"Master of many tongues": The Russian Academy Dictionary (1789--1794) as a socio -historical document

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content “MASTER OF MANY TONGUES” THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY DICTIONARY (1789-1794) AS A SOCIO-HISTORICAL DOCUMENT by Myriam Lefloch A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (SLAVIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES) December 2002 Copyright 2002 Myriam Lefloch Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3093782 UMI UMI Microform 3093782 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The G raduate School U niversity Park LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900894695 This dissertation, wr i t t e n b y MVfc/ AM LBFLocH Under th e direction o f hM£.. D issertation Com m ittee, an d approved b y a ll its m embers, has been p resen ted to and accepted b y The Graduate School, in p a rtia l fulfillm ent o f requirem ents fo r th e degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ' Dean o f Graduate Studies D ate December 18, 2002 DISSERTA TION COMMITTEE - C ' r* ' QstiSuJji^ Chairperson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION Fur Buscha Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have contributed to the completion of this thesis over the years and have provided most valuable advice and support. First and foremost, my sincerest thanks go to Marcus Levitt and Alexander Zholkovskii, my professors and advisors in the Slavic Department at the University of Southern California. Marcus Levitt suggested the theme, which appealed to me immediately. An eighteenth century specialist, he supervised the writing process closely, read multiple variants of chapters, and made insightful suggestions, which, on several occasions, gave my thoughts a new direction. With an eagle’s eye he always found the weak spots. I also wish to thank Victor Zhivov, who kindly met with me in the very beginning of the project to discuss its outline. I am very grateful to Wojciech Zalewski, former Slavic/Eastern Europe curator at the Stanford University Libraries, who ordered the SAR’s first edition on microfilm for me. My special thanks further go to Elena Danielson, Director of the Hoover Institution Library and Archives, for believing in the cause and providing practical and moral support, without which I could not have finished. I also wish to thank Benjamin Beck, who shared his views on and ample knowledge of Russian and West European history with me. His comments on the first chapter were most helpful. Linda Bernard, Nadya Bodanskaia, Galia Pastur, Claudia Rose, Susan Ryan, and Romy Taylor have encouraged me many times and were always ready to lend an ear or to offer help. I discussed various aspects of the dissertation with each of them, as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I also relyed on their help with editing and translating. I am further most grateful to Elizabeth Durst and Benjamin Beck for copying otherwise inaccessible literature for me in St. Petersburg. Andrei Arkhipov, Fr. Valerii Bulannikov, and Galia Pastur have answered numerous questions on the Orthodox belief and the history of religion for me. Without their guidance the dictionary’s references to Orthodoxy and the Russian church service would have remained more of a secret to me. My thanks also go to Evgeniia Belova, Michelle Torry, and Lora Wheeler for their help with proofreading and editing parts of this dissertation. Last not least, I wish to thank Antoine Lefloch for faith, patience, and indispensible practical support. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ii Acknowledgments iii List of Tables vii Abstract viii Introduction 1 CHAPTER I: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 6 1. The Academies in Europe: Institutionalized Civil Societies 2. “Societies” and Academies in Russia 3. The Russian Academy: Inauguration, Finances, Statutes 4. The Academicians: Their Social and Professional Backgrounds CHAPTER II: THE PLANNING STAGE 64 1. The Time Frame 2. Three Working Stages 3. Fonvizin vs. Boltin: Preliminary Remarks 4. Fonvizin’s Nachertanie 5. Paragraph I: “O Vybore Slov” [Regarding the Selection of Words] 6. Selection of the Word Material According to Lepekhin’s Preface 7. Evaluation of the Word Material in the SAR 8. Paragraph II: “O grammaticheskom slovoupotreblenii” [Regarding the Grammatical Use [i.e. Features] of a Word] 9. Paragraph IE: “O znamenovanii slov i rechenii” [Regarding the Meaning of Words and Expressions] 10. Paragraph TV: “O poriadke alfavitnom” [Regarding the Alphabetical Order] 11. Conclusion CHAPTER HI: COMPILING THE ANALOGICHESKIE TABLITSY AND EDITING THE SAR 123 1. The Analogicheskie Tablitsy and Their Printing History 2. The “Hidden” Sources: Existing Dictionaries and Manuscript Word Collections 3. Editing the SAR: An Outline Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi CHAPTER IV: RUSSIAN NATIONAL AND IMPERIAL CONSCIOUS NESS: EVALUATING THE SAR’S ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL 159 1. The Self-Composed Sentences: Formal Characteristics and the Academicians’ Educational Background 2. Illustrative Phrases and Affirmative Propositions: A Thematic Analysis 2.1. Everyday life routines 2.2. Religion 2.3. Antiquity: References to Greek and Roman Classics and History 2.4. Russian History 2.5. Russian and Foreign Topography, Geography, and Demography. CHAPTER V: LOMONOSOV’S AND TREDIAKOVSKH’S INFLUENCE ON THE SAR: RUSSIAN NATIONAL PRIDE AND THE SLAVONO-RUSSIAN LANGUAGE 229 1. The SAR and Lomonosov: Evaluating Existing Scholarship 1.1. References to Lomonosov the Poet 1.2. References to Lomonosov the Linguist 1.3. References to Lomonsov’s Grammatika and the “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovykh” in the SAR 2. Trediakovskii and the Slavono-Russian Language (Slavenorossiiskii iazyk) CONCLUSION 275 1. The Quoted Sources: The SAR’s Identification with Imperial Russian Interests 2. What are Nation, Nation-State, and Nationalism? 3. “ Rossiia” Defying the Definition of a “Nation” 4. “ Rossiia” Envisaged as a Homogeneous Nation in the SAR 5. The Outstanding Importance of Law and Legislation in the SAR 3. History of Russia in the SAR as the History of Legislation Works Cited 306 APPENDICES Appendix A: Annotated List of the SAR’s Visible Text Sources 315 Appendix B: List of Entry Words Illustrated with Quotations from Secular Text Sources 333 Appendix C: List of Entry Words Illustrated with Quotations from Lomonosov 361 Appendix D: List of Quotes from Lomonosov and Sumarokov in the First, Second, and Last Volume of the SAR 377 Appendix E: List of Entry Words Illustrated with Quotations from Church Books and Other Religious Texts 414 Appendix F : List of Entry Words Illustrated with Quotations from the Bible 432 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viii Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table Table 5 Table Table LIST OF TABLES : List of members of the Russian Academy, arranged by rank, including information on their social and professional background 37 Comparison of Word Entries in Alekseev’s Church Dictionary vs. the SAR 137 : Comparison of Word Entries in the DAF vs. the SAR 140 ■ : Overview of Academicians Participating in Collating Word Material from the Invisible Sources for the AT, arranged in alphabetical order by the letters for which they were responsible 143 : Overview of Who Excerpted Which Texts for the AT/SAR 150 • : Overview of Academicians Contributing to the Work of the Explanatory Devision and their Respective Responsibilities 156 : Overview of Themes recurring in the Self-Composed Illustrative Sentences, Quotations, and in Connection with “Narod” 295 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the little known first edition of the Slovar’ Akademii Rossiiskoi (SAR) [Russian Academy Dictionary] (1789-1794) as a socio- historical document. Conceived as a major reference work, the SAR reflects the world view of the Russian intellectual elite under Catherine the Great. The vocabulary, the word definitions, as well as the illustrative sentences contain a multitude of data that convey a strong sense of patriotism in support of the Russian Empire. At the same time — and in the European context this is an astonishingly early development due to Catherine’s enlightened ideas on statesmanship in the beginning of her reign — the academicians attributed Russia certain features of a modem nation-state. The first chapter describes the Russian Academy as an offspring of the European learned society network. It also introduces its 60 members, all of which belonged to one of three equally strong groups: high ranked administrative personnel, including the president of the institution, Ekaterina Dashkova, the clergy, and the hard scientists. The second and third chapter deal with the SAR’s publishing history. The fifth chapter reevaluates Lomonosov’s influence on the dictionary and traces the concept of Slavenorossiiskii iazyk, amply referred to in the SAR. back to Trediakovskii. The fourth chapter states that the self-composed illustrative sentences reflect the academicians’ broad range of interests and educational background, including foreign cultures (especially ancient Greek and Roman history and letters), Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. morality, the conversational language, and the sciences. On the other hand, the quoted illustrative material — discussed in the conclusion — clearly focuses on issues of national interest: Orthodoxy, Russian literature, Russian history, Russian legislation, and Russian topography. This proves that there is a programmatic side to the dictionary. The academicians make a political statement by consciously shaping the dictionary’s content through the texts quoted, which all refer to the Russian State and Nation. The academicians’ strong identification with Catherine’s imperial goals as well as novel ideas on nationhood and legal thought that pervade the dictionary, make the SAR an exemplary text of the Russian Enlightenment, very different from any other major European language dictionary. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 INTRODUCTION The first edition of the Slovar’ Akademii Rossiiskoi (1789-1794),1 Russia’s first explanatory monolingual dictionary, was a strange book. It was impractical, because the words it contained were arranged in etymological instead of alphabetical order.2 It was old-fashioned, for the compilers were propagating the heavy high- style of Lomonosov’s odes and nadpisi [inscriptions] as the “best” literary language at a time when Karamzin was developing a pleasant light Russian style that was gaining popularity. And, last but not least, the SAR was extremely eclectic without being comprehensive: Despite the academicians’ declared goal to create a reference work for the contemporary Russian language in imitation of the Dictionnaire de l’Academie Francaise (1694),3 they included and explained words extracted from early medieval manuscripts, such as the Russkaia Pravda and the Nestor Chronicle. The SAR’s destiny was strange, too. When the Russian Academy was founded in 1783 and the Russian language dictionary was announced to be its first project, this was considered an event of national importance. Highest ranked officials (General en chef Potemkin, Metropolitan Gavriil, Count Vorontsov, et al.) were immediately appointed members of the Russian Academy. Many of them did indeed contribute to the Russian dictionary. While the SAR was being compiled, the public 1 [Russian Academy Dictionary] in the following abbreviated SAR. 2 The second edition was arranged in alphabetical order; see below. J In the following abbreviated DAF. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was kept apprised of the Academy’s progress through newspaper reports.4 In 1794, however, the publication of the dictionary’s last two volumes went completely unnoticed both in Russia and abroad. The first and to my knowledge sole review of the SAR was written much later by the German historian Schlozer at the University of Gottingen,5 despite the fact that the president of the Russian Academy, Princess Ekaterina Dashkova, had sent him a copy of the dictionary in 1794 (Sorokoletov 123). Only in the early 19th century, in connection with the much better known second alphabetical edition of the dictionary (1806-1822), did voices in favor of the SAR make themselves heard: the writer and historian Karamzin, the poet Pushkin, and the slavist Dobrovskii all praised the dictionary as an important lexicographical work. However, instead of assuming that there was no market for a Russian dictionary in late 18th century Russia or that the dictionary did not meet the needs of the public, there is good reason to believe that the political circumstances did not favor its success in 1794. It was the end of the French Revolution. In the nineties Catherine’s politics had become more and more repressive, not only but partly for fear that the Revolution might spread to Russia. The Academy was directly affected by the Empress’ repressions through the arrest of one its members: the writer Kniazhnin. From Dashkova’s memoirs it is clear that she, the president, who was very enthusiastic in the beginning and the driving force of the dictionary project, 4 F. P. Sorokoletov, ed., Istoriia russkoi leksikografii (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka 1998) 123. There was, for example, an article entitled “Pis’mo ob izdavaemom Imperatorskoi Rossiiskoi Akademiei Slovare Rossiiskom” published in No w e ezhemesiachnve sochineniia 86 (1792) 4-14. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 became more and more frustrated as time went by, not with the dictionary, which she loved and pulled through to the end, but with the general climate. Although she was supportive ofKniazhnin’s work and did not approve of his arrest, she was, as a member of the highest nobility, not fond of the French Revolution either. In the nineties, she slowly withdrew from her public responsibilities and started delegating tasks to Lepekhin, the Academy’s faithful permanent secretary. Political pressures are very understated in the SAR. Yet, they must have increasingly existed. All along, the academicians strongly identified with the national political interests of the Russian Empire. This feature struck the historian Schlozer in his 1801 review. He wrote that ... neiaadii yoio anoii iaoeifaeiime aad, iiaianauue aeaaaieaj) fltafloaaul Dififiee, iioiio ~ H )i ana a iai - eneej^eoaeiiii Sofmeia; e neiaa e iauynfaiey, e i'Qeiadu. [... the dictionary is a national gift, presented by the Academy to Russia proper, because everything in it is exclusively Russian; the words and the explanations, as well as the examples.]6 Although all major language dictionaries are marked by a feeling of raised national consciousness, the SAR’s political bias stands out as something exceptional in European lexicography. The academicians were strong supporters of Catherine as the enlightened monarch and legislator. Her laws and the legal history of Russia are of utmost importance to them. Many academy members had had an active part in Catherine’s Commission on a Project for a New Code of Law in the beginning of her 5 Published in Gottingische Anzeigen von gelehrten sachen 12 Sept. 1801: 1463-1464, 1468-1471. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reign. Their involvement in the proposed reforms at the time seems to have left traces on the SAR. An evaluation of the dictionary’s socio-historical terms, such as “narod” [people], “gosudarstvo” [state], etc. show that the idea of a modem nation state had entered the academicians’ minds. No wonder the Academy might have wished not to attract too much attention to the dictionary in 1794, when Catherine’s liberal ideas had been relegated to the past. My first chapter puts the Russian Academy into historical perspective by identifying it as an institutionalized form of a “civil society” that has its roots in the European Renaissance. It further introduces the sixty academy members who belong to three equally represented social groups: the educated nobility, the priests and the hard scientists. The second and third chapters deal with the publishing history of the dictionary: the planning stage, how the academicians compiled the word material, and its editing. The fourth chapter and the conclusion are dedicated to an analysis of the SAR and its illustrative material. My findings reveal that the “self-composed” illustrative sentences in the SAR reflect the academicians’ educational and cultural background. These include many references to the Greek and Latin classics, as well as to foreign geographical places and customs. In the actual quotations, however, these themes are virtually absent. Here the academicians concentrate solely on themes relevant to Russia as a national and political entity: Russian history, Russian legislation, Russian geography, Russian literature, and Orthodoxy. That these were 6 Qtd. in M. I. Sukhomlinov, Istoriia Rossiiskoi Akademii. vol. 8, Sbornik otdeleniia msskogo iazvka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi Akademiia Nauk 43 (1888)(Nendeln: Kraus, 1985) 174. In the following I will always give the Istoriia’s volume and page number, for example (Sukhomlinov 8:174). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. indeed considered the nation-building characteristics is corroborated by the definitions of such words as “narod” [people], “zakon” [law], “gosudarstvo” [state], etc. The fifth chapter considers Lomonosov’s influence on the dictionary. While the famous Russian poet is present in many ways in the SAR. the chapter also reveals the strong influence of Trediakovskii ’ s concept of the Slaviano-Rossiiskii iazyk [Slavono-Russian language], a linguistic construct and term that became very popular in the middle of the 18th century. Another important result of my dissertation is that the academicians relied on their model, the French Academy Dictionary, to a much greater extent than previously thought, or admitted. Sukhomlinov, for example, on whose marvelous history of the Russian Academy my work is largely based, contends that merely the definitions of literary terms (e.g. “traged-ticT) were taken from the French dictionary. In fact, however, large portions of word entries, both definitions and illustrative sentences were simply translated and, if necessary, adapted to the Russian context. As a reference work the SAR never gained the same importance as its French counterpart or any of the other major European language dictionaries. The authoritative texts the SAR used7 and the vocabulary it favored were too soon outdated. However, as a socio-historical document the Russian Academy Dictionary gives many useful insights into the tempora and mores of the Catherinian age and the Enlightenment in Russia and remains an important and little examined source of information to this day. 7 The Church Slavonic Bible was the SAR’s most quoted source. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 CHAPTER I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1. The Academies in Europe: Institutionalized Civil Societies Established in 1783 by Catherine the Great in St. Petersburg, the Russian Academy did not simply fall from the skies. As a state institution for the amelioration of the Russian language it must be understood in its national and international context. Today we think of academies as national centers of higher education, somewhat comparable to universities and research institutes. The best-known academies are probably the Royal Academy in London, the Academie Fran9aise in Paris, and for the Eastern European world the Akademiia Nauk in St. Petersburg. Yet, the history of these institutions places them in a slightly different perspective. Academies — and there were hundreds of them all over Europe and the New World - - should rather be seen as one branch of a broad “society movement” that reached its apex at the end of the 18th century. These societies included learned societies (such as the academies), reading societies, general useful societies, economic societies, patriotic-political societies, the freemasons, and religious societies.1 One impetus for the formation of societies — a movement, which had its origins in the Renaissance — was the need to exchange information about technical and other 1 In the following I will be referring to two excellent studies on the international society movement: Ulrich Im Hof, Das gesellige Jahrhundert (Miinchen: C.H. Beck, 1982); and Wolfgang Hardtwig. Genossenschaft. Sekte. Verein in Deutschland (Miinchen: C.H. Beck, 1997). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 innovations outside the universities. A common characteristic of these societies was a sense o f practicality that united its members, the belief that theoretical achievements should be put to use. The main task at hand was: how do we apply our knowledge? The emergence of these societies was not only important for technical and scientific development in Europe, but also for the social history of the “West.” They created a framework within which people from different estates and social classes could convene and intermingle. Thus, over a long period of time these assemblies could nourish a revolutionary element.2 In France, where they especially flourished, the abundance of societies is considered one of the factors that led to the French Revolution. The societies created an alternate social system within the old estate system. All these characteristics, — the urgent need for intellectual exchange, the goal of putting knowledge to use for the good of society, and the dissolution of the ancient estate structure within these organizations — are typical of 18th century Russian societies, including the Russian Academy. It will therefore be useful to give a short history of the academy as a typical European institution. The first academies appeared in Italy in the late 14th - 15th centuries, when people who were interested in reviving the cultural heritage of antiquity met privately in someone’s home. These circles were part of Renaissance city culture. The first such circle consciously adopting the name “accademia,” in reference to Plato’s philosophical school, was Alamenco Rinuccini’s circle of friends, founded in 2 - in spite of themselves, for the societies’ official goal consisted in contributing to the well being of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 1454 in Florence. The group met regularly to read and comment on Greek and Roman authors and also to improve their rhetorical skills. By the beginning of the 16th century the picture changed somewhat. Cultural life was gradually shifting from the cities to the courts of the regional counts who were gaining more and more political power. The academies began acquiring privileges as they were often viewed as useful institutions that strengthened a court's reputation and authority. A greater level of institutionalization began: societies began to be officially organized through statutes and with well-defined programs. If the revival of antiquity had been the main purpose of the early humanist circles, the new academies now shifted their focus toward Italian language and poetry. Exemplary of this second type of academy is the “Accademia della Crusca,” founded in Florence in 1583 by Leonardo Salviati. The “Accademia della Crusca” is the archetype of all other societies and academies that dealt with language problems in a systematic way. The first exhaustive monolingual explanatory dictionary of vernacular Italian or, in fact, of any vernacular language, was created by the Crusca members. The institution became the declared model for the Academie frangaise when the latter was founded in 1653. The compilation of a dictionary and grammar was part of the French program as well. The Russian Academy, in turn, was modeled on the Academie frangaise. As noted, the Russian Academy's first project was to create a monolingual dictionary of the national language. the society as whole. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 Thus the Russian Academy and its dictionary are directly linked to the beginnings of European Humanism via French Classicism. Indeed the dictionary shows traces of both these cultural periods: parallel to Renaissance Italy, the interest in the Russian vernacular goes hand in hand with the search for a national identity, and the spirit of French Classicism is captured in numerous illustrative sentences that refer to ancient Greek and Roman culture.3 In the early 1700s yet another type of academy appeared in Italy again: the scientific society, which also survives ~ like the language academy4 — to the present day (eg. the Akademiia Nauk [Academy of Sciences]). The first scientific academy was founded by Federigo Cesi in Rome in 1603. It existed until 1657 under the name “Accademia dei Lincei.” One of its most notable members was Galileo Galilei. Around the middle of the 17th century, with advances in the modem sciences rapidly developing in England and in France, the most influential scientific academies were founded there (the Royal Academy in 1660, the Academie des Arts et des Sciences in 1667), as Italy’s influence began to wane. Despite the fact that the “hard” sciences began to consciously distinguish themselves — in terms of research methods — from domains of normative reasoning, like politics, religion, ethics, philosophy, etc., they were still very close to the latter in terms of practical goals. 3 It is not important for my argument to exactly determine how and when this classical heritage entered Russia, or to what degree, whether in the 17th century through Ukrainian scholasticism, or in the 18* century via classicist France. For details see Max Okenfuss, The Rise and Fall of Latin Humanism in Earlv-Modem Russia (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. 4 The language academy survived as a type, for example, in France {Academie Frangaise). However, it did not survive in Russia. There the Russian Academy was incorporated into the Academy of Sciences in 1841 under the name o f Otdelenie russkago iazyka i slovesnosti [Russian Language and Literature Section], Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 Or to put it another way: the absolutist powers5 showed an immediate interest in protecting not only language societies, but also societies specializing in scientific research. Through institutionalization and sponsorship, rulers were able to control scientists’ activities. The inventions and discoveries of the latter were to benefit the state and society. The statutes and charters of the new academies define this idea of the usefulness of science precisely. Both the absolutist powers and the academy scientists worked together to maximize productivity and to subjugate and regulate nature in order to guarantee “progress.” Thus, as Hardtwig convincingly shows, a utopian element that had its origins in Bacon’s “New-Atlantis,” filtered into the academy movement (Hardtwig, 24Iff). To sum up, academies — both linguistic and scientific — distinguished themselves from other forms of societies through their close links to the government and direct financial and ideological dependence upon it. They are the most institutionalized and thus regimented “societies,” in contrast, for example, to the secret orders of the freemasons, who would occupy the opposite end of a spectrum indicating the societies’ involvement with the state. 2. “Societies” and Academies in Russia The first half of the 18th century witnessed the inauguration of two academies in Russia: the Slavonic-Latin Academy {Slaviano-Latinskaia Akademiia) in 1701 and the Academy of Sciences {Akademiia Nauk) in 1724. Both Academies, while 5 In tracing the history o f the Academies in the West I focus on France, Italy and Spain. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 carrying the humanist name, differ from their traditional Western counterparts in that they did not develop out of private circles, but were both established as institutions of higher education, not even research institutions. They were not “societies” in spirit. The Slaviano-Latinskaia Akademiia (1701-1775) in Moscow, better known under its later name Slaviano-Greko-Latinskaia Akademiia [Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy] (1775-1814), was patterned after the Kievo-Mogilianskaia Akademiia (or more correctly kollegiia [collegium]). The teaching staff was almost exclusively from Kiev. The syllabus included instruction in theology, philosophy, rhetoric, poetics, etc. and was meant to educate the clergy of the future: AicafleMHfl Ha3HaneHa 6buia co6ctbchho flna BOcmtTaHna AyxoBHaro cocbobhh, h 6onbniHHCTBO yneHHKOB 6t>uio b neit Bcerfla hs nexen flyxoBHaro 3B aH H >i. B yxa3ax Cb. CnHOAa o npneMe yueHHKOB b AKaneMHio roBopHTCH, nxo6 HabnpajiH b AKaneMHio yneHHKOB «b Hanencfle nynnpro CBnm ;eH CTBa.» [The Academy was really meant for the education of the clergy, and the student body there always consisted mostly of the children of priests. In the decrees of the Holy Synod it is said with regard to accepting Academy students, that they should choose students “who had the potential of advancing to the best clergy.”]6 As to the Kievan mother institution, it is very revealing that it was named “academy” only in 1701 by Peter the Great himself, at the very time that he founded the Moscow academy.7 There is no doubt that the two ‘academies’ had been 6 Sergei Smirnov, Istoriia moskovskoi Slaviano-greko-latinskoi akademii (Moskva: Tipografiia V. Got’e, 1855) 177. 7 See Makarii Bulgakov, Istoriia Kievskoi akademii (Sanktpeterburg: tip. Konstantina Zhemakova, 1843) 103: “Imia “Akademii” ... Kievo-Mogilianskaia Kollegiia poluchila ot samago Petra Velikago v gramote, kotoruiu on prislal ei v 1701 godu Sentiabria 26.” [The Kievo-Mogilianskaia Kollegiia Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conceived and were actually functioning as seminaries. The name “academy” was nothing but imported Western terminology, which the Emperor applied to these Russian religious institutions. The Academy of Sciences came closer to the concept of a learned society, for it was at least partly set up as a research center. However, the academicians had to be hired from abroad, and the institution was clearly implemented from above. It was not a naturally grown ‘grassroots organization’ that was eventually institutionalized. The Academy of Sciences was divided into two sections: for research and teaching. The latter included a university, gimnaziia (high school), and even a primary school (nizhniaia shkola). Hence the Academy represented a complete miniature educational system in itself, where not only the sciences were taught. The idea behind this was that it was useless to create an establishment for advanced research if the formation of the next generation of scholars could not be guaranteed. In this hybrid form the institution was the only one of its kind in Europe. obtained the name “Academy” ... from Peter the Great himself in the deed that he sent to them on September 26, 1701]. It had been founded in 1632 and played an important role introducing Western ideas to Russia. 8 Pekarskii, the author of an exemplary history of the Academy o f Sciences, characterizes Peter I’s creation as follows: “[IleTp BenmcHH] He odpaxmicfl k ncnpaBneHHio, yjiymneHHio h j ih pacnpocTpaHeHHK) cyniecxBOBaBmux no Toro BpeM eHH pycooix ymjiHim h o peumnca C03naTb xaKoe HOBoe 3aBea,eHHe, Koxopoe h no HasHaneHHio CBoetay - rrpecnenoBaHne b o a h o h xoxce BpeM H neneii yneHaro obmecTBa h yne6Hbix 3aB e,n,eH H H b h c h i h x , cpejnmx h h h 3 h i h x - h no cocxaBy - b h h x noaacHbi 6bim 6 w x b npHrnameHbi HH03eMHbi, He3H aK O M bie h h c h s h k o m h h c HpasaMH xaxoro ocodeHHaxo ox npomrx eBponeficKHx cxpaH rocynapcxB, kuk Poccha - npecxaBnano 6e3cnopHO enH H CXBeH H biii npHMep b HcxopHH eBponeficKaro npocBememiH.” [Peter the Great did not turn to correcting, improving or expanding the existing school system, but decided to establish a new institution that without any doubt represented a unique case in the history o f the European Enlightenment in terms o f its goals, i.e. it would be at the same time a learned society and a teaching facility including a graduate, high and elementary school, as well as in terms o f the composition [of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 In reality, however, the system did not function on its own. For years and years upper level students were recruited from the seminaries,9 and at times the university existed only on paper.1 0 Although the Academy of Sciences can hardly be called a “society” in the sense that I described the phenomenon above, it moved somewhat more in this direction, as soon as the state censorship relaxed around the middle of the century. In 1748 the Empress Elizabeth encouraged the Academy to “publish, in Russian, its staff]: foreigners were to be invited, who were unfamiliar with both the language and the customs of a place as remote from the European states as Russia] (XXVIII). 9 The recruting procedure is very well described in Sukhomlinov’s Istoriia Rossiiskoi akademii. 8 parts, Sbomik otdeleniia russkogo iazvka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi Akademiia Nauk (1885; Nendeln: Kraus 1985), for example in the chapter on the Academician Rumovskii: “fty x o B H b m ymniHma HSAanHa aryxcH/iH pa3caflHHKOM , O TKyqa cbctckhh yqe6m>ifl saBe/remm npiiodpeTaan cbohxnepsbixnHTOMireB. [...] 3 to CHadacemre [axafleMHuecKHM] yHHBepcHTeTOMynameHCH MOJioflexcbio He Bceraa nponcxoflnjio ^odpoBoabHO. Ha npejyioxcemie axaneMHH Hayx npHOiaTb eii XOpomO npHrOTOBHeHHblX B O C IIH T aH H H K O B H 3 Tex, K O TO pbie npH3HaHM OIOCodHblM H 3aHflTb yuH TeabCK H H MecTa b enapxnajibHbix yuH/iHinax, noc/re,roBa/i otbct cb. cM H O .ua b tukom cMbiaie, hto xoth HHTaeM bia npn axafleMHH m khhh «h BcaicoMy He 6e3nojiembi»; ho reM ne Menee yvHTens a m ceMHHapHil Taxxce oneHb hjokhh, na h cpe^cxB flan coaepxcaHHH C TyneH TO B hct hh b enapxmix, hh b caM O M C H H O fle, a noTOMy h «HeB03MoxcHO oraymiTbs ceM H H apH CTO B b axafleMHio Hayx.” [The seminaries were for a long time the breeding ground, from which the secular schools obtained their first pupils. ... The transfer of young [seminary] students to the Academy university was not always voluntary. The suggestion of the Academy of Sciences to send them some well prepared students, who have already been recognized as capable of becoming teachers in church schools, was countered by the Synod in the following way: although the lectures read at the academy “ were for nobody without use,” seminary teachers were also very much needed; moreover neither the churches nor the Synod had the means to support these students, therefore it was “impossible to single out” seminary students for the Academy of Sciences] (2: 4-5). 1 0 D. A. Tolstoi in Ein Blick auf das Unterrichtswesen Russlands im XVIII. Jahrhundert bis 1782 (St. Petersburg: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1884), an extremely negative account, writes about the institution as follows: “Wahrend der Regierung der Kaiserin Katharina blieb die akademische Universitat im friihem klaglichen Zustande, fast leer, so dass sie nach einem Zeugniss aus dem Jahre 1763 iiberhaupt nicht vorhanden war. Im Jahre 1782 hatte sie nur zwei Studenten; im Jahre drauf, 1783, fand die Fiirstin Dashkow bei ihrer Emennung zum Prasidenten der Akademie der Wissenschaften ebenfalls nur zwei Studenten vor, ‘welche’, wie sie hinzufugt, “noch nichts, selbst nicht aus dem Deutschen, zu iibersetzen im Stande waren” (14). - Iu. D. Margolis and G. A. Tishkin in Otechestvu na pol’zu. a rossiianam vo slavu fLeningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradkogo universiteta, 1988), however, fervently defend the institution. They hold that at least since 1777 the educational Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 foreign books on non-religious subjects in which ‘usefulness and pleasure would be combined with a suitable moral teaching.’”1 1 Since 1727 the Academy had had its own printing press, but this new decree also made it competent to act as its own censor. Thus, as one of the first and obvious beneficiaries of diminished state control in the cultural field the Academy of Sciences played a decisive role in creating the conditions necessary to nurture the life and activities of “societies,”1 2 which began to proliferate in Russia in the second half of the century, and, ultimately in creating an “intelligentsia.” In fact, there seems to be no record of a society, reading circle or similar organization before Catherine’s reign, except for the unsuccessful Rossiiskoe 1 T Sobranie (1735-43) and the beginnings of Freemasonry in the 1750s. There are two main reasons for this lack of “grassroot” gatherings to promote the letters and sciences in Russia prior to that date. First, secular and scientific writings, which had given rise to the amateur research circles in Western Europe, were very scarce in seventeenth-century Russia.1 4 But, secondly, even after Peter the Great had level at the gimnaziia was very high thanks to its director Lepekhin, the future permanent secretary of the Russian Academy (158). 1 1 K. A. Papmehl, Freedom of Expression in Eighteenth Century Russia (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971) 8; and Gary Marker, Publishing. Printing, and the origins o f intellectual life in Russia. 1700-1800 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985). 1 2 See Douglas Smith, Working the Rough Stone: Freemasonry and Society in Eighteenth-Century Russia (DeKalb, 1 1 1 . : Northern Illinois UP, 1999). 1 3 The Rossiiskoe Sobranie will be discussed in the context of the Russian Academy later in this chapter. 1 4 “The growth of secular publishing and reading in seventeenth-century Moscow is a carefully nurtured Soviet myth. The printing press remained firmly in the hands o f the patriarchate, and although there was the slightest wavering at mid-century, no Patriarch from Filaret through Adrian tolerated its use for “secular” purposes. This is the single greatest distinction between Muscovy and the West, including the Polish-Lithuanian State. The exceptions, and there were just that, numbered no more than seven books or 1.45% over the entire century” (Okenfuss 36). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 officially opened Russia to the West, censorship remained so strict that any congregation or circle with independent interests and views would immediately have been declared suspicious from a political point of view (Papmehl, 2ff).1 5 This did not change until late in the reign of Elizabeth. Only with the beginning of Catherine’s reign and her explicit encouragement of free speech did the Russians really join the European “society” movement, or, as Erik Amburger says: “Erst spatere Jahrzehnte der Aufklarung [i.e. Catherine II.] fanden zu freieren Formen wissenschaftlichen Zusammenschlusses.”1 6 One after the other the Vol’ noe 17 ekonomicheskoe obshchestvo [Free Economic Society] (1765), the Vol’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie [Free Russian Society](1771), the Druzheskoe uchenoe obshchestvo [Friendly Learned Society] (1782), the Rossiiskaia Akademiia [Russian Academy], and the Obshchestvo liubitelei uchenosti [Society of the Lovers of 1 R Leamedness](1783) were founded. Moreover, after Catherine allowed private parties to run printing presses (1783), literary circles soon formed around journals.1 9 1 5 See also Evgenii V. Anisimov, Dvba i knut: politicheskii svsk i russkoe obshchestvo v XVIII v. (Moskva : Novoe literatumoe obozrenie, 1999). 1 6 Erik Amburger, “Die Griindung gelehrter Gesellschaften in Russland unter Katharina II,” Wissenschaftspolitik in Mittel- und Osteuropa. ed. Erik Amburger et al. (Berlin: Ulrich Camen, 1976)259. 1 7 According to Erik Amburger the origins of the Vol’ noe ekonomicheskoe obshchestvo [Free economic society] are not entirely clear (“Die Griindung” 260-261). Catherine did play her part in its establishment. However, it is also proven that Taubert, Sievers, Staehlin and Pastor Eisen had made plans for an agricultural society prior to Catherine’s intervention from above. 1 8 Melissino was the private founder of the Vol’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie [Free Russian Society] and the Obshchestvo liubitelei uchenosti [Society of the Lovers o f Leamedness] (Sukhomlinov 7: 127). The Druzheskoe uchenoe obshchestvo [Friendly Leaned Society] it was called into existence by the freemason Johann Georg Schwarz, a friend ofNovikov’s; it worked in part as a foundation sponsoring gifted students. - See S. P. Shevyrev, Istoriia Imperatorskago Moskovskago universiteta 1755-1855 (Moskva: Universitetskaia Tipografiia, 1855) 219-222. 