebnik. As Bashilov acknowledged in his introduction, it was based on Tatishchev's copies, which were "written in the new style [grazhdanskii shrift\, and in many places and its choice of wording they missed consistency and were not in accordance with the original." (76) This editorial practice was further complicated by the habit of including comments in the running text, which made it difficult to distinguish sources from contemporary interpretations and additions. The practice was widely applied by Tatishchev in his Istoriia rossiiskaia, by Muller, and by Lomonosov. (77) To a large extent, historians in Russia were struggling with the same kind of methodological problems as their Western colleagues. The discipline of history wavered between its narrative, rhetorical functions, and the techniques prescribed by paleography. It still had to develop a methodology of its own. The development of history as a science was further enhanced, as well as undermined, by the demand for stories that substantiated Russia's great past. Nikolai I. Novikov's Drevniaia rossiiskaia vivliofika (1773-76, second series 1788-91), for instance, was crucial for disseminating and raising interest in Russian history during the reign of Catherine the Great, but the contributions that appeared in it were essentially a haphazard mixture of corrections, adaptations, translations, and commentaries. (78) Novikov was not really interested in the particularities of the historical trade and in editorial precision but wanted to evoke curiosity among his compatriots and instill patriotism in them. (79)

To feed that patriotism, there was a constant need for new materials. The circumstances were favorable to finding them. In Catherine's reign, the influence of foreign translators and historians dropped dramatically in favor of native Russian ones, pushing the Russian vs. foreigner debate to the back burner. Furthermore, in 1791, Catherine issued an ukase ordering chronicles and other old manuscripts in monastery libraries to be transferred to the archives of the Holy Synod. She thereby not only stepped in the footsteps of her famous predecessor Peter I but also played into the hands of Aleksei I. Musin-Pushkin, the newly appointed ober-procurator of the Holy Synod. Musin-Pushkin, a keen collector of old manuscripts himself and the patron of a group of like-minded historians--among them Ivan N. Boltin and Ivan P. Elagin--could now promote a novel approach: bilingual editions placing a critical edition alongside its translation. The activities of Musin-Pushkin's circle coincided with those of the Russian Academy, which dealt with Russian language, literature, and history--topics in which the Academy of Sciences had lost interest. Its main achievement was the publication of Slovar' Akademii rossiiskoi (Dictionary of the Russian Academy; 1783-94), which built on the materials previously collected by translators of the Academy of Sciences, though it also drew on the invaluable linguistic insights that Shcherbatov, Musin-Pushkin, and Boltin had acquired from dealing with historical documents. (80) Furthermore, the debates within the Academy on the standardization of the Russian language would have a profound impact on the way historical documents were published. (81)

The first attempt was the 1792 publication of Pravda russkaia (Russian Justice), by Ivan Boltin. (82) This compilation built on earlier editions by Schlozer, Tatishchev, and Vasilij V. Krestinin, as well as on newly arrived copies from the archives of the Holy Synod. (83) Boltin was familiar with Schlozer's conception of a critical edition, but his critical sense was clearly subordinated to his zeal to demonstrate that Russia's historical development was on a par with that of the Romans or the Germans. With regard to translations, he wrote:

   The translation from the old into the present language has not been
   done by us word for word but in such a way that the correct meaning
   of the old is preserved and at the same time is sufficiently clear
   in the new one. The explanation of old words that have gone out of
   use we have done with all possible attention and care, so as not to
   wander from their original meaning; concerning those words whose
   meaning we can only guess--that is, understand from the context--we
   have made it amply clear in our comments that our understanding is
   perhaps not fully reliable but at least probable. (84)

The next publication, Dukhovnaia velikogo kniazia Vladimira Vsevolodovicha Monomakha (Testament of Grand Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh; 1793), was revolutionary in the sense that it included an introduction and translation in civil script but printed the original text in Church Slavic script. In other respects, however it stuck to the patriotic goals and editorial principles of the Pravda russkaia. (85)

The joint activities of Musin-Pushkin and his friends undoubtedly reached their apogee in the 1800 publication of Slovo o polku Igoreve (Lay of Igor's Campaign). Although it was the piece de resistance in the argument for Russia's medieval high culture, the way in which its publication came about has raised doubts about its authenticity. It took the publishers more than ten years to prepare the edition; the documentation of its origins was flimsy and contradictory. Last but not least, the original manuscript was allegedly lost during the burning of Moscow in 1812, which further complicated the study of its origins. (86) To emphasize its importance, Musin-Pushkin wrote that "in this centuries' old work we see the spirit of Ossian-, and thus our ancient heroes also had Bards who sang of their fame." (87) Musin-Pushkin wrote this without irony; he and his contemporaries considered The Works of Ossian (1765), "translated [!] from the Gaelic language by James Macpherson," as the acme of authentic folk literature. (88)

Far more important than the debate about the authenticity of the Slovo, however, was the role translation played in its emergence and dissemination. Kozlov convincingly argues that "translation" helped convey the patriotic significance of the Slovo, and that with every further translation, appraisals of its apparent beauty, and hence the level of Russian medieval culture, increased. (89) In this way, an almost incomprehensible text was turned into the masterpiece of early Russian literature, instead of a historical source! Typical in this respect was the 1805 translation by Aleksandr S. Shishkov, who wrote that he had "come to the conclusion that he needed to transpose [prelozhit'], or rather, redo [peredelat'] it in such a way that while preserving the beauty of the original with as few changes as possible, he had to shorten or pass over unintelligible passages and complement others with his own, decent interpretations, based on educated guesses." (90)

"Translation" had helped Musin-Pushkin and his friends grasp the meaning of Slovo o polku Igoreve, and the 20th-century analyses of its origins attributed key importance to the practice of translation. (91) In the early 19th century, by contrast, a patriotic and literary approach to the Slovo deemphasized "translation" as an auxiliary to history. Together with textual criticism (philology) it was exiled to the field of Slavic studies, which was emerging at that time in Central Europe. (92) The trend applied not only to the Slovo but to other texts as well, such as Schlozer's critical edition of the Primary Chronicle and its German translation, which appeared between 1802 and 1809. The edition laid the foundations of historical criticism in Russia. (93)

Translatio deliberativa, or How Russian History Became International

Peter the Great Revisited: History as a Political Tool. When Russia became entangled in the Seven Years War (1757-63) during Elizabeth's reign, history was used as a tool of war propaganda abroad, just as it had been half a century before. The Russian authorities not only followed Peter's example but made him the center of that propaganda. Had not Peter inserted Russia onto the stage of European politics? Was Elisabeth, so eager to integrate Russia into European culture, not Peter's daughter? In 1757, the empress invited Voltaire to write a history of her father's reign. Voltaire was renowned for turning dry historical facts into enchanting and flattering narratives. Previously, he had already applied his talents to Russian history, with varying results. The positive image of Peter the Great in his Histoire de Charles XII (History of Charles XII; 1731), as well as flattering addresses to Empress Elizabeth and the Academy of Sciences, had gained him honorary membership in the Academy in 1746. His ironic Anecdotes sur le czar Pierre le Grand (Anecdotes about Tsar Peter the Great; 1748), however, had not amused the Russian court, and in 1753 his name was struck off the Academy's membership list. (94)

For his new assignment, St. Petersburg thought Voltaire could do with some coaching. To balance the one-sided representation of Russia by foreigners, Voltaire's Russian clients supplied their own materials, selected by Taubert and Muller. (95) Lomonosov, too, sent his French colleague a summary of his own historical enquiries--the first drafts of what later became Drevniaia rossiiskaia istoriia (Ancient Russian History; 1766)--as well as his Slovo pokhval'noe blazhennoi pamiati Gosudariu Imperatoru Petru Velikomu, govorennoe aprelia 26 dnia 1755 goda (Speech Praising the Blessed Memory of the Sovereign Emperor Peter the Great, Delivered 26 April 1755), in the French translation by Baron Theodore Henri de Tschudi, secretary to Ivan I. Shuvalov, president of the Imperial Academy of the Arts. (96) Lomonosov proofread Voltaire's compositions, while Muller and others were on standby to answer his questions. In all, St. Petersburg provided Voltaire with some 120 manuscript translations of Russian histories and official documents, of which Voltaire used only about half. (97) The drafts of Voltaire's Histoire de l'Empire de Russie sous Pierre le Grand (History of the Russian Empire under Peter the Great) were meticulously edited by his Russian clients, but the French philosophe did not take heed of their remarks and suggestions. Reactions were predictable: whereas Voltaire's Histoire contributed to the myth of Peter the Great (and consequently Russia), his negligent treatment of sources in favor of a good narrative caused strong misgivings. Voltaire's Russian clients remained polite, but Muller and Schlozer were extremely critical of the result. (98) Partial Russian translations of Voltaire's Histoire de l'Empire de Russie sous Pierre le Grand by Fedor A. Emin and Nikolai N. Bantysh-Kamenskii never appeared in print." Officials in St. Petersburg, obviously, saw Voltaire's Histoire as yet another jibe by a foreigner at their expense. The French historian Pierre-Charles Levesque, however, would later lay Voltaire's mistakes at the feet of Muller, who, Levesque claimed, had knowingly provided Voltaire with unreliable materials. (100) Only in 1809 did a Russian translation by Semen A. Smirnov appear. The most critical passages had been censored, yet, notwithstanding all the time that had elapsed, Voltaire's Histoire still provoked mild controversy. (101)

The popularity of Peter the Great as an object of historical narrative, research, and political propaganda climaxed under Catherine II. (102) During her reign Peter's Gistoriia Sveiskoi voiny resurfaced and was published by Mikhail Shcherbatov in 1770-72. The French (1773) and German translations (1774-78) of the Zhurnal, ili Podennaia zapiska ... imperatora Petra Velikogo (Journal or Daily Record of Emperor Peter the Great) added to the growing literature on Peter in Europe and shaped Catherine's image as an enlightened monarch and the true heir to Peter's political and cultural legacy. (103) In the same vein, Jacob von Stahlin published his Originalanekdoten von Peter dem Grossen (Original Anecdotes about Peter the Great) in 1785 in Leipzig, a year prior to the first of many Russian translations. (104) Stahlin, a former professor of rhetoric at the Academy of Sciences and courtier of Catherine's, had been compiling his--unreliable--anecdotes ever since he arrived in Russia in 1735. These were even meant to be translated into French on behalf of Voltaire, but they did not appear until 1787, almost a decade after Voltaire's demise. (105)

Rhetorical History, or the Conflict between Narrative and Sources. Interest in history under Elizabeth and Catherine was not restricted to Peter the Great. Demand for a full account of Russian history that could counterbalance and either prove or disprove foreign histories grew, together with histories of a quality high enough to demonstrate Russia's intellectual parity with Western Europe. Such works not only bolstered Russian confidence but allowed Russian historians to engage in a debate over Russian history with their European counterparts--with the help of translations.

The first attempt at such a comprehensive history since the 1674 Sinopsis was Lomonosovs Kratkii rossiiskii letopisets s rodosloviem (Short Russian Chronicle with a Genealogy; 1760), the precursor to his posthumous Drevniaia rossiiskaia istoriia. (106) The Letopisets, in essence a genealogy in the style of the Sinopsis, was translated into German by Peter von Stahlin and edited by his father, Jacob. The Kurzgefaftes Jahr-Buch der Russischen Regenten (1765) saw additional editions in 1767 and 1771 and was supposed to enlighten "neighboring foreigners [i.e., Germans] who until now, time and again, have written so many wrong things about Russian history." (107) In his review of the booklet, Schlozer admitted that it was better than nothing, but he deplored that its sources could not be verified: "We have to believe the editor, that everything he says, or at least the larger part of it, is true. We cannot verify it, because he copies from unpublished Russian chronicles. To be honest, we cannot [even] believe that much; because when we did check other sources, we found them faulty and unsubstantiated. If only the Petersburg Academy of Sciences would proceed with the publication of the chronicles, which is more than overdue." (108)

In 1775, an anonymous reviewer of the Kurzgefaftes Jahr-Buch's second edition wrote succinctly that the translator had taken Schlozer's recommendations to heart and made the necessary corrections. However, "the translator seems to have neglected his own principles of transcribing Russian names." Instead of "Mosqua" [sic], for instance, the translator used both the French "Moscou" and the German "Moskau." (109) The English version, A Chronological Abridgment of the Russian History (1767), had been updated "to the present Time by the Translator," Johann Georg Adam Forster, then only 13 years old, who fortunately received help from his father, Johann Reinhold. (110) The British press was not impressed, as they were more interested in "any private anecdotes concerning the last revolution in that empire" than in the more distant Russian past. (111)

Lomonosov's Drevniaia rossiiskaia istoriia (1765), which covering the history of Rus' up to the death of Iaroslav the Wise (1054), was translated into German by Hartwig Ludwig Christian Bacmeister, a former student and protege of Muller's and Schlozer's. In his introduction to the Alte russische Geschichte (1768), Bacmeister explained that he had checked most of Lomonosov's sources and had translated directly from them, just to make sure that he "caught the author's meaning as well as possible." To accommodate his non-Russian readers, Bacmeister enhanced the translation with comments and provided an overview of Russian history to the present, which he drew from Muller's Sammlung russischer Geschichte. (112) Bacmeister's version was the source text for the French translation by Marc-Antoine Eidous, who noted, "there have never been more historians than in our century, but you also have to admit that history was never more abused than it is today." For this reason Eidous commented that Lomonosov's history was more than welcome: "It is from German that I made this translation, and it is not to me that the public should be grateful, but to the man ... who was so kind as to lend me the German original. Everything is new, curious, and interesting. I have scrupulously followed the text to the letter and if, perchance, I have left some mistakes, I bid the purists to excuse me, because of the difficulty of the matter and the language from which my translation is made." (113)

Intermediary translations were common practice until the late 18th century, especially with less common languages such as English. (114) Publishers and readers seem to have been oblivious to the potential risk

of infidelities in such translations, but historians and translators were well aware that they might provoke controversy. Time and again, people like Muller, Bacmeister, and Eidous claimed their "good faith," lest mistakes in their translation undermine the reliability of their historical narrative. In the majority of cases, German served as an intermediary between translations from Russian into French, with French becoming the source text for additional translations into other languages. As the 18th century drew to a close, French began to prevail as an intermediary language in its own right, as well as a language for reading. More and more translations were made directly from French into Russian or vice versa. (115)

Lomonosov's historical writings wavered between "serious" source publications and plain historical narrative, as well as, political propaganda. Like Tatishchev, whose Istoriia rossiiskaia was first published in 1768 by Muller, Lomonosov had been an amateur historian, and both authors had died even before Schlozer had begun to publicize his demands for critical rigor. Narrative also prevailed in many "popular" histories of Catherine's reign. Among them was Fedor Emin's Rossiiskaia istoriia (1767-69), which largely built on Tatishchev. Emin rejected the manner in which Russia had allegedly been belittled by the likes of Bayer and other foreigners, claiming, that, to the contrary, "almost all European peoples could trace their ancestors to lands that now belong to Russia." He sang the praise of autocratic Russia, embodied by Peter I and Catherine II. (116) Having himself been made familiar with history through his efforts as a translator--for example, of Voltaire's Histoire de L'Empire de Russie--Emin treated Russia's past as a literary theme that could be adapted to present needs. (117) The same applied to Ivan P. Elagin--a courtier, theater director, and translator, whose Opyt povestvovaniia o Rossii (Attempt to Tell a Tale about Russia; 1803) was posthumously published by his friend Musin-Pushkin. (118) These "storytellers" (sochiniteli istorii), representatives of what Sergei M. Solov'ev disparagingly dubbed the "rhetorical school" (ritoricheskaia shkola), were less concerned with disclosing new sources than with providing a politically useful narrative. (119)

This "rhetorical" variety of history generated "many appealing, fantastic stories" for an emerging public of wealthy (and avid) readers. (120) Simultaneously, it targeted authors, both foreigners and Russians, whose respect for Russia's great past was found lacking. By pointing out flaws in their sources and reasoning, the credibility of such historians was undermined. The problem had become more acute since Voltaire's Histoire de I'Empire de Russie had fired Europe's curiosity about a rapidly changing Russia, which resulted in the publication of a whole series of Western "Rossica." These, in turn, caught the interest of the Russian reading public and, consequently, fueled the need for translations into Russian. (121)