19T w o more academies were founded in the second half of the 1 8 th century in Russia. The Akademiia Khudozhestv [Academy o f the Arts] (1764) was established in St. Petersburg thanks to the initiative Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 The Russian Academy, our primary focus, as the author of the SAR, was established in 1783 and survived independently until 1841, when it was incorporated into the Academy of Sciences under the name “Otdelenie russkago iazyka i slovesnostF [Russian Language and Literature Department]. Similar to its Western sister organizations its origin can be traced back to a semi-private circle of learned people, namely the Vol’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie [Free Russian Congregation], founded in 1771 by Melissino, at the time curator of Moscow University. One of the society’s declared goals was the compilation of a dictionary: “sochinenie pravil’nago rossiiskago slovaria po azbuke budet pervyi prisutstvuiushchikh trud“ [the creation of a correct Russian alphabetical dictionary will be the first project of the present [members]], in order to “correct and enrich the Russian language” (Sukhomlinov 1 : 9-10). Furthermore, the society planned to edit translations, prose, verse, and archival material for publication. The fruits of the Sobranie’ s work were published in the journal Opyt trudov Vol’nago rossiiskago sobraniia [Essay of the Works of the Free Russian Congregation] (6 issues, 1774-1783). of 1.1. Shuvalov, who was also the father of the Moscow university, and later elected member of the Russian Academy. An art collector and patron of the arts, he was very concerned with the promotion of Russian artists: “IIIyBanoB, nceueno yB/tenemibiH hobmm nenoM, acepTByex AKa#eMHH doraToe codpaHne K apTH H h p u c y H K O B , BBJiaioiueecfl h no c u e BpeM H yicpameHHeM aKaneMnneacaro My3ea.” [Shuvalov, entirely enthralled with the new project, donates his rich collection o f paintings and drawings to the Academy; to this day it decorates the Academy museum.] - See S. K. Isakov, Imperatorskaia Sanktpeterburgskaia Akademiia Khudozhestv (St.Peterburg, 1914) 4. However, the academy was completely set up as a teaching institution, and all the instructors were hired abroad. In the tradition o f the Moskovskaia dukhovnaia akademiia [Moscow, Spiritual Academy] or the Slaviano-Greko-Latinskaia Akademiia, as it was officially called at the end o f the 18th century, St. Petersburg also witnessed the transformation of the Aleksandronevskaia Seminaria into the Sankt Peterburgskaia Dukhovnaia Akademiia in 1797. - See Ilarion Chistovich, Istoriia Sanktneterburgskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii CSanktpeterburg: Tipografiia Iakova Treia, 1857). Both academies are schools and cannot be considered “societies” formed by a group o f people with similar interests and eventually protected by the State. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 With regard to the future Russian Academy the activities of the Free Russian Congregation are worth mentioning for several reasons. First, the Vol 'noe rossiiskoe sobranie had indeed, according to its plan, compiled a considerable amount of material for its own “leksikon,” which was later integrated into the SAR. Since the originals of this collection are lost, it is especially valuable that this fact is mentioned in a letter from Melissino to Dashkova (Sukhomlinov 7: 130-131). Sukhomlinov also points out, that the Free Russian Congregation members made an effort to collect rare and regional Russian words (1: 9). Second, the Vol ’ noe Rossiiskoe Sobranie published the Tserkovnyi Slovar’ [Church Dictionary] (1773) written by Archpriest Alekseev, whose contents were also integrated into the SAR. Third, the society’s journal Qpyt trudov itself was used as a vocabulary source for the SAR. Under the entry word “shatost’,” for example, the reader finds the following definition and example: “Volnenie, smushchenie. Nailuchsheepochitali byti v shatosti.2 0 [Agitation, embarassment. They considered it best to be in a state of agitation] Op. trad. Ros. sobr. IV. 220. ” Last but not least, most of the Vol ’ noe Rossiiskoe Sobranie members were elected members of the Russian Academy, among them Dashkova, Rzhevskii, Soimonov, Kheraskov, Fonvizin, Derzhavin, Barsov, Kniazhnin, the Archpriest Alekseev, Desnitskii, Potemkin, Melissino, bishop Damaskin, Shcherbatov, Arkhimandrit Pavel, Zybelin, Verevkin, Naryshkin, K.I. Khvostov and others. 2 0 The illustrative sentence - whether a quotation or not - is always set off in italics in the SAR. In quoting from the SAR, I do not change this original formating. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 Interestingly, it was Dashkova, one of the Sobranie members closest to Catherine II, who actually proposed the idea of a Russian Academy to the Empress. At least, this is how Dashkova presents the case in her memoirs. She writes: Unjour que je me promenais avec l’imperatrice dans son jardin a Tzarskoe-Selo, nous parlames de la beaute et de la richesse de la langue russe. Je dis a sa majeste que je m ’etonnais qu’etant auteur elle-meme et aimant notre langue comme elle le faisait, elle n’avait point erige encore une Academie Russe, qu’il nous manquait des regies et un bon dictionnaire, qui nous epargnerait la sottise de faire usage de termes et mots etrangers, tandis que nous les possedons et bien plus energiques. — “Je ne sais comment cela se fait”, me repondit l’imperatrice; “mais ily a plusieurs annees que je l’ai souhaite et que j ’en avais meme donne des ordres”. “C’est etonnant, madame”, dis-je, “car il n ’y a rien de si aise: l’on en a des modeles et Ton a qu’a choisir”. — “Je vous prie”, me dit sa majeste, “de m ’en faire un programme.”2 1 Dashkova, forming the link between the Volnoe Rossiiskoe Sobranie and the Russian Academy, confirms Hardtwig’s and hn H of s thesis, that the Academies should be viewed as an institutionalized variant of the originally informal associations of people with common interests, which, as descibed above, had been a typical trait of the cultural landscape in Europe since the Renaissance. Article IV of the Academy’s statutes (written by Dashkova, and discussed below) makes it very clear that in the case of the Russian Academy the desire for institutionalization came from below. The organization of such a “society” (obshchestvo) under the roof of the state is not necessary for financial reasons only, but also for enhancing coordination. Big projects like the writing of a dictionary demand management. K a K T a K O B a ro p o f l a k h h ™ n e M o r y r 6 m t b c o n H H e n b i o m h h m n e jiO B e ic o M t o h H y a cH O o d iq e c T B O . y frp e > K fle H H fl T aK O B b ix f l o d p o B o n b H t i x o d iq e c T B 2 1 Ekaterina Dashkova, Memoires de la Princesse Dashkaw. Arkhiv Kniazia Vorontsova 21 (Moskva: 1881)267-68. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 AO c e r o B p e M e H H u a c x H i o h a h n o H eA O C T aT tcy cp eA C T B h a h n o HecorAacHio unenoB H H K o rA a cymecxBOBaxb H e m o o t ; a n o c e M y h AOAACHH H A eH b l H M n e p a X O p C K O H P oC C H H C K O it A K a A e M H H aaBHCeTb OT B b iu iH e H B A acT H , y x B e p A C A a io m e H c y m e c T B O B a H H e h pacnpocxpaneHHe o h o h cnoco6cxByK>nj;eH. [Since books of this kind cannot be written by a single person, a society is needed. Establishment of such free societies has not been possible until now either due to lack of funding or because their members did not agree among themselves; therefore the members of the Imperial Russian Academy have to depend on the highest power that confirms its existance and facilitates its growth.]2 2 Before turning to the structure of the Russian Academy and the history of the dictionary in detail, it is necessary to mention yet another earlier predecessor of the Russian academy: the Rossiiskoe Sobranie [Russian Congregation] (1735-43). A subdivision of the Academy of Sciences, it was established to play a role similar to the Russian Academy. Consciously set up on the model of the Florentine and French Academies, its program had included the writing of a grammar, an outline on versification, and a dictionary. Trediakovkii, however, seems to have been the only of the three members to take the task seriously. His tretise on tonic verse was the only product the short-lived Sobranie ever yielded. The purpose of this outline of the history of Academies and societies in 18th century Russia is twofold: the Russian Academy with its first project, the writing of a dictionary of the Russian language, has to be seen as part of an all-European development, humanist in spirit. This tradition reached Russia only in the second half of the 18th century, due to Catherine’s encouragement of free speech in the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 beginning of her reign. The other academies in Russia, although bearing the humanist name “academy” (Academy of Sciences, Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy, Academy of Arts, Spiritual Academy of St. Petersburg) were implemented from above as institutions of higher learning, and did not develop spontaneously out of a private association of people with similar interests. Thus they do not, strictly speaking, pertain to the same tradition. 3. The Russian Academy: Inauguration, Finances, Statutes The establishment of the Russian Academy was carried out in several steps. Upon Catherine’s request Dashkova turned in a short "outline" ("Kratkoe nachertanie," which Sukhomlinov also calls a “plan” and “ustav” [charter]) to the Empress on that memorable August day in 1783 in the park of Tsarskoe Selo. To Dashkova’s great surprise Catherine officially decreed the establishment of the Russian Academy (“ukaz ob uchrezhdenii Akademii” [decree on the establishment of the Academy]) within a month. Dashkova was appointed president and her outline for the institution was made binding.2 3 This was on September 30,1783. The inauguration ceremony followed a month later on October 21, 1783. 2 2 Sochineniia i perevodv izdavaemve Rossiiskoi akademiei. vol. 1 (St. Peterburg: Imperatorskaia Tipografiia, 1805)21. This book, and the next volume (part II, 1806), contain the minutes o f the Academy’s first meetings. 2 3 At the time Dashkova was already President of the Academy of Sciences, since January of the same year. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It is likely that the Empress herself was present at the opening session.2 4 According to the Academy’s minutes the inaugural meeting started out with a short prayer (molebstvie), followed by president Dashkova’s speech. Then the permanent secretary Lepekhin read the Empress’ ukaz [decree]. The short ukaz contains four points. It is interesting for two reasons. First, the Empress does not seem very particular about how the academicians organize themselves and their work. She simply demands that Dashkova’s “kratkoe nachertanie” — short and preliminary as it indeed was — be respected. It is important to point this out, for it stands in sharp contrast with the strict organization of the French Academy. The statutes of the French sister organization contain over 60 articles, and the statesman Richelieu was a very strict enforcer (see further evidence below). Second, the Empress is very clear about the institution’s finances: the academicians are not to be compensated, i.e. upon their election the members have to agree to do volunteer work. As to other expenses like heating costs, etc. the academy took over the budget (5,000 rubles) allotted to the Translating Commission (Kommissiia dlia perevodov), a subdivision of the Akademiia Nauk, which was dismissed as of that day. This arrangement had originally been Dashkova’s idea. Dashkova would later be very proud of the fact that in all the years of her presidency she exceeded Catherine’s expectations regarding money management. 2 4 The formulation in the minutes “Podnesennyi Eia Imperatroskomu Velichestvu ... doklad sleduiushchago soderzhaniia...” [Handed to Her Imperial Highness ...a report o f the following content...] suggests that the Empress was present (Sochineniia I nerevodv 1:11). 2 5 This is also different from the practices o f the Academie ffan?aise. The French academicians were compensated. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 Except for the 5,000 rubles assigned to the Academy (carried over from the Translating Commission budget) Dashkova asked the Empress for an annual sum of only 1,200 rubles2 6 to cover expenses for awards (gold medals for outstanding contributions) and the so-called “jetons.”2 7 “Jetons” were small silver medals, distributed to members who attended the meetings. It was not considered a salary, but — in the words of a historian of the French Academy, from where this ritual was copied — “ils [les jetons] etaient une attestation de presence qui faisait honneur a ceux qui le recevait.”2 8 The academy’s revenues and expenses were made completely transparent by Dashkova. The accuracy of her bookkeeping was unprecedented in a position where traditionally state money tended to trickle into the pockets of its administrators. Her loyalty to the Empress and the pride she took in abiding by the rules of the statutes and the imperial ukaz eventually lead Dashkova to pay for the publication of the dictionary out of her own pocket. At the academy meeting of November 25,1786, she declared: M s f le p a tK H , H a H O C H M b w H 3 n a H H e M H a r n e r o c / i o B a p a , a c b o h m icKAHBeHHeM c p a n o c T B i o B b in o u H H T b HaMepena, h t o 6 x o x h o h m m ycepflHeM c n e u a T b c a a o c x o h h o i o A O B epeH H O C X H Moeii r o c y A a p b iH H h x o h ( A O B e p e H H O c r a ) , K O T o p y io b m , r o c y a p n m o m , B x e v e H H e x p e x jie x M H e O K a a b iB a x b h s b o j i h t i h . [I will be pleased to cover with my own income the expenses incurred through the publication of our dictionary, in order to make myself at least 2 6 This sum corresponds to the annual salary o f a Vice-Governor (fifth grade) or to five times the salary of an army captain (ninth grade). - See LeDonne, Ruling Russia: Politics and Administration in the Age o f Absolutism (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984) Appendix B. 2 7 The information on the Academy’s finances comes from Dashkova’s memoirs (270f). 2 8 Frederic Masson, L’Academie FranOaise... (Paris: Paul Ollendorff, 1912 [?]) 140. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 thereby worthy of the trust of my Empress [in me] and for the trust that you, my sirs, in these past three years have shown me] (Sukhomlinov 8: 64). In taking care of the Academy’s finances efficiently, however, Dashkova did not merely wish to please the Empress. It was also a way of assuring the institution’s independence. Dashkova shunned any kind of supervision by an intermediate bureaucratic office like the Academy’s chancellery. She once declared: “ . . . n o e a H K y p o c c H H C K a a ax afleM H fl c o d c T B e H H o e H M eex c e d e o c H O B a m ie , t o flOfflKHO, h t o 6 m o n a B ee n y > K H o e h e i i n p H H a f l J i o f c a i p e e c a M a b c e d e 3 a K JH O H a jia .” [since the Russian Academy has its own foundation, it must contain everything necessary and everything that belongs to it in itself.]2 9 Dashkova’s initial outline that became the academy’s charter makes the Academy’s goals very clear: A K a,n ,eM H a H M e e x n p e ^ M e T O M c b o m m B b iH H ip e H H e h o d o r a r p e H H e p o c c H H C K o r o H 3 b iK a , o r p e e y c T a n o B J ie H H e y n o x p e d n e H H H o i o b O H a r o , C B O H C TB eH H O e O H O M y BHTHHCTBO H C T H X O T B O peH H e. K flO CTH aCeH H K ) c e r o n p e p M e x a p o t d k h o c o h h h h t b n p e a c p e B c e r o p o c c H H a c y i o rp a M M a T H K y , p o c c H i i c o H o i o B a p b , p y H T o p m c y h n p a B H n a C T H X O TB O peH H H . [The Academy’s goal is the purification and enrichment of the Russian language, the general determination of how its words are used, and of its oratory and poetry. To reach this goal, it must first of all compile a Russian grammar, a Russian dictionary, a rhethoric and rules of versification.]3 0 This is exactly what the Rossiiskoe sobranie and the Vol’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie had already demanded. It also repeats the charter of the Academie franfaise, originally 2 9 Sukhomlinov quotes from the Academy’s minutes (1: 53). 3 0 “Kratkoe nachertanie” (qtd. in Sukhomlinov 1: 360). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 written by du Chastelet3 1 and quoted in Masson’s L’Academie francaise 1629-1793. Article XXIV of the French charter reads: La principale fonction de l’Academie sera de travailler, avec tout le soin et toute la diligence possibles, a donner des regies certaines a notre langue, a la rendre pure, eloquente et capable de traiter les Arts et les Sciences.... II sera compose un Dictionnaire, une Grammaire, une Rhetorique et une Poetique sur les observations de l’Academie. In her opening speech Dashkova adds another element to the list of academy tasks, namely the publication of historical treatises and criticism: M n o ro pasnttuHbiH flpeBHOcxit, pascbinaHHwa b npoCTpaHCTBax OTeuecTBa Ham ero, odrnibHbw uexonHCH, flpaacaHiiiHe naMHTHHHKH fleaHHH npaorpeB Hanmx, KaKOBbiMH neM Horne H3 cyipecTByioiiptx Hbme eBponeiiCKHx napoflOB noHcxtme xBarrnxbca Moryx, npeflcxaBuaiox ynpa>KHeHHaM HaniHM obnm pH oe none, na KoeM b caMbia coKposeHHOcxH, npeflBOflam,y h u m ayuesapHOMy CBexy BceaBrycxeiimHH n am ea noxpoBHxenbHimbi, npoHHKHyxb B03M03*ceM. SByuHbia fleaa rocynapefi nam nx, 3naMeHHXbia flean n a npeflxos Haninx, a H annaue caaBHbiii Bex EKaxepnHbi Bxopbia a s n x naM npeAMexbi k npoHSBe^eHHaM, flocxoiiHbiM rpoMKaro H am ero Bexa. C u e, paBHOMepno xax h couHHeHHe rpaMMaxHXH h caoBapa, fla 6yaex nepBWM HaniHM ynpaacHeHHeM. [A large number of various old documents, scattered all over our spacious fatherland, rich chronicles, most precious monuments relating the deeds of our ancestors, of which few of the presently existing European peoples can indeed pride themselves, present a broad field for our activities. We will be able to penetrate the most hidden treasures, since the bright light of our ... protector is given to us. The famous deeds of our emperors, the well known deeds of our ancestors, and first of all the glorious age of Catherine II present us with themes for works that are worthy of our great era. These, equal with the compilation of a grammar and a dictionary, shall be our first exercise.] (Sukhomlinov 1: 50) 3 1 See Paul Pellisson-Fontanier, Histoire de l’Academie fran9aise. ed. C.-L. Livet, vol. 1 (Paris: Didier, 1858) 28-29. 3 2 Frederic Masson, L’Academie Francaise 1629-1793 (Paris: Paul Ollendorff, 1912 [?]) 155. 3 j This refers to the fact that Catherine II opened the state archives to the Russian Academy to give its members the possibility to study the ancient Russian manuscripts. Dashkova thanks the Empress for her kindness. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 The passage is interesting for it reveals the academy’s historical and political interests, apart from purely linguistic and aesthetic concerns. The Russian Academy clearly defines itself as an institution working under the auspices of the sovereign and for the fatherland, and for the well being of Russian society, - the latter being another topos of European “society” charters. Dashkova continues: B y f lb x e y s e p e H M , uxo a Bcer#a ropexb 6ypy d e a n p e f l e a b H H M ycepflneM (HCTeKaioin,HM H3 aiodBH Moea k a i o d e s n o M y o x e u e c x B y ) ko BceMy xoMy, axo ceMy HameMy odrpecxBy n o a e s H O 6wxb Moacex... [You may be assured that I will always bum in boundless eagerness (which springs from my love for the beloved fatherland) for everything that can be useful to this society of ours...] (Sukhomlinov 1:51) Dashkova’s concerns about Russia’s past, the deianiia [deeds] of her ancestors, and the politics of the present ruler, are reflected, as we shall see, in the dictionary. Although the academicians never actually published treatises on political and historical questions — at least not while working on the dictionary — it was precisely the texts mentioned by Dashkova in her speech that became some of the main sources for the SAR. The aforementioned chronicles and recent historiography, ancient and contemporary legal documents and even such texts as the travel accounts by Gmelin and Pallas, which were also used as sources, belong to this group of texts documenting the past and present of the Russian state.3 4 3 4 The sources of the dictionary will be discussed in detail in the chapters III, IV, and V. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 4. The Academicians: Their Social and Professional Backgrounds President Dashkova appointed the naturalist Ivan Ivanovich Lepekhin “permanent secretary” (neprimennyi sekretar * ) 3 5 of the new institution. Another 32 members were present at the inaugural meeting. These personalities made up the Academy’s core founding group. I present them here, each with a short biographical note, in the same order as they appear in the first volume of the SAR, where they are listed by their rank at the time of their election. The first segment in the biographical note before the semicolon refers to the member’s schooling and education, if the information is available: 1) PRINCESS EKATERINA DASHKOVA, playfully called EKATERINA MALAIA [Ekaterina the Small] (1743-1810) Home education in the house of her paternal uncle, the state chancellor Mikhail Larionovich Vorontsov (first rank); grew up in the vicinity of the court and in close relationship with the imperial family (her godmother was the Empress Elizabeth, her godfather Peter IE, and she was also lady in waiting to Catherine H.). Dashkova grew up speaking French and learned Russian in the house of her mother-in-law at the age of 12. Through reading she attained an impressive level of education with a wide range of interests in the natural sciences as well as in philosophy, the arts, literature, languages, pedagogy, etc. She was in personal contact with Diderot, Voltaire, and Adam Smith. She owned a large library (900 items, including the unabridged Encvclopedie) and traveled widely in Europe. Novikov lists her in his Opvt istoricheskogo slovaria o rossiiskikh pisateliakh3 6 [Attempt of an Historical Dictionary on Russian Writers] as the author of “ves’ma izriadnfykh] stikh[ov]” [quite good verses], but she also published prose and a play, mostly anonymously, in various journals. Appointed president of the Academy of Sciences on January 24, 1783, Dashkova was extremely well suited for the presidential positions of both the Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy. By birth of high nobility, member of the influential Vorontsov family, she had social authority. This was all the more important at a time 3 5 The French equivalent is “secretaire perpetuel” 3 6 Nikolai Novikov, Opvt istoricheskogo slovaria o rossiiskikh pisateliakh (1772; Moskva: Kniga, 1987). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 when the higher administration was entirely in the hands of the nobility. Although she was a woman — actually the first Russian woman ever chosen for an administrative job by the government — the Academy of Sciences was as if socially “elevated” through her presidency. Domashnev, her predecessor in the position, had been of a lower-ranked noble family. She combined a "natural" authority with a genuine interest in the sciences and literature. Moreover, she was energetic by nature and had outstanding management skills. She had been forced to use these skills early in life, for she lost her husband soon after the birth of her two children and was left to take care of her family, finances and estates alone, which apparently she did masterly. Dashkova’s relationship to Catherine the Great is quite as interesting as it is complicated. The Empress felt, it seems, that Dashkova, who was an enthusiastic admirer and young devoted friend in the beginning of her reign, had overestimated her own role in the coup of 1762. Since then their friendship had gone through alternating phases of keeping an official distance and seeking personal contact. In her memoirs Dashkova stresses her loyalty to Catherine II, but there is also admiration for the Empress, disappointment and hurt feelings, pride, and confidence in her own independent judgment. 2) GAVRIIL PETROV [Petr Petrovich Shaposhnikov](1730-1801) Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia', editor at the press of the Synod, Bishop of Tver’, summoned to read Catherine’s Ulozhenie [Code of Laws] before it was made public, member of the Synod, Metropolitan ofNovgorod and St. Petersburg, and de facto vice president of the Academy. Author of sermons and “slova” [speeches], 3) ENNOKENTII NECHAEV (1722-1799) Moskovskaia slaviano-latinskaia akademiia', summoned to read Catherine’s Ulozhenie before it was made public, Archbishop of Pskov and Riga. 4) IVAN IVANOVICH PANFILOV/PAMFILOV (died 1794) Aleksandronevskaia seminariia; archpriest and spiritual father of Catherine II, first representative of the white clergy to wear a mitra [mitre].3 7 3 7 The mitre, traditionally the bishop’s or archbishop’s headgear, could therefore only be worn by a representative o f the black clergy. Since Catherine’s time, however, it could also be employed as a special award for a member o f the white clergy to lift his status. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 5) GRIGORII ALEKSANDROVICH POTEMKIN-TAVRICHESKII [1739-1791) Gimnaziia Moskovskogo universiteta; General-en-chef, dominated Catherine’s foreign policy at the time, annexed the Crimea in 1783, right before the foundation of the Russian Academy; member of the Vol ’ noe Rossiiskoe Sobranie. 6) IVAN IVANOVICH SHUVALOV (died 1797) Education unknown; Courtier, diplomat, patron, director of Sukhoputnyi shlakhetskii korpus [Infantry School for the Nobility], founder of an Akademiia Khudozhestv [Academy of the Arts], as well as founder and curator of the Moscow University. 7) ADAM VASJL’EVICH OLSUFEV (died in 1784) Sukhoputnyi Shlakhetskii korpus; senator, poet. 8) IVAN PERFIL’EVICH ELAGIN (died in 1793) Sukhoputnyi Shlakhetskii korpus; Direktor muziki i teatra [Music and Theater Director], Catherine’s secretary, poet. 9) IVAN LOGINOVICH GOLENISHCHEV-KUTUZOV (?) Sukhoputnyi Shlakhetskii korpus; Admiral and director of Morskoi shlakhetskii korpus [Navy School for the Nobility], with literary interests. 10) ALEKSANDR SERGEEVICH STROGANOV (1734-1811) Home schooling, Geneva; later travelled to Italy, where he started collecting art. Member of the Gosudarstvennaia kollegiia inostrannykh del [State College of Foreign Affairs], temporarily at the ambassy in Vienna, protector and later director of the Academy of the Arts, patron of the arts. 11) ALEKSEI ANDREEVICH RZHEVSKII (1737-1804) Home schooling; poet, strongly influenced by Sumarokov, abandoned writing in 1769 in favor of administrative career. Senator, former deputy to the Legislative commission, vice-president of the Academy of Sciences, president of the Gosudarstvennaia Meditsinskaia Kollegiia [State Department of Medicine], member of the Vol ’ noe Rossiiskoe sobranie. 12) ALEKSANDR ANDREEVICH BEZBORODKO (1747-1799) Home schooling, Kievskaia dukhovnaia akademiia; head of the Postal Department, later Catherine’s personal staff, College of Foreign Affairs, Catherine’s reporter and secretary in foreign affairs. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 13) PETR ALEKSANDROVICH SOIMONOV (?) Education ?; high official and administrator: “pri sobstvennykh delakh i u priniatiia podavaemykh Eia imperatorskomu velichestvu chelobiten’” [in personal affairs and accepting petitions handed to Her Imperial Highness], i.e. Catherine’s personal staff; member of the Vol ’ noe Rossiiskoe sobranie. 14) PETR VASEL’EVICH BAKUNIN (died 1786) Education ?; Gosudarstvennaia kollegiia inostrannykh del. 15) MIKHAIL MATVEEVICH KHERASKOV (1733-1807) Shlakhetskii kadetskii korpus; vice-president of the Bergkollegiia, member of the Vol’ noe ekonomicheskoe obshchestvo [Free economic society], director of the Moscow University, introduced Russian as the language of instruction at the University in response to Catherine’s Ulozhenie (first at the faculty of Law!), writer. 16) PETR IVANOVICH TURCHANINOV (?) Education ?; high official and admistrator “pri sobstvennykh delakh i u priniatiia podavaemykh eia imperatorskomu velichestvu chelobiten’” [in personal issues and in taking petitions addressed to Her Imperial Highness], i.e. Catherine’s personal staff. 17) IVAN NIKITICH BOLTIN (1735-1792) Home schooling, konnaia gvardiia [Cavallery Guard]; colleague and friend of Potemkin’s, director of a customs station at the border with Poland, member of the voennaia kollegiia [State War Collegium], direct assistant of Potemkin on the Crimea in 1783-1784, editor of the first Russian legal document Russkaia Pravda [Russian Truth], and author of “Primechaniia na istoriiu drevniia i nyneshniia istorii Rossii Leklerka” [Annotations to the history of ancient and contemporary Russia by Leclerc]. 18) ALEKSANDR VASIL’EVICH KHRAPOVITSKII (1749-1801) Sukhoputnyi shliakhetskii korpus; knew Lomonosov, wrote poetry, freemason, Catherine’s personal staff, helped her with her writings. 19) NIKOLAI VASIL’EVICH LEONT’EV (1739-1824) Sukhoputnyi kadetskii korpus [Infantry Cadet School]; member of the kontora stroeniia Isakievskoi tserkvi [Bureau for the Construction of the St. Isaac’s Cathedral], senator, president of the meditsinskaia kollegiia, writer. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 20) GAVRIIL ROMANOVICH DERZHAVIN (1743-1816) Poor schooling, military career; officer during the Pugachev rebellion, later senator and high official, poet, member of the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie. 21) DENIS IVANOVICH FONVIZIN (1745-1792) Moscow university; under the patronage of Nikita Panin, playwright, member of the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie, administrator in the College of Foreign Affairs, parallel to his work on the SAR he wrote the Soslovnik, a satire in the guise of a dictionary of synonyms. 22) ANTON ALEKSEEVICH BARSOV (1730-1791) Slaviano-greko-latinskaia akademiia, Academy University; professor of rhetoric (.slovesnost') at the Moscow university, member of the Vol’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie, worked on a grammar for the Komissiia ob uchrezhdenii narodnykh uchilishch [Commission for the establishment of public schools]. Since this j ob consumed most of his time and energy, his active contribution to the dictionary was minimal. 23) NIKOLAI ALEKSANDROVICH L’VOV (1751-1803) Education ?; poet, architect, botanist, imperial advisor on coal resources. Poetic advisor to Derzhavin and Khemrdtser. 24) VASILII ADRIANOVICH USHAKOV (?) 25) OSIP PETROVICH KOZODAVLEV (1754-1819) Pageboy at the age of 8, later sent to University of Leipzig by Catherine together with Olsulf ev and others, where he studied law; member of the pravitel ’ stvuiushchii senat [Government Senate], advisor to Dashkova at the Akademiia Nauk, contributor to Sobesednik and de facto its editor, member of the Komissia ob uchrezhdenii narodnykh uchilishch [Commission for the establishment of public schools], later minister of the interior (1808). 26) STEPAN IAKOVLEVICH RUMOVSKH (1734-1812) Academy university; mathematician, astronomer, geographer, creator of maps of the Russian Empire, member of the Academy of Sciences in Stockholm, translator from Latin, German, and French (for example, the letters of the mathematician Euler, a popular reading at the time). 27) IVAN IVANOVICH LEPEKHIN (1740-1802) University of Strasbourg, doctor of medicine, expeditions to the Volga and Belorussia (with Pallas and Falk, 1768-1773), translator of Buffon’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 Histoire naturelle, generate et particuliere, avec la description du cabinet du roi, member of the Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde, Berlin (1776?), and of the Hessen-Homburgsche patriotische Gesellschaft (1778), member of the Gosudarstvennaia meditsinskaia kollegiia [State Department of Medicine] (1794). 28) SEMEN KIRILLOVICH KOTEL’NIKOV (1723-1806) Shkola Feofana Prokopovicha, Aleksandronevskaia seminariia, Akademicheskaia gimnaziia i universitet, mathematician, studied in Leipzig with Geinsius (?) and in Berlin with Euler, editor of the Nikonovskaia letopis ’ [Nikon Chronicle], various administrative positions, librarian of the Academy of Sciences, co-translator of Buffon. 29) ALEKSEI PROTAS’EVICH PROTASOV (1724-1796) Like Kotelnikov: Shkola Feofana Prokopovicha, Aleksandronevskaia seminariia (?), Akademicheskaia gimnaziia i universitet, sent abroad for studies at the universities of Leiden and Strasbourg, professor of anatomy at the Academy University, co-translator of Buffon. 30) SEVMEN NIKOLAEVICH SHCHEPOT’EV (?) Education ?; translator of the State Department of Foreign Affairs {Kollegiia inostrannykh del), also sekretar’pri sekretnoipolitsii ekspeditsii kollegii inostrannykh del [Secretary at the Secret Police Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs]. 31) IAKOV BORISOVICH KNIZHNIN (1740-1791) Home schooling, gimnaziia of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences; dramatist, in 1773 sentenced to death, pardoned, and stripped of all ranks due to gambling, and possibly also to his nonconformist writings, then assitant to 1.1. Betskoi, teacher of Russian at the Suchoputnyi shlakhetskii korpus, translator, member of the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie. 32) NIKOLAI IAKOVLEVICH OZERETSKOVSKH (1750-1827) Seminary of the Troitsko-Sergievaia Lavra, as a student under the supervision of Lepekhin, took part in the expedition of 1768-1773, student of natural sciences at Leiden and Strasbourg, doctor of medicine; member of the Akademy of Sciences, expeditions to Siberia (1782) and the North of European Russia (1785). Teacher of Russian at the Suchoputnyi shlakhetskii korpus (following Kniazhnin in this position, 1791), member of the Berner Okonomische Gesellschaft (1780) and the Vol ’ noe ekonomicheskoe obshchestvo (1785), and other societies. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 33) SEMEN EFIMOVICH DESNITSKII (d. 1789) Troitskaia seminariia, Moscow University, disciple of Adam Smith at the University of Glasgow; first Russian professor of jurisprudence (Moscow University), advocated the separation of powers in his Predstavlenie o uchrezhdenii zakonodatel 'noi, suditel’ noi i nakazatel ’ noi vlasti v Rossiiskoi imperii, [Representation on the Institution of Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Power in the Russian Empire] (1767), translator of Blackstone. 34) PETR ALEKSEEVICH ALEKSEEV (1727-1801) Slavico-Latin Academy of Moscow; protoierei of the Arkhangel ’ skii sobor [Archangel Cathedral] in Moscow, author of sermons, poetry, as well as the Tserkovnyi slovar [Church Dictionary], the Slovar ’ eretikov [Dictionary of Heretics], and a history of the Greco-Russian Church, catechism teacher at Moscow University, member of the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie. According to the founding statutes, the Russian Academy was to have 60 members (20 more than the Academie francaise), i.e. another 26 members had to be appointed. These were elected in subsequent meetings, not all at one time. Most of the members were proposed by either Dashkova or Gavriil. When the number of 60 was reached, new members could be elected only upon the death of a former member. Two formal conditions had to be fulfilled in order to be considered for membership: the candidate had to be over 35 years old, and he/she had to be “iz izvestnykh liudei, znaiushchikh rossiiskii iazyk” [well known people, versed in the Russian language]. In the years until 1794, when the dictionary was completed, the following individuals were elected to the Academy. They are listed in chronological order, i.e. by the date of their election: 35) IVAN IVANOVICH MELISSINO (1718-1795) Sukhoputnyi kadetskii korpus', ober-prokuror of the Holy Synod, director and curator of Moscow University. Founder of the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie and the Obshchestvo liubitelei uchenosti. 36) Damaskin SEMENOV-RUDNEV (1737-1795) Slavonic-Latin Academy in Moscow; studied 6 years in Gottingen; bishop ofNizhegorod and Altyr [?], editor of Lomonosov's works (a much praised edition, 1778), contributed to Pallas’ comparative language Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 dictionary, member of the Historical Society in Gottingen and the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie. 37) ROMAN ILARIONOVICH VORONTSOV (died 1783) Education?; Dashkova’s father. 38) MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH SHCHERBATOV (-1790) Education ?; member of the Commission for Commerce (Kommissiia o kommertsii) and of the Commission for a New Code of Laws. Collector of historical documents, author of a history of Russia, member of the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie. 39) SA W A ISAEVICH ISAEV (died 1799) Aleksandronevskaia seminariia', court priest, eventually dukhovnik [spiritual father] of Catherine II (1795). 40) IVAN IVANOVICH KRASOVSKII (1746-1811) Kostromskaia seminariia', archpriest of the Trinity Cathedral in Kostroma (Kostromskii troitskii kafedral ’ nyi sobor), catechism (zakon Bozhii) teacher at the Kadetskii korpus [Cadet School] and the Vospitatel ’ noe obshchestvo blagorodnykh devils [Educational society for young noble women, better known as “Smolny Institute”], sakellarii bol’ shoi pridvornoi tserkvi [sacrestan of the large court church], translator. 41) IVAN IVANOVICH SIDOROVSKII (1748-1795) Kostromskaia seminariia', priest in Sidorovsk, an Old Believer village, teacher at the Smol’ny Institute, under the protection of Gavriil, specialized in Latin and Greek, translator. 42) GEORGII MIKHAILOVICH POKORSKII (1740-1800) Kostromskaia seminariia', priest and teacher of Russian at the Academy of Arts, priest of the Tserkov ’ Vozneseniia [Ascension Church], founder of a church school, author of sermons, 1789 transferred to St. Isaac’s Cathedral; opponent of Old Believers and “freethinkers.” 43) VASILfr GRIGOR’EVICH GRIGOR’EV (died 1800) Aleksandronevskaia seminariia', priest at the Academy of Sciences, and later of the church at the Marble Palace. 44) VASILfr PETROVICH PETROV (1736-1799)[6] From clerical family, Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia', later teacher of syntaxis, poetics and rhetorics at the Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia, Catherine’s librarian (referred through Potemkin), court poet. Did not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 contribute to SAR, because he was busy working on the translation of Virgil’s Aeneid. 45) FEDOR IVANOVICH IANKOVICH - DE MIRIEVO (1741-1813) Austrian Serb, education?; contributed to Pallas’ dictionary, main driving force of the Komissiia ob uchrezhdenii uchilishch, author of many textbooks. 46) VASILII NIKITICH NIKITIN (1737-1815) Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia', teacher of Greek and Hebrew at the Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia, studied at Oxford University, teacher at the Morskoi kadetskii korpus. 47) PROKHOR’ IGNAT’EVICH SUVOROV (1750-1815) Tverskaia seminariia, studied at Oxford University; teacher at the Morskoi kadetskii korpus, later professor of mathematics at Moscow University. 48) IPPOLIT FEDOROVICH BOGDANOVICH (1744-1803) At age 10 entered civil service at the Justice College, Moscow University; worked under Nikita Panin in the College of Foreign Affairs, editor of Russian proverbs (1785), translator, and poet. 49) SAMUIL MISLAVSKH (1731-1796) Education?; Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia. 50) VASILH IVANOVICH BAZHENOV (?) Education?; architect, member of the Academy of Arts. 51) PAVEL PONOMAREV (1745-1806) Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia, Moscow University; Archimandrite of the Spasskii Monastery, later Archbishop of Iaroslavl’, member of the Vol ’ noe ’ rossiiskoe sobranie. 52) IVAN IVANOVICH KHEMNITSER (1745-1784) Education?; general consul in Smima, author of satires and fables. 53) NIKITA PETROVICH SOKOLOV (1748-1796) Troitskaia seminariia, chosen for the Expedition with Pallas (1767-73?), Universities of Leiden, Strassburg (doctor of medicine); professor of chemistry at the Akademiia nauk, co-translator of Buffon. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 54) SEMEN GERASIMOVICH ZYBELIN (1735-1802) Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia, Moscow University?, attended the Universities ofKoenigsberg, Berlin, Leiden (doctor of medicine); professor of medicine at Moscow University, poet, member of the Vol’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie. 55) AMVROSII SEREBRIAKOV (SEREBRENNKOV) (1745-1792) Education?, bishop of Ekaterinoslav and Kherson, friend of Potemkin’s, wrote a rhetoric strongly influenced by Lomonosov. 56) ARKHIMANDRITINNOKENTE POLIANSKH (1751-1794) Education?; bishop of Voronezh, author of pouchenii [homilies]. 57) ALEKSANDR STAKHEEVICH STAKHIEV(?) 58) MIKHAIL IVANOVICH VEREVKIN (1732-1795) Morskoi Kadetskii Korpus; assessor at Moscow University; Director of Kazan’ university, where he was one of Derzhavin’s instructors, writer, member of the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie. 59) VASILn VASIL’EVICH KAPNIST (1738-1823) Home schooling; “Kievskogo namestnichesva gubemskii predvoditel’” [Province marshal of the Kiev region], i.e. local official representative, playwright and poet, belonged to the Petersburg poetic circle around L’vov, Khemnitser, Derzhavin. 60) PETR BORISOVICH INOKHODTSEV (1742-1806) Son of a soldier, Academy High School and University, University of Gottingen; mathematician, astronomer, geographer, member of the scientific expedition to observe the sun eclipse caused by Venus. The expedition was interrupted by the Pugachev revolt, during which Inokhodtsev’s partner Lobits (?) was killed and all instruments were destroyed. 61) APOLLOS BAIBAKOV (1745-1801) Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia', archimandrite at the time of nomination, later Bishop of Sevsk and Orlov, and Archbishop of Arkhangelsk, author of a very popular poetics. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 62) ALEKSEI NIKOLAEVICH OLENIN [also Alenin] (?) 63) IVAN SEMENOVICH ZAKHAROV (1754-1816) Home schooling, Academy University, University of Gottingen; chemist, translator of Voyage de Telemaque. 64) ALEKSEI VASIL’EVICH NARYSHKIN (1742-1800) Home schooling under Nechaev; Govemer of Pskov, senator, member of the Vol ’ noe rossiiskoe sobranie. Participated in Catherine’s voyage down the Volga. 65) ALEKSEI IVANOVICH MUSM-PUSHKIN (?) Ober-prokuror of the Holy Synod, collector of historic documents, friend of the historian Boltin (coedited the Russkaia Pravda and the Pouchenie Monomakha with him). 66) DMOTRII IVANOVICH KHVOSTOV (1757-1835) Moscow University; writer, later Ober-prokuror of the Holy Synod. 67) TIMOVEEI SEMENOVICH MAL’GIN (1752-1819) Pskovskaia seminariia, Academy University; Lepekhin’s assistant during the expedition of 1768-1773; translator and historical writer, collector of historical documents. 68) NIKOLAI PETROVICH NIKOLEV (1758-1815) Excellent home schooling in E. R. Dashkova’s house; poet and playwright. 69) VASILH SEMENOVICH DANKOV (died 1826) Aleksandronevskaia seminariia', priest of the Blagoveshchenskaia tserkov’ [Annunciation Church], 70) DMITRII PAVLOVICH TATISHCHEV (?) Academy High School; later member of the Kollegiia innostrannyh del [Collegium for foreign affairs] and director of the post office in Moscow, renown translator (DAF, Beccaria, English constitution, etc.) 71) DMITRII MIKHAILOVICH SOKOLOV (-1819) Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia, Academy University; priobshchnik of the Russian Academy, i.e. candidate for real membership (1792-1793). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 72) PETR IVANOVICH SOKOLOV Slaviano-latinskaia akademiia, Academy University; teacher of Russian at the Academy University, priobshchnik of the Russian Academy, i.e. candidate for real membership (1792-1793). 73) BRENEIKLEMENT’EVSKH [Ivan Andreevich] (1751-1818) Bishop of Tver’, author of sermons. 74) AN AST AS IIROMANENKO-BRAT ANO V SKH (1761-1806) Education?; teacher at the Aleksandronevkaia seminariia and the Sukhoputnyi kadetskii korpus, Archimandrite of Sergievo Pustyn ’ , later archbishop of Astrakhan’, also author of famous sermons and homilies (for example, Slovo na pogrebenie Betskago). The following table will make the group’s characteristics more apparent. It contains information on the academicians’ social background (rank, origin, profession), their involvement in both the Vol ’ noe Rossiiskoe Sobranie and Catherine’s Commission for the Creation of a New Code of Law, and finally, their contribution to the Academy dictionary. Table 1: List of members of the Russian Academy, arranged by rank,3 8 including information on their social and professional background # I. Name II. R a n k III. Origin IV. Profession V. Writing VI. Vol. Ros. Sob. VII. Ulo zhenie VIII. SAR volume contribution 2 Gavriil Petrov Clergy [C] Black Clergy [Cb] X X 1,2,3,4,5,6 49 Samuil Mislavskii c Cb X 3 fnnokentii Nechaev c Cb X X 1,2,3,4,5,6 51 Pavel Ponomarev c Cb X 5,6 36 Damaskin- Rudnev c Cb X (4)” 3 8 This was the order adopted on the first pages of each of the SAR’s volumes, where those academy members who contributed to the given volume were listed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 # I. Name II. R a n k III. Origin IV. Profession V. Writing VI. Vol. Ros. Sob. VII. Ulo zhenie VIII. SAR volume contribution 55 Amvrosii Serebriakov C Cb X 1,2 56 Innokentii Polianskii c Cb X 1,2 61 Apollos Baibakov c Cb 1,2 74 Anastasii Romanenko- Bratanovskii Gentry (N) Cb 6 73 Irinei Klement’evskii ? Cb 5,6 4 Pamfilov C Courtier (D), White Clergy (Cw) 1,2 1 E. R. Dashkova 1? D N D X X 1,2,3,4,5,6 5 Potemkin 1M N Military Land Forces (Ml) X 37 Vorontsov 2 N ? 6 Shuvalov 2D N D X 1,2 7 O lsufev 2 N Administrati on (Ad), Writer (Wr) X 8 Elagin 2D N D X 9 Golenishchev- Kutuzov 2M N Military Naval Forces (Mn) 1,2 10 Stroganov 2 N Ad 1,2 11 Rzhevskii 2? D4 1 N Ad X X X 2 12 Bezborodko 3D N D 35 Melissino 3 9 Ad X 1,2 16 Turchaninov 3 9 ? 1 38 Shcherbatov 3 N Ad? X X X (1)4 Z , 2 3 9 Sukhomlinov proves that Daxnaskin contributed to the dictionary, when he was in town (for example in the debate on the etymology of “pamiat”’ [memory] (1: 181-183). 4 0 Although belonging to the white clergy, Pamfxlov - as Catherine’s spiritual father - is a courtier. Moreover, he was as if symbolically transferred from the white to the black clergy by being awarded the mitra. (Sukhomlinov 1:278). The latter fact explains why he is listed at the top of this ranking list together with the members of the black clergy. 4 1 Deistvitel’ nyi kamerger [.. .chamberlain?] 4 2 It seems the participation in the dictionary according to the lists in the beginning of each volume is based on the presence at the meetings. Shcherbatov lived in Moscow and could not attend the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 # I. Name II. R a n k IH. Origin IV. Profession V. Writing V I Vol. Ros. Sob. VII. Ulo- zhenie vni. SAR volume contribution 64 Naryshkin 3 N D X 65 Musin-Pushkin ??? N Ad 1,2,3,4,5,6 66 Khvostov ??? N Ad fxl4 J X 3, 5,6 13 Soimonov 4 ? ? X 1,2 14 Bakunin 4 N Ad (at)4 4 15 Kheraskov 4 N Ad X X 17 Boltin 4 N Ml, Ad 1,2,3 18 Khrapovitskii 4 ? ? 19 Leont’ev 4 N Ad X 1,2 20 Derzhavin 4 N Ml, Ad w X 1,2 58 Verevkin ? ? X X (at) 21 Fonvizin 5 N Ad X X 1,2 23 L’vov 5 ? [X] 57 Stakhiev 5 ? ? 22 Barsov 6 C Prof. X X d r 24 Ushakov 6 ? ? 1,2 25 Kozodavlev 6 N Ad 1,2 44 Petrov 6 C Prof. X 45 Iankovich de Mirievo 6 N4 0 Ad 1,2 52 Khemnitser 6 ? Ad X 26 Rumovskii 7 C Hard scientist, member of the Akad. Nauk(A) X 1,2,3,4,5,6 27 Lepekhin 7 Father: Soldier A X 1,2,3,4,5,6 28 Kotel’nikov 7 C A X 1,2,3,4,5,6 29 Protasov 7 c A 1,2,3,4,5,6 30 Shchepot’ev 7 ? Ad 1,2 31 Rniazhnin 7 ? Ad X X 1,2 32 Ozeretskovskii 7 c A 1,2,3,4,5,6 48 Bogdanovich 7 N X 1,2,3 50 Bazhenov 7 c? ? 53 Nikita Sokolov 7 c A 1,2,3 meetings in St. Petersburg. His participation, according to Sukhomlinov, was nevertheless considerable. 4 3 See explanation below. 4 4 Stands for Analogicheskie tablitsy, the first word lists in alphabetical order, i.e. the dictionary’s raw material, before the final word selection was made (see chapter III). 4 5 The 1 is put in brackets, because Barsov is not listed in the first volume o f the SAR as one o f its compilers. Sukhomlinov, however, shows that he did minimal work (4: 216). 4 6 Iankovich, an Austrian Serb, was not a noble by birth. He had earned his nobility as a compensation for his efforts in reforming the Austrian educational system. He was the only foreigner at the time of his election. He accepted the Russian citizenship in 1791. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 # I. Name II. R a n k III. Origin IV. Profession V. Writing VI. Vol. Ros. Sob. VII. Ulo- zhenie VIII. SAR volume contribution 54 Zybelin 7 C Hard scientist, Prof. X X 60 Inokhodtsev 7 Father: Soldier A 1,2,3,4,5,6 63 Zakharov 7 ? A 1,2,3,4,5 70 D.P. Tatishchev 7 ? Ad 4,5,6 # I. Name II. R a n k III. Origin IV. Profession V. Writing VI. Vol. Ros. Sob. VII. Ulo- zhenie VIII. SAR volume contribution 62 Olenin 7M N Ad 33 Desnitskii 8 C? Prof. X X (at) 46 Nikitin 8 c Prof. 47 Suvorov 8 c Sc., Prof. 59 Kapnist 11 M4 7 N? Ad W 34 Alekseev c? Cw, Prof. X X 3 40 Krasovskii c Cw 1,2,3,4,5,6 39 Isaev c? Cw 1,2 41 Sidorovskii c? Cw, Teacher 1,2 42 Pokorskii c? Cw 1,2 43 Grigor’ev c? Cw 1,2 69 Vasilii Dankov c? Cw 3,4,5,6 67 Mal’gin ??? c Sc. 3,4,5,6 6 8 Nikolev ??? ? ? 71 D. M. Sokolov ? ? ? c Prof. 5,6 72 P. I. Sokolov ? ? ? c Prof. 5,6 In order to assess the Russian Academy as a socio-political entity, it is important to adopt a late 18th century viewpoint. In the table above I listed the academicians by rank. This was the custom at the time. Acknowledging individually the members who participated in compiling the various volumes of the dictionary, the editors of the SAR also listed them by rank on the first pages of each volume, 4 7 Gvardiiporutchik [Guard’s Lieutenant], a military rank. In the military the gentry occupied all the ranks down to the 14th . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 and not in alphabetical order or according to the amount of work they did. Maintaining this official order allows insight into the academy’s social structure, which I will discuss in the following. Russian society was divided into the clergy — which formed a group apart (see below) — and three ‘estates:’ the nobility, the middle or meshchanskii class, consisting of townsfolk who earned their living in trade or as craftsmen, and at the lower end, the peasants (mostly serfs), making up the third estate. “Hereditary nobles alone were members of the ruling class ..., while townsmen and peasants and even clergy were merely the servants of that order.”4 8 Nobility was traditionally hereditary, but since the time of Peter the Great non-nobles could earn nobility through service. The newly earned status could be passed on to their children.4 9 Marriages with women of lower status were also common among the nobles. “Thus the ruling class rejuvenated itself by the constant assimilation of individuals from the urban population, and from the peasantry, as well as from the borderlands” (LeDonne, Absolutism 9).5 0 This is one of the features that distinguish Russian 18th century society from Western societies at the time. In the West the nobility was a caste. Marriages were arranged only within it, often, however, across national borders. Other typically Russian social phenomena were: 4 8 John P. LeDonne, Absolutism and Ruling Class. The Formation of the Russian Political Order 1700-1825 (New York: Oxford UP, 1991) 3. My description o f the Russian society under Catherine is based on this book and another work of the same author mentioned before: Ruling Russia. Politics and Administration in the Age o f Absolutism (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984). 4 9 Basil Dmytryshyn, Imperial Russia: A Source Book (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967) 2 1 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 The free (non-enserfed) parts of society, i.e. the gentry and the middle class, were highly stratified. Under Catherine all citizens, whether employed in civil administration, in the military or as courtiers, held a specific rank according to their occupation, years of service, personal merits, or connections. The table of ranks, a creation of Peter the Great, consisted of 14 ranks. Promotion within the military (and thus also into the nobility) was much easier than in the civil administration. This was partly due to the fact that the military hierarchy was more sophisticated and continued on the lower end beyond the 14th grade of the table of ranks. “Any individual entered the ruling class [i.e. nobility], when he received the appropriate rank - fourteen in the army [i.e. Officer] or eight in the civilian apparatus [Collegial Assessor]” (LeDonne, Absolutism 5). Not included in the table of ranks were the land-owning gentry of the provinces, and the clergy, which had its own hierarchy. To sum up, the first and second estates were subdivided horizontally into 14 layers (even more in the military). Vertically society was divided into three main categories, corresponding to three main parts of state administration: civilians, military (naval and land forces), and the court. This thorough social segmentation and stratification is a typically Russian phenomenon. Interestingly, historians debate, whether this had a rigidifying and standardizing effect on Russian social and cultural life,5 1 or whether, on the contrary, due to the small distances between the different 5 0 See also Elise K. Wirtschafter, Social Identity in Imperial Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997); or her Structures of society : Imperial Russia's "people o f various ranks (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1994). 5 1 In the introduction to his book Iazvk i kul’tura v Rossii XVIII veka (Moskva: Shkola “lazyki russkoi kul’tury,” 1996) V. Zhivov makes the connection between the table o f ranks and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 ranks and the accessibility of the noble ranks through service, it carried in itself an element of volatility and change.5 2 One thing is certain: the table of ranks determined social relations throughout the imperial period. Although “the observance of this rank procedure does not apply on such occasions as meetings among friends or neighbors or at social gatherings, but only to churches, the Mass, Court ceremonies, ambassadorial audiences, official banquets, official meetings, christenings, marriages, funerals, and similar public gatherings” (Dybryshyn 20), the grades were omnipresent. It is not surprising that the Russian Academy, an official state institution, lists its members by rank with the corresponding title. standardization o f the Russian literary language. If every person has a specific social place assigned, then the ways o f speaking within one rank or within a (ruling) class have more chances to level out: “Y H H cJiH K anH H h yHHBepcanH3auHH JinxepaxypHoro H3biica He xojibko B6npaex b cetia H O Bbie OTHom eHHH B/iacTH, ho h HaBH3hiBaeT 3th oTHomeHHH o6mecTBy, yTBepaytan HcionouHxenbHocxb rocnoflCTByromeii KyjibTypbi. Hmchho b cmiy axoro uacxHbie H3M eHeHHB, ripoHCXH/uuirne b BHTepaTpyHOM H3biKe, Moryr 6mtb nenocpencTBeHHo ... C BH 3aH H c coyHOKyiibxypHoii flHHaM HKoii pyccKoro odxyecTBeHHoro caM 0C03HaHHH. Brnioxb «o cepeyHHbi XVII b . pyccKoe otiiyecTBO 6bijio O T H O C H T enbH O oiatio cxpaxjuJnmiipoBaHO h b coynanbHOM OTHoineHHH oxHOCHxeiibHO mo6hjibho. C cepeyHHbi axoro cxojiexmi cxpaxH(f>HKaynn cxpeMHxenbHO Hapacxaex, yocxnraH CBoero anorea b IlexpoBCKyio anoxy, xorya na pyimax cpe/iHeBeKOBbn BbicxpaHBaexca coc/iOBHO-KacTOBaa coyHanbHaa cxpyxxypa, 3aKpenaaioiyaa 3a xaacybiM HHyHBHyoM ero Mecxo b hobom rocyyapcTBeHHOM MexaHH3Me.” [The unification and universalization o f the literary language does not only reflect the new relations o f power, but also imposes these relations onto the society and thereby consolidates the exclusiveness of the dominating culture. Namely because of that, particular changes occuring in the literary language can be directly ... linked to the sociocultural dynamics of how the Russian society perceived itself. Right up to the middle of the 17th century the Russian society was stratified relatively weakly and in a social sense fairly mobile. Since the middle of that century the stratification increases radically, reaching its apogee under Peter the Great, when on the rains of the middle ages a stratified and caste-like social structure is forming, fixing each individual’s place in the new state machanism] (13). - Social standardization leads to language standardization, and vice versa. Zhivov’s argument is based on historical studies by R. Hellie and Anisimov. On the other side, Elise Wirtschafter shows the permeability o f the Russian society at the time. 5 2 LeDonne shows that Peter’s stratification also meant unprecedented access to noble ranks, and Olga Tsapina in her study on the reactions of the white clergy to Catherine the Great’s secularization politics writes: “The social composition of 18th century Russian society was extremely intricate and volatile; it responded to the changing realities o f early modem times in Russia" (334). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 One glance at the table above tells us that all academy members belonged to the gentry, if they did not belong to the clergy. Most members held posts in the civil administration. Their total number amounts to around fourty. Only four academicians held military ranks: Potemkin, Golenishchev-Kutuzov, Olenin, and Kapnist; and five held court ranks: Dashkova, Pamfilov, Shuvalov, Elagin, Bezborodko. Within the group of members with posts in the civil administration, the whole spectrum, from the highest (second rank) to the lowest noble civilian (eighth rank) are present. Although members holding highest ranks at the top of the table are well represented, a great number of academicians, namely 13, hold the seventh rank.5 3 Among these thirteen were many of the most active members of the academy, as we shall see. Another major point, in which the Western social system differed from the Russian, is in regard to the status of the clergy. While forming one coherent social group - namely the second estate - in the Western Christian world, this was not the case in Russia5 4. Here the clergy was separated into two major groups, the monastic “black” and the married “white” clergy: The “white” clergymen were fully integrated into the lives of local communities and often shared the plight of peasants and townsfolk, whereas the [black] monastic clergy, on the contrary, were expected to remove themselves completely from worldly society. The monks, however, held a monopoly over the Church hierarchy and governance. 5 3 According to the table above, there are exactly 4 academicians holding second rank, four third rank, 7 fourth rank, 3 fifth rank, 7 sixth rank, 13 seventh rank, and 1 eighth rank. 5 4 It is interesting that LeDonne, the specialist on 18* century state administration, completely excludes the clergy from both of his two thick books. Do the clergy not have any role in State affairs at all? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 This arrangement automatically put the white clergy in an inferior position (Tsapina 334). The table above, in which the academicians are listed by “rank,” proves the accuracy of this statement. The two clergy groups were socially very distant from each other. The black clergy, consisting of the metropolitans, archbishops, bishops and abbots are listed right at the top of the list, ranked even before the field marshal Potemkin, whereas the representatives of the white clergy, the academy’s priests and archpriests, are listed after Desnitskii, who is eighth grade. Thus, without being included in the table of ranks, i.e. without having direct equivalents in the state hierarchy, the clergy does have its place assigned in the social system of the time: the black clergy as a group is treated like the high nobility, whereas the white clergy as a group is considered middle class, i.e. below the eighth rank.5 5 The enormous social gap between the two clergy groups is all the more surprising, considering the fact that the black clergy recruited its members from the white clergy. Monks and the upper church hierarchy traditionally had a white clergy background. It was only by a decree of Peter the Great that nobles were allowed to enter the clergy (Sukhomlinov 1: 88.). The table, indicating the academicians’ background, shows that this was still the rule at the time of Catherine the Great. 5 5 It is not clear to me, if the white clergy as a whole always had the same place assigned in a list like the one above. Was it always following the eighth rank immediately, or was their place even further down the line? I cannot guarantee the accuracy of my table from Kapnist to the end. First, I lack information on the ranks of Mal’gin, Nikolev, and the two Sokolovs. Second, I do not know if Kapnist and Olenin, holding the tenth rank, should precede the members o f the white clergy in my list. Sukhomlinov, paraphrasing Gavriil, concludes: “dukhovenstvo nikoim obrazom mozhet sushchestvovat’ v vide vos’moi chasti sredniago klassa, a dolzhno poluchit’ grazhdanskuiu samostoiatel’nost’...” [the clergy can by no means exist as the eighth part o f the middle class, but has Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 Except for the noble Anastasii Romanenko-Bratanovskii, who later became Archbishop of Arkhangelsk, all of the clergy members, both black and white, were the sons o f priests. This is very different from the situation in the catholic West, where celibacy forced the clergy to replenish its membership from the other estates. There nobles had always held the higher positions in the clerical hierarchy, “so dass sich im geistlichen Stand die ‘weltliche’ Staendeordnung wieder reflektiert” (Im Hof 33). Two of the academy’s clergy members were involved in fighting the social inequality of the two clerical groups, Gavriil and Alekseev. Gavriil, the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Novgorod, played a central role in Catherine’s legislative commission of 1768. Not only had Catherine asked him to read the draft of the Nakaz [Instruction] prior to its publication, she also appointed him member of the direktsionnaia kommissia [executive commission], coordinating the work of the many chastnye kommissii [particular commissions], and working synchronously on a project for a new code of laws. A member of the Holy Synod, he was the only ecclesiastic official among the over 500 mostly noble deputies from all over the Russian Empire summoned to take part in this gigantic and in many aspects revolutionary enterprise. In Chapter IV and V I will discuss the impact the event had on the writing of the dictionary itself. Here I will limit myself to outlining how Gavriil tried to improve the status of the clergy in general and the white clergy in particular. to obtain civil independence...] (1: 91). What is meant by “vos’maia chast’ srednego klassa” [eighth Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 At the time of the Commission, the Synod instructed Gavriil to make the following suggestions on the clergy’s behalf: first, they demanded that the Synod be granted the same political power as the Senate. Secondly, like the gentry, the clergy should have the right to own serfs, and thirdly, in order to put an end to the clergy’s isolation, citizens of all other estates and ranks should have the right to become priests. The last two points show that the clergy hoped to close the social gap between the black and white clergy, and that, in doing so, they consciously compared themselves to Western clergy, using the status of the latter as an argument for the improvement of their own situation. B03BeneHHH AyxoBencTBa Ha nonodaroruyto eMy BbicoTy o6in,ecTBeHHaro nono^ceHHH c b . c h h o a h ero nenyraT npn3HaBauH HeodxouHMbiM HCKUionHTb nyxoBeHCTBO H3 Tax HasbisaeMaro cpeffHaro mm MeipaHCKaro Knacca h nocxaBHTb H apany c UBopaHCTBOM. B cocxoHBineMCH n o oxoivry noBoay nocxaHOBneHiot c b . CHHona CKa3ano, h t o nyxoBHbie, no caMOMy 3BaHHK) CBoeMy, cyxb nacTbipH h ynHxenH Hapona, h noTOMy a o t d k h b i nonb30BaTbca ocodeHHHM noueTOM h ysanceHHeM; BHsaHTHHCKHMH HMnepaTopaMH nyxoBHbie nocTaBneHM b h h c / i o dnaropoAHbix [...]. [...] ManopoccHiicKoe nyxoBeHCTBO, noAodno AyXOBeHCTBy B HHOCTpaHHbIX XpHCTHUHCKHX A epiK aB aX , CUHTaeTCU HapaBHe c u h h o b h b i m h m uaxeTHaro UHHa u i o a b m h . fiyxoBeHCTBO xeM donee oacHAaer yTBep>KAeHHH co Bcex npaB h npeHMyipecTB, h t o b Haxase Bbipa)KeHo doronoA odnoe ncenaHHe b h a c tb pyccKHH napoA na B03M0>KH0H CTeneHH dnarOCOCTOUHHH. [In order to raise the clergy’s social status to its proper level, the Holy Synod and its deputy considered it necessary to eliminate the clergy from the so called middle or meshchanskii class and to place it next to the gentry. In the resolution, written to this effect, the Holy Synod says that the clergy by definition are the people’s shepherds and teachers, and must therefore enjoy special honor and respect; the Byzantine emperors considered the clergy noble [...]. [...] the Little Russian [Ukrainian] clergy, like the clergy in foreign Christian empires, are considered to be part of the middle class] is not clear to me. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 of the same social rank as the nobles. The clergy is hoping all the more for a confirmation/concession of all rights and previleges, since the Instruction expresses the godly wish to see the Russian people on the highest possible level of well-being] (Sukhomlinov 1:88). The commission’s papers reveal that the clergy and Gavriil had already come up with an idea for how to integrate the ecclesiastic hierarchy into the table of ranks: cpaBHHTb [...] MHxponojiHTOB c (JjenbflMapiiiajiaMH, apxHenHCKQnoB c reHepan-aHiiiecJmMH, enncKonoB c renepan-nopynHKaMH, nepoMOHaxoB h npoTononoB codopHbix c ceicyHft-MaHopaMH, denbix C B H irneH H H K O B c nopynHKaMH, ffbaK O H O B c npanopipHKaMH, H.T.fl. [to compare [.. ,]metropolitains with field marshalls, archbishops with generals-in-chief, bishops with te lieutenants generals, monks presbyters, and archpriests of cathedrals with second majors, white priests with lieutenants, deacons with ensigns, etc.] (Sukhomlinov 1:88) The other academician involved in the debate surrounding the problem of the white clergy’s social status, was the archpriest Alekseev, the author of the famous Tserkovnyi slovar’ [Church Dictionary], which was a vocabulary source for the SAR. Alekseev stands out among the white clergy for his staunch resistance to episcopal power. He lived in constant conflict with the metropolitan of Moscow, Platon Levshin. Olga Tsapina, who studied Alekseev’s archives in different repositories in Russia, convincingly explains that the archpriest did not act out of personal envy. He rather was “the center of a whole group of disgruntled clergy.... The parsons’ grievances were indeed caused by Platon’s drive to impose a stricter control over the diocesan white clergy, his educational policy and his explicit support of monasticism” (Tsapina 344). Alekseev did not risk too much with his attacks on the church hierarchy, because he could turn to Catherine’s spiritual father Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 Pamfilov for support. Tsapina keenly analyses how Catherine’s secularization of politics increased the rift between the black and the white clergy, for the priests welcomed the Empress’ reforms, for example, the secularization of Church lands in 1764. These measures weakened the power of the black clergy hierarchy who were the white clergy’s main oppressors. In his chapter on Alekseev Sukhomlinov suggests that Platon Levshin declined Academy membership in part because two of his sternest enemies were elected: Pamfilov and Alekseev. Let me summarize. Column II of the table above tells us that the academy recruited exclusively upper or, in LeDonne’s terminology, “ruling class” people (nobles) plus an impressive eighteen clergy representatives. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of academicians held a civil rank. Here the exceptions were four military members, Olenin, Kapnist, the top ranked Potemkin, and Admiral Golenishchev-Kutuzov. There were also five academicians with court titles: Dashkova, Pamfilov, Shuvalov, Elagin, and Bezborodko. The biggest concentration of members in terms of rank can be found in the seventh rank (13 civilians, and one military). With the exception of Rumovskii, who was sixth grade, all members of the Academy of Sciences are part of this group; the top positions in an academic system, that was barely 60 years old, were considered equivalent to traditional lower-management positions.5 6 The fact that so many seventh rank academicians were scientists who came from a clergy background supports the theory of a flexible 5 6 For a definition o f the term “lower-management” see LeDonne: “Lower-management positions in grades seven and eight were filled by field officers in the regiments and voevodas who managed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 social system. A substantial number of representatives of the white clergy had been able to climb the social ladder and join the “ruling class” due to the outstanding secular education they had received. As to their family origin (see column HI in the table above) Sukhomlinov correctly divides the academicians into two equally strong groups: the nobility and the clergy: HneHW poccHHCKOH aica,n;eM H H obpasyrox flue raaBHBia rpynnw, paBHW H oflHa flpyroft no unc/iy npHHaflne^camKX k h u m n m \ . flepByio cocxaBtraiox npeHMymecxBeHHO jmpa flyxoBHhia vum ace npoHCXHAam,Ha H 3 ^yxoBHaro c o c /i o b h h , BoenHxaHHbm b flyxoBHbix ymummax H BnocaeAXBHH nepemeAnme b csexcKoe 3BaHHe. ToBapHm;aMH h x no aicaA C M H uecK O M rHMHasHH h yHHBepcnxexy 6biJiu AexH co^Aax, cnyacnBmnx b XBapAeiicKHX nomcax. Bxopyio rpynny cocxaB/taiox poAOBHXbie AsopaHe, AehcxBOBaBnme na o6m,ecxBeHHOM, a oxnacxn n na nnxepaxypHOM nonpnm;e. [The members of the Russian Academy form two main groups, equal as to the number of people constituting them. The first one consists mostly of clergy or people coming from the clergy estate, educated in seminaries and then crossed over into a secular rank. Their comrades in the academy high school and university were children of soldiers, who served in the Guards’ regiments. The second group consisted of high born nobles who were active in the public and partly in the literary field.] (5:61) Sukhomlinov finds the same social distribution of clergy and nobility in the authors listed in Novikov’s Opyt slovaria. We can thus assume that in terms of their origin the academicians represent a typical cross-section of the educated part of the Russian society at the end of the 18th century. towns and uezds. Landowners owning between 20 and 100 serfs must be included here.” (Absolutism 4-5) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 In column IV I discriminate between the following professional groups: Clergy (black and white - Cb, Cw), Courtier (D), Military (Land Forces, Ml, and Naval Forces, Mn), Administration (Ad), Scientist and member of the Academy of Sciences (A), Scientist without being member of the Academy of Sciences (Sc), Professor (of science or other - prof.), and Teacher. Striking is the diversity in terms of professional background among the members of the Russian Academy. This is especially surprising if compared with the composition of other learned societies in the West. The French Academy, for example, had among its first members only one natural scientist, who was actually a courtier (Marin Cureau de la Chambre, the king’s physician). It seems that the separation of the realm of philology on the one hand and the exact sciences on the other was more advanced in the West than it was in Russia, where the second generation of scientists had just been formed. The academicians Rumovskii (a disciple of Lomonosov), Lepekhin, Protasov, etc. were part of this second generation. Priests and bishops were also rare among French Academicians. In this context it should be mentioned that religious themes were banned by statute from the discussions at the French Academy. Cardinal Richelieu, the official founder5 7 of the Academie franfaise, moreover demanded that new members be approved by him personally. He clearly feared subversive forces, religious and political. Similar restrictions, as we saw before, were completely absent from the charter of the Russian Academy. Instead of control from above it was Dashkova’s loyalty, and her Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 closeness to Catherine that guaranteed political conformity. Pelisson, the first historiographer of the French Academy writes: [Les] statuts contiennent beaucoup de choses touchant l’occupation de l’Academie, desquelles j ’aurai occasion de parler ailleurs. Seulement je remarque ici que les matieres de religion en sont bannies et que si elle examine des pieces de theologie, ce ne doit etre que pour les termes, et pour la forme des ouvrages; que pour les matieres politiques et morales, il est dit qu’elles n’y seront traitees que conformement a 1 ’ autorite du prince, a l’etat du gouvemement, et aux lois du royaume (1: 62). The French Academy was not the only learned society to exclude religion from its agenda. The influential Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft in Germany did the same out of fear of igniting confessional rivalries. Therefore representatives of the clergy co were admitted only rarely. The Russian Academy, in contrast, encouraged clergy membership. Elagin, for example, asked Metropolitan Gavriil to point out members of the clergy who could help solve grammatical problems: “[It is necessary],” the academy’s minutes read, “sostavit’ otriad iz chlenov dukhovnyh, kak liudei, imeiushchikh k tomu nuzhnyia sposobnosti i vremia, kotorye by, sdelav nachertanie k sochineniiu grammatiki, predstavili akademii na razsmotrenie, apotom osobennyi trad k onoi prilozhili.” [... to create a work group consisting of clergy members, as people who have the 5 7 As an unofficial association o f friends interested in literature the “academy” had existed since 1629. The group met regularly at the house o f Conrart (Masson 8). 5 8 Hardtwig in his chapter on language societies writes: “Die Aufiiahme von Geistlichen, auch lutherischen Gestlichen, suchte Ludwig [von Anhalt] nach Moeglichkeit zu verhindem, ohne ffeilich ein allgemeines Verbot auszusprechen. So akzeptiert er selbst Johann Valentin Andreae, der den Zielen und der Gesinnung Ludwigs denkbar nahestand, nur zoegemd. Schon die Formulierung des Aufiiahmevorschlags duch Gustav von Hille 1646 signalisiert das Problem, ‘dass ob zwahr der V. Andreae ein Geistlicher, er dennoch auss sonderbahren gunsten in die gesellschaft moege genommen werden.’ Ludwig stimmte schliesslich zu, ‘ wiewohl dergleichen geistlichen noch nicht in die F.G. gekommen... (211) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 necessary skills and time for that [grammatical questions] and who would write a plan for compiling a grammar, submit it to the academy for consideration, and would then make it their special task] (Sukhomlinov 1:258). The five members, Gavriil subsequently proposed were Krasovskii, Sidorovskii, Pokorskii, Grigor’ev and Isaev, who were elected on October 28,1783. This episode shows that the Russian Academy, a State institution, was heavily relying on the clergy, at least in philological questions. It also shows that purely practical considerations played a part in choosing the academy’s members: the work on the Russian language dictionary had to be efficient. To this end other criteria for election, like literary reputation or public glory (honor or fame), could be relegated to the background. The clergy were well educated and their skills were put to use. Thus under the roof of the Academy cultural partnership between the clergy and Russia’s secular elite was fostered through a common interest in and knowledge of the Russian language and history. It is important to point this out, since, as Viktor Zhivov states in his seminal study Iazyk i kul ’ turn v Rossii XVIII v., the interconnectedness of the religious and the secular fields is typical of the Russian enlightenment under Catherine II as opposed to the enlightenment in Western Europe, where it is associated with a growing rift between the religious and the worldly spheres of life (Zhivov, Iazyk 422-25). Allow me one word about glory and reputation: it is obvious that some members were chosen for political reasons. Potemkin is the best example. At the time ofhis election he was heavily involved in the south of Russia. Conflicts with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 the local Tatars had begun only after he annexed the Crimea in 1783, and it was obvious that he would not be able to attend the academy meetings. Interestingly Dashkova appointed top ranking people from all categories of the state administration. The civil service was represented by Stroganov, Shcherbatov et al, the army by General Field Marshal Potemkin, the navy by Admiral Golenishchev- Kutuzov, the court by LI. Shuvalov, Pamfilov, and Bezborodko, and the clergy hierarchy by the Metropolitans Gavriil and Samuil. (As I mentioned earlier the Metropolitan of Moscow, Platon Levshin, declined membership.) This choice of “honorary members,” as Sukhomlinov calls these top ranking officials, pursued the goal of binding the academy to the state. The Russian Academy thus carried the imprint of the State, which may have meant a restriction of freedom in certain situations. The fact, for example, that Novikov, despite his reputation as an editor and writer was not elected, is probably a sign of this restriction. On the other hand this same procedure helped to increase the social prestige of the academy, especially since its most active members, as we shall see further below, were lower-ranking people. It is necessary to point out the correspondence between the academicians’ professional and social backgrounds. People employed in the higher administration or holding important military positions were all of noble descent. This is no surprise, for it just replicates the traditional social order. The opposite is likewise true: academicians of noble descent all held administrative (or military) positions (except for the before-mentioned Anastasii Romanenko-Bratanovskii, who was of noble Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. decent from Ukraine).5 9 There is a one to one relation between nobility and bureaucratic position. On the other hand, the natural and exact scientists, professors, teachers, and, of course, the clergy all came from a clerical background (very few came from a military background). The surprising statistical fact here is that only students from clerical or military families seem to have been entering the new secular academic professions, such as scientist and university professor. Therefore, Marc Raeffs assertion that the intellectual elite in Russia prior to the 1840s consisted of a handful of nobles, can only be true if we keep in mind that half of these were only first generation nobles, bom into clergy families. Given the Russian social structure, where the first six ranks could only be held by hereditary nobles, even a scientist of international reputation like Rumovskii, who was a member of the Academy of Sciences in Stokholm, or Lepekhin, whose travel accounts were translated into various Western languages, could not be promoted above rank 7, nadvomyi sovetnik [court councillor].6 0 This is an important factor to keep in mind, when dealing with 18th century Russian social reality. Only writing (see column V of my table) as an activity of rising popularity reflecting a certain level of education and often social involvement was practiced among people with either background: 16 of noble vs. 13 of clerical descent. This 5 9 Since Romanenko-Bratanovskii came from Ukraine, it is possible that his ancestors, albeit noble, i.e as representatives o f the land-owning gentry did not hold a rank. He then climbed the social ladder within the church hierarchy. 6 0 This glass ceiling seems to have been lifted later, for at his death July 13, 1812, Rumovskii held rank IV as deistvitel’ nyi statskii sovetnik [senior state councillor] (Sukhomlinov 2: 156). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 perfectly corresponds with Sukhomlinov’s findings, mentioned above. In the following section I will discuss this group in more detail. The different professional groups are fairly well defined, meaning that in most cases it is possible to make out who belonged to the clergy, who worked in the administration, who was at court, who was a scientist, etc. There is one exception: It is very difficult to determine who belonged to the group of “writers” and who did not (see column V). This is due to the fact that writing was not considered a profession in and of itself at the time. All writers had a ‘real’ profession on the side, which determined their social position.6 1 Even if writing was mainly a secondary occupation, who should one include in the group of writers? Was a bishop, the author of sermons, a writer? Was the historiographer Boltin a writer? Should the mathematician and astronomer Rumovskii, who translated Euler’s letters — very popular reading at this time all over Europe — be considered a writer? What kind of writing made one a writer? Or, perhaps it was not even a question of genre, but rather a question of quantity, or political correctness? There are many ways of defining a writer. The literary critics of the time offered two solutions to the problem. Novikov in his Opvt istoricheskogo slovaria o rossiiskikh pisateliakh adopted a very inclusive approach: “H cxapaaca,” writes Novikov,“codnpaxb MivteHa acex Hamm nHcaxeaeii; h o npH o x n e u a x a H H H 6 1 The only person I can think of, employed in the literary field and earning his money with writing and editing, was Novikov. At 24 years o f age he had left the civil service, i.e. he had chosen a place outside the rank system. See Karl Zemack, ed., Vom Randstaat zur Hegemonialmacht. vol. 2 of Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands, eds. M. Hellmann, K. Zemack, G. Schramm (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1976-) Lieferang 11 (1991) 839. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 Moeft k h h x h n o n y u H W a ein ;e o m h o f h x H 3B ecxH e; a c u e caMoe n o ^ a e x n a f le a c a y , uxo h e in ,e MHorne oxKporoxca.” [I tried to compile the names of all of our writers; however, as I was printing my book, I heared about many more yet; and this lets one hope that many more will be discovered] (Novikov 2). He tried to record as many writing people as possible. His dictionary encompasses translators, authors of sermons, unpublished writers, scientists and more. However, text quality is a prerequisite for authorship. Therefore all articles contain critical remarks. Novikov’s scale of approval reaches from: “stikhotvoreniia sochinen’tsa.. .dovol’no imeiut ostroty,” “perevel na Rossiiskii iazyk ne malo izriadnykh i poleznykh knig,” “nekotorye izriadnyia ego pouchitel’nyia slova ne napechatany,” “dovol’no sochinil pouchitel’nykh slov, kotorye i pokhvaliaiutsia,” “nemnogo pouchitel’nykh slov, ves’mamnogo pokhvalaemykh ot znaiushchikh liudei” [the writer’s verses are pretty witty,” “he translated into Russian quite a few good and useful books,” “some of his really good sermons are not printed,” “he wrote quite a few sermons, that are also praised,” “some sermons that are very much praised by experts”] to “slog ego byl velikolepen, chist, tverd, gromok i priiaten“ [his style was magnificent, pure, firm, l o f t y and pleasant]. Novikov makes a strong effort to introduce the notion of “writer”/”author” to Russia, to promote this “profession.” On the other hand is the Russian Academy, adopting the opposite, i.e. exclusive, approach. In compiling their dictionary the academicians decided to choose sample phrases for word entries only from the best of the “svetskie pisateli” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [secular writers].6 2 That is to say that the academicians deemed only a chosen few worthly of citation. This can be considered one of the earliest attempts of canonizing Russian secular literature. The SAR’s list of canonical contemporary writers is short. Most frequently cited are Lomonosov and Sumarokov, who had already died. From time to time there is also a quote from Popovskii, Dashkova, Petrov, Kniazhnin, Kheraskov, Novikov, Shuvalov, Platon Levshin, and Catherine II6 3 This is all. If in 1772 Novikov was still trying to prove that the category of “writer” / “author” existed in Russia, that ‘authorial writings’ were abundant, and that they had just to be spotted and preserved for posterity, the academicians -- only 15 years later — already considered that it was time to make a selection. This indicates that in the late eighties and nineties the concept of “writer” /“author” had been completely accepted. In annotating the academicians’ list above and deciding who should be called a writer, I followed Novikov’s judgment. On my own I added Khvostov, Derzhavin, L’vov and Kapnist. These authors established and defined6 4 themselves as writers only later, after the Opyt had long been published. We can now conclude, that from a late 18th century perspective about half of the academicians elected for being “iz izvestnykh liudei, znaiushchikh rossiiskii iazyk” [noted people who know the Russian language] were in fact people known for their writings in the different fields 6 2 This is what the editors explain in the preface to the dictionary: “Nakonets prisovokupleny ... izbrannye primery, iz knig tserkovnykh i luchshikhpisatelei svetskikh.. [Lastly, select examples are added from the Church books and the best worldly writers] (SAR 1: XIV) 6 3 See Appendix 1 for a complete list of texts and authors, cited in the Russian Academy Dictionary. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 of religion, poetry, and the sciences. All of the writers today considered canonical writers of the late 18th century (except for Novikov) are included in this group. Adopting an 18th century viewpoint in deciding who should be called a writer also reminds us that figures like Dashkova or Rzhevskii, whose remarkable administrative or political careers have shaped our ideas about them, played a significant role in the literary arena of the time. Out of the 77 academicians elected in the 11 years of the SAR’s publishing history, 50 academicians contributed to the dictionary. However, one glance at the volume numbers (in column VIII of the table above) shows that the enthusiasm among the compilers seems to have been much greater in the beginning than in the end of the project: 42 out of a possible 60 members were actively involved with the first and second volumes. Afterwards the interest drops drastically. Only a limited number of people actually compiled the dictionary from A-Z (or A-fi, in this case), or at least showed more than just a fleeting interest in the project. The following people were primarily responsible for the SAR’s content: Gavriil Petrov, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 66 5 Innokentii Nechaev, archbishop of Pskov and Riga 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Protoierei Ivan Ivanovich Krasovskii 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Priest Vasilii Semenovich Dankov 3, 4, 5, 6 6 4 Outside o f the SAR and Russian Academy these writers formed a loose literary circle with L’vov in the leading role. See G. A. Gukovskii, Russkaia literatura XVIII veka (Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe uchebno-pedagogicheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1939) 391. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 Ivan Ivanovich Lepekhin 1,2, 3,4, 5, 6 Stepan Iakovlevich Rumovskii 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Semen Kirillovich Kotel’nikov 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Aleksei Protas’evich Protasov 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Nikolai Iakovlevich Ozeretskovskii 1,2, 3,4, 5, 6 Petr Borisovich Inokhodtsev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Ivan Semenovich Zakharov 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Timofei Semenovich Mal’gin 3, 4, 5, 6 Ekaterina Dashkova 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Ivan Nikitich Boltin 1,2, 3 Aleksei Ivanovich Musin-Pushkin 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Ippolit Fedorovich Bogdanovich 1, 2, 3 Dmitrii Ivanovich Khvostov 3, 5, 6 Dmitrii Pavlovich Tatishchev 4, 5, 6 These most active members form three groups: The scientists, the clergy and a mixed group of noble writers, historians and translators. Interestingly it is the scientists who were most diligently involved in all stages of the dictionary. How can it be explained that the work on a Russian language dictionary, a truly philological enterprise, was to a great extent carried out by members of the scientific elite of the country (seven of the eight scientists listed here were members of the Academy of 6 5 The numbers after the academicians’ names refer to the volumes of the dictionary, to which the given member participated. In the case of Gavriil Petrov, for example, the numbers indicate that he contributed to all 6 volumes of the SAR. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 Sciences)? This question leads to another question. Why had scientists been elected members of the Russian Academy in the first place? The biographical notes and the short discussion of the academicians’ social background, as well as the discussion of who a “writer” was already suggest an answer. All scientists had religious and thus philological schooling before entering the academic gymnasium and university. For example, they all knew Latin before they even started being instructed in the sciences. Moreover, all of the scientists had received a very comprehensive higher education during their studies abroad. In Germany, France and Holland they had not only attended classes in the sciences but also in history, rhetorics, poetics, philosophy, etc. The Academy of Sciences had been very demanding since it was financing the students’ studies abroad. Expectations were high. For example, the Academy’s instructions, in this case addressed to Lepekhin, read: A n o H e a c e t h HMeenib oxcio,n,a oxnpaBHXbca o6in,e c aflbioHKXOM r. H p o x a c o B b i M b C x p a c d y p r , r ^ e n p n e n y H H o d y n a x b c n x e 6 e b o n e p s w x r y M a H H o p a M , n e M e ijK O M y h ( J jp a n n y a c K O M y a s b i K a M , c o b c h k h m n p u n e a c a H J i e M , a n o x o M y n p a a c n a x b C H b o B c e x n a c x a x H c x o p u n H a x y p a a b H o i i , h C B ep x noaaBaeMbix x e 6 e o x npo(j>eccopoB aeKpnii h codcxBennaro npHBaxnaro y neH H H x o flH X b n a c x o c o 6 n p a x b h o n n c b iB a x b BCHKne xpaBbi h ffp y rH H H a x y p a a b H b ia Bem,H. [sic] [And since you will be sent from here together with the junior scientific assistant Protasov to Strassburg, where upon your arrival you have to study first the humanities, the French and German language, with all diligence, and then train yourself in all fields of natural history; also, on top of the homework (?) given to you by the professors, and your own private studies, you frequently have to go out to collect and describe all sorts of plants and other natural things] (Sukhomlinov 2: 170). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 Second, the scientists, even though only partly represented in Novikov’s dictionary of writers, had all written in and translated into their native language. Especially through their translating, scientists greatly enriched the Russian technical and scientific language. Exemplary in this field was the translation of Buffon’s “Histoire naturelle, generate et particuliere, avec la description du cabinet du roi.” The translation had been commissioned by Catherine II and was undertaken by Rumovskii, Lepekhin and others. As the director of the Academy of Sciences, Dashkova was very well acquainted with the scientists’ linguistic accomplishments. One reason for the scientists' heavy involvement in the writing of the dictionary may have been the fact that they were professionally linked to the Academy of Sciences, i.e. as professors at this institution they were receiving a salary. They might therefore have felt more compelled to attend the meetings at the Russian Academy, since “MKKjiy ssyMn aKaaeMHHMH cymecTBOBana xecHan h B3anMHan C B H 3b” [a close and reciprocal bond existed between the two academies], despite the fact that the Russian Academy “6buia ocnosaHa Kan yupencfleHHe, coBepmeHHO He3aBHCHMoe o t AicaaeMHH nayK, n opraHHsapHOHHbie npHHijHnbi ee 6binn h h m m h ” [was established as an institution, completely independent from the Academy of Sciences, and its organizational principles were different].6 6 Reading the SAR against the historical background, as it is described in this chapter, allows us to draw the following conclusions. As an institutionalized grassroot organization the Russian Academy is part of a network of learned societies, which first appeared in Italy during the Renaissance and later established themselves all over Europe. A typically Russian feature characterizing the Russian Academy, however, is the special relationship between Catherine and the intellectual 6 6 Konstantin Ostrovitianov, ed., Istoriia Akademii nauk SSSR. vol. 1 (Moskva: AN SSSR, 195 8-) 322. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 elite of her country: she considered herself primus inter pares, despite the fact that the Russian nobility was in political terms much more dependent on and bound to the monarch than in Western Europe. The academicians, Dashkova, for example, responded to this with an equally paradoxical behavior that combined loyalty to the monarch and a strong patriotic feeling with pronounced intellectual independence. In fact, national pride and patriotism determined, as I will show in the following chapters, the academicians’ choice of text sources for the SAR. On the other hand, they felt independent enough to dismiss Catherine’s plan of writing a dictionary in purely alphabetical order, and stuck to their idea of organizing the SAR by word roots. Specifically Russian and, f r o m a Western point of view, surprising for an enterprise of this dimension during the Enlightenment, is also the integration of the clergy in this project. This confirms Zhivov’s observation that B P o c c h h ripocBeru;eHHe H a K p e m c o CBH3bmajio Kyribxypy — K aK C B e x c K y io T a x h f ly x o B H y io — c r o c y g a p c x B O M . [In Russia the Enlightenment firmly linked the culture — both the secular and the religious — with the state] (Zhivov, Iazyk 425). Moreover, our group analysis clearly identifies the natural and hard scientists — first generation professionals coming out of the clergy — as an important part of the emerging intellectual elite of Russia. It is also surprising, as I will show in chapters IV and VI, how highly the academicians rate the importance of legislation for Russian society. Through intensive discussions about a new code of laws, launched by the Empress herself and carried out nationwide right in the beginning of Catherine’s reign, the law as such had become one of the parameters defining a Russian’s national identity. Legal thought had strongly penetrated the minds of the academicians. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 CHAPTER II THE PLANNING STAGE 1. The Time Frame The academicians started working on the SAR in 1783 and finished in 1794. The publishing dates of the dictionary’s six volumes coincide with the dates of the French Revolution: 1789-1794.1 Compiling and printing the dictionary thus took 11 years that spanned the relatively liberal eighties as well as the most repressive years at the end of Catherine’s reign. With the great military successes on the southern 1 Volume I was published in 1789, volume II in 1790, volume III in 1792, volume IV in 1793, and volumes V and VI in 1794. 2 The academicians did not miss an occasion to point out that they worked much more efficiently than their Italian and French forerunners and models: “ B u m npeycneaHne b Tpyuax c b o h x aK aneM HH, h crapaflcb 6naroBpeMeHHee yflOBneTBopHTb oxomaHHH obmecTBa, peimuiacH b o r h o BpeM H h npoaoJDKaTB cosHHeHHe CBoe h nerpHca 06 H 3flaH H H OHaro. H6o upyrafl oioBecHbia aKapeM HH, HMea BnponeM 6onbinna nocodna, He co6m om cero, BecbMa nonroe BpeM H Ha commeHHe caoBapeft cbohx ynorpe6m m i. Tax HanpHMep oiaBHan (jwiopeHTHHCKan axa^eMhh, de-Ad-Kpyctca Ha3biBaeMaa, b couHHeHHH aiOBapa npenpoBOAHna copoK aeT. Ho 6o;n>mee eipe ynoTpefimia BpeM H b npHyM HO»ceHHH h npHBepeHHH OHaro b coBepmeHCTBO axafleMHH c|>paH u;y3K aH : HCKm onaH nacrabiH npepmeamHH en cofipaHHH, b 1635 ropy yupeacfleHHaH, He npeacfle M o r a a cpe/taTb nepBoe, h to BecbMa HepocTaTOHHoe, HsnaHHe cnosapH cBoero, xax b 1694 ropy, h cnepoBaTeHbHO npe3 59 /ieT ot CBoero ynpeKfleHHH.” [When the academy - eager to satisfy even earlier the public expectations - saw the good progress it made in its work, it decided at one point to both continue the compilation of its [reference] work and take care of its publication. For other language academies that by the way had larger funds, not paying attention to this, spent a very long time compiling their dictionaries. For example the glorious Florentine academy, the so-called de la Crusca, spent 40 years compiling the dictionary. But the French Academy invested still more time into extending and improving it: without counting the individual [word] collections that preceded it, the academy, founded in 1635, was not able not complete the first edition o f its dictionary - and this one far from being perfect - until 1694, i.e. 59 years after its establishment.] (Sukhomlinov [citing a project report written by Lepekhin] 2: 288-289). The Russian competitiveness is in itself an interesting fact. Russia, at the Eastern far end of Europe, was no longer just struggling to keep up with the pace o f Western civilization, it was, from the academicians’ point of view, able to outrun the West. The same competitiveness, actually instigated and orchestrated by Catherine herself, can be observed with regard to other major scientific projects (like the expeditions, organized for the observation of the two solar eclipes caused by Venus in the seventeen hundred sixties). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 front, culminating in the conquest of the Crimea in early 1783, the Empress felt increasingly secure ‘at home.’ She showed renewed interest in cultural politics, characterized that year by several memorable events. On January 15, Catherine passed a law allowing private printing presses. She took care of the Academy of Sciences by replacing its incompetent director Domashnev with Ekaterina Dashkova and founded the Russian Academy. She also turned to one of her most cherished domestic projects: education reform. Thus, the years from 1783-1790 were the most flourishing years in Russia’s publishing history: Ein neuer Aufschwung [in der Buchproduktion] erfolgte durch die Genehmigung von privaten Druckereieen ...in den Jahren 1786-1790 (durchschnittlich 386, im Rekordjahr 1788 475 Titel). Die Produktion sank dann aber 1791-1795 ... wieder, nicht zuletzt wegen der repressiven Offentlichkeitspolitik seit 1789...” 3 As noted here, this liberal period ended abruptly with the outbreak of the French Revolution. Catherine criticized the French Revolution harshly and various repressions followed immediately. The writers Novikov, Kniazhnin, and Radishchev were arrested in 1790-1792. According to one account, nearly 20,000 books were burned in 1792 in Moscow in connection with Novikov’s arrest.4 Having at first profited from Catherine’s liberalism, the Russian Academy was directly affected by the Empress’ strong reaction to the political upheaval in France: Kniazhnin, arrested in 1790 for his play “Vadim,” was one of its members, and 3 Andreas Lawaty, “Kulturpolitik und Offentlichkeit im Zeitalter Katharinas II” (Zemack 676-867, here 832). Includes an extensive bibliography on book printing and publishing. See also Gary Marker. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 Dashkova, the Academy’s president, had been directly involved in the publication of the text and was severely criticized by Catherine for her support of the author. The SAR itself contained quotes from the political outcasts Kniazhnin and Novikov. A possible suspension of the dictionary’s publication must have been on everybody’s mind. There is no doubt that the Academy had good reasons to speed up the work on the SAR and to bring the project to a close. 2. Three Working Stages It is difficult to give a chronological outline of the work on the dictionary without consulting all of the original minutes of the Academy’s meetings.5 Moreover, the writing of the dictionary was not carried out in a purely linear way. The academicians worked in parallel groups on different themes at the same time. The milestones of the enterprise, however, can be extracted from Sukhomlinov’s Istoriia Akademii Rossiiskoi.6 The conscientious historian worked very closely with the original sources and - fortunately - quoted from them extensively. On these grounds I discern three major, though overlapping phases. 4 Eduard Burdzhalov, Tsarism v bor’be s frantsuzskoi burzhuaznoi revoliutsiei (Moscow: Vysshaia Partiinaia Shkola pri TsK VKP(b), 1941) 13. 5 They are preserved in the archives of the Academy of Sciences in Petersburg. 6 It might seem strange that the milestones have to be “extracted” from the one and only outstanding history of the Russian Academy. This is due to the fact that Sukhomlinov organized his history around and along the Academy’s members. Apart from a very short introduction dealing with the prehistory and the inauguration o f the institution, the major part of the first volume and the 6 following volumes contain biographies, some very short, some hundreds of pages long. The last volume is dedicated to a description of the dictionary and the academy’s later projects. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 1) Preparation and Planning (September 1783 - March 12, 1784). Fonvizin submitted an outline for the dictionary as well as a plan of how the work should be organized. His suggestions were immediately approved by the members, who were attending Academy meetings in St. Petersburg. Six weeks later, however, the academicians’ resoluteness was seriously shaken by Boltin’s counter-plan, sent in from Moscow. The academicians changed their minds and endorsed this latter plan on January 30. However, after Fonvizin and others defended the initial plan in writing, a final decision was reached in favor of Fonvizin’s outline on March 12. 2) Compiling the “Analogicheskie tablitsy,” i.e. lists of the raw lexical material in alphabetical order, gathered from existing lexicographical works as well as from primary text sources (November 18,1783 - December 1788). Almost all the members contributed at this stage of the work. The “analogicheskie tablitsy” were printed consecutively in batches from as early as January 17, 1784, when the letter A was submitted to the press, through December 1788, when, according to V. N. Makeeva, “pechatanie ‘Analogicheskikh tablits’ postupavshikh v Tipografiiu chastiami bylo zakoncheno” [the printing of the analogicheskie tablitsy, which the Press had received in segments, was finished].7 Of the 110-1308 printed copies of 7 In her article “Iz istorii izdaniia Slovaria Akademii Rossiiskoi” V. N. Makeeva refers to fond 3, opis’ 1, No. 327, list 326 of the Archive of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Sukhomlinov, interestingly, gives a different date. He writes: “2 oktiabria 1787 goda rozdany byli chlenam akademii vyshedshie iz pechati poslednie listy analogicheskikh tablits.” [On October 2n d , 1787, the last sheets of the “analogous tables” that had come from the press, were distributed to the academy members] (8: 64-65). Since Sukhomlinov does not indicate the source of this information, which is unusual for him, I decided to use Makeeva’s date. 8 More precisely, there were 130 copies printed of parts I-III, and 110 copies of parts IV-V (Makeeva, “Iz istorii izdaniia” 220-221) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 the analogicheskie tablitsy that existed at the time, i.e., roughly 2 copies per academy member, only one complete copy survives to the present day.9 3) Editing the SAR: Selection of the vocabulary, arrangement in etymological order, writing definitions, chosing examples, proof reading (January 13,1784 - 1794). If most of the members contributed to collecting the lexical material, editing was done by a few enthusiasts, the majority of which were scientists as well as some priests who were consulted about grammatical and OCS questions. Sukhomlinov points out that in the minutes of the Academy the scientists Rumovskii, Inokhodtsev and Lepekhin were referred to as the editors of the SAR (3: 234-235). This chapter will discuss the planning stage in detail. Since the final plan of the dictionary was very closely followed, I have also decided to include in the chapter a description of the SAR’s word material. The given chapter thus discusses not only the planning stage, but also to what extent the final plan was realized. The next chapter (chapter 3) will deal with the analogicheskie tablitsy and the editing stage. 3. Fonvizin vs. Boltin: Preliminary Remarks As I point out above, the planning stage was strongly marked by the Fonvizin- Boltin controversy. In retrospect, however, Boltin’s counter-plan proved to be 9 Sukhomlinov describes this bibliographical treasure preserved at his time - and most likely up to the Russian Revolution - in the Rumiantsev Museum in his Istoriia (8:55-56). Today this single complete copy of the “analogous tables” (AT) is housed in the Lenin Library in Moscow. According to V. A. Makeeva, the only scholar to have carefully studied the publishing history o f the SAR. there are three more incomplete copies of the AT, to be found in the library o f the Academy of Sciences, the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library and the Gorki-Library at the St. Petersburg State University. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 nothing more than a brief episode delaying the work on the dictionary. Ultimately Fonvizin’s principles were altered only in one point: the amount of regional words to be included. I will not therefore discuss Boltin’s positions in detail, but concentrate on Fonvizin’s plan. Yet, the Fonvizin-Boltin controversy is important for the following reason. What seem to be, at first glance, petty remarks from both sides, reveal themselves on closer analysis as two entirely different concepts of a dictionary. A “normative” language dictionary was clearly conceived by Dashkova and Fonvizin in imitation of the French Academy Dictionary. This type of language dictionary is also described and advertised in the Encyclopedia a source on which Fonvizin relied when writing his plan. Boltin, on the other hand, was more interested in compiling what we call today a “universal” language dictionary.1 0 He writes: H ofl H M en eM cnoBopa p a s y M e e T c a raKaa K H H ra, b K O T O pofi H e o a h h OTdopHbm h ynoTpedHTenbHbia, h o h BCH K opoflH bra ctio B a , t . e. aodpbm h x y f lb ia , HH3KHH h 6 /ia r o p o A H b ia , y n o T p e fiH T e /ib H b ia h 1 0 In Ms monumental study Les Dictionnaires du francais modeme 1539-1863: Etude sur leur Mstoire. leurs types et leurs methodes (Paris: Didier, 1967), Bernard Quemada characterizes the two types extensively. The prototype for the normative dictionary is the Dictionnaire de lAcademie francaise (1692), the prototype of the universal dictionary is Furetiere’s Dictionnaire universel (1690), conceived and compiled in conscious opposition to the French Academy dictionary. It is very interesting that the same conflict between restrictive and extensive dictionaries should reappear in the Russian context, in a similarly polemical form. This is how Quemada characterizes Furetiere’s project: “En 1690, Furetiere fut le premier a utiliser en franyais la denomination de Dictionnaire Universel a propos d’un ouvrage ‘contenant generalement tous les mots fran?ois tant vieux que modemes et les termes de toutes les Sciences et des Arts’. ... Le decoupage theorique entre langue commune et langue technique adopte par l’lllustre Compagnie parut a notre auteur impossible a realiser: ‘les termes des Arts et des Sciences sont tellement engages avec les mots communs de la Langue, qu’il n’est pas plus aise de les separer que les eaux de deux rivieres a quelque distance de leur confluent’. Le parallele se dessine alors tres nettement: ‘.,.1’Academie rejette tous les mots anciens qu’elle tient barbares, et elle n’admet que ceux qui sont maintenant en usage dignes d’entrer dans les Poemes, les Operas et les belles conversations. C’est pourquoy le Dictionnaire Universel est necessaire pour conserver la Langue toute entiere a la posterite et sauver du naufrage le rebut de l ’Academie...’” (171-172). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 H ey n o x p e6 H T e7 ib H b iM (ic p o M e H e d jia r o n p u c x o ii H b i x t o k m o ) n o M e ip e H M 6 b iT b H M eioT n p a B O . [A so-called “dictionary” is a book in which not only select and widely used, but all sorts of words have the right to be included, i.e. good and bad, low and noble, common and uncommon (except for only the indecent) words] (Sukhomlinov 5: 285). At the very end of his letter to the Academy it appears that Boltin ultimately aimed at compiling not a language dictionary but an encyclopedia! Interestingly, he uses the term tolkovyi [explanatory] as a synonym for encyclopedic: ... a M e M f f y xeM b npofloaxcenHH cea padoxw [x.e. flamroro c m osapa] 3aroxoBnaxb npnnacbi k cohhhchhio xojncoBaro cnosapa. Earn rocnopa uaeHbi cornacaxcH paapenHTb na ce6a xpyp b c o h h h c h h h onaro no BetpecxBaM, B 3H B Kaacpbiii xo, uxo oh yuHa w m b ueM donbine ynpaacHanca; nanpHMep oprm peueHna dorocaoBCKHa, ppyxoH - MHHepaaorHuecKHa, xpexnh - MaxeMaxmrecKHa h npou., xo 6w He b npopoaacHxeabHOM BpeMeHH Becb aHpHKaoneflHuecKHH caoBapb c|)paHpy3CKHH Ha pO C C H H K H ft [sic] H 3bIK npeo6pa3HXb M O > K H O 6biao. [... and meanwhile in continuation of this work [i.e. the SARI to prepare the vocabulary for the compilation of an explanatory dictionary. If the gentle members agreed to divide among themselves the work on that dictionary by subject, taking each what he learned or in which he is most versed; one, for example, one the theological, another the mineralogical, a third the mathematical words, etc., then in not too long a time the whole French encyclopedic dictionary could be changed into a Russian one.] (Sukhomlinov, 5: 292) Boltin’s corrections of Fonvizin’s plan have to be seen in light of these two comments. This explains why he pleads for including certain proper names, all regionalisms, all technical terms, sayings [posloviisy], and even foreign words to a much greater extent than the rest of the academicians intended. Although he refers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 to the Encyclopedic, Boltin obviously did not read its article “Dictionnaire,” Fonvizin’s main source and reference, as I will show. Boltin’sprimechaniia aroused strong feelings in Fonvizin, who defended his own plan vehemently in a letter to Kozodavlev. Fonvizin was in Moscow when he heard of the outcome of the academy meeting on January 30, at which Boltin’s suggestions had for the most part been accepted. Although Fonvizin’s letter in response does not add any new facts to the debate, it is highly amusing reading. Fonvizin’s temper, his sharp tongue, and his spontaneity come through in an unmitigated way. The letter is teeming with ironic remarks, differing in style drastically from the official Nachertanie. The author o fNedorosl and Brigadir is at his best: C o d c T e B e H H b ie H M e n a OTHK>Ab n e c o c r a B m o T c y m e c T B a H 3 b iK a , a y M e m iu u m e n b H u e h x e in ;e M e n b m e , h e a r n H ecrny n e T M e c r a b n eK C H K O H e, t c m M e n e e B a m n e T a ic a n n p e x e H 3 P r a n p n m m H a . H t o >k K a ca e T C H a o y s e n u H u e a m e n m u x , 6y n ,T O A y x o B H b iM H o c o d a M H y n o T p e d m t e M b i x , t o a O T p o s y H e c n b ix H B a n , h t o 6 c o d c T B e H H b ie H M e n a H M e a H K o r f la - H H d y f lb y e e n u n u e a m e n b H u e . 3 n a i o , h t o d b m a i o T o h h n o n H b i e h c o K p a m e H H b i e , H a n p M .: H ouhh, Mean; h o n e A y M a ro , h t o 6 K a K O H -H H d y n b a p x H e p e h n a s s a a c e 6 a K o r f la - H H d y A b C M U pem uu HoauHume. [Proper names by no means constitute a language’s essence, and their diminuitives even less so, and if Ivan does not belong in the dictionary, then for Van ’ ka such a pretension is even less becoming. As to the augmentative forms, allegedly used for spiritual persons, I have never in my bom days heard that personal names ever had augmentative forms. I know that they can be full or abreviated, for example: Ioann, Ivan; but I do not believe that an archbishop would ever call imself the humble big John] (Fonvizin 1: 253). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 After these preliminary remarks on the Fonvizin-Boltin controversy, I now turn to presenting Fonvizin’s plan in detail, following with a discussion the lexical material of the SAR in view of this plan, i.e. the realization of the plan in the dictionary. The reader will thus be acquainted with the main characteristics and features of the SAR. 4. Fonvizin’s Nachertanie The work on the dictionary started at the second meeting on October 28, one week after the opening session on October 21. Dashkova did not lose any time. Metropolitan Gavriil, the writers Fonvizin and Leont’ev, and the scientists Rumovskii and Lepekhin were elected to write a plan for the dictionary and formed the so called “otdel dlia nachertaniia pravil i poriadka v sochinenii Rossiiskago Slovaria” [Department for drafting the guide lines and work plan for the compilation of the Russian Dictionary]. At the next meeting two weeks later (November l l ) 1 1 the otdel read its plan aloud to the other academy members. However, it is generally assumed that Fonvizin wrote the plan alone. As a matter of fact the outline of the dictionary, “Nachertanie dlia sostavleniia tolkovogo slovaria slaviano- rossiiskogo iazyka” as well as the plan, discussing the logistics of how to proceed and organize the work (“Sposob, koim rabota tolkovogo slovaria slaviano- rossiiskogo iazyka skoree i udobnee proizvodit’sia mozhet”), are both included in Makogonenko’s 1959 edition of Fonvizin’s works (1: 240-251). Interestingly, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 Makogonenko dated the “nachertanie” September 1783. This means that Fonvizin had been apprised of the dictionary project before Catherine had given her official consent to the establishment of the Russian Academy. If this is not a dating mistake, it tells us that Dashkova was sure to be appointed president, although in her memoirs she pretends that the appointment came to her as a total surprise. In this case, the question of why Dashkova did not simply appoint Fonvizin to write an outline at the second academy meeting, instead of having the academicians elect an “otdel” for a task that had already been accomplished, remains a mystery. Did she want to keep up the facade of equality among the members and democratic election?1 2 These 1 1 According to Dashkova’s memoirs, the academicians’ meetings usually took place weekly, on Saturdays (273). 1 2 Equality among all the members including the president and the permanent secretary is an issue in the statutes. Articles 7 and 8 explain: “Dolzhnost’ dvukh nepremennykh Sekretarei sostoit v sochinenii protokolov i v khranenii onykh, tak zhe i v khranenii rukopisnykh podlinnikov. Sverkh zhe togo imeiut oni kak pochesti, tak i golos ravnye s prochimi chlenami Akademii.” - “Krome chlenov imeet byt’ Predsedatel’, imeiushchii i pochesti i golos ravnye kazhdomu chlenu, krome predsedatel’stva.” [The duty of the two permanent secretaries [there was actually always only one] consists in the writing o f minutes and safeguarding them, as well as in safeguardig the manuscript originals. Besides this, however, they enjoy the same respect and have the same vote as the other academy members. - Besides the members, there has to be a president, who enjoys the same honors and votes as each member, except for his presidency] (Rossiiskaia Akademiia, Sochineniia i perevodv 1: 18). In the French statutes “egalite” is equally if not more important. In the history o f the Academie frangaise Masson writes: “Le principe essentiel sur lequel le cardinal due de Richelieu avait fonde 1’Academie etait 1’egalite. II ne devait y avoir entre les academiciens aucune distinction ni aucun avantage que donnasset la naissance, les charges et les dignites; aucune difference dans le traitement dont ils usassent les uns vis-a-vis des autres;... enfin, comme il fallait, pour l’Academie, regir et gouvemer la Compagnie, quelque membre qui la presidat, il convenait que ce membre ne put affecter une autorite dictatorial, ni s’etablir, au detriment de la Compagnie, en une posture priviligiee qui le rendit son interprete presque necessaire vis-a-vis duprotecteur ou des princes... Et e’est pourquoi le cardinal-duc, dans les statuts et reglements qu’il donna a insera cet article troisieme: ‘II y aura trois officiers, un directeur, un chancelier et un secretaire dont les deux premiers seront elus de deux mois en deux mois, et 1 ’autre ne changera point’” (11-12). Although both institutions esteem equality an essential element of their working order, each case fits into a very different political framework. At the French Academy Cardinal Richelieu, the protector o f the institution, but de facto protecting the king’s interests rather than the institution’s, is interested in establishing equality among the academy members in order to reinforce the hierarchal status quo. He clearly does not want to deal with a president whose authority could challenge his own position as the intermediate between the Compagnie and the king. In the case o f the Russian Academy, the link between the learned society and Catherine II (who is also frequently calledpokrovitel'nitsa) is, of course, Ekaterina Dashkova. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 mysteries could perhaps be cleared up if someone looked at the original documents again. Fonvizin’s plan consists of four parts, of which the first three discuss the constituents of the dictionary’s word entries: Part one “O vybore slov” [About the selection of words] regards entry words, part two - grammatical information, part three - semantics (synonyms and word definition), and part four explains why the dictionary should be organized in an etymological way and not simply alphabetically. Below I discuss all these points, along with a discussion at the end of each section about to what extent Fonvizin’s plan was realized. During the planning stage, partly under the influence of Boltin’s counter-plan, the emphasis shifted slightly towards collecting more historical and folk material. Otherwise most of Fonvizin’s instructions were closely followed. Thus the beginning of the project, the plan, and the end product, the dictionary itself, form one consistent whole. This is especially remarkable considering the various planning problems the French Academy Dictionary had undergone. The unity of plan and end product is an indicator of strong and consistent leadership. It also means that the guidelines were well thought through before any action was taken. Dashkova, however, is an academician herself: a prima inter pares. If Dashkova is insisting on the principle of equality among the members including herself, she is pretending that no hierarchy existed. Put positively, as Sukhomlinov interprets her role, Dashkova tries to neutralize social differences within the group, not an easy task considering that the academy included some o f the wealthiest nobles of Russia, as well as researchers who were not able to come up with money for their own funerals. It is curious that Dashkova, in her role as president o f the Russian Academy, replicates Catherine’s relations with her subordinates. Catherine, too, had on numerous occasions “stepped down” from her throne to be “on a par” with the people. Here I especially think of her ambition to enter the literary field, her dialogues with Novikov in “Tmten”’and with Fonvizin in “Sobesednik.” She acted as if she was not the censor, but just another writer. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 5. Paragraph I: “O Vybore Slov” [About the Selection of Words] Under “O vybore slov” Fonvizin presents the guidelines of how to delimit the vocabulary of the future dictionary. Excluded should be (1) proper names, (2) technical terms, except for common ones [nakhodias’ v sobstvennom upotreblenii], (3) indecent words, (4) foreign words, except, again, for the commonly used ones [koi voshli v ... upotreblenie], (5) regional and dialectal [provintsial’nye] words, not understood in the capitols, and (6) long proverbs [dlinnye poslovitsy i prislovitsy]. From these restrictions we understand that Fonvizin was familiar with the definition of a language dictionary in Diderot’s and d’Alembert’s Encvclopedie, whose classification of dictionaries was the first of its kind. In the article “Dictionnaire” the encyclopedists write: On peut distinguer trois sortes de dictionnaires; dictionnaires de langues, dictionnaires historiques, & dictionnaires de Sciences & d’Arts: division qu’on pourrait presenter sous un point de vue plus general, en cette sorte; dictionnaire de mots, dictionnare de faits, & dictionnaire de choses. ... DICTIONNAIRE DE LANGUES. On appelle ainsi un dictionnaire destine a expliquer les mots les plus usuels & les plus ordinaires d’une langue; il est distingue du dictionnaire historique, en ce qui’il exclut les faits, les noms propres de lieux, de personnes, etc.& il est distingue du dictionnaire des Sciences, en ce qu’il exclut les termes de Sciences trop peu connus & familiers aux seuls savans. Nous observerons d’abord qu’un dictionnare de langes est ou de la langue qu’on parle dans le pays ou le dictionnaire se fait, par exemple, de la langue fran^oise a Paris; ou de langue etrangere vivante ou de langue morte (Encyclopedic 1: 958; highlighting mine, ML). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 According to Fonvizin’s plan the dictionary of the Slaviano-Russian language (this concept will be explained in chapter 4) was to concentrate on a core vocabulary, determined through commonness (i.e. frequency), decency, and normativeness (taking Moscow as the norm). The criterion of “commonness” corresponds exactly to “les mots les plus usuels & les plus ordinaires” in the philosophes’ wording. Special technical terms and proper names were not to be included for they are characteristic of different types of dictionaries according to the Encyclopedic. It is interesting that Fonvizin viewed the dictionary as being Moscow-centered. Explicitly referring to Lomonosov, he explains under point 5): “.. .moskovskoe narechie, ne tokmo dlia vazhnosti stolichnogo goroda, no i dlia svoei otmennoi krasoty, prochim spravedlivo predpochitaetsia” [.. .the Moscow local dialect is justly favored over other ones, not only for the importance of a capital city, but also its outstanding beauty] (Fonvizin 1:241). Tacitly he thus approves of the encyclopedists’ view of a national language dictionary focusing on the language spoken in the capital, which by the way also differs from an earlier French linguistic model, when the language of the gentilhomme, the language at court, i.e. a sociolect and not a regional linguistic variant was considered the norm (Vaugelas’ program). Worth mentioning is the fact that typically Russian categories, such as high style vs. low style and written vs. spoken language, do not play any role in Fonvizin’s understanding of the Slaviano-Russian language. Nor does Fonvizin raise the problem of ancient words. Did he intend to include them all? One can only Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 speculate. The fact that Fonvizin recommends excerpting ancient Russian and OCS literature for the SAR.1 3 such as chronicles and church books, suggests that he was all for including them. On the other hand his guidelines, as cited above, give a different impression. Here Fonvizin seems much more concerned with contemporary speech. Consciously following the encyclopedists’ instructions on how to write a language dictionary, he envisions a monocentric language (i.e., Slavonic-Russian diglossia does not pose a problem), oriented towards the spoken Russian of Moscow. This latter impression is also confirmed by Sukhomlinov quoting Fonvizin (unfortunately without giving the exact source!) as follows: O ia B e H C K H e o i o s a H e y n o T p e b n T e n & H M e h / i h k o h x 3H a M e H O B a H H e o n p e f le n H T B H e y f l o b n o n e a o t d k h b i h m c t b M e c r a b o i o s a p e . [Uncommon Slavonic words or words whose meaning is not easy to determine should not be included in the dictionary] (7:11).1 4 To what extent were these initial guidelines realized in the dictionary? There are two ways of testing this. First, I will compare Fonvizin’s outline with Lepekhin’s foreword to the dictionary, first drafted in November 1786 and published in the first volume of the SAR in 1789.1 5 Secondly and most importantly, these two theoretical texts or claims will have to be weighed against the vocabulary of the SAR itself. 1 3 See his above mentioned “Sposob ...,” Sobranie Sochinenii. vol. 1, p. 249. 1 4 Sukhomlinov says this sentence is from the “Nachertanie.” However in the Makogonenko edition of Fonvizin’s works this sentence is missing. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 6. Selection of the Word Material According to Lepekhin’s Preface In the preface o f the SAR Lepekhin is very specific. He explains that from the unprecedented quantity of lexical material collected by the members of the academy, the following words were excluded from the SAR: 1) Proper names o f persons, countries, cities, oceans, rivers, lakes, etc. 2) Words o f the Arts and Sciences that are not commonly used and known only to the specialist [ne vkhodiat v obshchee upotreblenie, no edinstvenno uchenym i khudozhnikam izvestny]. However, Lepekhin admits words that are traditionally Russian: “iz”emlia iz sego odnako zhe estestvennyia v Rossii proizvedeniia, imeiushchiia osoblivyia nazvaniia, kotoryia bol’sheiu chastiiu sut’ narodnyia” [excluding from this group, however, native Russian artifacts, which have special names that are mostly dialectal.] 3) Indecent words 4) Ancient words that are out of use. Here again Lepekhin makes an exception: ... yaepxcHBan oflnaico >xe xe, Koxopbia k pasyMerooo apeBHHX a o i h h h , o6pa,n,OB h j i h odwuaeB cnocodcxByiox, h k o Tpmna; miH Koxopbia saK/nouaiOT b ce6e KopeHb Hbine ynoxpednxenbHbix, Hanp.: 3ud. nepBoe osHauaeT odpaa h o m h h k o b , dbiBineii y CnaBHH b ynoxpedneHHH; a BTopoe 3aK/noHaex b cede Kopenb c tio b 3 h x c a v , cosHflaio, 3flaHHe, h npou. h 6 o cnoBO cne b CnaBencKOM asbiKe 03HanaeT cxeny, 3a6pano. [Keeping, however, those that contribute to an imderstanding o f ancient deeds, rituals or habits, such as trizna; or those that have the same root as certain contemporary words, for example: zid. The first designates a funaral repast ritual, common with the Slavs; and the second has the same 1 5 M. G. Osterbiu, “Iz istorii Slovaria Akademii Rossiiskoi.” Slovar’ Akademii Rossiiskoi. ed. M. Osterbiu (1806-1822; Odense: Odense UP, 1971) 7-17; here 9-10. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 root as zizhdu [I build, I found], sozidaiu [I create], zdanie [building], et al., for this word [i.e. zid] in Slavonic means “wall,” “barrier” (SAR 1: IX).] 5) Regional words, except for those that designate a regional phenomenon [oznachaiut tekh stran proizvedeniia] and those that could serve as a substitute for a foreign word. 6) Foreign words. Retained were the common Hebrew and Greek words of the church books and the Bible as well as foreign words that were part and parcel of the social reality of Russian life, like the name of ranks, titles, etc. : “Nazvaniia vlastei, stepenei, dostoinstv, chinov, zvanii v noveishiia vremena vvedennyh, kotoryia iako izrechennyia zakonom bez vsiakoi peremeny vneseny v Slovar’ nash.” [The names of authorities, degrees, awards, ranks, and recently introduced titles made it into our dictionary without any changes, exactly as introduced by the law.] Included also were imported terms pertaining to the arts and sciences that were common and internationally used. Overall there is no doubt that Fonvizin’s guidelines had been closely followed. Fonvizin’s points 1-5 all return in Lepekhin’s list. The two guidelines defining the scope of the dictionary differ only in their acceptance of regional words and the mention of ancient vocabulary. As to including certain regional words, this was a compromise probably influenced by Boltin’s alternative plan. Boltin had suggested that all regionalisms or as many as one could find be listed in the dictionary, on the grounds that those words Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 too enrich the national language. Boltin’s idea was first accepted as is. The final decision, however, was that only those regional words that also designate a regional phenomenon should find their way into the SAR. According to Sukhomlinov the decision to include ancient words was taken very early on, right at the meeting of November 11,1783, when Fonvizin’s plan was read out loud to the assembly for the first time. It was president Dashkova who defended this point vehemently: HeKOTopwe H3 aicafleM HKOB, yuacTBOBasmHX b cocxaBjieHHH naana xojiKOBaro oioBapa, 6 b l/ih roro MHemta, uxo b caoBape ne a o td k h b i H M eTB Mecxa oiosa HeynoTpedHTeabHbm w m xaKna, 3HaueHHe KOTOpbix TpyAHO onpefleaeanTb c t o h h o c t b i o . jfaiiiKOBa yTBepacflaaa npoTHBHoe, floxasbiBaa, h t o noAodHbia caoBa MoryT coBpeMeneM He ToabKO noayuHTb yaoBaeTBopHTeabHoe odnbHCHeHHe, h o h noBecxH k O TK pblTH K ) pa3aHHHbIX AaH H bIX B odaaCTH pyC C K H X ApeBHOCTeH, B naMHTHHKax aaKOHOAaxeabHbix, h t . h . [Some of the academicians who participated in drafting the plan for the explanatory dictionary considered that uncommon words or words whose meaning is diffucult to determine precisely should not belong in the dictionary. Dashkova asserted the opposite, arguing that such words might eventually be satisfactorily defined, and might also lead to the discovery of different facts in the field of the Russian ancient past, in historic legal documents, etc.] (Sukhomlinov 1:43). Boltin, in his critique of Fonvizin’s plan, did not comment on this problem. However, it can be assumed that since Boltin was very fond of and versed in ancient Russian literature he must have been all for including starinnye recheniia [ancient words]. The fact that the ideal dictionary projected by Fonvizin, which was to reflect a modem spoken language, centered chronologically in the present and geographically Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 in Moscow, was modified in favor of a thesaurus reflecting the cultural past and the Russian heartland clearly indicates that the incentive to create a vehicle for national identity in combining language with history was strong. Collected were all things Russian, past and present. This is important, considering the fact that there are no references, for example, to Chretien des Troyes or the Chanson de Roland in the French Academy Dictionary. It was the intention of the Western dictionary compilers to match their Latin past by promoting a refined and already successfully written contemporary vernacular as the new national language. Of course, linguistic independence from Latin did not imply cultural independence from the Latin legacy. The Italian, Spanish, and French tried to prove that their languages were as good, as versatile, as precise, as artful, and as rich as Latin. The point was not to praise ancient vernacular tradition, which might diminish the importance of classical Latin, but rather to elevate contemporary languages to the heights of classical Latin, i.e. to make French as classical, as grand and as worthy as Latin. Like the Germans the Russians did not have a Latin past that had to be overcome and matched. Their point of reference, instead, was the versatile and polyfunctional French language. It was the enormous success of this vernacular that had to be matched. While the Latinate countries had been diachronically defiant, challenging a past culture and language, the Germans and Russians were synchronically defiant: The invasion of all things French had to be warded off. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 The two countries’ traditons of translation illustrate this point. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the period preceding the French Academy Dictionary, Translation [in France], particularly from Latin, was a common literary activity..., and one which encouraged other writers to use French rather than Latin, since translation, when well done, showed that French could after all express ideas hitherto confined to Latin.1 6 The translations produced in Russia in the period prior to the SAR were mostly from French, as Okenfuss notes in analyzing the work of the “Society Striving for the Translation of Foreign Books” called into existence by Catherine in 1769: The highest priority remained the French Enlightenment rather than the cultural values of the ancients. The first publication of the Society in 1769 was Voltaire’s Candide in 1200 copies, a successful endeavor followed by further editions in 1779 and 1789. A series of topical selections from the Encvclopedie and Montesquieu’s Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline appeared, followed by La Chalotais’ plan for national education in the absence of the Jesuits and Baron Dimsdale on inoculations (Okenfuss, 152). The Russians turned to their history and literary heritage in order to strengthen their own national position no matter whether it was Old-Russian or Church- Slavonic. Perhaps this helps explain why Romanticism set in early and became so strong in these two countries. I will now turn to evaluating to what extent Fonvizin’ s/Lepekhin’s guidelines were realized in the SAR itself. Did the academicians abide by the rules they had set themselves, or, more correctly, how did they interpret them when compiling the dictionary? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 7. Evaluation of the Word Material in the SAR The SAR does not include proper names (Fonvizin’s and Lepekhin’s point # 1). However, for various reasons the academicians had not been clear on this point in the very beginning. First, the French Academy Dictionary, their lexicographic model, did list certain proper names. Secondly, the SAR‘s sources, such as Bogdanov’s handwritten dictionary, also included proper names (for example A?ey [Asia], Aodeea [Africa], Adaaey [Arabia]).1 7 Thirdly, including proper names had been one of Boltin’s major concerns. According to the authors of the Istoriia russkoi leksikografii the Analogicheskie Tablitsy reflect the academicians’ uncertainty in this respect: B peecrpe AT (na 6yKBbi A, B) naimiH CBoe Mecxo HMena /inuHbie h h x npoH3BOflHbie (nanp., Anenceu, Anexceee, AneKcewtuxa, Anioma, AniomuHbKa, AmoiUKa, Anna, A h hu h, A hhuhckuu, AHnyiuKO, Automa, AmomymKa, Amomica). IT pH BO A H JiH C b b AT h reorpacfmuecKHe Ha3BaHHS (Atfipuxa, Atfiunu, Apxame/ibCK, Baxuym, Banauioe), a xaicace nasBanHn HorrejieH cxpaH, ropoAOB {Banaxnoeeu,, BaxMymeu,, A<Pu h x h u h ). nocne a o o t h x cnopoB, c peKOMenAapHeH “HauepxanHa” cornacHUHCb, h b AT, HauHHaa c dyKBbi B, HMeHa codcxBennbie yace He BHOcaxca. [Proper names and their derivatives show up in the lists of the Analogicheskie Tablitsy (for the letters A and B), for example, Aleksei, Alekseev, Alekseiushka, Aliusha, Aliushin ’ ka, Aliushka, Anna, Annin, Anninskii, Annushka, Aniuta, Aniutushka, Aniutka). The Analogicheskie Tablitsy also included geographical names (Afrika, Athens, Arkhangelsk, Bakhmut, Balashov), as well as the names of the inhabitants of countries’ and towns (Balakhanovets, Bakhmutets, Afinianin). After long debates, 1 6 Peter Rickard, A History o f the French Language (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 97. 1 7 See V. N. Makeeva, “Neizvestnyi otryvok pervogo Akademicheskogo slovaria russkogo iazyka,” Leksikograficheskii sbomik VI, 88-97. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. they agreed to the recommendations of the “Plan,” and, starting with the letter B, proper names are not entered any more into the Analgogicheskie Tablitsy.1 8 Some proper names made their way into the published SAR, whether by mistake or out of other considerations is not clear: ...H e K O T o p w e HaHMenoBaHHH, sepoaTHO, b c b h 3 h c o c o 6 c h h o c t h m h h x caoBoodpasoBaHHH, 6bum n o M e n je H b i b CAP (nanp. Apxamenoeopodeu,, A p x a m e n o zo p o d c K u u ). [... some proper names, most likely due to their peculiarities of word- formation, were included in the SAR (for example, Arkhangelogorodets, Arkhangelogorodetskii)\ (Sorokoletov 106) Technical terms, the words of the arts and sciences (point #2 in Fonvizin’s and Lepekhin’s list), were indeed excluded, unless, as Lepekhin explains, they were of Russian origin. Special imported terms from these fields were consistently avoided, or, if listed, appeared together with their Russian equivalent (Anatomiia - truporaz "iatie [Anatomy - corps dissection). Thus, medical terms included in the dictionary were, for example: Aaddidd [Spasmus], Kolot’ e v grudi [Peripneumonia], Pochechui [Haemorrhoides], etc. The words “ gemorroidy ” and “ spazma,” on the other hand, did not get an entry. Indigenous Russian botanical names are abundant, such as daiaeiee [arctium lappa], duct0ed [matricaria chamomilla], dinieda [Alchimilla vulgaris], dmbidiioa [carduus marianus], dinddia [Teucrium chamoedrys], etc. It is interesting that medical, botanical and some zoological terms are all translated into Latin, as if the scientific name were the most 1 8 F. P. Sorokoletov, gen. ed., Istoriia russkoi leksikografii (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 1998) 106. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 accurate synonym. In addition, these same words were usually described in an encyclopedic way, and from this point of view they form a special group of their own in the SAR. Here is an example: POMAHIKA, k h . c.ac. Tpana. Matricaria chamomilla. Tpasa oflHoneTHaa, HsnycKajoipan hs oflHoro Kopna MHorae cxednH npsMBie, Kpyrnbie, flopoxcnaxbie, k nepxy Bexsncxbie; sexBbi BBixopax nonepeMeHHO, xax n u h c t b i , Koxopwe cHffanne, MHoroposAenbHoio poraTKOio ycTpoeHHbie, h k o h x t ih c x o h k h nnuioBHflHbie. IHsexKH H a Bepxy cxedneit na Hoacxax gopoxcnaxbix, y k o h x ryMenpo acenxoe, a O K py5K aioxn;H e OHoe nenecxKH deuBie; 3anax gBexoB npnaxHOH, BKyc apoMaxHuecKoii, HMeiox cmiy pa36HBaiomyK) t h h u o c x h h yKpennmomyio »cenyAO K . Pocxex no naniHHM. [CAMOMILLE. ... Herb. Matricaria chamomilla. Annual herb, growing from one single root many straight, round ... stems that branch out towards the top of the plant. The branches part from the stems alternately, as do the leaves, which are sessile and finely dissected, and whose small leaves are awl shaped. The flowers sit on the top o f the stems, o n ... feet, they have a yellow center, and surrounding these are white petals; the flowers have a pleasant perfume, aromatic taste, can fight putricity [infections], and strengthen the stomach. Grows on ploughed fields] (SAR 5: columns 158-159). The detailed botanical description of this common herb is striking in a language dictionary. However, it should be kept in mind that the country’s most qualified scientists, like the naturalist Lepekhin, worked on these definitions. Lepekhin had spent years of his life describing and classifying the plants and animals of the Russian heartland. It is not surprising that his professional accuracy came through in his word definitions for the SAR. Other native terms from the arts and sciences belonged to the fields of chemistry, physics, geography, astronomy, arithmetic, logic, grammar, military, hunting, trade, the cobbler’s craft, tailoring, fishing, hunting, etc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 Point three of Fonvizin’ s/Lepekhin’s guidelines demands the exclusion of indecent words. This is taken very seriously. The lowest class of words in terms of style are marked as “nizkoe” [low], “nizkii slog“ [low style] “(nizkoe) prostorechie” [(low) common parlance] or “(nizkoe) prostonorodnoe” [(low) colloquial].1 9 And of these there are only a few. iy random countings indicate 2-4% as opposed to 12% of words marked slav. (i.e. slavenskie [Slavonic]) in the SAR.2 0 The vast majority of words are not stylistically specified at all. Here are a few examples of the lowbrow material included in the SAR: • B ro/mx h jim Ha ronax - Ynoxped/i. b npocropeuHn: B deflH O M c o c t o h h h h , npji He#ocTaTKe uero-HHdyflb. R cnutuan, nmo mu npouzpancn, u menepb e zonstx; euy na eonstx u mo eodumcx. [[lit.: to be in the bare...] - Used in common parlance: To be in a destitute situation, to lack something. I heard that you lost when gambling, and that you do not have anything now; since he is completely destitute even this will be o f use to him] (SAR 2: 58). • HanepenoM. - B npocTopemm: BonpeKH, nanpoTHB: Jfenamb nmo Kouy nanepenoM. [In the teeth of; in common parlance: against, in spite of, to do something against someone’s wish] (3: 1307). 1 9 The list of abbreviations located in the front of the first volume also gives the marker ynun, for “yH H U H )K H T e;n>H biH ” [deteriorative]. However, I have not been able to find a word marked as such. Both Sukhomlinov and Iu. S. Sorokin, who have analyzed the lowbrow lexical material in the SAR. come to the conclusion that the terminology of the SAR is not very consistent. It is difficult, for example, to draw a clear line between prostorechie [common parlance] and prostonarodnoe [low colloquial] (Sukhomlinov, vyp. 8: 86). Sorokin specifies: “«npocropeiHe» oxsaTbiBaeT npocryio pa3roBopHyio pern, h cocTaBrmeT ocHOBHyro onopy npocroro rorrepaTypHoro ciiora.... «npocTOHapoflHafl peub» - s t o peub, npexcge scero CBoticTBeHHaa Hantionee neMOKparanecKHM c b o h m o6in;ecTBa, ero connaabHbiM H H 3aM , o c h o b h o h Macce cenbCKoro h ropogcKoro HaceaenHH. Tyr caoBa, oTHOcamneca k h x onbiTy h h x npeflcraBaeHHaM;... Ho CTporo npoBecra Ha npaKTHKe 3 t h otirqHe pa3rpaHHneHHa oKa3biBaaocb oneHb 3aTpy«HHTeabHbiM.” [ “Prostorechie ” includes simple spoken language, which the simple literary style is based on. ... “ prostonarodnaia rech ’ ” - this is the way of speaking among the most ‘democratic’ strata o f society, its socially lowest representatives, the main crowd in the rural and urban population. Here there are words that pertain to their experience and their ideas. ... However, in practice it is very difficult to draw a clear line between these two general definitions.] (Sorokin, 147) 2 0 The latter number is taken from the Istoriia russkoi leksikografii edited by Sorokoletov (109). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 • Xa6ap - G i o b o HH3Koe, osHauaiomee ripHdbiab, n p w d b iT O K , 6apbim. [K h a b a r - Low word, meaning profit, gain, or profit from speculation] (6: 499). • KaflbIK - f O B Q pH T C H B H H 3K O M npOCTOpeUHH, H 3HaHH T X O iK e, H T O adeflHHK, KpioHKOTBopeu;. Y nezo e en u x, m u p o K KaduK. [[Lit: Adam’s apple] Used in low vernacular and meaning sneak, informer. H e h a s a big, w id e ‘ A dam , ’ s a p p le , ) (3: 355-356) •BecoBiipiHa - IlpocxoHapoAH.: Hchctobctbo, HeaenocTb, upesMepnaa pessocTb. [Devilish possession; in common parlance: angry outburst, exaggerated rage] (1: 450). • Baxa - IIpocTOHapoflH.: CnabHbiH yaap: M a m b e x x y . [Bang; in common parlance: hard blow. T o g iv e s o m e o n e a ‘b a n g ’ ] (1: 1139). • ByTop - ripocTOHapHoe: oanaaaioinee bcbkhh flOManiHHit 6bix wm noacHTKH [(Stuff; in common parlance: any household items or belongings.] (1: 393) Nothing is included that is more base. Words like “safl” {b o tto m ) or “rpyflb”’ {b rea st) are described in an extremely practical, scientific, and honorable way: • 3AH, ga. c. m. 1) npoTHBoneacaipaa CTopona nepeAy. M om c m o u m 3adoM n a none. 2) Cmma, xwa. H len sadoM. 3) Ta uacxb namero xeaa, KOTopoio chahm. IIocKonb3Hy6xuucb y n a n u y iu u 6 3ad. 4) Y ckotob h 3Bepeii 3aAHna Horn c OKopoxaMH. B a p a u e u 3ad. 3 a d eonoeeu. [Z A D , da. [back, bottom, quarters] Noun, masc. 1) Side opposite to the front. T h e h o u s e s ta n d s w ith h is b a c k s id e to th e fie ld . 2) [back] Back, rear. H e w e n t b e h in d . 3) The part of our body, on which we sit. H e slip p e d , f e l l a n d h u r t h is b o tto m . 4) in cattle and other animals the hind quarters. S h e e p ’ s q u a r te r s /h in d legs, o x ’ q u a r te r s /h in d le g s (3: 7). • rpyfrb, ah c.ac. 1) LlepcH. IlepeAHHH, no boabinoH uacxn BOSBbimenHaa, aacxb neaoBeaecxaro nan acHBOXHaro Teaa, HaHHHaiomaaca o t men, h npoAoaacaiomaaca ao nperpaAHoit nepenoHKH. B u c o x a x , e n a n a x , m u p o x a x zpydb. 2) MnorAa 6epexca 3a caMyio BHyxpenmoK) noaocxb OKpyaceHnyio c nepeAH napyacnoio rpyAbio, c 6okob pebpaMH, c saAH cnnHHbiMH nosBonxaMH, h coAepacaupiaca b Hen BnyxpenHOCXH cepApe h aerxna. T pydb d o n u m . T pydb m e c n u m . C n a d zpydbto. 3) Cocgbi. Ecm ecm eeH H O u donz e c m t M am ep u K o p u u m b c u m o u zp y d b w n a d o ceoe. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 GRUD ’ [chest, breast] ... 1) ... Front, and often raised part of a human or animal’s body, beginning at the neck and going up to the diaphragm. High, rachitic, broad chest. 2) Sometimes it means the very inner cavity, confined by the outer chest in the front, the ribs on the sides, and the spinal vertebrae in the back, and containing organs: the heart and lungs. [My] chest hurts. [I] feel a tightness in my chest. Weak chest. 3) Teats. It is the mother’ s natural duty to breast-feed her child] (2: 375).2 1 That indecent words should be excluded from the dictionary was never questioned, although the ‘exemplary’ French Academy Dictionary had listed words like “pisser,” “chier,” etc., - to the great embarassment of certain critics. As to foreign words, the SAR, once again, is completely in accord with the theoretic plan (Fonvizin’s point 4 and Lepekhin’s point 6). Imported terms were rigorously sorted out, except for the groups listed by Lepekhin: Greek from the Bible and the church books (for example: angel, dogmat, episkop, fimiam [incence], akafist [acathistus], riasa [cassock]), common international and mostly scientific terms (atmosfera, atom, aksiom, diametr, ideia, problema, manufaktura, konfekt, etc.), and imported words relating to social status or politics (imperiia, Admiral, gofmarshal, gofmeistr, etc.). Together the foreign words amount to less than 2% of the dictionary’s total words. The words of Greek origin formed the largest group: 342 as compared to 107 Latin, 92 of French and 74 German words. Although the academicians unanimously fought unnecessary foreign words from the very beginning, there were still heated discussions about where to draw the line between what was considered assimilated material and what was not. Once 2 1 Note the high-style “chado ” [offspring] in combination with the word “g ru d”’ [breast]! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 again it was Dashkova’s pragmatic opinion that came closest to the version that eventually was made binding. On January 13, 1784, she recommended: ... C K O T Ib K O B03M05KH0 C X apaX bC H O H H C X O X e H odoraipeHHH flSBIKa, H Hsderaa Bcex o i o b HHOcxpaHHbix saMenaxb o h b i h p o c c h h c k h m m cxapnHHbiMH h u h b h o b b no npaBHTiaM npoH3BeAeHHH c tio b cflenaHHbiMH, BbiKmonaH xe x o k m o HnocxpaHHbw nasBaHHa, Koxopwa yace HSApeBtie b o i i d i h b h s h k p o c c h h c k h h o x o6pain;eHHa h coceAcxBa c asnaxcKHMH HapoAaMH, HeKoxopbia aiOBa rpeuecKHa, b C B H in;eH H O M nHcaHHH ynoxpednaeMbiH, h xe, k o h x no Kopmo poccHHCKOMy npHBecxb h BH O Bb cocxaBHXb HeyAodno, K aK xo b MaxeMaxrace HHxerpan, AHtJxJjepeHmHa/i, h ceMy noAodnbm; H aK O H en; h xe, k o h osHanarox a o b :» c h o c x h h h h h m , h 6 o aKaAeMHa caMa codoro k xaKOBOii nepeMene npncxynnxb He Moncex, h o A O )K H a oncHAaxb BbicouaHmaro H a X O CO H 3BO neH H H . [... one should as much as possible strive to purify the language and to enrich it, and, avoiding all foreign words, these should be replaced by ancient Russian words or by new ones, constructed according to the rules of Russian word formation, excluding only those foreign names that were introduced into the Russian language long ago through communication and neighborhood with Asian peoples, [excluding also] some Greek words, used in the Bible, and those, which to recreate based on a Russian root would be highly inconvenient, like for example the mathematical terms “integral,” “differential,” and the like; finally also those that designate a dignified position and ranks, for the Academy cannot on her own attempt such a change, but has to wait for the highest permission to do so] (Sukhomlinov 8:129).2 3 Sukhomlinov is full of praise for the academicians’ reasonableness and good judgment regarding foreign words. He compares this favorably with Shishkov’s rigidity and stubbornness some time later. It is true indeed that the academy had exceptional specialists in this field among its members. All of the scientists were skilled and experienced translators, who had given much thought to how to write and 2 2 This is according to Sukhomlinov’s count (8: 129). 2 3 Despite Dashkova’s recommendations, neologisms are not frequent in the SAR. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 render scientific texts in Russian. From a comparison ofBogdanov’s handwritten dictionary, which the SAR was partly based on, and the SAR itself, it is clear that few words escaped the academician’s scrutiny. Suffice it to say that the first page of Bogdanov’s list includes the words Avangardiia and Agent, which do not appear in the SAR. One of the few known instances of Catherine’s involvement in the making of the dictionary is related to this question. Sukhomlinov reports that B OflHOM H3 codpanHH aicafleM HH [March 20, 1792], n pn pascMOxpenHH nocnenHHX / i h c t o b xpexbeii n acra cnonapn, KHHrnHH flaniKona o 6 r b K B n m , h to «rocynapMHe, noKpoBHxenbHHpe poccHHKua aicafleMHH, 6naroyroAHO, uxodbi b commneMOM aKaneMHeio cnoBape H36eraxb BceBOSM oacHbiM o6pa30M cnoB nyacec3eMHbix, a Hannane penenHH, 3aM eH H H OHbin cnosaMH w m npeBHHMH, mm bhobb cocxBiieHHbiMH.» [At one academy meeting [March 20,1792] when looking through the last pages of the dictionary’s third part, the countess Dashkova announced that Her Highness, the protectrix of the Russian Academy, wishes that in the dictionary compiled by the Academy, foreign words, and even more so expressions, be avoided by any means, replacing them with either ancient or newly created words] (8: 129). Out of context, the Empress’ wish is difficult to interpret. Why does the question come up again this late? Why does the Empress virtually repeat Dashkova’s words from January 1784 (quoted above)? Had the Empress been looking at the materials herself? If yes, did she look at them regularly, or randomly? It is not known if the Empress’ wish had immediate consequences. Did the academicians remove certain words from the third volume at the last minute? From Sukhomlinov’s comprehensive list of foreign words in the SAR (8: 402-413), Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 however, it appears that volumes 4-6 contain approximately the same amount of foreign words as the first three ones. Regardless, the pure fact that Her Highness commented on the SAR, as it took shape, is important. Her communication with the Academy, as far as it is known, always occurred through its president, Dashkova. The debate about regional words [oblastnye slova] (Fonvizin’s point 5, Lepekhin’s point 6) has already been summarized above (see Lepekhin’s guidelines). According to my estimates the number of regional words is comparable to the amount of foreign words. The SAR indicates the geographical area from which the word originates. The northern regions dominate: Siberia, Kamchatka, Okhotsk, Baikal, the Urals, the White Sea [Beloe more], Arkhangelsk, Little Russia [Malorossiia], the Volga, and the administrative entity pertaining to Ekaterinoslavsk [Ekaterinoslavskoe namestnichestvo]. The SAR is in agreement with Lepekhin’s guidelines, for these words mostly designate a regional item or phenomenon, such as: •IopejiKa - B MaaopoccHH Tax nasbiBaexca xjiediroe, npocroe bhho. [Gorelka - In Little Russia this is the name for simple grain schnapps.] •Apamjbi - B CndnpH Ha3biBaioTCH Bbicoxne xaMeHHbie ropw. [Arantsy - In Siberia this is the name for the high rocky mountains.] •Kona hjih Konb - Eojibinoe BOfloxoflHoe ... cyAHO. [Kocha or Koch ’ - Large ... boat.] •EoTyH - BecbMa BxycHbin, na BbicouaHiiiHX A/txafrcxHX ropax pacxymHH, nyx. [Botun - Very tasty leek/onion growing at high elevations in the Altai mountains.] •Konuiax - Motioaoh xaMuaxcxHii 6o6p. [Koshlak - Young beaver in Kamchatka.] •Baxara - Tax HasbiBaxjxoi no Bo/tre, HaunHaa ox LlapmjbiHa ao ycxba h no KacnncxoMy Mopxi pbidanbH apxean, h caMbie xe Mecxa, rAe ohh pbi6y jiobhx. [ Vataga - This is the name for fishermen’s artels, and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 very places where they fish, along the Volga, from Tsaritsyn to the river’s mouth and around the Caspian Sea.] Naturally, many regional words are names of animals and plants. The ancient words form the last lexical group to be discussed. (Lepekhin’s point 4, Fonvizin does not mention them in the first paragraph of the Nachertanie). The academicians, as I mentioned earlier, decided not to include them, unless they were necessary for the understanding of ancient rituals, conventions, and concepts, or if the ancient word proved to be the root word of some modem derivative or compound. According to random countings, these exceptions, listed in the SAR, amount to at least 2%. This is slightly more than the percentage of other exceptions, namely the regionalisms and foreign and technical terms. It is a significant number, especially in view of the fact that the French Academy dictionary did not include ancient vocabulary at all. Moreover, this is the only category where the compilers of the dictionary were not quite as strict as they suggested they would be. Words marked as “starinfnye]” [ancient] or “vyshedshye iz upotrebleniia” [no longer in use] are not only concept-words and terms that were relegated to the past together with the item they signified, but also verbs and adverbs that had a full modem equivalent. Here are some examples: Ancient Concepts, Rites. Items etc. Other rolia - pashnia (could also belong into the svest’ - svoiachina [wife’s sister ?] other group) [ploughed field] vedomets - znatok [specialist] gridnitsa - chertog v kniazheskom dvortse prigrekh - proshibka [mistake] [a hall in a prince’s palace] ukrai - predel, granitsa [border, frontier] korzno - epancha, ili verkhnaia odezhda perevet - izmena [betrayal] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 [long mantle or overcoat] mishan - rod sudna [type of ship] obzha - uchastok zemli, skol’ko odin chelovek na odnoi loshadi vzorat’ mozhet [piece of land, as big as a person sitting on a horse can see] olek - podrezannyi ulei [cut bee hive] kuzn’ - zoloto ili serebro kovannoe [hammered gold or silver] shidianyi - pril. starinnoe, upotrebliaemoe dlia oboznacheniia nekoego istkaniia [ancient adjective used to describe a certain fabric] bakhmat - nazvanie starinnoe, oznachaiushchee velikorosluiu loshad’ [ancient word, meaning a large horse] vech’ - bashnia ili kolokol’nia [tower or belltower] vitsa - Prut izvityi, zakruchennyi, upotrebliaemyi dlia sshivaniia dosok u vodokhodnyh sudov I sviazyvaniia plotov [bent, wound withe, used to tie together boat boards and rafts] komiaga - rod lodki odnoderevki [kind of boat made out of one tree (?)] perepely - rod golovnogo ubora, izvestnago pod drugim nazvaniem triasul’ ki [kind of headgear, also known under the name of triasul’ ka.] korkota - korcha [convulsion, spasm] nakra - bubny [diamonds] otzimie - po dolgovremennoi ottepeli zimoiu ili vesnoiu sluchaiushchiisia moroz [frost occuring in winter or spring after a long period of thaw] motchaiu - medliu, meshkaiu [to linger, to be slow] neotvelika - nemnogo [a little] babii - ziat’, docherin muzh [son-in-law, daughter’s husband] morkh - barkhat [velvet] obraza - sram, stud, ponoshenie [shame, shabby look] kos - starinnoe nazvanie ptitsy skvortsa [old name for the bird starling] viazen’ - kolodnik, uznik [convict in the stocks, prisoner] Despite this deviation from the original plan, revealing the SAR’s penchant for outdated material, the academicians were complying overall with the rules agreed upon in early 1784. Most of the SAR’s ancient words indeed denote phenomena or things characteristic of bygone times. In this context it is significant that the large majority of ancient lexems stem from Old Russian, rather than Slavonic, text Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 sources, such as the chronicles, materials from the Drevniaia Vivliofika, and old Russian judicial texts. In fact, the stylistic markers “slavenskoe” [Slavonic] and “starinnoe” [ancient, old] exclude each other in the SAR. To my knowledge there is no word carrying both of these signs.2 4 This can mean three things. Either the academicians considered that “ancient Slavonic” words do not exist by definition, that all Slavonic words are eternal and sacred as if words of the Bible. Or they consciously chose not to include ancient Slavonicisms since they never denote an outdated item, concept, etc., but always have an equivalent in the Russian language; Slavonic concepts, etc., pertain to religion and are therefore not outdated. A third explanation would be that either “starin.” [ancient] or “slaven.” [Slavonic] was considered the dominating trait, i.e. if a word was defined as “out of use” then it was not important if it was also Slavonic. 8. Paragraph II: “O grammaticheskom slovoupotreblenii” [On the grammatical use [meaning: features] of the word] In part two (“O grammaticheskom slovoupotreblenii”) of his Nachertanie, Fonvizin lists the grammatical information that the dictionary ought to include. The orthography should be traditional, i.e. should correspond to the spelling in Church books and to “luchsh[ie] nash[i] pisatel[i]” [our best writers]. “Sokhranenie Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 pravopisaniia Fonvizin says, “ves’ma nuzhno dlia togo, chtob ne zakrylis’ sovsem sledy proizvedeniia i slozheniia slov” [To preserve the othrography is extremely necessary, in order not to completely conceal the traces of the word’s origin and formation]. This sentence seems quoted directly from the preface of the first edition of the French Academy Dictionary (1694), which reads: “L’Academie s’est attachee a l’ancienne Orthographe receue parmi tous les gens de lettres, parce qu’elle ayde a faire connoistre 1 ’Origine des mots.”2 5 Words’ origin or etymology was of special interest to the academicians, for the dictionary was supposed to be organized by word roots, and not in simple alphabetical order. (See paragraph IV ofFonvizin’s plan.) The dictionary should also give words’ accents, since accents often determine the meaning of words (Fonvizin cites the lexical pairs obraza-obraza [icons/pictures- shame], polon - polon [full - captivity], muka - muka [torture - flour]). Moreover, the dictionary was to contain information on the part of speech (noun, verb, adjective, etc.); it should give the gender and number of nouns. Nouns and adjectives should also be given in the genitive or the comparative, respectively. Verbs should appear in their infinitive form, moreover all infinitive forms were to be listed (for example, “brosat brosii brasyvat ”’ [to throw, to throw once, to throw many times]). For the conjugation of a verb the first and second person singular of 2 4 An exception may be the word “veshchets” [soothsayer], which is marked “SI. starin.” The abbreviation, however, may also stand for “slovo starinnoe” [ancient word], not necessarily “Slovenskoe starinnoe” [ancient Slavonic]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 the present tense were given, and the past tense form was also indicated. The dictionary should further indicate which cases go with a certain preposition, adverb, verb etc. As to the stylistics of Russian, words of Slavonic origin (Slavenskie) should be marked as such. All of these detailed instructions, Fonvizin specifies, “dolzhny byt’ napisany sokrashchenno: sushch. znachit’ budet sushchestvitel’noe, deistv. - deistvitel’noe” [have to be given in abreviated form: “n.” will mean “noun,” “act.” will mean “active voice”] (1: 247). Only on one point did the academicians decide to deviate from Fonvizin’s plan as to the grammatical annotation system. Upon Boltin’s intervention they listed the verbs not in their infinitive form, but under the first person singular of the present tense. In his letter to the Academy, Boltin argued that: Diarojibi cTaBHTb aotdkho b HacronmeM h H3r bHBH Ten& HO M , K aK b c n o B a p n x rpenecKaro, naraHCKaro h nyprax nepBOHananbHbix nabiK O B obbinaft BeneTCH, hto h no C B O H C T B y H3biKa cnasencKaro BecbMa npHnnuHee. [The verbs must be listed in the present tense and indicative mood, as this is costumary in Greek, Latin and other primary language dictionaries, which also suits the characteristics of the Slavonic language much better] (Sukhomlinov 5: 286). Again Fonvizin and Boltin emerge as advocates of two opposing positions in questions of language: Fonvizin aims at a dictionary reflecting a modem, versatile language, comparable to French.2 6 Boltin, on the other hand, is concerned with 2 5 Bernard Quemada (ed.), Les Prefaces du Dictioimarie de l’Academie francaise 1694-1992 (Paris: Honore Champion, 1997), 33. 