Catherine II herself had set the example by refuting the critical if not anti-Russian content of Jean Chappe d'Auteroche's Voyage en Siberie fait en 1761 (Voyage to Siberia in 1761; 1768) in her notorious Antidote ou examen du mauvais livre superbement imprime intitule "Voyage en Siberie fait par ordre du Roi en 1761 contenant les moeurs [...] (Antidote or Examination of the Bad but Superbly Printed Book Titled Voyage to Siberia, Made by Order of the King in 1761, Including the Mores ...; 1770). (122) Later she encouraged Ivan Boltin to criticize the "historical liberties" Mikhail Shcherbatov was taking in his Istoriia rossiiskaia ot drevneishikh vremen (History of Russia from Ancient Times; 1770-91). The eventual result was a long quarrel over the methodology and goals of writing history, which included squabbles about misinterpretations of Old Russian vocabulary and etymology. (123) This particular dispute between Boltin and Shcherbatov, however, had been a side effect of Boltin's anger with Nicolas Gabriel Le Clerc (1726-98), whose Histoire physique, morale, civile et politique de la Russie ancienne/moderne (Physical, Moral, Civil, and Political History of Ancient/Modern Russia; 1783-84/1783-85) was both unreliable and biased against Russia. In a very ironic way Boltin pointed out Le Clerc's many factual mistakes, misinterpretations, and especially his fanciful translations of Russian proverbs. (124)

This "critical" attitude, however biased against dissident or foreign representations of Russian history, in fact boosted the development of Russian history. Literary renown, closeness to the court, or friends in high places did not save Emin's Rossiiskaia istoriia or Ivan Elagin's Opyt povestvovaniia o Rossii from severe criticism by the empress, who took a keen interest in history. Foreign historians were no less critical. In the introduction to Histoire des differents peuples soumis a la domination des Russes (History of the Different Peoples Subject to Domination by the Russians; 1783), the sequel to his Histoire de Russie, tiree des chroniques originales, de pieces authentiques et des meilleurs historiens de la nation (History of Russia, Taken from Original Chronicles, Authentic Documents, and the Best Historians of the Nation; 1782), Pierre-Charles Levesque questioned the wisdom of using Voltaire as a point of reference in Russian history in the West and attacked Le Clerc. He accused his compatriot of having plagiarized his--Levesques--work and mocked his wild imagination, blind trust in Lomonosov, and reliance on the translations made by his Russian friends. Levesque's Histoire de Russie, by contrast, was based on the latest insights by Russian historians and enhanced by Western travel accounts that constituted a major part of the available "Rossica." (125) Reactions, overall, were positive. Boltin agreed with Le Clerc that "our history, as presented by Levesque, will not satisfy the reader, because it is concise, dry, and outside any context." Unlike Le Clerc, however, "he did not replace historical facts with tall tales and other fantasies, nor did he add absurd fairy tales, and he had no inclination to gossip or slander." (126) Schlozer acknowledged that "no foreigner had ever treated Russian history so correctly and completely as this Levesque. Only that which had been resolved by the [historical] criticism of foreigners remained unknown to him, probably because he did not understand Latin or German: but he was familiar with the old, unedited chronicles and he followed conscientiously the recent work of Tatishchev, Lomonosov, and Shcherbatov." (127)

Levesque's Histoire de Russie was translated into Russian in 1787. Rossiiskaia istoriia, sochinennaia iz podlinnykh letopisei, iz dostovernykh sochinenii i iz luchshikh rossiiskikh istorikov contained only the first 1782 volume, minus the list of subscribers (mainly Russians) and the bibliographical introduction. The polemical introduction of the 1783 sequel was also omitted. Histoire de Russie went through three updated editions (1783, 1800, 1812) and each time added new Russian sources to its bibliography. Nikolai M. Karamzin (1766-1826) met Pierre-Charles Levesque in Paris in 1790. The Russian traveler acknowledged that notwithstanding its shortcomings, Levesque's Histoire de Russie was the best work available. He deplored Levesque's "lack of spark" and disrespect for Peter the Great, but obviously this was because "Russia was not his mother, he does not have our blood in his veins: can he speak about the Russians with the same feeling as a Russian?" (128)

In 1803, Alexander I appointed Karamzin as Russia's official historiographer--the first since Miiller. Karamzin's Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskogo (History of the Russian State; 1816-29) would become the successor of Levesque's Histoire de Russie. Like Levesque, Karamzin was indebted to all the historians who had preceded him. Unlike Levesque, however, he had Russian blood in his veins and therefore felt compelled and entitled to praise Russia's great history, which had recently culminated in the victory over Napoleon. Moreover, Karamzin added a "literary" flair to his writings, which was often wanting in his predecessors. (129) Undoubtedly his previous career as a man of letters and translator had well prepared him for this. As such, Karamzin was an early specimen of those 19th-century historians, such as Jules Michelet in France, who managed to combine a broad array of sources and strong opinions about historical development and turn them into a compelling narrative.


By Karamzin's day, translation in history had traveled a long way from Peters reign, when it was a mere tool of modernization and political propaganda, characterized by a unidirectional transfer of knowledge (translation instrumentalis). In the second half of the 18th century translation became an integral part of the historian's trade: it provided access to sources and helped interpret them (translatio illuminans). By the end of the century, translation helped create a debate with foreign historians over Russian history proper (translatio deliberativa), generating a multidirectional circulation of historical knowledge. Throughout the 18th century, translation reminded historians that they had no direct access to the past except through "translation," and this definitely sharpened their critical senses. As such, translation played a crucial role in exploring the past and making it intelligible to the contemporary reader; hence it was more than a catalyst of modernization. This development was by no means linear, as the recurrent issue of propaganda, modernization, and the discussions about the correct (and shifting) interpretation of sources suggest.

During the 18th century, translation operated at several levels and in several dimensions. At the level of source, in historical accounts, translation and interpretation were the means to establish communication between social groups that did not share a common language; this was particularly the case in describing relations with non-Russians, either within the Russian Empire or abroad. At the intermediary level, it made sources accessible to the contemporary reader (historian) and incorporated them into a historical narrative. At a macro level, translation and interpretation aided the dissemination of Russian history, in both its methodological and political aspects, and provoked wider engagement in an ideological debate about Russia's past, present, and future. Notwithstanding their important role, translators and interpreters usually remained in the background. In the early 18th century, they were a breed of people who fulfilled multiple key roles and were in high demand within the different institutions that promoted Russian modernization. From the academic historian's point of view, however, they remained mere auxiliaries to the historian's trade and the source of misinterpretations. Yet their contribution to the development of the historical business cannot be overrated.

Last but not least, translation was an inherent part of language and narrative, the building materials of history itself. During the 18th century, in Russia as well as in the West, an interest in the origins of languages, textual communication, and rhetoric as a means of expressing, venting, and defending national interests (politics) gave history a strong boost and provided translation with a place of honor. Going back in time meant that sources in Old Church Slavic or Old Russian needed to be translated--that is, rendered comprehensible in Russian. To provide foreigners access to Russian sources and spread the word outside Russia, German and French were brought into the equation. This development increased the distance between source and reader or, for that matter, between the past and the present, and it created new problems of interpretation. Typical of the 18th century was the fact that these linguistic building blocks were very visible; by the early 19th century, however, history no longer identified with this linguistic approach; philology (language, texts, rhetoric) and history went their separate ways. Narratives of national history, paramount in Europe after the Napoleonic era, not only defined the further development of history but even gave rise to national philologies, including Slavic studies. Translation became completely dissociated from history and banished to the field of philology. We have had to wait until the emergence of translation studies as a discipline in its own right to see translation restored to its key role in the emergence of Russian history in the 18th century.

University of Leuven (KU Leuven)

Faculty of Arts

Campus Sint-Andries Antwerp

Sint-Andriesstraat 2

B-2000 ANTWERPEN, Belgium

(1) Simon Dixon, The Modernisation of Russia, 1676-1825 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1-7.

(2) Sergey Tyulenev, Translation in the Westernization of Eighteenth-Century Russia: A SocialSystemic Perspective (Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2012).

(3) Irina Gouzevitch, De la Moscovie a l'Empire russe: Le transferi des savoirs europeens (Paris: SABIX, 2003); Gouzevitch, "The Editorial Policy as a Mirror of Petrine Reforms: Textbooks and Their Translators in Early 18th-Century Russia," Science and Education 15, 7-8 (2006): 841-62.

(4) Gary Marker, Publishing, Printing, and the Origins of Intellectual Life in Russia, 1700-1800 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); Max J. Okenfuss, The Rise and Fall of Latin Humanism in Early-Modern Russia: Pagan Authors, Ukrainians, and the Resiliency of Muscovy (Leiden: Brill, 1995); M. S. Kiseleva, Intellektual'nyi vybor Rossii vtoroipoloviny XVII--nachala XVIII veka: Ot drevnerusskoi knizhnosti k evropeiskoi uchenosti (Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, 2011); M. Sh. Fainshtein, "I slavu Frantsii v Rossii prevzoiti ... ": Rossiiskaia akademiia (1783-1841) i razvitie kul 'tury i gumanitarnykh nauk (Moscow: Moskovskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet; St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2002); Zh. I. Alferov, Akademiia nauk v istorii kul'tury Rossii XVIII-XX vekov (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2010); A. Iu. Andreev and S. I. Posokhov, eds., Universitet v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII-pervoipoloviny XIX veka (Moscow: Rosspen, 2012).

(5) Fainshtein, "I slavu Frantsii"; A. V. Doronin, "Vvodia nravy i obychai evropeiskie v evropeiskom narode": Kprobleme adaptatsii zapadnykh idei i praktik v Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow: Rosspen, 2008); Stefanie Stockhorst, Cultural Transfer through Translation: The Circulation of Enlightened Thought in Europe by Means of Translation (New York: Rodopi, 2010); Gabriela Lehmann-Carli, "Aufklarungsrezeption, 'prosveshchenie' und 'Europaisierung,' " Zeitschrififur Slawistik 39 (1994): 358-82; Lehmann-Carli, "Kulturelle Ubersetzung westlicher Konzepte und nachpetrinische Identitatsentwurfe bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts," in Russland zwischen Ost und West? Gratwanderungen nationaler Identitiit, ed. Lehmann-Carli, Yvonne Drosihn, and Ulrike Klitsche-Sowitzki (Berlin: Frank & Timme, 2011), 13-80.

(6) Birgit Scholz, Von der Chronistik zur modernen Geschichtswissenschaft: Die Waragerfrage in der russischen, deutschen und schwedischen Historiographie (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000); Michel Mervaud and Stephane Viellard, eds., Naissance de Thistoriographie russe (Toulouse: Universite de Toulouse II, Le Mirail, 2009); Michael Schippan, Die Aufkldrung in Russland im 18. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 368-99; V. G. Vovina-Lebedeva, Shkoly issledovaniia russkikh letopisei, XIX-XX vv. (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2011); Pierre Gonneau and Ecatherina Rai, eds., Ecrire et reecrire Thistoire russe divan le Terrible a Vasilii Kliuchevskii (1547-1917) (Paris: Institut d'etudes slaves, 2013).

(7) See also Anthony Grafton, The Footnote: A Curious History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997); Grafton, What Was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Rosemary Sweet, Antiquaries: The Discovery of the Past in Eighteenth-Century Britain (London: Habledon and London, 2004); James Turner, Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014).

(8) F. S. Saltykov, "Iz"iavleniia pribytochnye gosudarstvu," in Proekty reform v zapiskakh sovremennikov Petra Velikogo: Opyt izucheniia russkikh proektov i neizdannye ikh teksty, ed. N. P. Pavlov-Sil'vanskii (St. Petersburg: V. Kirshbaum, 1897); see also Lindsey Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 322.

(9) Katalog lichnykh arkhivnykh fondov otechestvennykh istorikov, 1: XVIII vek (Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2001); Katalog lichnykh arkhivnykh fondov otechestvennykh istorikov, 2: Pervaia polovina XIXveka (Moscow: Rosspen, 2007). Hereinafter KLA18v and KLA19v, respectively.

(10) P. P. Pekarskii, Istoriia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk v Peterburge (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1870-73), 1:524, 638-45; V. I. Semennikov, Sobranie staraiushcheesia o perevode inostrannykh knig uchrezhdennoe Ekaterinoi II, 1768-1783 gg.: Istoriko-literatumoe issledovanie (St. Petersburg: Sirius, 1913); Iu. Kh. Kopelevich, Osnovanie peterburgskoiAkademii nauk (Leningrad: Nauka, 1977), 150-54; Ingrid Schierle, "'Sich sowohl in verschiedenen Wissensgebieten als auch in der Landessprache verbessern': Ubersetzungen im Zeitalter Katharinas II," in Russische Aufklarungsrezeption im Kontext offizieller Bildungskonzepte (1700-1825), ed. Gabriela Lehmann-Carli, Michael Schippan, Birgit Scholz, and Silke Brohm (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2001), 627.

(11) See, e.g., Chantal Grell, Lhistoire entre erudition etphilosophic: Etude sur la connaissance historiqtie a l'age des Lumieres (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1993); and Martin Mulsow, Prekares Wissen: Eine andere Ideengeschichte der Fruhen Neuzeit (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2012).

(12) Turner, Philology, 55-56; Kiseleva, Intellektual'nyi vybor.

(13) The term "Archaeographia" was coined by Jacques Spon in 1685 and bore the meaning of archeology. The word survived with the meaning of paleography only in Slavic languages (Turner, Philology, 184-85).

(14) James Cracraft, The Petrine Revolution in Russian Culture (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2004).

(15) Okenfuss, Rise and Fall of Latin Humanism; Peter Burke, Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Burke, "Cultures of Translation in Early Modern Europe," in Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe, ed. Burke and R. Po-Chia Hsia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 7-38.

(16) A. Iu. Samarin, Rasprostranenie i chitatel pervykh pechatnykh knig po istorii Rossii (konets XVII-XVIII v.) (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo MGUP, 1998), 20-76; S. I. Malovichko, Otechestvennaia istoricheskaia mysT XVIII veka o vozniknovenii i rannei sotsial'no-politicheskoi zhizni drevnerusskogo goroda (ot kievskogo "Sinopsisa" do "Nestora" A. L. Shletsera) (Stavropol': Izdatel'stvo Stavropol'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2001); O. Ia. Sapozhnikov and I. Iu. Sapozhnikova, Mechta o russkom edinstve: Kievskii sinopsis (1674) (Moscow: Evropa, 2013).

(17) P. I. Khoteev, Nemetskaia kniga i russkii chitatel' vpervoi polovine XVIII veka (St. Petersburg: Biblioteka Akademii nauk, 2008), 106.

(18) Tat'iana Ilarionova, Nemtsy na gosudarstvennoi sluzhbe Rossii: K istorii voprosa na primere osvoeniia Dal'nego Vostoka (Moscow: Institut energii znanii, 2009), 18-25; T. L. Labutina, Anglichane v dopetrovskoi Rossii (St. Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2011), 179, 182.

(19) V. A. Kovrigina, "Nemetskaia sloboda Moskvy i ee rol' v russko-germanskikh kontaktakh pervoi poloviny XVHI v.," in Russkie i nemtsy v XVIII veke: Vstrecha kul'tur, ed. S. Ia. Karp, I. Shlobakh [Jochen Schlobach], and N. F. Sokol'skaia (Moscow: Nauka, 2000), 189-202; Walter Suss, "Stanovlenie i razvitie sotsiokul'turnykh i obrazovaternykh sviazei Rossii i Germanii: Epokha Petra I," in Nemtsy v Rossii: Rossiisko-nemetskii dialog, ed. G. I. Smagina (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2001), 145-54; G. V. Shebaldina, Shvedskie voennoplennye v Sibiri: Pervaia chetvert 'XVIII veka (Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 2005); A. Iu. Poslykhalin, "Shvedskie voennoplennye vremen Severnoi voiny v Moskve i Podmoskov'e, 1700-1721" (

(20) Khoteev, Nemetskaia kniga, 106.

(21) Friedrich Christian Weber, Nouveaux memoires sur l'etat present de la Grande Russie ou Moscovie (Paris: Pissot, 1725), 30; see also Veber [Weber], Preobrazhennaia Rossiia: Novye zapiski o nyneshnem sostoianii Moskovii, trans. D. V. Solov'ev (St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo SPb, 2011), 23.

(22) T. S. Maikova, "Petr I i 'Gistoriia Sveiskoi voiny,'" in Rossiia vperiod reform Petra I: Sbornik statei, ed. N. I. Pavlenko (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), 103-5.

(23) P. P. Pekarskii, Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom, 1: Vvedenie v istoriiu prosveshcheniia v Rossii XVIII veka (St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia pol'za, 1862), 317-19; A. B. Kamenskii, Arkhivnoe delo v Rossii XVIII veka: Istoriko-kul 'turnyi aspekt (Postanovka problemy, istoriografiia, istochniki) (Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 1991), 94-95; S. P. Luppov, Kniga v Rossii v pervoi chetverti XVIII veka (Leningrad: Nauka, 1973); Luppov, Kniga v Rossii vposlepetrovskoe vremia, 1725-1740 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1976); Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great, 325.