2 6 Fonvizin’s position is remarkable in view of the fact that in his letters and plays his anti-French position comes out very strongly. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 authenticity and antiquity, the language’s roots and reputation. This debate, only hinted at here in the planning stage of the SAR. fully developed in the controversy between the Karamzinists and Shishkovists in the following decade. The precision and consistency with which the grammatical annotations were eventually carried out were unprecedented in Russian lexicography at the time.2 7 Fonvizin had been heavily influenced both by the example of the French Academy dictionary and the norms put forward in the article “Dictionnaire” of the Encyclopedic Franqaise, as will become additionally apparent from my argument below. In drawing on the Western European tradition, Fonvizin set new lexicographic standards in Russia that survive to the present day. 9. Paragraph III: “O znamenovanii slov i rechenii” Part three of Fonvizin’s nachertanie deals with the explanatory part of the word entry: “o znamenovanii slov i rechenii” [about the meaning of the words and expressions]. This paragraph is a patchwork of quotes - literal or summarized - from Diderot’s article “Dictionnaire” in the Encyclopedic Frangaise. Nowhere, however, does Fonvizin name his source. Fonvizin recommends that word explanations be given through synonyms, complemented or replaced by a word definition if necessary. The grammatical and semantic characteristics of the word in question should be illustrated in an example phrase or sentence, composed by the editors or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 taken from authoritative text sources. This example phrase or illustrative sentence follows the word’s explanation: By,n;e c /i o b o , n ocpeflC T B O M c b o h x c o o i o b h n p H M e p o B , x a» :eT C fl flOBOTIbHO HCTOnKOBaHO, TO HCT H yJK flbl IIp H d aB JM T b K H eM y o6r bacHeHHH. [If the word seems sufficiently explained through its synonyms and examples, then there is no need to add a definition.] and: Ilocae od'bacHeHHH o6bikhobchho cneflyex npHMep htih ace HecKoatKO npHMepoB R im doatm eii b h h th o c th . [After the definition, one or more examples usually follow, for better understanding] (Fonvizin 1: 246). The goal is to explain the word in the shortest and most concise way possible. Here Cartesian mathematics play the role of a model: XoponiHe MaTeMaTHHecKHe odbacHeHHH neocnopHMO CBHflexeabCTByioT, u to KpaxKocTb He Toabxo h c h o c th He yMenbmaeT, ho BecbMa eir cnocodcTsyeT. [Good mathematical definitions and proofs uncontestedly testify that brevity not only does not reduce clarity, but greatly enhances it.] (Fonvizin 1: 243) This idea comes directly out of the Encyclopedie: Les definitions & les demonstrations de Geometrie, quand elles sont bien faites, sont une preuve que la brievete est plus amie qu’ennemie de la clarte. (1: 959) As to explanation through synonyms, Fonvizin states that the meaning of one word never fully coincides with the meaning of another. This observation as well as 2 7 A recent lexicographic study confirms: “B CAP B ire p B b ie b OTenecTBeHHOh JieK C H K orpa<])H H c jio b o nojiymuio CTonb fleTajiBHoe rpaMMaTHuecKoe oimcaHHe.” [In the SAR. for the first time in our national lexicography, words were given detailed grammatical descriptions] (Sorokoletov, 112). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 the following reference to the dangers of circular explanation in dictionaries are also taken from the Encyclopedie. The comparison of the two texts shows that Fonvizin translated entire passages, which at times cannot be fully understood without the French source. In shortening and adapting Diderot’s article, Fonvizin tailors his text to a specific target audience: the future compilers of a Russian language dictionary. No wonder he leaves out most of Diderot’s more general philosophical explanations. Encyclopedie L’experience nous a appris qu ’ il n ’ y a pas dans notre langue deux mots qui soient parfaitement synonymes, c ’ est-a-dire qui en toute occasion puissent etre substitues indifferemment Vun a Vautre... Car qu’est-ce qui constitut deux ou plusieurs mots synonymes? C’est un sens general qui est commun a ces mots: qu’est- ce qui fait ensuite que ces mots ne sont pas toujours synonymes? ce sont des nuances souvent delicates, & quelquefois presqu ’ insensibes, qui modifient ce sens primitif & general. Done toutes les fois que par la nature du sujet qu’on traite, on n ’a point a exprimer ces nuances, & qu’on n’a besoin que du sens general, chacun des synonymes peut etre indifferemment employe. Done 2 8 [It is necessary to write next to every word as many synonyms as one can find; how ever, it is sta ted that synonym s do n ot ca rry exactly the sam e m eaning a n d th at one cannot a lw a ys su bstitu te one fo r the other] (Fonvizin 1: 243). Although Fonvizin shortens this passage considerably, he agrees with the essence o f Diderot’s statement: exact synonyms do not exist, and the quantity o f synonyms indicates the degree of refinement of a specific language. This is why Fonvizin recommends listing as many synonyms as possible as equivalents to an entry word. Fonvizin H aflJieiK H T k Ka>KflOMy c a o B y n p i m n c a T b c r o a b K o c o c jio b o b , CKOBBKO HUHTH MOIKHO; HO HpU CeM npuMenaemca, nmo cocnoea H e saKJitoHatom e ce6e c moHHocmuto oduwKozo cMucna u nmo ne ecezda odno 3a dpyeoe ynompebnambcx MOMem. [Italics in the original.]2 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 reciproquement toutes les fois qu’on ne pouira jamais employer deux mots l’un pour 1 ’autre dans une langue, il s’ensuivra que le sens de ces deux mots differera, non par des nuances fines, mais par des differences tres-grossieres: ainsi les mots de la langue n’exprimeront plus ces nuances, & des-lors la langue sera pauvre & sans finesse. Les synonymes ... sont tres ffequens dans notre langue. (p. 960) ... Mais comme les definitions consistent a expliquer un mot par un ou plusieurs autres, il resulte necessairement de-la qu’il est des mots qu’on ne doit jamais definir, puisqu’ autrement toutes les definitions ne formeroient plus qu’une espece de cercle vicieux, dans lequel un mot seroit explique par un autre mot qu’il auroit servi a expliquer lui-meme. De-la il s’ensuit d’abord que tout dictionnaire de langue dans lequel chaque mot sans exception sera defini, est necessairement un mauvais dictionnaire, & l’ouvrage d’une tete peu philosophique. Mais quels sont ces mots de la langue qui ne peuvent ni ne doivent etre definis? Leur nombre est peut-etre plus grand que l’on ne s’imagine; ce qui le rend difficile a determiner, c’est qu’il y a des mots que certains auteurs regardent comme pouvant etre definis, & que d’autres croyent au contraire ne pouvoir l’etre: tels sont par flocjie cocnosoB aienyeT 0 6 'bH C H eH H e ( d e f i n i t i o ) ; h o KaK c h h o 6 rbH C H eH H H COCTOflT B H C TOTiKOBaHH H o f l H o r o c a o B a n p e 3 A p y r o e , t o h c a e A y e T , h t o A o a a c H O 6 b IT B H e o 6 x O flH M O T aK H M C aO B O M , K O T o p o r o H H K o r n a o tjH C H B tb H e H a n a e a c H T , h 6 o H H a n e 0 6 'b C H e H H H c o c T a B H a n 6 b i K y p r , b k o t o p o m o a h o c a o B o 6m jio 6 b 1 T o a K y e M O A p y T H M , K O eM y OHO C aM O p a B H W M a c e o 6p a 30M c a y a c n a o 6 b i ToaKOBaHHeM. Ho KaK H e a c e c a o B a , k o h H e M o r y r h H e A o a a c H b i 6 b i t b 0 6 'b a c H a e M b i . Ha e w e n p a B H a o A e a a x b H e B 03M o a c H O , h 6 o o x h h b i x T e c a o B a n o n H x a r o x c a M o r y r g H M H 6 b i x b o d T b H C H a eM b i, h o x aK O B b iM H o x A p y r u x H e n o a H x a iO T C H ; H a n p H M e p : A y n i a , p a c c x o a H H e h n p o n . Co B c e M T eM , M H o r o c a o B e c T b T aK H X , k o h m , n o o 6 n j,e M y B c e x c o a r a a c H i o , H e H a A a e a c H T A e a a x b o 6 rb a c H e H H H . T a i c n e c a o B a n o 6 o a b i n e f i n a c T H b b i B a i o x xe, k o h o s n a n a i o T B e o 6 n i,H e c y m e c T B c o b c x s e H H O C T H , H a n p H M e p : 6 b ix H e , Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 exemple les mots ame, espace, npocxpaHCTBo, BpeM H h npou.2 9 courbe, & c. mais il est au moins un grand nombre de mots, qui de l’aveu de tout le monde se refusent a quelqu’espece de definition que ce puisse etre; ce sont principalement les mots qui designent les proprietes generates des etres, comme existence, etendue, pensee, sensation, terns, & un grand nombre d’autres (959). In the following example, Fonvizin’s translation remains unclear if it is not read together with the original. Yet, neither Fonvizin nor Dashkova, who, of course, knew the Encyclopedie article, ever mention that the “nachertanie” was inspired by the “ philosophes.' II est d’abord evident que la definition d’un mot doit tomber sur le sens precis de ce mot, & non sur le sens vague. Je m’explique; le mot douleur, par exemple, s’applique egalement dans notre langue aux peines de Fame, & aux sensations desagreables du corps: cependant la definition de ce mot ne doit pas renfermer ces deux sens a la fois; c’est la ce que j ’appelle le sens vague, parce qu’il renferme a la fois le sens primitif & et le sens par extension: le sens precis & originaire de ce mot designe les H a,n;ne>K H T npHHaTb sa npaBHJio, u to 6 ob'BacHemte cnoBa ynaflano, Bo-nepsbix, Ha to u h m h ero cmmcji, a He Ha cmmoi pacnpocTpaHeHHbiH. G iq b o CKOpSb, HanpHMep, o th o c h tc h b HanieM H3biice k 6oae3HeHHOMy menonyecmey h k flymeBHOMy CTpaflaHHIO, HO TOHHblii CMblC/I cero cnoBa osHauaer TeaecHyio bonesHb, a OTCiOfla pacnpocxpaHen OHbiH h ao cxpaAaHHH AyuiH. HaAobno, hto6 cne b o 6r b a c u e m m BeCbMa bhhtho H3o6pa>KeHO fibT JT O . 2 9 [The definition follows the synonyms; but since definitions are explanations o f one word through another, consequently there must be a word that is never explained, for otherwise the definitions would form a circle in which one word is explained by another, for which it could itself be substituted. But which are the words that cannot and should not be explained? Here it is impossible to establish a rule, for some people consider certain words explainable, e.g., the soul, distance, etc., while others disagree. Nevertheless, there is consensus that many words are unsuitable for explanation. These words are mostly those that designate the general characteristics o f being, for example, existence, space, time, etc.] (243). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 sensations desagreables du corps, & on Fa etendu de-la aux chagrins de Fame; voila ce qu’une definition doit faire bien sentir. Ce que nous venons de dire du sens precis par rapport au sens vague, nous le dirons du sens propre par rapport au sens metaphorique; la definition ne doit jamais tomber que sur le sens propre, & le sens metaphorique ne doit y etre ajoute que comme une suite & une dependance du premier. Mais il faut avoir grand soin d’expliquer ce sens metaphorique, qui fait une des principales richeses des langues, & par le moyen duquel, sans multiplier les mots, on est parvenu a exprimer un tres grand nombre d’idees. ... (959) 6bMO. Hxo CKa3aHO 3flect o tohhom CMblOie, OTHOCHTeJIbHO flO CMblCaa pacnpocTpaneHHoro, hoidkho CKaaaxb h o CMbic;ie co6ctbchhom. OrHOCHxenbHO flo CMbicna MeTatjiopHHecKoro o6r bacnenua, AOjdkho ynaflaxb Bcerna na o # h h CodxBeHHHH CM blCJl, a M eX (j)O pH U eC K H H npHCOBOKynnaexca, h k o oieflcxBHe h 3aBHCHMOcxb ox nepBoro. Hajyiexciix BenHKoe npH/io>KHXb cxapamre k odx.HCHeHHio cero Mexa(j)opHHecKoro CMbioia, cocxaBnmomero rnaBHoe obruiHe H 3M K O B, Koxopoe 6e3 pasM H O>K eHH H cnoB flocxHrnyxo.3 0 Diderot unequivocally uses the terms “precis” and “vague,” the latter including, as he explains, both the physical and emotional aspects of douleur (“pain”). In Fonvizin’s abbreviated version, however, the terminology is not as clear. The reader gets the impression that ‘‘ rasprostranennyi smysl” [extended meaning] stands for “emotional pain” instead of pain in general, i.e. both physical and emotional. 3 0 [It has to be taken as a rule that the definition of a word concentrates, first, on its precise, and not on its extended meaning. The word pain, for example, relates in our language both to an aching body and sufferings of the soul, but the precise meaning o f the word designates physical suffering, and from there the meaning is extended to the sufferings of the soul. It is necessary that the definition makes this distinction very clear. What is said here about the precise meaning, as opposed to the extended meaning, must also be said regarding the concrete meaning [vs. the metaphorical meaning]. As to the meaning of a metaphorical definition, it always has to designate the concrete meaning [first], the metaphorical meaning is [then] added, as a consequence and dependency o f the first. It is necessary to put great effort into the definition of metaphorical meanings, which constitute the main richness of a language, without increasing the number o f words] (244). This is an excerpt from a long passage taken directly from the Encyclopedie. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Fonvizin’s suggestions again were closely followed, as a glance at the SAR proves. The academicians compiled as many synonyms as possible to explain each entry. Definitions follow or replace the synonyms as necessary, and sample phrases, set off visually in italics, usually illustrate the use of the given word in its semantic and grammatical context. Thus the following combinations are possible: a) Synonyms only: • JlenoTCTBO...- HsHrpecTBO, KpacoTa, daaronoayuHe, npHrojKCTBO. [Comeliness... - Elegance, beauty, loveliness, attractiveness] b) Synonyms and sample phrases. This is the ideal, most concise word explanation, according to Fonvizin: • KoMHara floKoit, ropmipa b flO M e. y6pamb KOM Hamy. Tecum, npocmopnm KOMuama. [Room... - bedroom, chamber in a house. To clean a room. Small, spacious room.] • Bo33peHHe ... - ObpaipeHHe, ycrpeivraeHHe oueii, nrapeHHe, C M Q TpeH H e, B3Mflp. M eosspeuueu ezo nodeuMymcM zopu: u eonew ezo 6036eem k> z. Cup. XLIII. 17. Ydocmou 6033peuuH meoezo ycepduuu mpyd. [Glance ... - Turning, directing one’s eyes toward something, attention, look, sight, glare. At his sight the mountains are shaken, and at his will the south wind bloweth. Sir. XLIII. 17. Honor zealous work with your 'i i attention.] c) Definition and sample phrase: • Hajiemca ... - 1) ffehcTBHe Ha/ien/mroipero, Ha/ten/WEinero 2) CaMaa Beinp Ha/ien/meMaH, HaaenneHHaa. [definitions only] [sticking/sticker - 1) The act of sticking on 2) The stuck on thing itself. 3 1 This translation is taken from the King James Bible where the sentence is actually in Sirach 43:16. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 • Hanerouuo... - Jlerraro h t o na nosepxHOCTb Hero. H a n e n u m b uyiwcy na nuu,o. [I stick onto something ... - 1 stick something onto some surface. To stick a beauty-spot on the face.] d) Synonyms, definition, and sample phrase: • KoMKaio ...- Mny, nopuy. FoBopHTca o 6 i> ik h o b € h h o b cnynae, Kor^a kto Hedpeacno, ne cnoacHB nnaTte u m p fir ero icyna. Bee n n a m b e CKOMKUJl. [I crumple ... - 1 wrinkle, I spoil. This is usually said when someone carelessly places a dress somewhere, without it. He wrinkled the whole dress.] The combination of synonym and definition without sample phrase is characteristic of all plant and animal entries, given the scientific Latin name is considered a synonym, as I suggested earlier. Otherwise this explanation type is non-existent. Here is a short example (in most cases, however, the botanical and zoological definitions are extremely long): KoHflKOBKa... - Coronilla securidaca. Tpasa offHOJiexHaa n a n a n i H s x , b Tennbix C T p a n a x pacrymaa; M H o ro rm c T B e H H a a , HMeiomaa C TpyuK H n a noflodne cepna H3orHyTbie, p b c t k h ace/tTbie. [Koniakovka... - Coronilla securidaca. Annual herb growing on ploughed fields, in warm countries; many leaves, sickel shaped pods, yellow flowers.] Very rare is an explanation consisting of the sample phrase only. They occur on occasion with ancient words, it seems, when the meaning was not clear to the academicians. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Moreover, as will be further discussed in the following paragraph, the word meaning, if there is more than one, unfolds from precise to vague/general and from concrete to figurative/metaphorical. For example, in the explanation of “koshka” [cat]: 1) CodcTBeHHO caMKa xoxosa. Kotuxa c xomamaMU. [-> precise, concrete] 2) Heorua Ha3biBaexcH ceM HMeneM xax caMep, Tax h caMxa. 3aeecmu xouixy. 3ma xotuxa noenuea. Mueym xax xotuxa c coSaxow. [-> general] 3) Y noAodHxenbHo HaabiBaexcn uexBeponanott axopb. [-> metaphorical] [1) Female cat. A cat with kittens. 2) Sometimes both male and female are called thus. To get a cat. This cat is a good hunter. They live like dog and cat. 3) Metaphorically thus is called an anchor with four ends.] 10, Paragraph IV: “O poriadke alfavitnom” [“About alphabetical order”] In this paragraph, Fonvizin discusses generally questions of primary and secondary word order, i.e. the word order in the dictionary as a whole and the ’ 3 9 • organization of the word entry itself. As Fonvizin announced m the very beginning, the dictionary’s organizing principle was to be etymological. By this he meant that the root words would appear in alphabetical order followed by their derivatives and compounds. More specifically, word order was envisioned as follows: KopeHHoe cuobo HMeex nepBoe Mecxo h oxuHuaexca donbniHMH dyxBaMH. 3a hum ero npoHSBOAHbie [italics] c cbohmh oiojxhmmh. 3a hhmh cnoxcHbie [small capitals in the SAR, here below underlined] c cbohmh npoH3BOflHbiMH, 3a xohmh cueuyiox hx cuoxcHbie, h xax ffauee, 3 2 Here I will also discuss part of what Fonvizin reviewed under point three, for it clearly pertains to the problem of order. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 AO T e x n o p , n o x a B ee o t K o p e n n o r o n p o H c x o f f f l m n e h a io x m ie c a o B a n o M e m ,e H H 6yflyx. [The root word is listed in the very beginning and is set off in capital letters. It is followed by its derivatives [in italics] with their compounds. Then there are the compounds of the root words with their derivatives, followed by their compounds, and so forth, until all of the root word’s derivatives and compounds are listed] (245). As an example, I will show how the word family belonging to the root word kipliu [I boil] is arranged in the SAR.3 3 Kipliu is followed by the metaphorical phrase kipit serdtse* (one’s heart trembles). These entries are followed by derivatives: kipenie [boiling], kipelyi [boiled], kipelka [quicklime, burnt lime], kipen ’ [boiling water], kipuchii [boiling], kipiatok [boiling water], kipiachu [I will bring water to a boil], each of which again has its own entry. Then we find the first compound vzkipaiu [I begin to boil], followed by its derivatives: vzkipenie [beginning to boil], vzkip [boiling water]. Then comes the next compound, followed by its derivatives: vykipaiu [I boil off], yykipenie [the boiling off], and so forth: zakipaiu [I begin to boil], zakipelo serdtse / zakipela krov’ * [I am getting excited]; nakipaiu, nakip', nakipelyi [I accumulate while boiling];perekipaiu [I overcook]; prikipaiu [I get stuck to something while boiling];prokipaiu [I am boiling through]; skipaius ’ [I become firm while boiling]; ukipaiu [I get reduced while boiling, I am boiling down], ukipelyi [boiled down]. 3 3 In the SAR. metaphorical expressions have their own entries if they consist o f more than one word. In my discussion, I use asterisks to designate metaphorical meanings. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Needless to say, the order in which the words were to appear caused heated discussions among the academicians, since establishing the etymological root of a word was not always an easy task. The debate over pamiat ’ [memory] in the summer of 1792, for example, stands out as one of the most intense ones. While some members considered the word to be independent, others derived it from the verb “mnit”’ [to think]. Metropolitan Gavriil, Rzhevskii, Leont’ev, Damaskin, Krasovskii, Protasov, Sokolov, Mai’gin, Boltin, and others submitted their comments regarding the question in writing, favoring one or the other solution (see Sukhomlinov, 5: 295). The academicians finally decided to list the noun as a compound of “mniu,” which - from today’s linguistic perspective - turned out to be the right choice.3 4 In the case of the verbal pair “idu”-“khodit”’ [I go - 1 go back and forth, or around], however, the academicians opted for a solution that does not live up to today’s standards. “Khozhdu/khozhu” is listed under “IDU,” as if it were a compound with no entry of its own. According to Vasmer, however, the two aspectal roots are not related, or, more precisely, only artificially related through the past tense “shel,” which is in fact a borrowed form related to the Indo-European khod-/sed- root. The popularity and at the same time randomness of etymological studies in the 18th century have been pointed out repeatedly.3 5 Only in the beginning of the nineteenth century were phonological rules developed that explained the 3 4 Max Vasmer, Etimologicheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka (Moskva: Progress, 1986-1987) 3: 195. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 relation of languages to each other as well as the historical development of one language. The two examples above may suffice here to illustrate the problems involved in compiling an “etymological” dictionary at the time. hi an etymological dictionary, Fonvizin explained, the word “otpoved”’ [rebuke, rebuff] cannot be found under the letter “o,” but only after “vedat”’ [to know], under “v.” Obviously the dictionary ran the risk of being highly user unfriendly. Therefore Fonvizin suggested that each volume also include a purely alphabetical list of all the words it contained, referring the readers to the page where •y/r they are explamed. The academicians followed this advice. Given the difficulty of both compiling and using a Russian root word dictionary, one may ask what the academicians’ reasons were to adopt this method. One argument, albeit non explicit, was that the first edition of the French Academy dictionary was arranged the same way. The French had switched to an alphabetical order in their second edition (1718). In response to the Empress’ critique of the 3 5 For example, see Zhivov’s work, as well as that o f Sergei K. Bulich in the first volume o f his book Ocherk istorii iazvkoznaiia v Rossii (1904; Miinchen: Otto Sagner, 1989). 3 6 There was a precedent for this method, as Fonvizin explains: the standard Latin dictionary, compiled by Christopher Zellarius, or as the original title goes: Khristonhora Tsellariia Kratkoi latinskoi leksikon s rossiiskim i nemetskim perevodom. dlia upotrebleniia Sanktpeterburgskoi gimnazii (Sanktpeterburg: Pri Imperatorskoi AN, 1746). From a description o f this dictionary on pages 27-28 in V. P. Vomperskii’s guide Slovari XVIII veka (Moskva: Nauka, 1986), it seems, however, that the Zellarius just had a long appendix of 148 pages, that contained the Russian translated words in alphabetical order: “Na s. 1-148 vtoroi paginatsii ‘Reestr rossiiskih slov iz Kratkago Tselarieva leksikona vybrannyi i po alfavitu raspolozhennyi.. [On pages 1-148 o f the second pagination “Register o f the Russian words, extracted from Zallarius’ Short Dictionary and arranged in alphabetical order...] The purpose of such a list is clear: It enables Russian students of Latin to find the Latin equivalent of a specific Russian word in the originally Latin-Russian dictionary. This was very useful for translations into Latin, a common exercise at the St. Petersburg Academy Gymnasium. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 dictionary’s etymological structure, Dashkova justified herself and the academicians as follows: Je lui [Catherine] dis que la seconde edition, qui pouvait se faire en moins de trois ans, serait par ordre alphabetique, mais qu’un premier dictionnaire d’une langue devait etre etimologique, afin de montrer et meme trouver les racines des mots. J’ignore pourquoi l’imperatrice, dont la comprehension pouvait embrasser les choses les plus sublimes, paraissait ne pas me comprendre fMemoires 271-272). Dashkova transforms an initial weakness of the French Academy Dictionary, amended in a second edition, into a benefit, i.e. she argues as if the French had, like the Russians at the time, intended to change the ordering principle of their dictionary later. This was, of course, not the case. Adjustments were made because the first edition proved impractical. Except for the hidden reference to the French Academy Dictionary (i.e., that the first edition of a language dictionary HAD to be etymological), the passage also contains an explicit argument: “it is necessary to show and find the word roots.” Why is that necessary? Since Dashkova does not answer this second question other sources need to be consulted to find a more satisfactory answer. Two other academicians justified etymological order for the first edition in writing: Lepekhin in the foreword to the dictionary and Fonvizin in his nachertanie. Before turning to the Russian academicians, however, the foreword of the first edition of the French Academy Dictionary elucidates how the French academicians explained their choice: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 Comme la Langue Franqoise a des mots Primitifs, & des mots Derivez & Composez, on ajuge qu’il seroit agreable & instructif de disposer le Dictionnaire par Racines, c’est a dire de ranger tous les mots Derivez & Composez apres les mots Primitifs dont ils descendent, soit que ces Primitifs soient d’origine purement Francoise, soit qui’ils viennent du Latin ou de quelqu’autre Langue. (Quemada, Les Prefaces 30; original orthography!) The French clearly sought to trace the origins of their language. The awareness, among the French, that they were speaking a Romance language was very strong. A root word dictionary provided the opportunity to sort out which words were derived from lexems other than Latin.3 7 Lepekhin’s point of view is close to the French. In the foreword to the SAR he says that it is important to clarify the origins of one’s language. Lepekhin’s justification, however, contains yet another argument, namely the importance of exploring the complexity of the Russian language itself: . . . A K aseM H H . . . T in ,n a a c fl B H H K axb b h x n p o H cx o > K A eH H e, OTHOCM TeabHO K TeM K3bIKaM , H 3 KOHX BOIII/IH O He B H3bIK C tiaB eH K H H H7IH PoCCHHCKHH, H pacnO -X O K H tia HX no H H H y C a 0 B 0 n p 0 H 3 0 a ,H 0 M y . n o p a A O K c e ii H a n e p B b m c a y u a i l n p H 3 H a a a A K aaeM H H k yrsepacaeHHio a 3 b iK a n e o d x o flH M O H yacH biM ; h 6 o u p e 3 o h w h K o p e n b , c n a a , p a3 JiH H H o e b p a 3 H b ix c a y u a a x y n o x p e d a e H H e , c a o a c H o c x b , y ic a o H e H H e vum n p e x o a c fle H H e b f l p y r n i i C M bica, n p e n o c H x e a b H o c x b , h H H O C K asaxeabH O C X b c a o B h 3aB H cain;H X ox h h x p e u e i i , b o k h o m x o a K y io x c a M e c x e . 3 7 Here another question arises: to what extent was the writing of a French etymological dictionary influenced by century-old Latin schooling? Latin, like German and Russian, contains far more compounds than French. Traditionally - it would have to be proven that this was also the case in the 18t h century - Latin was taught accordingly. Grammars and textbooks list and introduce verbs in groups: all the compounds o f ire or capere have to be learnt together, as this is, for example, presented in Hermann Throm’s Lateinische Grammatik (Diisseldorf: Padagogischer Verlag Schwann, 1967). If this is an ancient didactical method, then I suppose it also must have had an influence on the French academicians, who were all brought up in this tradition. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l [The Academy ... tried to fathom [the words’] origin, in relation to the languages from which they came into the Slavonic or Russian language, and arranged them in etymological order. In a first edition the Academy considered this order absolutely necessary for the fixation of the language; for in this way a word’s origin, its vigor, its different usages in different contexts, its compounds, a deviation from or transformation into a different meaning, its allegoric and metaphoric meanings and their respective context are discussed in one place] (SAR 1: X). This idea of exploring one’s own language and unravelling its riches is especially clear in Fonvizin’s short statement: “Cen nopauoK [oTHMouorHuecKHit] BecbMa none3eH jpra onpegeueHna asbiica, h6q upes ohhh omKpueaemcn nepsoondpasHocTb, n p o n c x o i K f l e H H e h cji05KeHne [ c t i o b ] . . . ” [This order (i.e. the etymological) is very helpful for the characterization of a language, for through it the prototypal character of its words, their origin and complexity are revealed] (1: 246; italics mine - M.L.).3 8 The language, as if “unfolding” like a fan in front of the lexicographers’ eyes, displays both its semantic and morphological characteristics in all their detail. Interestingly Lepekhin stresses the semantic, the signifie side of words (“ymioHeHHe huh npexoucueHHe b upymii c m b i o i, npenocHTeubHocTb, h H H O C K asaT eubH O C T b c u o b ” ) , whereas Fonvizin specifies that both the signifie (pervoobraznost’) and signifiant (slozhenie) sides of language “open themselves up” to the compilers/readers in an etymological dictionary. From these statements, it becomes clear that in contrast to the French, the Russians were primarily interested in delving into the structure of their own language with the purpose of defining it: What exactly was the Russian language, what were Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 they, the Russians, speaking and writing? Writing the dictionary was conceived as a way of investigating one’s own language. The compilers did not place themselves above the average speaker: they were among those leaning about their language. The compilers’ primary concern seems not even to have been to obtain a practical result, an accurate reference work for future users. Writing the dictionary was a means of exploring and experiencing their language as a part of their own cultural identity. The quality of an “exercise” that the writing of the dictionary had for its compilers comes through clearly in the SAR’s foreword. There is no mention of an envisioned target “reader” or “market” for the dictionary: . . . H e o c n o p H M a n c h h H c x H H H a n c e M H s s e c x H a , u x o 6e3 n o / m a r o c o 6 p a m m c h o b h p e n c i l , h H e o n p e A e n a x o u H a r o h m 3H aM eH O B aH H H , H e m o » c h o h h y x B ep A H x en b H O c x a 3 a x b b n e M c o c x o h x o d H J in e , K p a c o x a , B a a c H o c x b h cwna a s b i K a ... (SAR. vol. I, p. V-VI) [... unquestioned is this truth, well known to everybody, that without a comprehensive collection of words and sayings, and without defining their precise meaning, it is impossible to state exactly what makes a language’s richness, beauty, importance and vigor.] This is very different from the tone that pervades the preface to the first edition of the French Academy Dictionary. Here the academicians place themselves clearly above the average French speaker. The academicians are connoisseurs, they belong to those who know “bel usage.” The dictionary’s goal is twofold. It is conceived as a reference work for the non-initiated and it is to reflect and capture the French 3 8 According to Makogonenko’s edition this passage is incomplete in the original. After the word “slozhenie" some lines are missing in Fonvizin’s manuscript. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 language (whose representatives are the academicians themselves) in a state of perfection: Le Dictionnaire de FAcademie ne sera pas moins utile, tant a l’esgard des Estrangers qui aiment nostre Langue, qu’a l’esgard des Francois mesmes qui sont quelque fois en peine de la veritable signification des mots, ou qui n ’en connoissent pas le bel usage, & qui seront bien aises d’y trouver des esclaircissements a leurs doutes. (Quemada, Les Prefaces. 27) Le Dictionnaire de FAcademie... a ete commence & acheve dans le siecle le plus florissant de la Langue Frangoise ; Et c’est pour cela qu’il ne cite point, parce que plusieurs de nos plus celebres Orateurs & de not plus grands Poetes y ont travaille, & qu’on a creu s’en devoir tenir a leur sentimens. On dira peut-estre qu’on ne peut jamais s’assurer qu’une Langue vivante soit parvenue a sa demiere perfection ; Mais ce n ’a pas este le sentiment de Ciceron,... Nous voyons qu’il ne s’est pas trompe, & peut-estre n ’aura-t-on pas moins de raison de penser la mesme chose en faveur de la Langue Francoise, si l’on veut bien considerer la Gravite & la Variete de ses Nombes, la juste cadence de ses Periode, la douc4eur de sa Poesie, la gegularite de ses Vers, l’harmonie de ses Rimes, & sur tout cette Construction directe, qui sans s’esloigner de l’ordre naturel des pensees, ne laisse pas de rencontrer toutes les delicatesses qu Fart est capable d’y apporter.C’est dans cet estat ou la Langue Franjoise se trouve aujourd’huy qu’a este compose ce Dictionnaire; & pour la representer dans ce mesme stat... (28) The Russian compilers are learning and exploring, the French are teaching and preserving. As to the structure of the word entry itself, Fonvizin suggested - and this is again in accordance with the practice in the French Academy Dictionary - that extended or metaphorical meanings as well as technical meanings be treated as new lexems, i.e. serve as the basis for a new word entry. Fonvizin explains: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 r i o c / i e c e r o [ ? ] 39 t o a c e c a M o e c h o b o , 6 y u e n y a c n o , n o B T o p a e x c f l b h o b o h CTpoKe, h pacnpocxpaHeHHHH c m m c /i od'bacHJieTCH c npHdaBjieHHeM O flH O T O H JIH H eC K O JIbK H X HpHMepOB. 4-e) flocne cero t o »ce caMoe c ji o b o , 6yge nyacHO, naKH noBTopaeTCH b hoboh CTpoKe, h MeTac^opHuecKHH ero c m b ic ji o6T.HCHaeTca c npH6aBaeHHeM oflHoro h u h necicoubKHx npHMepoB... 6-e) Byfle t o caMoe c u o b o ecTB HassaHHe TexHuecicoe, t o noBTopueTcu e i n e b h o b o h CTpoKe, m npH6aBaaeTca k ceMy o6T>acHeHHe. [After which the same word, if necessary, is repeated in a new line, and the exended meaning explained, adding one or several [text] examples. 4) After this the same word, if necessary, is repeated again in a new line, and its metaphorical meaning explained, adding one or several text examples... 6) If this word is also a technical term, then it is again repeated in a new line, with the definition added] (1: 246). This plan was later abandoned and replaced by a system o f numeration, where different meanings o f one lexem were separated by numbers under one single heading, for example: C JIEflblfl... 1) He H M eiO E U H H huh /iHineHHMH uyBCTBa speHHH.. .2)* HenpocBemeHHbiH, neyuHBHiHHCHueMy; 6e3rpaMOTHOH. ... 3) * BespascyflHbiH... [BLIND... 1) Not having or having lost eye sight... 2)* Uneducated, unlearned; illiterate ... 3) * foolhardy...] (SAR 5: 584). This is the method that is commonly used in dictionaries today. A comparison o f word entries in the SAR reveals that the meanings were listed in a certain order, according to what Fonvizin had proclaimed in his third paragraph (“O znamenovanii 3 9 There is a gap in Fonvizin’s text before this sentence. Therefore it is not clear what this “Posle sego” refers to. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 slov i rechenii”). The word’s semantic field unfolds from original and precise to metaphorical and technical/special, i.e. the word meanings presented develop from the center to the outskirts of meaning. The zone between the original and the metaphorical is not always easy to determine, however. Semantic shifts located in this gray zone include restricted and extended meanings, and these are not always listed in the same order. The following scheme tentatively reflects the sequence of meanings as they appear in the SAR: 1) original meaning (in Diderot’s terminology precis, original, propre - tochnyi, sobstvennyi [precise, proper]); 2) extension, restriction, or shift, in varying order; 3) metaphorical meaning(s); 4) technical meaning; 5) expressions; 6) proverbs and sayings. According to Sukhomlinov, Sidorovskii’s definition of “angel” was used as the sample definition for all other words. It reads as follows: AHTEJI (...) na.c.M. Fpen: 3Hanam.ee BecmmiK. 1)B CBnrpeHHOM nHcaHHH npea Amena pa3yMeeTca cyipecTBO AyxoBHoe, yMHoe, nepBoe b A O C T O H H C T B e M e> K ,n ;y TBapeit. Tozda nocnem Am enu ceon. Mapic: XIII. 27. IJocnan 6ucmb Amen Taepuun. Jlyic: 1. 27. (original meaning) 2) B npocTop: HMeHyeTca tot Cbktoh, KOTOporo kto h o c h t na cede hmh. ffem Moezo Amena. UpasdnuK Moezo Amena [shift?] 3)HenoBeK cBHTaro h OTMeHHaro j k h t h h , KOTopbiii HasMBaeTcn Taioxe Amen eo nnomu, Amen nnomuw odnootceHHUu. Ceu nenoeen ecmt Amen, T.e. acnran CBHTaro, acHTHeM cbohm Anreny noflodHbiii [figurative] 4) Bein,ecTBeHHoe HsodpanceHHe AHrena. Hanucamb, meanmb Amena. [special] [ANGEL ... Greek: meaning messenger. 1) In Holy Writ Angel designates a spiritual, intelligent creature, first in terms of virtue among all other creatures. And he will send his angels. Mark, 13, 27. God sent the angel Gabriel, Luke, 1, 27. 2) In colloquial speech: thus is called the Saint whom someone is named after. The day o f my angel. The religious holiday o f my angel. 3) A person living a saintly and outstanding life, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 who is also called Angel .... This person is an angel, i.e. living the life o f a saint, who resembles an angel through his life. 4) Physical image of an angel. To paint, sculpt an angel.] To illustrate this sequencing of meanings further I cite the following articles: Bednuu [derivative o f “BED A”] ...1) YdorHH, HenMyniHH, hhiiihh, HeuocTaTOuecTByronrHH b noTpedHOM. Bednou epeuenu H e utqem. ... [original meaning]. 2) HecuacTHbm, snocuacTHbiH, Hednarono/iyuHbiH, ropecTHHH, coacaneHna aoctohhmm. ... [extendedmeaning], 3) B CnaseHCKOM aswKe 3H auH T Hnorfla yBeunaro, tcoxopoii immnnca Kaxoro Hu6jpb uuena huh ohoh noBpe>«u;eH H bX H HMeer. ... [specific Slavonic]. [Poor ... 1) wretched, destitute, beggared, lacking the necessary. The poor does not look for time... 2) Unhappy, hapless, miserable, sad, deserving compassion... 3) In Slavonic this means sometimes the crippled, who lost a limb, or has it deformed.] CBET [root word] ... 1) Cmmne, dmtCTaHHe; to , hto uejiaeT npeflMexbi BHflHM biM H; npoTHBynoTiareTca xeMHoxe, TMe.... [original meaning] 2) OcodeHHo sHauHT B03xoacfleHne co/rHpa, ueHHHpy, yxpenHioio 3opio [sic]. ... [restricted meaning]. 3) Mnp, BceneHHaa. .. .[metonymical shift, i.e. perhaps whatever is reached by light] 4) B BHfle codnpaT: depexca sa Bcex mofleft Boodxpe. ... [restriction o f the previous?]. 5) * B Cn: 3Hawr rafle yueHne eBaHreubCKoe, HOByio duarouaxb XpncxoBy. ... [metaphorical meaning] 6) * FoBopHxca xaxxce o BceM tom, hto npocBemaexpa3yM uenoBeuecKHH. ... [extended? metaphorical] 7) * B Cb: nnc: npnuaexca na3BaHHe cbiny BoacHK). P ko ce e m n p u u d e e Mup. HoaH: 1.8.4 0 [special?, metaphorical], 8) * Hnue snauHx BCHKaro nponoBeflHHKa, yuHTena hcthhm. ... [extended metaphorical, i.e. extension o f the previous]. [LIGHT ... 