(24) E. A. Savel'eva, "Perevodnye istoricheskie trudy v Rossii v pervoi polovine XVIII v.," in Rukopisnaia i pechatnaia kniga v Rossii: Problemy sozdaniia i rasprostraneniia. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, ed. M. V. Kukushkina (Leningrad: Biblioteka Akademii nauk SSSR, 1988), 118-30; N. A. Kopanev, "Petr I--perevodchik," XVIII vek, no. 16 (1989): 180-83; Jozien Driessen, Tsaar Peter en zijn Amsterdamse vrienden (Utrecht: Kosmos-Z&K Uitgevers, 1996), 106; Elena Pogosian, Petr I--arkhitektor rossiiskoi istorii (St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPb, 2001), 282; M. A. Wes, Tussen twee bronzen ruiters: Klassieken in Rutland, 1700-1855 (Baarn: Ambo, 1991), 23-24, 36-41; Dinah Ribard and Helene Fernandez, "Histoire," in Histoire des traductions en langue francaise: XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles, ed. Yves Chevrel, Annie Cointre, and Yen-Mat TranGervat (Lagrasse: Verdier, 2014), 774-76.

(25) Vvedenie, v gistoriiu evropeiskuiu: Chrez Samuila Pufendorfiia, na nemetskom iazytse slozhennoe. Takzhe chrez Ioanna Friderika Kramera, na latinskii prelozhennoe, nyne zhe poveleniem velikogo gosudaria Petra Pervogo, vserossiiskogo imperatora, na rossiiskii s latinskogoprevedennoe, trans. G. F. Buzhinskii (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1718, 1723); Vvedenie v istoriiu znatneishikh evropeiskikh gosudarstv: S primechaniiami i politicheskimi razsuzhdeniiami. Perevedena s nemetskogo Borisom Volkovym (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1767-77). See also G. I. Smagina, "Nemetskie uchebniki po vseobshchei istorii v rossiiskoi shkole XVIII v.," in Nemtsy v Rossii: Rossiisko-nemetskii dialog, 174.

(26) Pierre Gonneau, "Pierre le Grand, lecteur de la Stepennaja kniga: A la recherche de precedents historiques a la decheance du tsarevitch Alexis," Revue des etudes slaves 76, 1 (2005): 51-59.

(27) Svetlana Korzun, Heinrich von Huyssen (1666-1739): Prinzenerzieher, Diplomat und Publizist in den Diensten Zar Peters I., des Grofien (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014).

(28) Pogosian, Petr I, 187; Ludwig Nikolaus Hallart, "Podrobnoe opisanie osady goroda Narvy i srazheniia pod sim gorodom v 1700 godu (otryvok iz Istorii Petra Velikogo, sochinennoi generalom Allartom: Rukopis'," Severnyi arkhiv 1, 1-2 (1822): 3-28, 117-43; Korzun, Heinrich von Huyssen, 175. See also Wim Coudenys, "Translado historiae: The Role of Translation in 18th-Century Russian History Writing," in "A Century Mad and Wise": Russia in the Age of the Enlightenment, ed. Emmanuel Waegemans, Hans Van Koningsbrugge, Marcus Levitt, and Mikhail Ljustrov (Groningen: Netherlands Russia Center, 2015), 372-75.

(29) V. S. Fedorov, 200-letie Kabineta Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva, 1704-1904 (St. Petersburg: R. Golike i A. Bil'borg, 1911), 167-69.

(30) Maikova, "Petr I i Gistoriia."

(31) Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great, 21-62.

(32) Friedrich Christian Weber, Dos veranderte Russland in welchem die jetzige Verfassung des Geist und weltlicben Regiments der Kriegs-Staat zu Lande und zu Wasser ... (Leipzig: N. Forsler, 1744), 253-54; Preobrazhennaia Rossiia, 157; Astrid Blome, '"Die Zeitungen sind der Grand, die Anweisungen und Richtschnur aller Klugheit ...': Zu den Grundlagen der RulSlandhistoriographie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert," in Die Kenntnis Rufilands im deutschsprachigen Raum im 18. Jahrhundert: Wissenschajt und Publizistik iiber das Russische Reich, ed. Dittmar Dahlmann (Gottingen: V&R unipress, 2006), 25-41.

(33) Fedorov, 200-letie, 165-67; Korzun, Heinrich von Huyssen, 174-80.

(34) Marker, Publishing Printing, and the Origins, 46; G. I. Smagina, "Rossiiskie-nemetskie nauchnye sviazi v XVIII-XIX w.," in Nemtsy v Rossii: Rossiisko-nemetskie nauchnye i kul 'turnye sviazi, ed. Smagina (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2000), 209, 213.

(35) A. A. Chernobaev, "Nemetskie uchenye-istoriki--chleny Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk v XVIII v.," in Nemtsy v Rossii: Tri veka nauchnogo sotrudnichestva, ed. G. I. Smagina, N. V. Kolpakova, and I. V. Cherkaz'ianova (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2003), 127.

(36) Materialy dlia istorii Imperatorskoi akademii nauk (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1885-1900), 1:19; M. V. Istrina, "Akademicheskie perevodchiki v XVIII veke," in Knizhnoe delo v Rossii v XVI-XIX vekakh: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, ed. S. E Luppov and A. A. Zaitseva (Leningrad: Biblioteka Akademii nauk SSSR, 1980), 105-15.

(37) Pekarskii, Istoriia, 1: 180-96; Kopelevich, Osnovanie, 142; N. E. Vasil'eva, "Nemtsyvostokovedy v Akademii nauk (XVIII-pervaia polovina XIX v.)," in Nemtsy v Rossii: Peterburgskie nemtsy, ed. G. I. Smagina (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1999), 126-27; Smagina, "Rossiiskie-nemetskie nauchnye sviazi"; Smagina, "Nemtsy-uchitelia i ustroiteli uchebnykh zavedenii Peterburga v XVIII v.," in Russkie i nemtsy v XVIII veke, 203-10; Birgit Scholz, "Russische Geschichte an der Petersburger Akademie der Wissenschaften in der ersten Halite des 18. Jahrhunderts.," in Russische Aufklarungsrezeption, 515-36; Michel Mervaud, "L'Histoire d'Azov de Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer," in Naissance de I'historiographie russe, 17-25.

(38) Eduard Winter, ed., Halle als Ausgangspunkt der deutschen Russlandkunde im 18. Jahrbundert (Berlin: Akademie, 1953), 182-83; Smagina, "Rossiiskie-nemetskie nauchnye sviazi," 212; Starchevskii, Ocherk, 125; Avgust Liudvig Shletser [August Ludwig von Schlozer], Obshchestvennaia i chastnaia zhizn 'Avgusta Liudviga Shletsera im samim opisannaia: Prebyvanie i sluzhba v Rossii ot 1761 do 1765 g. Izvestiia o togdashnei russkoi literature, trans. V. Kenevich (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1875), 4.

(39) Materialy dlia istorii Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 6:156; see also N. V. Zdobnov, Istoriia russkoi bibliografii do nachala XX veka (Moscow: Izdatel 'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 19 51), 41.

(40) V. N. Peretts, Istoriko-literaturnye issledovaniia i materialy, 3: Iz istorii razvitiia russkoipoezii XVIII v. (St. Petersburg: F. Vaisberg i P. Gershunin, 1902), 87-150; Winter, Halle, 170-71, 192; Eduard Winter, "Ein Bericht von Johann Werner Paus aus dem Jahre 1732," Zeitschrift fiir Slawistik 3, 5 (1958): 744-70; Helmut Gliick and Ineta Polanska, Johann Ernst Gliick (1654-1705): Pastor, Philologe, Volksaufklarer im Baltikum und in Russland (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 102-5; Andrea Huterer, Die Wortbildungslehre in der Anweisung zur Erlernung der slavonisch-russischen Sprache (1705-1729) von Johann Werner Paus (Munich: Otto Sagner, 2001), 20-26.

(41) See also E. A. Savel'eva, "Izdanie russkikh letopisei v 'Sammlung Russischer Geschichte' G. F. Millera," in Nemtsy v Rossii: Peterburgskie nemtsy, 505-10.

(42) A. V. Starchevskii, Ocherk literatury russkoi istorii do Karamzina (St. Petersburg: K. Zhernakov, 1845), 127-29; N. D. Kochetkova, Slovar' russkikh pisatelei XVIII veka (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1988-2010), 3:107-8 (hereinafter SRP18v).

(43) Joseph L. Black, G.-E Muller and the Imperial Russian Academy (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1986), 105, 239; SRP18v, 2:115-18.

(44) Alla Keuten, "K istorii russkikh i nemetskikh Primechanii k Vedomostiam (1728-1742)," Russian Literature 75 (2014): 265-304.

(45) See the following articles from Gerhard Friedrich Muller, ed., Sammlung russischer Geschichte, 9 vols. (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1732-64): "Alte Azowische und Crimische Begebenheiten," 2, 1 (1736): 36-80; "Azow unter den Genuesern, Tatern und Turcken," 2, 2 (1737): 81-103; "Azow unter den Cosacken," 2, 2 (1737): 104-25; "Was Azows halben bis 1695 vorgefallen," 2, 2 (1737): 126-78; "Belagerung und Eroberung von Azow im Jahr 1695 und 1696," 3, 3 (1737): 179-207; and "Appendix," 3, 3 (1737): 208-76.

(46) T. S. Bayer and I. K. Taubert, Kratkoe opisanie vsekh sluchaev, kasaiushchikhsia do Azova ot sozdaniia sego goroda do vozvrashcheniia onogo pod Rossiiskuiu derzhavu (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1782); E. A. Savel'eva, "Unter-bibliotekar' Iogann Kaspar Taubert," in Nemtsy v Rossii: Russko-nemetskie nauchnye i kul 'turnye sviazi, 295-308; Mervaud, "L'Histoire d'Azov," 24-25.

(47) L. P. Belkovets, Rossiia v nemetskoi istoricheskoi zhurnalistike XVIII v.t G. F. Miller i A. F. Biushing (Tomsk: Izdatel'stvo Tomskogo universiteta, 1988), 69-70; I. P. Kulakova, "G. F. Miller--agent evropeiskogo kul'turnogo vliianiia v Rossii," in G. F Miller i russkaia kul'tura, ed. Dittmar Dahlmann and G. I. Smagina (St. Petersburg: Rostok, 2007), 346.

(48) Peter Hoffmann, Anton Friedrich Biisching (1724-1793): Ein Leben im Zeitalter der Aufklarung (Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 2000); Black, G.-F. Muller, 123-58; Gudrun Bucher, "Auf verschlungenen Pfaden: Die Aufnahme von Gerhard Friedrich Midlers Schriften in Europa," in Die Kenntnis Rufilands im deutschsprachigen Raum im 18. Jahrhundert: Wissenschaft und Publizistik uber das Russische Reich, ed. Dittmar Dahlmann (Gottingen: V&R unipress, 2006), 111-23.

(49) Black, G.-F. Muller, 103-4; Z. D. Titova, "Vklad G. F. Millera v istoriko-etnograficheskoe izuchenie narodov Sibiri," in G. F. Miller i russkaia kul'tura, 215-25.

(50) Gerhard Friedrich Muller, "Instruction G. F. Mullers fur den Akademiker-Adjuncten J. E. Fischer," Sbornik Muzeia antropologii i etnografii, no. 1 (1900): 37-109; see also also Z. D. Titova, T. E. Fisher-uchastnik vtoroi Kamchatskoi ekspeditsii (neopublikovannye materialy serediny XVIII v.)," in Nemtsy v Rossii: Rossiisko-nemetskii dialog, 27-32.

(51) Materialy dlia istorii Imperatorskoi akademii nauk 6:319-20; Titova, "I. E. Fisher"; V. S. Sobolev, "I. E. Fisher i izuchenie Sibiri," in G. F. Miller i russkaia kul 'turn, 293-96.

(52) Titova, "Vklad G. F. Millera," 222-24.

(53) G. F. Miller, Istoriia Sibiri (Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 193741), 1:65.

(54) Ibid., 1:462-63.

(55) G. F. Miller, Opisanie sibirskogo tsarstva i vsekhproizshedshikh v nem del, otnachala a osoblivo ot pokoreniia ego Rossiiskoi Derzhave po sii vremena (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1750), "Predislovie," no page nos.; Miller, Istoriia Sibiri, 1:465.

(56) Winter, Halle, 324; SRP18v, 2:116.

(57) G. F. Miller, "O pervom letopisatele Rossiiskom prepodobnom Nestore, o ego letopisi i o prodolzhateliakh onykh," Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia, k pol 'ze i uveseleniiu sluzhashchie, no. 1 (1755): 275-98. See also Materialy dlia istoriiImperatorskoi akademii nauk 6:101; Black, G.-F. Muller, 132-33; Savel'eva, "Izdanie"; and A. B. Kamenskii, G. F. Miller: Sochineniia po istorii Rossii. Izbrannoe (Moscow: Nauka, 1996), 5-14.

(58) Gerhard Friedrich Muller, "Nachricht von einem alten MSt. der Russischen Geschichte des Abtes Theodisii von Kiow," Sammlung russischer Geschichte 1, 1 (1732): 1-8; Muller, "Auszug russischer Geschichte nach Anleitung des Chronici Theodosiani Koiuisensis," Sammlung russischer Geschichte 1, 1 (1732): 9-26; 1, 2 (1733): 93-113; 1, 3: 171-95; 1, 4 (1734): 349-58; 1, 5: 359-406; 1, 6 (1735): 455-94.

(59) Winter, Halle, 768.

(60) Pekarskii, Nauka i literatura, 319-20.

(61) V. V. Fomin, "M. V. Lomonosov i russkaia istoricheskaia nauka," in Slovo o Lomonosove, ed. Fomin (Moscow: Russkaia panorama, 2012), 138-207; G. R. Naumova and A. V. Nikonov, "M. V. Lomonosov v otechestvennoi istoriografii," in "Znatnym ukrasheniem Otechestvu posluzhivshii ... Tvorchestvo M. V Lomonosova i kul 'turn Rossii Novogo vremeni, ed. A. K. Gladkov (Moscow: Zaikonospasskii-Stavropigial'nyi muzhskoi monastyr', 2014), 369-82.

(62) Birgit Scholz, "Nemetsko-rossiiskaia polemika po 'variazhskomu voprosu' v Peterburgskoi Akademii," in Russkie i nemtsy v XVIII veke, 105-16; Scholz, Von der Chronistik; Alexandre Khlevov, "La question normande et Involution de Fhistoriographie russe au XVIIIe siecle," in Naissance de l'historiographie russe, 145-62; Mervaud, "L'Histoire d'Azov? 22; M. B. Sverdlov, M. V. Lomonosov istanovlenie istoricheskoi nauki v Rossii (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2011), 548-89; V. Berdinskikh, Remeslo istorika v Rossii (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2009), 273-77.

(63) Starchevskii, Ocherk literatury russkoi istorii, 142.

(64) Steven A. Usitalo, The Invention of Mikhail Lomonosov: A Russian National Myth (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013), 70-73.

(65) Sverdlov, M. V. Lomonosov, 432.

(66) "Proposals for the Improvement of the History of Russia, by Publishing, from Time to Time, Separate Pieces to Serve for a Collection of All Sorts of Memoirs, relating to the Transactions and State of That Nation, by Mr Muller," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 38 (1733): 136-42. See also G. F. Miller, Izbrannye trudy (Moscow: Ianus-K, 2006), 713-15.

(67) "Predlozhenie kak ispravit' pogreshnosti, nakhodiashchiesia v inostrannykh pisateliakh pisavshikh o Rossiiskom gosudarstve," Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia, k pol 'zu i uveseleniiu slushashchie, no. 5 (1757): 224-31. See also Kamenskii, G. F. Miller: Sochineniia, 15-18, 418-19.

(68) See also Martin Peters, Altes Reich und Europa: Der Historiker, Statistiker und Publizist August Ludwig (v.) Schlozer (1735-1809) (Munster: Lit Verlag, 2003), 89-106.

(69) Sverdlov, M. V Lomonosov, 812-21; E. A. Savel'eva, "Petrovskaia kopiia 'Radzivilovskoi letopisi' kak pamiatnik redaktorskoi i izdatel'skoi deiatel'nosti serediny XVIII veka," in Sbornik nauchnykh trudov (po materialam nauchnykh konferentsii BAN), ed. V. P. Leonov (St. Petersburg: Biblioteka Akademii nauk, 2010), 186-94; SRP18v, 1:57-62.

(70) Letopis' Nestora sprodolzhateliamipo Keningsbergskomu spisku, do 1206goda (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1767), 6-7.

(71) See also Iu. M. Lotman, N. I. Tolstoi, and B. A. Uspenskii, "Nekotorye voprosy tekstologii i publikatsii russkikh literaturnykh pamiatnikov XVIII veka," IzvestiiaANSSSR- Seriia literatury i iazyka 40, 4 (1981): 312-23.

(72) Savel'eva, "Petrovskaia kopiia."

(73) Russkaia letopis' po Nikonovu spisku: Chast' pervaia do 1094 goda (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1767), "Predislovie," no page nos.; see also Peters, Altes Reich, 101-6.