1) radiance, shining; that, which makes objects visible; opposite of darkness, the dark; 2) especially meaning the rising sun, daybreak, dawn 3) world, cosmos ... 4) As a collective noun it means all people in general... 5)* In Slavonic it sometimes means the Gospels, Christ’s New Testament, d)* Is said also about that which enlightens the human intellect... 7)* In Holy Writ this is the name o f the Son o f God. 4 0 This is an abbreviated summary. The full sentence reads in English: “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world,” John 1:9. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Like light he came into the world. John 1.8. 8)* It means any preacher, teacher of the truth. ] n p o H s s o a c y , B O ffH n ib , s e n , s e e m , boahtb. t j i . a . 1 ) f l e n a i o , T B o p io , H3 He6biTHH b 6biTHe n p n B o a c y ; paacnaio. E o z ecxn ea ca a u H enoeexa n p o m e e n . S e u n n n p o m e o d u m d u n u n [ s i c ] . T p e n u e u n u enym peH H ee deuncenue e m e n a x n p o m e o d u m m e n n o m y . A e p a a u n p o m e e n u a ceem H c a a x a u H c u a u n a . [ o r i g i n a l ] 2) n o B H i n a i o K o r o U H H aM H . Eeo n p o m e e n u m a x u m m o u n u e m atcou m o huh. [ r e s t r i c t e d ] 3) Hto hs n e r o , w m o t K o r o . I I o K a s w B a i o , BBiBOJKy n p o H S X o m n e H H e H b e O T K y n y . O h pod ceou o m d p een eu tu a eo p o d a n p o m e o d u m . H e e o d e e p o x m n o o m e o d u n p o m e o d u m b donncno. [ r e s t r i c t e d ] 4) B n p io c a s H O M c n o r e . H s b iC K H B a io , p a a d n p a a Aeno, n p o H a m e c x B H e ; jigm xy cyn o ueM Him H aA K eM . n p o m e e c m b n a d Kern cyd. [ s p e c i a l ] [I produce, ... active verb 1) I make, create, transfer from non-existence into existence; give birth. God created all different things and man. The earth produces... Friction or movement inside bodies creates warmth. Abraham brought into the world Isaac and Ishmael. 2) I promote someone to certain ranks. He was promoted to some rank. 3) ... I show, derive someone’s origin from somewhere. He derives from an ancient family. “ Nevod ” [sweep-net] must most likely be derived from “ voda ” [water]. 4) In the official language. I search out, by analyzing a case or event; I take to a court of law something or someone. To file a lawsuit against someone. ] BPOHH hh. c: > k. Cji. l)IIaHu;bipb, naTbi, Konnyrn, Aocnex. Pop, o#eflH M H AenaeMaro H 3 acene3a, hjih H 3 crann, KaKOBoe bohhbi b aPcbhocth ynoTpednnnH aim 3ain,Hiu;eH H fl cedn o t HenpHflxenbCKHx yAapoB. H UMenxy dpom, hko dponn otcene3Hu. AnoKan. IX. 9 [original] 2) * Bcjncoe nodopHTenbHoe, Him 3am,HTHTenbHoe cpeA C TBO . Cmauume ydo npenoMcauu Hpecna eaiua ucmuHnoto, u odonKwecx e dpoun npaedu. K E <J)ec. VI. 14. [metaphorical] [BREASTPLATE ... noun, fern. Slavonic 1) armor, coat of mail, chain armor, cuirasse. A type of garment made o f iron, or steel, that the warriors in ancient times used to protect themselves from their enemy’s blows. They had breastplates like breastplates o f iron. Revelation IX.9. 2)* All offensive or defensive means. Standfirm then, with the belt o f truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate o f righteousness in place. Ephes. VI. 14.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 From these entries it becomes apparent that style (i.e. high style, low style, Slavonic or prostorechie) is a secondary semantic category. Slavonicisms, for example, do not have a fixed “place” on the semantic scale, ranging from the center to the periphery of meaning, in the SAR. They are listed under various numbers from one through five. Although stylistically marked, they are semantically completely integrated into the “halo” of a word. The examples above illustrate this perfectly: “Rrora'a” is considered a Slavonicism by origin, “svet” appears as a Slavonicism only in the metaphorical sense, and “bednyi ’ only in the restricted or special meaning of “physically impaired.” The integration of the two types of language, Slavonic and Russian - which will be discussed in detail in the fourth chapter - had clearly been proclaimed a goal early on by the academy members. The preface of the SAR states: TaxoBoe coctohhhc H3biica CnaBeHopoccHiicKoro 3acTaBHJio AicafleMHio, n p n cocraBjieHHH aiOBapn CBoero, BHHtcaTb b t o t h flpyron n3biK c B03M02KH0K) TOUHOCTHIO; h6 o O T COeflHHeHHH HX 3aBHCHT odlt/IHe, BancHOCTb, cm ia h KpacoTa H3biKa Hbine ynoTpednTejibHaro; n o neMy h OTK pbinocb eft n one npea,neacam;ee k BOsnenanHio en sa npenenw HMeioiuee. [The condition of the Slavono-Russian language was such that the Academy, in compiling its dictionary, was forced to thoroughly investigate both languages with utmost precision, since from their unification depends the wealth, importance, might and beauty of the language used today; and therefore before them a field was opening up that was to be tilled, but that barely had any limits] (SAR 1: VIII). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 As the structure of the word entry proves, this integration was realized masterfully. In 1785 Count Stroganov incorporated this fusion of the two elements into the SAR by proposing to the assembly that . . . K n p H M ep aM , B3HXHM H3 CBflinpHHblX KHHT, npHdaBTIHTb h n p H M ep b i, BSHTbie H3 ceemcxux nucameneu w m Me npHAyMannbie caMHMH cocTaBHTeMMH c/ioBapa, h noMenjaTb no oflHOMy xojibxo npnMepy, 3anMCTBya ero KaK H3 k h m t oiaBHHCKHX, xaK h h s asbiKa, Hbine ynoxpedHTe/ibHaro. [...to the examples taken from Holy Scripture be also added examples from secular writers or others compiled by the editors of the dictionary themselves, and that these be listed, one example respectively from both the Slavonic books and the language used today] (Sukhomlinov 7: 110). This advice, too, was followed: under “vozkresaiu” [I resurrect], for example, we find simple (prosto) language along with biblical quotes; this is common practice in the SAR: BosKpecaio, enib, B03Kpec, B03Kpecny, Bosxpecaxb, B03i<pecHyxb. rn. cp. Boscxaio H3 MepxBbix, oacnBaio, oacHBOXBopaiocb. BocKpemym uepmeuu, u eoscmaHym. Hcann. xxvi. 18. Bosepamuai dyx en u eocicpece adue. JlyK. viii. 55. Cnacument> natu eosnpec e mpemuu deub. [I ressurect... I stand up from the dead, become alive, animated. But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. Isaiah 26.18. Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Luke 8:55. Our savior stood up from the dead on the third day](SAR 3: 945; highlighting mine - M.L.). 11. Summary The planning stage (September 1783 - March 12, 1984) of the dictionary is marked by the Fonvizin - Boltin controversy. Fonvizin promotes a normative language dictionary following the example of the French Academy dictionary. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Boltin, on the other hand, has in mind a universal, even encyclopedic reference work. The academicians back Fonvizin’s outline, making two minor adjustments under the influence of Boltin’s plan. One is regarding the amount of regionalisms included. Here the academicians opted for a compromise between Fonvizin’s focus on the speech in the capital, excluding regionalisms, and Boltin’s wholistic approach of collecting as many regional words as possible. They decided to include only those regionalisms that designated a regional thing or phenomenon (like special fishing or hunting devices, geographical phenomena, etc.). The rough percentage of such words amounts to 2% of the total lexical material of the SAR. The other deviation from Fonvizin’s initial plan is in regards to the listing of verbs in the fist person singular, instead of in the infinitive form. Independently from the Fonvizin-Boltin debate there was an adjustment made in favor of “ancient words,” which curiously neither Boltin nor Fonvizin discuss in their plans. Again the academicians decide that these should be included only if they denote a device or phenomenon of former times (like veche, or old types of fabric, instruments, legal terms, etc.). However, here (and only here) the academicians do not always respect the strict selection criteria which they imposed upon themselves, but include Old Russian words that do have a modem equivalent. The estimated percentage of ancient words is 3%. These deviations from Fonvizin’s initial outline, as minor as they might seem, show that the academicians were trying to capture the language of the Russian Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 people in general, not focusing exclusively on the language spoken in the capital, but also including regionalisms. Unlike the French Academy dictionary, the Russians also included ancient words. The historic dimension of the “vernacular” was important to their identity as Russians. Also characteristic of the SAR is that the plan, finally agreed upon on March 12,1784, and the published final version of the dictionary, form one consistent whole. The outline was followed closely, and the work was carried out in a very orderly and disciplined way. This diligence shows that the leadership was strong, and the outline well thought through before the explaining and editing began. In order to understand the purpose of the Academy dictionary, it is important to keep in mind that it was not specifically geared to any specific audience, at least the preface does not spell this out (unusual for a preface). Instead, the justifications of the root-based order of the dictionary make clear that the SAR was primarily viewed as an excercise for its compilers. They were trying to figure out, on a large, nationally organized scale, the particularities of their language. They were exploring their linguistic identity rather than planning to teach future generations of students, scholars and foreigners the “right” usage. On a historically and lexicographical note it is thanks to Diderot’s article “Dictionnaire” from the Encvclonedie that the word entry itself was carefully organized in the SAR. The semantics of a word was to unfold, similar to the etymological structure of the word itself, from concrete and precise to metaphorical Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 and technical — another attempt o f coming to grips with the features and riches of the native language. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 CHAPTER III COMPILING THE ANALOGICHESKIE TABLITSY AND EDITING THE SAR 1. The Analogicheskie Tablitsy and Their Printing History The second working stage was marked by the academy’s effort to gather as much lexical material as possible. The results of this intense collecting activity were made available to the academicians in printed form under the name of “Analogicheskie Tablitsy” [Analogous Tables] (AT), preliminary lists of words arranged in alphabetical order. Two copies per person were distributed to the academicians to be corrected and amended. Only then would the raw material be arranged in etymological order and further edited in preparation for final publication (stage m). The time frame for this second phase was as follows: the collecting started one week after Fonvizin had presented his plan, even before Boltin had had time to formulate his objections to that plan. The second phase ended when the last pages of the AT were printed, i.e. one or two years before the first volume appeared. However, it is important to keep in mind that words were still being added after that date. The AT had specifically been conceived to facilitate the adding of words by all 60 academy members, whether they were attending the meetings or not.1 In fact, lexical material seems to have been added until the very last moment. For example, 1 A substantial group o f academicians resided in Moscow and did not attend the meetings in Petersburg very often (Boltin, Melissino, Shcherbatov, et al.) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 words from the Russkaia letopis’ s Voskresenskago spiska, published in 1793-1794, i.e. long after the AT were printed, can be found in the SAR’s last two volumes, which both appeared in 1794. Yet, the completion of the AT was a landmark. It designated the end of the period dedicated primarily to gathering lexical material, whereas afterwards the goal consisted primarily in editing the SAR. Although the purpose of the AT seems so simple, many questions about them still remain unanswered. Why, for instance, were 2 copies printed for each academy member? Without having come upon an explanation in my sources , I assume it was for the members to create two identical copies of corrections, of which one was to be turned in to the Academy for collation. The other was to be kept for personal records. Keeping one’s own copy was especially important in view of the fact that all 2 In the “Sposob, koim rabota tolkovogo slovaria slaviano-rossiiskogo slovaria skoree i udobnee proizvodit’sia mozhet,” which builds the second part of Fonvizin’s Nachertanie, the term “analogicheskie tablitsy" is used for the first time. Fonvizin already speaks there o f the necessity to “napechatat’ ne menee sta ekzempliarov dlia vrucheniia gospodam chlenam i nekotorym iz znaiushchikh rossiiskii iazyk osobam, daby kazhdyi mog pribavit’ te slova i recheniia, koi v tablitsakh naidet opushchennymi. Sie dopolneniia dostavliaiutsia gospodam sekretariam Akademii... ” [print not less than one hundred copies to be handed to the members and certain people who know the Russian language, so that each could add words and expressions that he finds to be missing. These additions will be given to the Academy’s secretaries] (Fonvizin 1: 249). The minutes o f the Academy meeting on November 18, 1783, reveal a matured plan: Jlflu BHUtinefi ace ynodHocxH k no/iHeiniieMy cofiparooo cm b AxaaeMHa onpefle/uma Bee npHHCKaHHbiH h b cocTaB non eflHHy 6yKBy coBOKynaeHHbia cnosa HaneuaTaTb asdynHWM nopaflKOM no nncny HneHOB, AicaneMHio cocraBJunomHX, h BceM po30cnaTb no flBa TaKOBbix o6pa3pa pjis BHeceHHH o i o b , b h h x HeflocxaioiitHx. [To make comprehensive word collecting more efficient, the Academy determined to print all found words, gathered under one letter, in alphabetical order for each o f the members that form the academy, and to distribute to each of them two of such copies/samples, to fill in the words that are missing in them] (Sochineniia i perevodv 2: 13). The purpose of the second copy is not further explained. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 the words gathered by individual members were read and discussed in the Academy’s meetings. It was useful to remember exactly what one had added or amended. The printing history of the AT is unclear. This is not too surprising, for the AT were not dated. To reconstruct the chronology, scholars have had to extract information from sources such as the Academy’s minutes and the records of the Academy press. Neither Sukhomlinov nor Makeeva, however, who have both written on the publishing history of the SAR in considerable detail, seem to have noticed any inconsistencies. In order to illustrate my point, I will list the key dates and events as quoted by these two admirably conscientious scholars: January 13, 1784 January 17, 1784 April 15,1784 ... pascMarpHBajiHCb nepBbie u h c t w a H a n o ra n e c K H X TadnHu;3 h onpeneneno OTflaxb b n e u a T b . . . 6yxsyA [... the first sheets of the analogous tables were looked through and it was determined to turn the letter A over to the press] (Sukhomlinov 8: 64)4 ... ctihcok cjiob nocTynHn [b Tmiorpac|)HK) AicafleMHH Hayic] [...a word list reached the press of the Academy of Sciences] (Makeeva, “Iz istorii izdaniia” 220) Melissino writes Dashkova from Moscow: 3 Also note that in this context “ pervye listy AT” mean the manuscript, not the printed AT. The ambiguous wording adds to the confusion. 4 This fact is not included in the abbreviated version of the Academy’s minutes as published in Sochineniia i perevodv in 1806. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 November 25,1784 November 1786 October 2, 1787 December 1788 IIo saBTpaniHeii nonxe bypy HMexb necxb coobnprrb BameMy CHftxenbcxsy nonojmeHHfl k npHCbuiaHHbiM nepBOHananbHbiM xa6jnm,aM nenaxaeMaro cobparota o i o b . . . [By tomorrow’s mail I w ill have the honor to inform your Excellency about the additions to the preliminary tables that were sent to me and that are part o f the word collection that is to be printed] (Sukhomlinov 7: 130-131). ... oxneaaxaHo 6bijio 5 6yKB, saHHMaroiipix 520 nexBepxHbix exp am p. [... printed were 5 letters, filling 520 quarter pages] (Sukhomlinov 8: 64) ... oxnenaxaHHbie xpn aacxH xad/mpbi ananorHHecKOH, KOHaarpnaca c 6yKBoio fl, cocxaBaaiox 1769 aexBepxHbix cxpatmp b pBa cxoabpa. [printed are three parts o f the Analogous Table, that ends with the letter P; they fill 1769 quarter pages with two columns] (Sukhomlinov 8: 56). ... [JlenexHH] HMea yposoabcxBue pa3paxb npncyxcBOBaBiiiHM nnenaM KOHep aHaaormiecKOH neaaxHoit pocnncH ctiob, no HHHy asbyauoMy pacnoaoacenHoit... [. ..(Lepekhin) was pleased to distribute to the present members the end o f the printed analogous word list, arranged in alphabetical order] (Sukhomlinov 8: 54-55) IleuaxaHHe “AHaaoraaecKHX xa6nHn,” nocxynaBiiiHX b Tnnorpa^Hio aacxaMH bbnio saKOHneuo... Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 [The printing of the “Analogous Tables”, that had reached the Press part by part was finished...] (Makeeva, “Iz istorii izdaniia” 221) Most surprising, of course, are the diverging end dates given by the two scholars. Sukhomlinov claims that the last pages of the “pechatnaia rospis’ slov” (i.e. the AT) were distributed among the Academy members in October 1787, whereas Makeeva gives December 1788 as the AT’s final printing date. Moreover, it is intriguing that the one complete and three incomplete copies of the Analogicheskie tablitsy preserved today in various Russian repositories all consist of 5 parts or volumes. Part I includes letters A-K, part II, L-O, part III, only letter P, part IV, letters R-T, and part V, U-Y (Sukhomlinov 8:381; Makeeva, “Iz istorii izdaniia” 221). The printing, however, had clearly been carried out letter by letter, at least in the beginning. I.e., the decision to create different volumes or parts must have been taken sometime between 1784 and 1786 and does not seem to have been planned at the beginning. This is corroborated by the fact that the first chast ’ or volume described by Sukhomlinov lacks a title page. Moreover, the first part is much more voluminous than the consecutive parts (871 pages vs. 422,476, 368, 246 pages of the following parts). Even if we assume that the first volume had been printed in entities of individual letters, whereas parts 2-5 were printed in groups of letters, this logistically poses a problem. There is evidence that the letters printed in 1784 had been Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 distributed to the members.5 Had the members then been asked to return the pages to the press for binding? This seems very impractical. Could this be the reason why the AT held by the library of the Academy of Sciences today was missing the first volume? Did someone fail to turn in the letters for binding? As to the AT’s following volumes II-V, did the Academy keep the printed letters (if they were still printed separately) together until the part was completed before distributing them? Or were they indeed printed in volumes? This would have meant that the academicians had to wait longer without any AT sections for them to correct. If this is so, we have to assume that in the meantime the members were still compiling words from different sources, waiting for the AT-chast’ in question to be released. That this procedure might actually have been followed seems confirmed by fact that M. M. Shcherbatov’s AT copy, preserved in the St. Petersburg State Public Library, includes the count’s many additions on a separate sheet of paper.6 Had he not bothered entering them in his own working copy, but only in the copy that was turned in to the Academy for collation? All of these explanations do not account for the considerable divergence in dating the final copy of the Analogicheskie Tablitsy. Again, a look at the originals might solve the problem: Were the AT printed twice, was the last chast’ printed twice, or is this simply a dating mistake on the part of one of the scholars...? 5 Melissino writes on April 15, 1784, that his students added A-words to the pages o f the printed AT. See in detail below. 6 See on page 36 in the first volume o f Svodnvi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoi pechati XVIII veka. 1725-1800 (Moscow: n.p., 1963-1965). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 The process of compiling the word material for the AT and the SAR in general can be subdivided into two more working stages. The first step consisted in gathering a basic pool of words by copying and collating lexical material from existing word collections both published and handwritten. I will call these the “hidden” sources, for they were not identified in the published SAR. This first task was accomplished astonishingly quickly: within one month the basic stock had been pulled together. In a second step - and this was done by the members either simultaneously or much later - words derived from a large range of “visible” text sources were added. In the following I will discuss both stages separately. The AT, as I will show, contain mainly the first, but also an admixture of the second type of sources. 2. “Hidden” Sources: Existing Dictionaries and Manuscript Word Collections Unfortunately, a reliable list of the dictionaries used to compile the SAR does not exist. The Academy’s minutes state only generally that: ... aK aneM H H ... nocxaBMJia c e d e n p e flM e x c o d p a x b see H 3BecxH W H aioBa no dyK B eH H O M y unny, y n o x p e d u k c e M y o c H O B a m ie M H e x o k m o XHCHeH H io A o c e /re npeflaHHbw, h o m m h o m p y K o n n c H b ia o h m x c o d p a H H H . [... the academy ... set itself the goal to compile all known words in alphabetical order, using as a resource to this end not only already printed, but also many handwritten word collections.] (Sukhomlinov 8:4) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 The general idea of the minutes can be referred from Fonvizin’s suggestions in the aforementioned “Sposob, koim rabota tolkovogo slovaria slaviano-rossiiskogo iazyka skoree i udobnee proizvodit’sia mozhet.” Fonvizin writes there: Bo nepBbix, Hagne^KHT codpaxb Bee re neuaxHbie h pyKonncHbie k h h t h , koh cnoBapio MaxepnanaMH cnyacnxb Moryx; neuaxHbie cyxb: IfennapHeB tickchkoh,7 Tpex'basbinHMH cnoBapb FlonHKapnoBa/ C hmcJ johhh Ha HoBbiH sasex, C hm^ ohhh Ha ncanxw pb, OioBapb pepKOBHblH. H 3 p y K o n H C H b ix , ciccw ib K o H 3B e c x H O , c n o c o d c x B O B a x b M o r y x : x p y n , n o K O H H o r o T a y d e p x a h K o H A p a x o B H H a , x a t o x e C h m x J jo h h h H a B e x x H H sasex H e p o M O H a x a H tin a p H O H a .9 [First, it is necessary to pull together all the printed and handwritten books that can serve the dictionary as [raw] material; the printed are: Zellarius’ Lexicon, Polikarpov’s trilingual dictionary, the concordance of the New Testament, the concordance of the Book of Psalms, the Slovar’ Tserkovnvi. Of the handwritten ones, as far as known, the following can be of help: the work of the late Taubert, and Kondratovich, as well as the concordance of the Old Testament by the celibate priest Hillarion] (Fonvizin 1: 248). One of the few documents to confirm that some of these sources were indeed exploited is a letter by Golenishchev-Kutuzov to Lepekhin.1 0 On December 30, 1783, he writes: 7 Fonvizin is most likely refering to: Oaeeadee E., [OSendioida Oaeeadey] ESaoeie eaoeineie eaeneen fi dinneeneei e iaiaSeei iadaaiaii. aev 6ii65aaeaiev Naie6iaoa5a65an6ie aeiiacee. Nla.: I5e ei'i. Aeaaaiee Iaoe, 1746. It was republished several times: in 1768, 1781, and 1795. (V. P. Vomperskii, Slovari 27-28). He might, however, also mean Geltergof s Rossiiskii Tsellarii. (See footnote below.) 8 The M l title o f Fedor P. Polikarpov’s dictionary is: Leksikon treiazvchnvi. sirech rechenii slavenskikh. ellinogrecheskikh i latinskikh sokrovishche iz razhchnvkh drevnikh i nowkh knig sobrannoe i po slavenskomu alfavitu i chinu razoolozhenoe. Moscow, 1704. It is Russia’s first dictionary in a modem sense. It was organized according to Western lexicographic standards and “na vsem protiazhenii XVII veka ostavalsia nezamenimym spravochnym posobiem.” It was also intentionally polyfunctional in that it contained both OCS and common Russian words (Sorokoletov 81-82). Polikarpov was also the editor o f Vedomosti. The book was donated to the Academy by metropolitan Gavriil (Sukhomlinov 1: 141). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 G iosa r j i h a H a ^ o rH M e c K a ro TieKCHKOHa, H aH H H arom H H C H c 6yKBbi F, c k o j i b k o M o r n c o 6 p a /i , H3 npHOiaHHOH K o H flp a T O B H u e B o ii, hs If e r m a p H e B a h IfepKOBHaro t i c k c h k o h o b , h OTBCioAa, OTKy^a m o t , m npn ceM k B aM nocbiJiaio. M q j k c t 6 b iT b y T a y 6 e p T a m o * h o 6h b s h t b e i p e ^ T o -H H 6 y A b , h o rp y flO B e r o c e il 6 yK B bi k o M H e H e n p n a i a H O . . . . B03Bpam ,H K > xaioKe KoHflpaxoBHneBbi TeTpa,n,H. [I collected as many words starting with the letter G as I could for the analogous dictionary, from Kondratovich’s dictionary, which was sent to me, from Zellarius’, as well the Church Dictionary, and also from whereever else I could; and I am enclosing [the words] to you. Perhaps one could add some more from Taubert, but the respective letter of his works was not sent to m e... I am also returning Kondratovich’s notebooks to you.]1 1 Below I will present in more detail those dictionaries that left a clear imprint on the pages of the SAR. I will start with the handwritten collections, which constitute one of the basic pillars of the AT and thus the SAR as a whole. For the longest time there has been confusion regarding the history and authorship of the largest unpublished dictionary, namely the “trud Tauberta” [Taubert’s work]. What the academicians were referring to is the most important lexical source of the AT. It was only recently identified by Makeeva as the work of Andrei Bogdanov, i.e. the dictionary that had been initiated by the Rossiiskoe sobranie [Russian Assembly] upon Trediakovskii’s suggestion in 1735. The librarian (bibliotekarskiipomoshchnik) Bogdanov had compiled and 9 Ivan Il’inskii is named as the author of Neidiiev ia navueiiia -^aoaaSiaaalaaeea e aaviev navoud Aimidie (Iineaa 1733) in Novikov’s Opvt slovaria (70). The author of Simfoniia na psalmv was Kantemir (Novikov, 89). I have not been able to identify the two other Concordances. 1 0 Sukhomlinov quotes from Dashkova who also explicitly mentions the Taubert and Kondratovich dictionaries (Sukhomlinov 8: 5). 1 1 The letter is quoted in its entirety on page 106 in volume 7 o f Sukhomlinov’s Istoriia Rossiiskoi akademii. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 explained over 60,000 words from the thirties until his death in 1766 (Makeeva, “Iz istorii iazykoznaniia,” 111). In terms of its concept (i.e. tol&oyyz'/explanatory dictionary) and institutional context (Academic) Bogdanov’s collection can be called the direct predecessor of the SAR. According to Makeeva, Taubert had merely been the head of the department responsible for translating Bogdanov’s words into Latin, French, and German. Taydepx n o floury CBoeii cayacdbi Haduioflau sa padoxoft noflBeflOMCTBeHHbix ejvry nepeBOflHHKOB, ho hh b cocxaBueHHH cuoBHHKa, h h b onpefleaeHHH 3HaueHHH cuob He yuacTBOBau. [Taubert was fulfilling his professional duty and looked after the work of the translators reporting to him, but participated neither in the compilation of the dictionary nor in explaining the words’ meanings] (Makeeva, “Neizvestnyi otryvok” 89). After Bogdanov had passed away, however, Taubert took steps to publish the collection under his name. This Taubert-Bogdanov connection seems not to have been known to the academicians and their contemporaries, for Novikov also assumes that Taubert had been the initiator of the dictionary in question. In the Opyt istoricheskago slovaria o rossiiskikh pisateliakh Andrei Bogdanov appears as the author of various other reference works, whereas on Taubert we read: TAYBEPT, HBAH, 6 m b h i h h CxaxcKHH cobcxhhk h HMnepaxopcKoft 6H6uHoxeKapb, yMep b 1770 rofly. O h c o u h h h u npeflHcnoBHe Ha PoccHHCKyio 6H6uHOxeKy h KaMuaxcicyio HcxopHio, Koxopbm o6a flocxoilHbi noxBaubi, h nepeBen MHorna noueanbiH k h h x h Ha PoC C H H C K H H H 3bIK . flofl erO CM O XpeHHeM XpyflH UH CH B C O U H H eH H H nouHaro PoccHiicKaro cuoBapa, Koxoparo h 6 h u o cod p ano co bcbkhm paueHHeM h HcnpaBHOcxHK) no UHxepy P h o o h w h b CBex ew,e He H3flaH. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 [TAUBERT, IVAN, former state councilor and Imperial librarian, died in 1770. He wrote the introduction to the Russian library and the History of Kamchatka, which are both worthy of praise, and translated many useful books into Russian. He supervised the compilation of a comprehensive Russian dictionary, which was completed with all diligence and accuracy up to the letter R. However, it has not been published yet] (Novikov, 215). The originals of this impressive collection have unfortunately been lost. In the early 1960s, however, Makeeva found the beginning (A-Adiey) of the galley proofs of the Bogdanov-Taubert manuscript in the archives of the Academy of Sciences. By comparing this short list of words with the first pages of the AT, Makeeva was able to show that Bogdanov’s dictionary had been thoroughly exploited “za iskliucheniem nekotorykh estestvennonauchnyh i tekhnicheskih terminov” [except for some natural science and technical terms]1 2 and indeed provided the lexical basis for the SAR. Notably, Lomonosov held the Bogdanov collection in high esteem and on several occasions referred to it as a model in Russian lexicography. Kondratovich’s handwritten dictionary, another important but lost source of the AT, is of special interest because of Lomonosov’s involvement. A translator at the Academy of sciences, Kondratovich had undertaken to transform Christoforus Zellarius’ Kratkoi Leksikon into a Russian-Latin dictionary arranged by word roots. However, in 1747, Lomonosov, who had been asked to evaluate the manuscript, criticized Kondratovich’s draft harshly so that its publication was suspended. Lomonosov was at this point asked to supervise the project from then on and the 1 2 Makeeva, “Neizvestnyi otryvok,” 90. The Bogdanov-Taubert manuscript is published in this article. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 great poet himself started collecting root words (in Lomonosov’s terminology: 1 T “pervoobraznye slova”). In the early fifties, however, he withdrew from the project. These two collections, the first manuscript of a complete explanatory dictionary, and the first known attempt to create a Russian root word dictionary, were combined in the AT. Together, without a doubt, they helped create the main pool of lexical material. Other handwritten word collections incorporated into the AT early on were a list by Archpriest Levshin (November 1783), and one by the translator Botvinkin, the latter submitted to the Academy through Bogdanovich (December 1784) (Sukhomlinov 8: 8). Metropolitan Gavriil, among several published and unpublished sources, donated the manuscript “Leksikon, sirech nedovedomye rechi, perevod Maksima Greka ot inovemykh na russkii iazyk pravyi, pisan vkratse” to the Russian Academy (Sukhomlinov 1: 131). However, I have not been able to determine at what point in time this collection was incorporated into the AT/SAR. Additions to the printed AT were made from the collection of words compiled by the VoTnoe Rossiiskoe Sobranie (VRS) in Moscow.1 4 Melissino, the director of the Moscow university and founder of the VRS in 1771, had six of his students fill in missing words from this handwritten dictionary to the AT, which were already printed and distributed at the time. In his letter of April 15, 1784 to Dashkova Melissino writes: 1 3 This information on both Kondratovich’s and Bogdanov’s (which is Taubert’s, according to the SAR’s understanding) dictionaries is taken from Makeeva’s article “Iz istorii iazykoznaniia.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 ... h me, He HMen caM HyacHaro 3flopoBBa k TaK O BO M y ffeny [t.e. sdelat’ popolneniia], npenopynnx HeKOxoptiM yHHsepcHxexcKHM cxyp;eHxaM, Koxopbix HMena npH ceM npHJiaraioxcn h Koxopwe cnenarm nonormeHHe k 6yKBe A, c noMombio codpaHHMx c tio b , H 3 Koxopbix h xoxen b B O JIbH O M pO C C H H C K O M Co6paHHH fletiaXb T ieK C H K O H .1 5 .. .since I myself lack the health necessary for this work [i.e. to make additions], I delegated it to several university students, whose names are appended here and who made amendments to the letter “A” with the help of the words collected on the basis of my desire to make a lexicon in the VRS. According to the sources quoted by Sukhomlinov, the students participated in the project until the spring of 1785. As to the published dictionaries used to compile the AT/SAR, the most important seem to have been Alekseev’s Slovar’ Tserkovnyi and the French Academy Dictionary. I will therefore discuss them below in some detail. The Tsellarii, listed by both Fonvizin and Golenishchev-Kutuzov, had already been incorporated into Kondratovich’s dictionary and therefore did not, most likely, contain very much new material. To what extent Polikarpov’s Trilingual Lexicon and Pamva Belinda’s Leksikon slavenorosskii. 1653,1 6 were used - both were donated to the Academy by Gavriil Petrov (Sukhomlinov 1:131) - would demand extra study. According to Sukhomlinov, the academicians also most likely worked with Lavrenitii Zizaniia’s Leksis, 1596,1 7 and the Rossiiskii Tsellarius, 1771.1 8 1 4 The originals are also lost. 1 5 Letter from Melissino to Dashkova of April 15, 1784, quoted in Sukhomlinov’s Istoriia (7: 130- 131). 1 6 The first edition was printed in 1627; see footnote # 1 7 below. 1 7 Zizania’s and Belinda's works were o f South-West-Slavic origin and both for the first time gave the vernacular equivalents (Russian, Belorussion, and Ukrainian) o f OSC words. For details see V. V. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 Petr Alekseev’s Slovar’ tserkovnvi. 1773, played a major role in the composition of the AT and the SAR in general. This has been convincingly shown • 1Q by Sukhomlinov. The archpriest’s dictionary had been conceived as a reference work for Alekseev’s students at Moscow University, where he was teaching the catechism. It contained explanations of OCS words as well as encyclopedic entries on specific (mostly biblical) scenes or items. The full title was: Tserkovnvi slovar’ ili istolkovanie rechenii slavenskikh drevnikh, takozh inoiazychnykh. bez perevoda polozhennyh, v sviashchennom pisanii i drogikh tserkovnykh knigakh. It was first published at the Moscow university press in 1773 by the VRS, of which Alekseev had been a member. A second, considerably extended edition was published in 1794 in St. Petersburg. The Tserkovnvi slovar’ was an extremely useful source. Not only words but the corresponding explanations and references could conveniently be copied. Vinogradov’s article “Tolkovye slovari russkogo iazyka” in lazvk gazetv edited by N. I. Kondakov (Moscow: Gos. Izd-vo legkoi promyshlennosti, 1941) 353- 395, here 359-361. Even if the academicians did not use these first collections of genuinely Russian words, they influenced the SAR indirectly because other 18t h century lexicographers, including Polikarpov and Alekseev, worked with them in compiling their dictionaries. 1 8 The full title is: Rossiiskoi Tsellarius. ili Etimologicheskoi rossiiskoi leksikon. kupno s pribavlemem inostrannvh v rossiiskom iazvke vo upotreblenie priniatvkh slov. takozh s sokrashchennoiu rossiiskoiu etimologieiu. izdannyi magistrom Franstiskom Geltergofom, nemetskago iazyka lektorom v imp. Moskovskom universitete (Moskva: Pech. pri imp. Mosk. universitete, 1771). A second edition was published in 1778. (See V. P. Vomperskii, Slovari 43.) The German Franz Holterhof had also compiled a Nemetskii Tsellarius. 1765, and a Frantsuzskii Tsellarius. 1769. All these Tsellarii were named in honor o f or in reference to the “real” Tsellarius, i.e. Christophorus Zellarius’ Kratkoi latinskoi leksikon (1746) (see previous footnote). It is not clear to me whether the title Tsellariev leksikon listed by Fonvizin and Golenishchev-Kutuzov could have meant the Rossiiskii Tsellarius instead o f what I suggested here, the original Tsellarius, i.e. the Kratkoi latinskoi leksikon. which also included a list o f the Russian word translations in alphabetical order, compiled by Bogdanov. This is the same Bogdanov who had already started working on the first tolkovyi slovar ’ [explanatory dictionary] (i.e. the alleged Taubert collection). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 According to Vomperskii, it was the first “successful attempt at a semantic analysis of active Church Slavonic and Russian vocabulary in the written language” (Slovari, 47). It seems to have been the most important source for OCS words along with, perhaps, Polikarpov’s Trekh”iazvchnvi leksikon. Sukhomlinov concludes his detailed analysis of the book with the words: IfepKOBHWH cnoBapb AneicceeBa c flononHeHHHMH, cjteJiaHHHMH cbm m m a B T o p o M , cny^KHJi HacTOJibHOK) KHHroio y mm, npH H H M aB intH X ynacTHe b co cT aB /ieH H K a K a ^ e M H u e c K a ro c /r o B a p n . B od'bacHemm MHornx cnoB, b caM O M Bbidope n p n M e p O B h b ccbmicax Ha dndnehcKHe h c t o h h k h , h c h o odHapyacHBaeTCH B /ra a H H e n e p K O B H a ro oioB apa. [Alekseev’s Church Dictionary with additions, written by the author himself, served as reference book to the people who took part in the compilation of the academy dictionary. The influence of the Church Dictionary reveals itself clearly in the explanation of many words, in the very selection of examples [i.e. illustrative sentences] and in the references to biblical sources] (1: 341). However, not only are the similarities striking, but the differences in the interpretation of certain words are remarkable as well. For example, compare “epecb” [heresy] and “ e p e x n K ” [heretic]:2 0 Table 2: Comparison of Word Entries in Alekseev’s Church Dictionary vs. the SAR Alekseev’s Church Dictionary SAR Epecb - rpeu. x o / ik , yuenne. Rexh. V, 17 h XV, 5; I Kop. XI, 19. Ho Epecb - rpeu. JI>K H B oe TO/ncoBaHHe, npoTHBoyueHHe; M HeHHe npoTHBHoe 1 9 His chapter on the life and works of the Archpriest Alekseev (1: 280-343) includes a detailed description of this dictionary. 2 0 The example is fro m Sukhomlinov. An excellent historian, he refers to a great quantity o f sources, and, as I said earlier, quotes extensively. Mostly, however, he refrains from interpreting source texts. This holds with regard to the “heresy” entry: he juxtaposes the two quotes without commenting on the most interesting divergences in definition. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 Alekseev’s Church Dictionary SAR 6o7ihineii uacTH 6epercs sa Taxoe MyAposaHHe, Koxopoe nporaBHO npaBOc/iaBHK). [Heresy, Sect - Greek doctrine, teaching. Acts 5:17 and 15:5; I Corinth. 11:19. Mostly used for a philosophical trend that is opposed to orthodoxy.] HCTH H H O M y 6/iarouecTHio, 3a6ay>KAeHHe b florMarax Bepw. Bocrama H epw M o t epecn <j)apHceftCKHH: ffem i. XV, 5. [Heresy, Sect - Greek. False doctrine, anti-teaching; an opinion that is opposed to true piety, delusion in the dogmas of faith. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees. Acts 15:5] OTCioaa eperuK, c rpeu., 3HauHT neaoBeKa, Henocaeflyroiparo npaBOMy yueHHio. Tht. Ill, 10: epeTHKa ueaoBexa no nepBOM h B T O pOM H3Ka3aHHH O TpH IfaH C H . [Related to this: heretic/sectarian. From Greek, means a person who does not follow the right teaching. Tit. 3:10: A sectarian man, after rejecting a first and second 9 1 admonition.] OxcioAa epeTHK, c rpen., snanHT ueaoBerca, npOTHBHiipo-rcs H C T H H H O M y daarouecTio, 3a6/iy>KaaK)in;iiH b flomaxax Bepw, HenocneAyioru,aro npaBOMy yuenHK). Tht. Ill, 10: epeTHKa HeaoBexa no nepBOM h btopom H3Ka3aHHH O TpH U ,aH CH . [Related to this heretic/sectarian, from Greek, means a person who opposes the true piety, who is deluded in the dogmas of faith, who does not follow the right teaching. Tit. 3:10: A sectarian man, after rejecting a first and second admonition.] Compared to the archpriest’s objective definition the SAR’s is much more biased. Alekseev simply states that there is “ pravoslavie," “ pravoe uchenie” [orthodoxy] and beliefs that deviate from this “right” belief. In his explanation he focuses on the opposition of “pravoslavie” and “eres’.” The SAR, on the other hand, is very emotional and judgmental in its choice of words (“lzhivoe tolkovanie,” “istinnoe blagochestie,” “zabluzhdenie”) and lets its readers know that it condemns the “false” belief. At the same time the SAR seems to have avoided the word “pravoslavie.” Were the academicians, despite themselves, trying to come up with a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. definition that matched Catherine’s policy of religious liberalism? “Orthodoxy” in the sixties - officially at least - had been declared one of many possible religions in Russia.2 2 The SAR’s strongly biased wording, however, makes it very clear that the academicians were still condemning and opposed to any kind of “heresy.” Giving up Alekseev’s “pravoslavie” was thus compensated by an extremely emotional reaction to the “sectarian.” However, the fact that Alekseev’s wording in the dictionary is less biased than the SAR’s is no indicator of Alekseev’s tolerance. Quite the opposite is the case. He was indeed very much against all “heretics,” which included for him the Old Believers and even Orthodox monks. The SAR in this case acts as Alekseev’s mouthpiece: it translates and intensifies the archpriest’s views in a clearly biased way. Another important printed source of the SAR that the Academy frequently refers to in the minutes is the French Academy Dictionary. The academicians had access to all three editions of this dictionary: the first of 1694, the second of 1740, and the third of 1762.2 4 There is evidence that the dictionary’s precedent played an important role when it was decided to include the abstract words bytie [being, existence], prostranstvo [space], and vremia [time] (Sukhomlinov 8:164). It was also heavily exploited during the third phase: the definitions and sample phrases for 2 1 Translation from Young’s literal translation o f the Bible. 2 2 In the beginning of her reign Catherine had taken some “flashy” political actions, among which were “daB sie die Zwangsbekehrungen muslimischer und animistischer Untertanen einstellte sowie religiose Toleranz fur auslandische Siedler und altglaubige Exilanten zusicherte, die sich zur Riickkehr ins Russische Reich entschlossen” (Zemack 710.) 2 3 See Chapter 4 ’s section on religion. 2 4 Sukhomlinov demonstrates that the Russian Academy quotes from all three editions (8: 162-171). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 many words, especially abstract terms, were taken and translated directly from this source. The Academy’s attitude towards the French model, which had undeniably set high standards for all following generations of lexicographers, was partly imitative, but was also critical and independent, as can be seen from the following examples: Table 3: Comparison of Word Entries in the DAF vs. the SAR DAF SAR Tragedie: Piece de theatre qui offre une Action importante, des personnages Illustres, qui est propre a exciter la Terreur ou la pitie, et qui se termine Ordinairement par un evenement funeste. Composer, representer une tragedie. Cet acteur est admirable dans la tragedie. Les tragedies de Sophocle, d’Euripide, de Corneille, de Racine etc. Tragedie se dit figurement d’Un evenement funeste. 1 1 s’est passe d’horribles tragedies dans cette cour. 1 1 ’s’est joue, il s’est represente une sanglante tragedie a cette epoque. 1 1 est a craindre que cette affaire ne finisse par quelque tragedie.2 5 Tparennfl rpeu. 1) JlnpeAencTBeHHoe couHHeHHe mm npeAcraBaeHne saioiiouaiomee b cede KaKoe Hndyn,b BaacHoe Aeamie, npoH3xoflarn;ee Meacay 3HaMeHHTHM H ocodaMH, yAodHoe k B03dyacAeHHio CTpaxa nan coacajiemiH, h OKaHHHBaromeeca odwKHOBeHHO neuaabHbiM KaiatM HndyAb npoH3mecxBHeM. Commumb, npedcmaeumb mpazeduto. Tpazeduu CotfioKJioeu, Eepunudoeu, Kopwnueeu, PacuHoeu. 2) * HnorAa 3HannT: nenaabHoe Kaxo HndyAb npmonoHeHHe. C hhm acaaKaa cayunaacb rpareAna. (SAR 6: 235- 236.)2 6 2 5 This example is taken from the the seventh edition of the Dictionnaire de l’Academie franchise, Paris: Librairie de Firmin-Didot, 1878, 2: 872-873. It was the oldest edition available to me. However, as the striking resemblence o f the French and Russian entries show, it may safely be assumed that the entry had not been altered since the first editions o f the dictionary, available at the time to the compilers of the SAR. 2 6 [Tragedy, Greek 1) Theatrical work or presentation that deals with some important act, happening among illustrous personalities, prone to instill fear or compassion, and that usually has some unhappy ending. To write, show a tragedy. The tragedies o f Sophocles, Eurypides, Corneille, Racine. 2) *Sometimes it means: some unhappy event. A sad tragedy happened to him.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 DAF SAR Temps: La mesure du mouvement; ce qui mesure la duree des choses. Le temps coule. Le temps amene tout. C’est un homme qui ne connait pas le prix du temps. (1. -3. editions: 1694, 1740, 1762.) BpeMn: IIoc;ie,n,OBaHHe 6mtmm Beinen: BpeMM m enem . BpeMM see noznou^aem. npom edtuaeo epeueun eospam um b ne m o m h o . Oh He zuaem u,euu epeueHu.2 7 Ame: Ce qui est le principe de la vie dans les choses vivantes....L’ame est indivisible, spirituelle, immortelle. Les facultes de Fame ... Les passions de Fame... Aimer Dieu de toute son ame. Uyma: Boo6nt,e - ayx bjihhhhmh b Teno jKHBOTHoe. H pen e Eoz: da m eedem zeunM dyuiy M uey no pody HemeepOHoean u zadu. Bmt. I, 24. ... Jfyuia ecmb nepasdenuMa, HenpUHacmua cMepmu. Cnocodnocmu dymu. C m pacm u dyvuu. ntodum b Boza 6cew dytuofo. . . 2 8 Interesting points can be made comparing these entries. If the tragediia entry was merely translated and shortened, this is far from true for the other two examples: the vremia and dusha definitions were consciously altered to fit in with a Russian view of the world. For the French “time” is defined as a means of measuring duration, i.e. in their view it is a meta-term comparable to “hour” or “minute.” The approach is thus mathematically rationalistic. The Russians’ approach, in turn, is philosophical. They are interested in the nature of the phenomenon, not in its applicability. For them “time” is the sequence of states of being and thus one of the basic categories to describe the existence of matter. Comparing the definitions of “soul” in the two dictionaries is equally interesting. The French definition is 2 7 [Time: The consecutiveness in the existence o f matter: Time flows. Time absorbs everything. One cannot bring back time gone by. He does not know the price o f time.] 2 8 [Soul: Generally - the spirit poured into the a living body. And God saith, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing’ (Young’s literal Bible translation, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. strikingly neutral, tinted neither philosophically nor religiously. This may be explained by the fact that, as we know, religious themes were not allowed to be discussed at the French Academy. A neutral and short definition was the solution. The Russian definition, on the other hand, is completely embedded in the Christian tradition. Not only does it immediately evoke the pair of “body” and “soul” (dusha i telo; note that in the French definition this opposition is lost, for the word “corps” does not appear), but it also refers to the Christian dogma, by stating that “soul” is connected to “spirit” and the latter is “poured into the body.” This definition is followed by a quote from the beginning of Genesis. There is no doubt that “dusha” is first and foremost perceived in its religious context, and that the Christian definition of “life” is the only conceivable one and dominates the world view of the Russians in the eighteenth century despite all West European anti-religious trends. Indeed, the SAR’s definition of “life” complements the picture: )KH3Hb, 3HH. C. 3K . 1) CoCOHHHe, B KOTOpOM HaXQffUTCfl uenoBeK, Korfla A y n ia ero coeAHHena dbraaex c TenoM. ... [Life... noun, fem. 1) The state, in which man finds himself, when his soul is united with the body] (SAR 2: 1121). Whereas the French definition of “life” is as follows: Vie. s.f. L’etat des etres animes tantqu’ils ont en eux le principe des sensations et du mouvement.... (DAF 2: 937) In order to make the assembling and collating of words for the initial AT as efficient as possible, the work was organized as follows: on November 18,1783, the see online http://bible.gospelcom.net/) The soul is indivisible, immortal. The abilities o f the soul. The passions o f the soul. To love God with on e’ s whole soul.} with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. letters of the alphabet were distributed among 26 academy members. Each was asked to collate a list of words from the above mentioned initial sources for his/her letter. To this end, it seems, both the Lomonosov-Kondratovich and the Bogdanov- Taubert collections were unbound and handed out to members letter by letter, a procedure that most likely facilitated the loss of the originals. The complete list of who was responsible for which letter in this initial collection/collation phase has luckily survived to the present day. It is published on pages 11-12 of Sochineniia i perevodv izdavaemye imperatorskoiu rossiiskoiu Akademiieiu, chast’ H, (Sanktpeterburg 1806). The bold entries below are copied from this source and complemented by information, pulled together from all 8 volumes of Sukhomlinov’s Istoriia Rossiiskoi Akademii (regular print). Table 4: Overview of Academicians Participating in Collating Word Material from the Invisible Sources for the AT. arranged in alphabetical order by the letters for which they were responsible LETTER NAMES OF ACADEMICIANS COLLATING WORDS FROM INVISIBLE SOURCES FOR THE AT ADDITIONS BY: A Turchaninov, together with Soimonov, turned them in on December 16. Comments to last A-page by Shcherbatov, comments to A- words by Barsov, Bakunin, additions by Bogdanovich, and Catherine II. E Rzhevskii, turned them in on December 16. B Kniazhnin, turned in up to the word vol ’ nost ’ on December 16, 1783, the rest on January 23, 1784. The words were then immediately passed on to the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 LETTER NAMES OF ACADEMICIANS COLLATING WORDS FROM INVISIBLE SOURCES FOR THE AT ADDITIONS BY: Grammatical Section. r Golenishchev-Kutuzov, turned in on December 30,1783. In a letter he specifies that the collating was done from Kondratovich, Tsellarius, and Tserkovnyi leksikon et al. [Bogdanov- JTaubert he did not have at hand and suggests that they should be added. (Sukhomlinov, 7: 106). Comments and additions by Shcherbatov. D Pokorskii, not turned in by December 16. Also did etymological order and definitions. E Rumovskii, turned them in on December 16. Also put them into etymological order [?]. Definitions by Apollos (1786) and Grigor’ev. )K Krasovskii, turned them in on December 16. 3 Ozeretskovskii, not turned in by December 16. H,I Iankovich de Mirievo, turned them in on December 16. Additions by Gavriil Petrov K Fonvizin, turned in on January 22, 1784,2 9 Additions by Apollos and Gavriil Petrov JI Fonvizin, turned in on January 22, 1784. M Shchepot’ev, turned them in on December 16. H Isaev, turned them in on December 16. O Sidorovskii, turned them in on December 16. n Protasov. Eventually Protasov hardly participated. Instead the IT-words were assembled by Grigor’ev. p Nikitin and Suvorov. They dropped out and Lepekhin took over. c Kozodavlev, turned them in on December 16. 2 9 See Fonvizin’s letter to Dashkova o f that day. He explains that he had been sick and had therefore not been able to submit the letters earlier. Fonvizin, Sobranie Sochinenii, 2: 497-498. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 LETTER NAMES OF ACADEMICIANS COLLATING WORDS FROM INVISIBLE SOURCES FOR THE AT ADDITIONS BY: T Derzhavin, turned them in on December 16. y Leont’ev. He apparently dropped out, for Lepekhin did the collecting instead. In the first volume of the SAR. however, he is nevertheless listed as a collector of Y-words. < j > Bogdanovich, turned them in on December 16. X Leont’ev, not turned in by December 16, but apparently later (Sukhomlinov 7: 122) u Dashkova, turned them in on December 16. Kotel’nikov, turned them in on December 16. Many additions by unidentified others. m ,m Dashkova, turned them in on December 16. HTTj Lepekhin, did not turn them in by December 16. 3 Shuvalov, turned them in on December 16. 10 Stroganov, turned them in on December 16. X Ushakov, turned them in on December 16. 0 Lepekhin, did not turn them in on December 16. V Bakunin, turned them in on December 16. At the beginning of the project, the speed and efficiency of the academicians’ work is impressive. Of the 45 appointed members of the Russian Academy at the time (the remaining 15 members were yet to be elected), more than half immediately joined the task force. On December 16,1783, three months after the Academy was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 founded, the basic AT, collated from existing dictionaries, were already almost ready in manuscript form. Only 8 members of 26 had not turned in their letters at the end of that year. The composition of the group collating the hidden sources is also noteworthy in two respects. First, this “homework” kind of task was performed by persons of all ranks. Neither Princess Dashkova, nor Golenishchev-Kutuzov, nor Count Stroganov considered themselves too noble to perform what might be considered a scribe’s work. Yet a certain awareness of one’s own social value seems to have ruled the distribution in some cases, for the highest ranked members, perhaps suspiciously, volunteered for or were assigned to the rarest letters, like 3, K), v, which were gathered by Shuvalov, Stroganov, and Bakunin. Golenishchev-Kutuzov and Dashkova are the exceptions.3 0 Also important to note is that Metropolitan Gavriil and Tnnokentii Nechaev, who took a very active part in the making of the dictionary from the very beginning, had a supervisory function. They read and annotated the AT carefully, and the Academy turned to them for advice when problems arose. These two high-ranking churchmen were spared from copying words. Many writers who later lost interest in the project seemed very enthusiastic at the start: Rzhevskii, Kniazhnin, Fonvizin and Derzhavin all took on “large” letters 3 0 Golenishchev-Kutuzov, however, also makes it clear in his letter to Lepekhin, that excerpting from the General’naia Geoarafiia. as he had been asked to do, is beneath his dignity. He kindly but firmly explains: “H T a x n o K o p H O n p o u i y b c e M m c h h h 3 b h h h t b t c m naue, h t o w i n c e f i paboTM, kuk c o c r o f l m e f t H 3 o«Horo B b ib n p a H H f l H 3 k h h ™ n o n o p m u c y o i o b , flO B o m b H O 6 m 6 h j i o u e n o B e i c a , p a 3 y M e i o m a r o cmma h y M e i o i n a r o m icam ” [And therefore I k i n d l y ask you to excuse me, the more so, since for this k i n d Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 (B, B, K-JI, T). The same happened with a considerable group of clergymen. Isaev, Sidorovskii, and Pokorskii, who collated the words beginning with H, O, and D respectively from the various blind sources, dropped out after some time. On the other hand, the group of hard scientists, including those who were later considered editors of the SAR (namely Lepekhin and Rumovskii), were fully involved from the very beginning: Rumovskii compiled E-words for the AT, Lepekhin was responsible for the letters 0, t e >, P, y, KoteTnikov for H, Protasov for f l , while Ozeretskovskii T1 copied the 3-words. The priest Krasovskii also revealed himself to be a reliable participant from the very outset. Consistency in the working process and the considerable ‘wholeness’ of the SAR, as described in my second chapter, are due mainly to this last group of organized and diligent compilers and, of course, to the president Ekaterina Dashkova. At this point another logistical question arises with regard to the AT. Why did the academy not print the complete AT right then in the beginning of 1784, since the hidden sources had all been copied, excerpted and collated? The answer is that, prior to printing a letter of the AT, a first selection process took place: the words » • T9 from the manuscript AT lists were discussed one by one in the Academy meetings to determine whether they matched the criteria outlined in the dictionary plan. of work, consisting of simply gathering words one after another from a book, to have a person who understood the words and knew how to write would be sufficient] (Sukhomlinov 7: 105-106). 3 1 The very active scientists Inokhodtsev and Zakharov had not been elected yet. 3 2 This may be concluded from entries in the minutes o f the Academy meetings as published in Sochineniia i perevodv. such as on January 13, 1784: “IIpH utchhh oiob, c 6yKBM A HauHHaromnxca, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Remember, for example, that the A-words of the AT, printed in January 1784, had included personal and proper names (like Aleksei, Aliushka, Anna, Afrika, etc.), for the decision against listing them had not yet been taken (Sorokoletov 106; see also my chapter II). All subsequent printed AT omitted them. Before turning to the analysis of the “visible sources” (in chapter 4) we can now give the following definition of the AT: the printed AT are in essence an edited version of the first list of words assembled from hidden sources, i.e. existing word collections, whether published or unpublished. They also contain lexical material from other sources, the percentage of which is very hard to determine and varies from letter to letter. These additional sources are: 1) Unnamed sources. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, for example, writes in the letter he enclosed with his word lists, as quoted above already: C/ioBa win ananornuecKaro neKCHKona, HauHHaiornHHcn c 6yKBW T, ckojibko Mor a co6pan, H3 npnaiaHHOH KongpaTOBHueBOH, hs IfejmapHeBa h IfepKOBnaro jickchkohob, h OTBcioga, oxKyga mot, h npn ceM k BaM nocbraaio. [I collected as many words starting with the letter G as I could for the analogous dictionary, from Kondratovich’s dictionary, which was sent to me, from Zellarius’, as well the Church Dictionary, and also from wherever else I could; and I am enclosing them for you] 2) Miscellaneous collections of words, such as the “opisanie raznykh rasporiazhenii, do psovoi i sokolinoi okhoty kasaiushchikhsia,” submitted by Dashkova on January 30,1784, or Fonvizin’s list of hunting terms, submitted to the pa3cy>KflaeMo 6bmo o HMeHax npHjiaraTenBHbix.. [When reading the words that start with A, it was discussed that adjectives...] (2: 16-17). with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 Academy a week earlier. Another collection, especially noteworthy for its regionalisms, was donated to the Academy by Gavriil Petrov: “Codpamte o i o b , ynoTped/tneMbix npocTbiM napoflOM b ManopoccnH.” Whether the word material from these collections made it into the AT prior to printing, or whether they were added afterwards, I am unable to determine. Both lists with hunting terms came definitely too late to be considered for the AT of letter A. Most likely, the academicians incorporated this material in the AT of the subsequent letters. As to the handwritten incomplete dictionary of the VRS, however, we know that the lexical material was added only later, since the Moscow members used the printed AT to enter the missing words. 3) “Visible sources.” Here too, it is impossible for me to determine, without having studied the AT, at what point in time the visible sources were incorporated into the preliminary word lists. Most likely words from the chronicles, and church books, etc. were added to the AT prior to printing, if they were available to the Academy for the given letter. Sukhomlinov, who is the only one to describe the AT in some detail, points out that “pri nekotorykh slovakh ukazany istochniki, iz 3 3 Fonvizin to this e n d had interviewed Petr Ivanovich Panin u p o n Dashkova’s request. This is explained in Fonvizin’s letter of January 22, 1784, to the President: “Ha c h x « h h x H a r a e n h ero C H H T en b C T B O rpa<J)a I l e T p a H B a n o B H u a [namura] b p a c n o j i o x c e H H H y n o B n e T B Q p H T b x c e n a H H i o B a i n e i n y , MWiocTHBaa r o c y n a p M H H , o c o o d m e H K H b A i c a n e M j n o o x o t h h h b h x T e p M H H O B . k b y c e p f l H H M o e r o k y c n e x a M A x a f l e M H H B o c n o j i b 3 0 B a n c H h c h m c n y n a e M h T o r a a c n o n e r o g H K T a T y p o i o H a n n c a n c o d p a n n e T e x T e p M H H O B , c k o j i b k o o h B c n o M H H T B m o t . S f l e c B n p e n c x a B J i f l i o O H b ie pjm n O M e m e H n a b T e d y K B H a H a n o r H H e c K o i t T a d / r a n b i , x y n a xaxoe H a 3 B a n H e n p H H a n n e x c a x b M o x c e x . ” [Recently I found his highness Count Petr Ivanovich (Panin) disposed to satisfy your wish, dear Madam, to report to the Academy about hunting terms. Out of devotion to the success of the Academy I seized this opportunity and immediately wrote down, as he dictated, a collection of those terms, as many as he Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. kotorykh oni zaimstvovany” [with some words the sources from where they were taken are indicated]. We may therefore assume that the AT became more complete as the work was progressing, i.e. the letters at the end of the alphabet, submitted for print of the AT in 1787 or 1788, contained more words from visible sources than the AT of letter A, which, most likely, included only few words from sources other than the hidden ones. Although many works had been assigned to the academicians for lexical exploitation very early on, the members, for the most part, had not yet had the time to excerpt the books assigned to them. Fortunately, it is possible, to a certain extent, to reconstruct who excerpted which source texts in search for additional SAR vocabulary. A full list of all cited texts in the SAR is provided in Appendix 1. An interpretation and discussion of the quoted sources is provided in the Conclusion. Table 5: Overview of Who Excerpted Which Texts for the AT/SAR NAME OF TEXTS EXCERPTED FOR THE AT/SAR ACADEMICIAN Gavriil Besedv Ioanna Zlatousta Nikitin and Suvorov3 4 Irmolog and Oktoikh Grigor’ev Chet’i minei Pokorskii Grigorii Nazianzin Dankov Prolog Edanianeee Mineia nrazdnichnia, Damaskin o vere [?] Turchaninov (November 18, 1783) Dukhovnvi Margarit Sidorovskii Tsvetnoi triod’ could remember. I enclose these here to be added to those letters in the analogous tables, to which each given word belongs” (Fonvizin 2: 497). 3 4 They probably did not do the work. with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 151 NAME OF ACADEMICIAN TEXTS EXCERPTED FOR THE AT/SAR Verevkin (Dec. 1783) Sviashchennoe oisanie [Holy Scripture] Boltin Church books Alekseev Trudv vol’noeo rossiiskago sobraniia Desnitskii (started between October 21 and November 18, 1783)3 5 Sudebnik tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha, Ustav tsaria Ivana Vasil’evicha. Iaroslavova Pravda Shchepot’ev Legal documents issued under Catherine II Fonvizin (January 22, 1784) Letopisets Arkhangelogorodskii, hunting terminology, dat’ [to give] and derivatives Rumovskii Novgorodskii letopisets (vo vtorom tome prodolzheniia Drevniia Vivliofikf) Moscow branch under Melissino (with Shcherbatov and Boltin) Nestor Chronicle Derzhavin Lomonosov Bogdanovich Sumarokov; folklore words and sayings (narodnye slova i pogovorki) Derzhavin, Olenin Local and regional words (mestnye i oblastnye slova) Inokhodtsev Regional words (technical, ritual, tribal, industrial etc.) As I mentioned earlier, a fair amount of weeding and editing took place before the AT were sent to the press. However, the collecting and editing phases (phases II and III) were in fact closely interconnected. There is some indication, for example, that words were checked for grammatical inconsistencies before the joint selection process for the AT took place in the meetings. When Rniazhnin turned in the second half of his B-words on January 23,1784, the minutes record that they were immediately passed on to the Grammatikal ’ nyi otriad3 7 “dlia razsmotreniia.” fSochineniia i perevody 2: 18). This does not mean that the grammatical ’ nyi otriad 3 5 This is when he took on the tasks. We do not know when they were completed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 was providing the words with grammatical information in abbreviated form, such as indications of gender, number, cases, tenses etc., for most of the AT-words listed by Sukhomlinov do not carry such markers. “Razsmatrivat”’ most likely meant checking them in a most general sense, for example, making sure that verbs were listed in the first person singular of the present tense, or that the orthography was consistent, an issue that provoked lengthy discussions in the beginning of the 38 project. I will refrain from discussing the editing phase (phase III) in detail. The following facts will suffice to show that this difficult task was completed by the priests and scientists, under the guidance of the latter. TQ * From “Izvestiia o uprazhneniiakh Imperatorskoi Rossiiskoi Akademn” it appears that the editing started right after the first word lists had been compiled. Under “Zasedanie Genvaria 13” the minutes read: n p H uxenHH o i o b , c 6yKBH A HauHHaiomHxca, pa3cyacflaeMo 6buio, hto O He ynoTpeb/unoTai BecbMa uacro b yceuenHOM OKOHuarotH, KaK to: 3 6 Hunting terms (e.g., “hound” and “falcon”) are from Fonvizin’s interview with Panin, discussed in footnote 33 above. 3 7 Different otriady [detachments] were created during the editing phase (stage III). 3 8 The history of Russian spelling is interesting, but beyond the scope o f my study. Suffice it here to say that the Academicians based their rules on Lomonosov (Grammatika), who adhered to the orthography of church books. Considered were also a small handbook by Svetov, recommended by Dashkova (which I have not seen), and the orthography practiced by the writer Grigorii Vasil’evich Kozitskii. The latter’s writing was not compatible with Lomonosov’s orthography, especially regarding the letters Z and C in prefixes of compounds. Lomonosov would spell: sue/iaTb [zdelat’j, whereas Kozitskii spelled cue/iaTb [sdelat’], etc. For details see Sukhomlinov 1: 42, as well as his articles on Rumovskii, Krasovskii, and Sidorovskii (the latter two wrote a Russian grammar upon the Academy’s request, which was published in 1794), and the report on the “z”-“c” discussions during the Academy meetings in Sochineniia i perevodv (2: 24f). 3 9 This is the title o f the section in the serial Sochineniia i perevodv izdavaemve Imneratorskoiu Rossiiskoiu Akademieiu. part 1 and 2, containing a selection o f the minutes o f the academy meetings in 1783-1784. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 6nazopa3yMeH, dueen m npon. h HafifleHO HyacHHM npn K aacflO M hmchh npHaaraxeabHOM, cyry6oe oKOHuaHHe HMerorqeM, cxaBHTb 06a O K O H H aH H a x.e. no/moe h yceneHHoe, nanp. JJ[o6pbiu, an, oe, u ffo6p, a, o. [When the words that started with A were read, it was discussed that very often they were used in the short form, such as in blagorazumen, diven, etc. [reasonable, marvellous], and it was considered necessary to give both endings, i.e. the long and the short form, for all adjectives that have a full ending, for example Dobryi, iaia, oe, and Dobr, a, o. [good] (2:16- 17). Thus, screening the material, which most certainly included removing certain words from the raw list, seems to have involved teamwork, since the words were read and discussed one by one during the academy meetings. The more detailed editing, such as the arrangement in etymological order, writing the grammatical annotations and word definitions, as well as the final proof reading, was done by small groups or individuals selected or appointed to complete those tasks. To this end the academy created three divisions (otdely or otriady) during one of its first meetings: 1) the Grammatikal ’ nyi otdel, initially consisting of Leont’ev, Krasovskii, Isaev, Sidorovskii, Pokorskii, Grigor’ev, and Iankovich de Mirievo, was responsible for “vse grammaticheskiia nad slovami primechaniia” [all grammatical annotations]. Note that all five priests of this group had been appointed members of the academy upon Gavriil’s suggestion, especially for the purpose of working on grammatical questions (see chapter I). And, indeed, in the long run only the priests participated in solving grammatical problems. Iankovich de Mirievo only contributed in the very beginning by submitting a memorandum regarding which and how many letters of the alphabet should be included in the dictionary. Later he was too busy with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. educational reforms and the writing and adapting of textbooks and primers, an assignment given to him by Catherine the Great. Similarly, there is no evidence of Leont’ev’s or Isaev’s having taken part in the grammatical work on the dictionary, despite their initial appointment to this group. In addition to the members appointed in the very beginning of the project, other academicians of the clergy contributed to solving grammatical problems over the years. From Sukhomlinov and “Izvestiia” we can extract very specific information on what the different members were working on. Archpriest Krasovskii was asked to establish a rule for the use of “s” or “z” in prefixes of compound verbs followed by voiced or unvoiced consonants. At the time the variants zdelaf /sdelat’, zdirat’/sdirat’ etc. were both in use (Sochineniia i perevodv 2: 24-25). Kozodavlev commented on this problem in writing. Based on Smotritskii’s and Lomonosov’s grammars, the priest Sidorovskii started writing a grammar of the Slaveno-Russian language for the Academy. In 1786 this task was taken over by Apollos, who also used Barsov’s work to complete the assignment. His grammar was published in 1794, the same year the SAR’s last volume appeared. Dashkova appointed the priests Pokorskii and Grigor’ev to determine the orthographic rules for the SAR. Those were later checked by Lepekhin, Rumovskii, Boltin, and hmokentii Polianskii. Pokorskii was further asked to come up with grammatical rules for repetitive verbs. permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 Other academicians working on grammatical problems, without being considered members of the grammaticheskii otdel, were Gavriil and Pavel Ponomarev, who both compiled lists of words, arranged by number of syllables, in order to establish accent rules. This project proved unsuccessful and was later dropped. Finally, neither from Sukhomlinov nor from the “Izvestiia” it is clear who eventually wrote the grammatical annotations for the dictionary. We can only assume that the most active members of the grammatical division indeed took on the job. 2) the Ob ’’iasnitel ’ nyi otdel [explanatory division] initially consisted of Dashkova, Rumovskii, Lepekhin, Kotel’nikov, Protasov, Ozeretskovskii and Kniazhnin. These academicians had the responsibility to explain special terminology included in the SAR from the sciences, arts, crafts, industry, etc. Here, work was distributed according to the members’ specialties. Thus, on October 5, 1784, it was decided that Rumovskii would explain astronomic terms, Lepekhin - terms of the natural sciences, fishing and animal industry, Kotel’nikov - terms of measure, weight and currency, Protasov - words regarding anatomy and book printing, Shchepot’ev - words used in the arts and crafts, Ozeretskovskii - illnesses and medical terms, and Sokolov, who had joined the division in the meantime, - pharmaceutical and chemical terms. From the minutes we learn that the ob ’iasnitel’ nyi otdel met separately to discuss particular problems: “Sobraniem opredeleno uchredit’ osobyj otdel iz G. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chlenov, kotoryi potom imeia pervoe svoe sobranie togo zhe Oktiabria 31 go dnia ...” [At the meeting it was determined to create a special division of members, which would have its first meeting later on the same October 31] (Sochineniia i perevodv 2:29). This leads us to the assumption that the other divisions may also have met at their own convenience, independently from the general Academy meetings. Over the years, the active members of this division changed. From Sukhomlinov, who, as I pointed out earlier, consulted not only the “Izvestiia,” but the holograph manuscripts in the archives of the Academy of Sciences, I extracted additional information regarding academicians who contributed to the work of the Explanatory Division: Table 6: Overview of Academicians Contributing to the Work of the Explanatory Devision and their Respective Responsibilities NAME OF RESPOSIBILITIES ACADEMICIAN Dashkova Moral qualities (druzhha, dobrodetel ’ nyi chelovek, zadumchivost ’ , blagodarnost" ) Gavriil Head of the division Inokhodtsev Although not officially member of the division, he explained mathematical words Kotel’nikov, and, Terms of measure, weight and currency Khvostov “ Kaizer, ” “ flag” Krasovskii Difficult words and Biblical words, for example “ikos” Lepekhin Terms of the natural sciences, fishing, and animal industry Malgin Legal terms and ancient words Musin-Pushkin Although not in this division, he explained ancient words, such as dumnyi d ’ iak, dumnyj dvorianin, zadnitsa (star.), molits, souzy Olenin Although not officially part of the division, he explained “mnogife] voenn[ye] russkfie] starinn[ye] rechenfiia]” [many Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 NAME OF ACADEMICIAN RESPOSIBILITIES old Russian military terms] on top of collecting words from the arts, industries and crafts (Sukhomlinov 7: 152) Ozeretskovskii - illnesses and medical terms Illnesses and medical terms Protasov Words regarding anatomy and book printing Rumovskii Astronomic terms Shchepot’ev Words used in the arts and crafts, also metaphysics Shcherbatov Although not officially in this division, he explained ancient words like 6axxepu,bi, dangaHbi, dyxypnbiKH (m s paxHoro ycxasa), opramca, Bupa, b o x o j m h m h . The academicians suggested that he go to the oruzheinaia palata, to find out about and define certain ancient arms (Sukhomlinov 7: 138). Sidorovskii Various words; Greek words used in ecclasiastical books in the figurative sense were removed from the first draft. Important: Sidorovskii’s definition of “angel” was used as a sample definition for all other words. Sokolov Pharmaceutical and chemical terms 3) the Izdatel ’ nyi otdel [editing division] initially consisted of Golenishchev- Kutuzov, Derzhavin, Kozodavlev, Nikitin, Suvorov, Shchepot’ev, and Bogdanovich. However, the active participants here too changed over time. One eventually fmds the scientists Lepekhin, Rumovskii, Ozeretskovskii and Inokhodtsev taking over. Various other subdivisions were established in the eighties, namely a Tekhnicheskii otriad [technical division] in 1784 with Rumovskii and Lepekhin, a Slovoproizvodnyi otriad [Etymological division] (unknown when) with Rumovskii, Lepekhin and Inokhodtsev,4 0 and the Obshchii otriad [General division] in 1785- 1786 (?) with Rumovskii, Kotel’nikov, Protasov, Sokolov, Inokhodtsev, Boltin et al. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 This last group, according to Lepekhin, formed the most effective otriad after some time (Sukhomlinov 3: 113). There also temporarily existed an Oblastnyi otriad [Regional division]. Created to check the list of regional words, supplied by Chelishchev to the Academy, it was staffed by Rumovskii and two other members. From this list alone it is clear that that the editing and publishing of the dictionary concentrated more and more in the hands of a few individuals, namely the scientists Rumovskii and Lepekhin, whom Sukhomlinov also calls the editors of the SAR. Only thanks to their efforts and the help of a small group of priests did the enterprise come to a successful end in 1794. 4 0 The task of arranging the words of the AT in an etymological order, i.e. organized by root and not in a purely alphabetical way, was also carried out in part by the priests Sidorovskii and Pokorskii. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 CHAPTER IV RUSSIAN NATIONAL AND IMPERIAL CONSCIOUSNESS: EVALUATING THE DICTIONARY’S ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL The dictionary’s illustrative material, as I pointed out in chapter 2, represents the most “readable” part of the dictionary. In this part of the word entry the dictionary opens up to the outside world; ideas, names, opinions, beliefs, etc., relevant to the dictionary’s compilers are explicitly spelled out. The more technical aspects of lexicography, such as orthography, grammatical features, and precision of definition are relegated to the background.1 Thus, the illustrative sentences are a rich source of cultural information calling for interpretation. The illustrative material is formally divided into two different types: the self composed (invented) sentences and the quotations. One to two sixths of the SAR’s entry words are illustrated with sentences composed by the academicians themselves, and only one sixth, i.e. roughly 7400 dictionary words, are illustrated 2 3 with sentences from authoritative texts. The majority of the SAR’s 43,257 entry 1 Definitions, of course, also leave the compilers some freedom and reveal spheres of interest. However, the semantic value of a given word and its definition should ideally be about equal, whereas in the illustrative sentences the entry word constitutes only a subordinate part of the semantic whole of the sentence. 2 One has to also keep in mind that several quotes are frequently clustered under one word in different meanings, or even compiled to illustrate one meaning. This is particularly the case with biblical quotes. The noun “yd u u cm eo ” [murder], for example, is illustrated with three citations from the Bible and explained as follows: “C k jio h h o ctb , ace/iaHHe, cnocofi k yfiueHino, yM epm B nem no. H cn o m em i 3aeucmu u y6u u cm ea. K Phm; XI: 29 [sic]. YQuucmeoM M enayM pouia. K Enp. XI: 37. Caen otce eufe dbixan npeufenueM uySuucm eoM . R e m . IX: 7 [sic].” [Inclination, disposition, ablity to murder, kill. F ull o f envy, m urder. Romans 1:29. They w ere slain with the sw o rd . Hebrews 11:37. A n d Saul, y e t breathing ou t threatenings a n d slaughter. Acts 9:1.] The number o f quotations is therefore larger than the number o f entry words illustrated by quotations. There are also many examples of mixed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 words (according to my calculations about three- to four-sixths of the words listed), however, do not have an illustrative sentence at all. In part, this is due to the fact that closely related derivatives, which in a modem dictionary would not have been assigned a special entry (such as participles, or other words formed with the help of productive suffixes) are often listed separately in the SAR. The definitions of these words are naturally very brief, lacking further illustration and refer to the primary word. Here are two examples: Bepcmcmue, hhji. C. Cp. fleftcTBHe Bepcxaromaro. [Making-up into a page... Act of the person who makes up a page.] Or: Ceepznymbiu, Tax, xoe. CeepotceHHbiu, h h u x , HHoe. HpHji. C6pomeHH&iH, H H SjioxceH HH H . [Thrown down ... Adj. Tossed, cast down.]4 Graphically, throughout the SAR the illustrative material — both quoted and self-composed — is set off in italics. To make sure that the difference between self- composed and quoted illustrative sentences is clear, I will give an example. In the following word entry we find self-composed illustrative sentences under all 6 numbers. They are highlighted in italics. The quotations that stem from the Bible (under 2), and the Sobesednik (under 3) are highlighted in bold italics: illustration, where an entry word is illustrated by both a quoted and a non-quoted example. I did not list these entry words separately, but simply counted them as illustrated by quotations. In my statistics there is therefore a slight bias in favor of the quotations. All o f the entry words that refer to an authoritative (and identified) text are listed in the appendices under the name of that source text. There are 7400 quotations in the SAR. This number, compared to the 116,000 quotations in Johnson’s Dictionary, is not high. (See Robert DeMaria, Johnson’s Dictionary