(74) August Ludwig Schlozer, August Ludwig Schlozer's offentliches und privat-Leben, von ihm selbst beschrieben (Gottingen: n.p., 1802), 116; Shletzer, Obshchestvennaia i chastnaia zhizn ', 106-7; SRP18v, 3:107.

(75) Schlozer, August Ludwig Schldzer's offentliches und privat-Leben, 117-18; Shletzer, Obshchestvennaia i chastnaia zhizn', 107-8.

(76) Sudebnik tsaria i velikogo kniazia Ivana Vasil 'evicha, zakony iz iustinianovykh knig, ukazy dopolnitel'nye k Sudebniku i Tamozhennyi ustav tsaria i velikogo kniazia Ivana Vasil'evicha (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1768), "Predislovie."

(77) For Tatishchev, see A. P. Tolochko, "Istoriia Rossiiskaia" Vasiliia Tatisbcheva: Istochniki i izvestiia (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2005); on Muller, see Vovina-Lebedeva, Shkoly, 59-60.

(78) See also N. D. Kochetkova, "Geschichte und historische Kenntnisse im aufklarerischen Programm der russischen Freimaurer," in Russische Aufkldrungsrezeption im Kontext, 579-88.

(79) N. I. Novikov, "K chitateliu," Drevniaia rossiiskaia vivliofika, no. 1 (1773): no page nos.; see also G. N. Moiseeva, "Arkheograficheskaia deiatel'nost' N. I. Novikova," XVIII vek, no. 11 (1976): 24-36.

(80) V. P. Kozlov, Kruzhok A. I. Musina-Pushkina i 'Slovo o polku Igoreve: Novye stranitsy istorii drevnerusskoipoemy v XVIII v. (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), 210-12; Fainshtein, "Islavu Frantsii," 77-80, 98-99; Viacheslav Kolominov and Mikhail Fainshtein, Khram muz slovesnykh: Iz istorii Rossiiskoi akademii (Leningrad: Nauka, 1986), 25-28.

(81) Kozlov, Kruzhok A. I. Musina-Pushkina, 218-19.

(82) Ibid., 172-83; S. N. Valk, "I. N. Boltin i ego rabota nad Russkoi Pravdoi," Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 14 (1958): 650-56; Valk, "Russkaia Pravda v izdaniiakh i izucheniiakh XVIII-nachala XIX veka," Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1958god, 123-59; Valk, "Eshche o Boltinskom izdanii Pravdy Russkoi," Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 30 (1976): 324-31.

(83) See also V. P. Liubimov, "Spiski Pravdy Russkoi," in Pravda Russkaia, ed. B. D. Grekov (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1940), 1:13.

(84) Pravda russkaia ili zakony velikikh kniazei Iaroslava Vladimirovich a i Vladimira Vsevolodovicha Monomakha: S prelozheniem Drevnego onykh narechiia i sloga na upotrebitel'nye nyne, i s ob "iasneniem slov i nazvanii iz upotrebleniia vyshedshikh (St. Petersburg: Liubiteli otechestvennoi istorii, 1792), vii.

(85) Dukhovnaia velikogo kniazia Vladimira Vsevolodovicha Monomakha detiam svoim, nazvannaia v letopisi suzdal skoi pouchenie (St. Petersburg: Korpus chuzhestrannykh edinovertsev, 1793); see also Kozlov, Kruzhok A. I. Musina-Pushkina, 186-89.

(86) D. S. Likhachev, "Istoriia podgotovki k pechati teksta 'Slovo o polku Igoreve' v kontse XVIII v.," in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 13 (1957): 66-89; Kozlov, Kruzhok A. I. Musina-Pushkina; Edward L. Keenan, Josef Dobrovsky and the Origins of the Igor' Tale (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); A. G. Bobrov, "Proiskhozhdenie i sud'ba Musin-Pushkinskogo sbornika so 'Slovom o polku Igoreve,'" in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 62 (2014): 528-53; A. G. Kostin, Slovo o polku Igoreve--poddelka tysiacheletiia (Moscow: Algoritm, 2014).

(87) Iroicheskaia pesn' o pokhode na Polovtsev udel nogo kniazia Novagoroda-Severskogo Igoria Sviatoslavicha, pisannaia starinym russkim iazykom v iskhode XII stoletiia s perelozheniem na upotrebliaemoe nyne narechie (Moscow: Senatskaia tipografiia, 1800), vi.

(88) Kozlov, Kruzhok A. I. Musina-Pushkina, 194, 235; see also Iu. D. Levin, Ossian v russkoi literature: KonetsXVIII-pervaia tret 'XIX veka (Leningrad: Nauka, 1983), 72-77; see also Peter France, "Fingal in Russia," in The Reception of Ossian in Europe, ed. Howard Gaskill (London: Continuum, 2004), 259-73.

(89) See also Parallel'nyi korpus perevodov "Slovo o polku Igoreve" ( slovo/).

(90) A. S. Shishkov, "Primechaniia na drevnee sochinenie, nazyvaemoe Istoricheskaia pesn' o pokhode na polovtsev ili Slovo o polku Igorevom," Sochineniia i perevody, izdavaemye Rossiiskoiu Akademieiu 1 (1805): 201-2; see also Kozlov, KruzhokA. I. Musina-Pushkina, 239.

(91) See also Likhachev, "Istoriia podgotovki"; and L. A. Dmitriev, Istoriiapervogo izdaniia Slova opolku Igoreve: Materialy i issledovanie (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR, 1960), 269-368.

(92) V. G. Vovina-Lebedeva, "Iozef Dobrovskii--issledovatel' russkogo letopisaniia," in Evropeiskoe Prosveshchenie i tsivilizatsiia Rossii, ed. S. Ia. Karp and S. A. Mezin (Moscow: Nauka, 2004), 314-17; Vovina-Lebedeva, Shkoly, 59-166.

(93) August Ludwig Schlozer, Russische Annalen in ihrer Slavonischen Grund-Sprache verglichen, ubers. und erklart von August Ludwig Schlozer (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1802-09); A. L. Shletser, Nestor: Russkiie letopisi na drevne-slavenskom iazyke, slychennye, perevedennye i ob"iasnennye Avgustom Ludovikom Shletserom (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia tipografiia, 1809); see also Peters, Altes Reich, 417-24; and Helmut Keipert and M. Sh. Fainshtein, Das "Sprache'-Kapitel in August Ludwig Schlozers "Nestor" und die Grundlegung der historisch-vergleichenden Methode fur die slavische Sprachwissenschaji (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006).

(94) Voltaire, Anecdotes sur le czar Pierre le Grand: Histoire de l'empire de Russie sous Pierre le Grand, ed. Michel Mervaud (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1999), 46, 89-104; Mervaud and Veillard, Naissance de I'historiographie russe, esp. Michel Mervaud, "Voltaire historien de la Russie: Verite ou histoire militante?" (229-59); Sverdlov, M. V. Lomonosov, 589-95; S. A. Mezin, Vzgliad iz Evropy: Frantsuzskie avtory XVIII v. o Petre I (Saratov: Saratovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2003), 72-115.

(95) Voltaire, Anecdotes, 120-22, 1255-61.

(96) Ibid., 101-4; see also V. S. Rzheutskii, "Baron de Chudi--perevodchik Lomonosova: K istorii perevoda i perevodchikov v Rossii epokhi prosveshcheniia," in Lomonosov: Sbornik statei i materialov, ed. A. I. Andreev and L. B. Modzalevskii (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2011), 269-80.

(97) Voltaire, Anecdotes, 104-22; Sverdlov, M. V. Lomonosov, 580-697

(98) Voltaire, Anecdotes, 89-153, 312-46; Sverdlov, M. V Lomonosov, 697-707.

(99) Voltaire, Anecdotes, 346, 372; KLA18v, 36, 43; V. D. Rak, Stat 7 o literature XVIII veka (St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo "Pushkinskii Dom," 2008), 244-57.

(100) V. A. Somov, "Pierre-Charles Levesque, protege de Diderot et historien de la Russie," Cahiers du monde russe 43, 2-3 (2002): 202.

(101) See also P. R. Zaborov, Russkaia literatura i Vol 'terXVIII-pervaia tret 'XIX veka (Leningrad: Nauka, 1978), 110-12.

(102) See also S. I. Nikolaev, Petr I v russkoi literature XVIII veka: Teksty i kommentarii (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2006); Mezin, Vzgliad iz Evropy.

(103) Journal de Pierre le Grand depuis I'annee 1698: Jusqua la condusion de la paix de Nystadt, trans. S. N. Shchepot'ev and Jean-Henri-Samuel Formey (Berlin: G. J. Decker, imprimeur du roi, 1773); Hartwig Ludwig Christian Bacmeister, Beitrdge zur Geschichte Peters des Grofien (Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1774-78).

(104) Liubopytnye i dostopamiatnye skazaniia o imperatore Petre Velikom: Izobrazhaiushchie istinnoe svoistvo sego prepudrogo gosudaria i ottsa otechestva. Sobrannye v techenii soroka let deistvitel 'nym statskim sovetnikom Iakovom Shtelinym, trans. T. R Kiriak (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1786); Podlinnye anekdoty Petra Velikogo slysbannye iz ust znatnykh osob v Moskve i Sankt-Peterburge: Izdannye v svet Iakovom fon Shtelinym, trans. K. Rembovskii, (Moscow: n.p., 1786, 1787, 1789, 1793-1800); Anekdoty o imperatore Petre Velikom, slykhannye ot raznykh znatnykh osob i sobrannye deistvitel 'nym statskim sovetnikom Iakovom Shtelinym (new translation, Moscow: n.p. 1788).

(105) Anecdotes originates de Pierre le Grand: Recueillies de la conversation de diverses personnes de distinction de S. Petersbourg et de Moscou. Par M. de Staehlin, ouvrage traduit de I'allemand (Strassbourg: n.p., 1787). See also Voltaire, Anecdotes, 112, 119, 1257.

(106) Sverdlov, M. V. Lomonosov, 707-14; D. V. Tiulichev, Knigoizdatel'skaia deiatel'nost' peterburgskoi Akademii mutri M. V Lomonosov (Leningrad: Nauka, 1988), 235-36.

(107) Michail Lomonosoff, Kurzgefafites Jahr-Buch der russischen Regenten, trans. Peter von Stahlin, 2 vols. (Riga: Johann Friedrich Hardenoch, 1771).

(108) Z., "Kurzgefafites Jahr-Buch der Russischen Regenten, aus dem Russischen des Hrn. Etaats-Raths Michaila Lomonossoff iibersezt dur Peter von Stahlin," Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 8, 1 (1765): 101-5. See also Peters, Altes Reich, 73.

(109) "Kurzgefasstes Jahrbuch der Rufiischen Regenten," Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 24, 1 (1775): 483.

(110) F. Ia. Priima, "Georg Forster--perevodchik Lomonosova," in Russkaia literatura na Zapade: Stat'i i razyskaniia (Leningrad: Nauka, 1970), 77-90; T. J. Reed, Light in Germany: Scenes from an Unknown Enlightenment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015), 77-78; A. E. Martin, "Ubersetzung und die Entdeckung der Welt: Georg Forster (1754-1794) und die Reiseliteratur," in Ubersetzung/Translation/Traduction, ed. Harald Kittel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 2:1634-41.

(111) Quoted in Anthony Cross, Anglo-Russica: Aspects of Cultural Relations between Great Britain and Russia in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries (Oxford: Berg, 1993), 9.

(112) Michael Lomonossow, Alte russische Geschichte von dem Ursprunge der russischen Nation bis auf den Tod des Grosfiirsten Jaroslaws des Ersten, oder bis aufdas Jahr 1054, trans. Hartwig Ludwig Christian Bacmeister (Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1768), "Vorbericht des Ubersetzers."

(113) "Avis du traducteur," in Mihail Lomonosov, Histoire de la Russie depuis I'origine de la nation russe jusqua la mort du Grand-Due Jaroslaws Premier (Dijon: Guillyn, 1769), iii, x-xi. See also Tiulichev, Knigoizdatel 'skaia deiatel 'nost' 236.

(114) Jurgen von Stackelberg, Ubersetzungeti aus zweiter Hand: Rezeptionsvorgange in der europaischen Literatur vom 14. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984); Genevieve Roche, Les traductions-relais en Allemagne au XVIIIe siecle: Des lettres aux sciences (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2001).

(115) See also P. Zaborov, "Die Zwischenubersetzung in der Geschichte der russischen Literatur," in Ubersetzung/Translation/Traduction, ed. Harald Kittel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 3:2066-73.

(116) F. A. Emin, Rossiiskaia istoriia: Zhizni vsekh drevnikh otsamogo nachala Rossii gosudarei (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1767-69), l:xlii.

(117) SRP18v, 3:444-51.

(118) Ibid., 1:304-9.

(119) S. M. Solov'ev, "Pisateli russkoi istorii XVIII veka: Mankiev, Tatishchev, Lomonosov, Trediakovskii, Shcherbatov, Emin, Elagin, mitropolit Platon," Arkhiv istoriko-iuridicheskikh svedenii otnosiashchikhsia do Rossii 2, 1 (1855):iii, 3-82; see also T. V. Artem'eva, Ideia istorii v Rossii XVIII veka: Filosofikii vek. Al'manakh (St. Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburgskii tsentr istorii idei, 1998), 135-59; Artem'eva, "Die 'Rhetorische Schule' in der russischen Historiographie," in Russische Aufkldrungsrezeption im Kontext, SHI-11 ?

(120) Schippan, Aufklarung, 393.

(121) V. A. Somov, "Frantsuzskaia 'Rossika' epokhi prosveshcheniia i russkii chitatel'," in Frantsuzskaia kniga v Rossii v XVIII v.: Ocherki istorii, ed. S. P. Luppov (Leningrad: Nauka, 1986), 173-245; I. E. Barenbaum, Frantsuzskaia perevodnaia kniga v Rossii v XVIII veke: Knizhnaia kul 'tura v mirovom sotsiume. Teoriia, istoriia, praktika (Moscow: Nauka, 2006).

(122) See also Marcus C. Levitt, "An Antidote to Nervous Juice: Catherine the Great's Debate with Chappe d'Auteroche over Russian Culture," Eighteenth-Century Studies 32, 1 (1998): 49-63.

(123) I. N. Boltin, Primechaniia na istoriiu drevniia i nyneshniia Rossii gospodina Leklerka, sochinennye general maiorom Ivan Boltinym (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Gornogo uchilishcha, 1788-94); M. M. Shcherbatov, Pis'mo kniazia Shcherbatova, socbinitelia rossiiskoi istorii, k odnomu ego priiateliu, v opravdanie na nekotorye skrytye i iavnye okhuleniia uchinennye ego Istorii ot Gospodina General-Maiora Boltina, tvortsa Primechanii na Istoriiu drevniia i nyneshniia Rossii, G. Leklerka (Moscow: Universitetskaia Tipografiia u N. Novikova, 1789); I. N. Boltin, Otvet GeneralMaiora Boltina na pis 'mo kniazia Shcherbatova, socbinitelia rossiiskoi istorii (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Gornogo uchilishcha, 1789); M. M. Shcherbatov, Primechaniia na otvet gospodina general maiora Boltina, na pis 'mo kniazia Shcherbatova, soderzhashchie v sebe liubopytnye i poleznye svedeniia dlia liubitelei rossiiskoi istorii, takozh istinyia opravdaniia i priamyia dokazatel 'stva protiv ego vozrazhenii, kritiki i okhulenii (Moscow: Universitetskaia Tipografiia u V. Okorokova, 1792).

(124) Boltin, Primechaniia, 2:53-59.

(125) Pierre-Charles Levesque, Histoire des dijferents peuples soumis a la domination des Russes: Ou suite de Phistoire de Russie (Paris: de Bure 1'aine, 1783), 1 :ii-lii.

(126) Boltin, Primechaniia, 1:286. See also S. N. Valk, "Un memoire de Pierre-Charles Levesque sur la Russkaja Pravda," Revue des etudes slaves 41, 1-4 (1962): 9; Andre Mazon, "PierreCharles Levesque, humaniste, historien et moraliste," Revue des etudes slaves 42, 1 (1963): 7-66; Somov, "Pierre-Charles Levesque"; Mezin, Vzgliad iz Evropy, 200-15.

(127) Schlozer, RussischeAnnalen, 1:110.

(128) N. M. Karamzin, Sochineniia, 2 vols. (Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1984), 1:344.

(129) Iu. M. Lotman, Karamzin: Sotvorenie Karamzina, stat 7 i issledovaniia 1957-1990. Zametki i retsenzii (St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo SPb, 1997), 565-78.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Coudenys, Wim
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EXRU
Date:Sep 22, 2016
Previous Article:Across and beyond: rethinking transnational history.
Next Article:On faith and fanaticism: converts from Judaism and the limits of toleration in late imperial Russia.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters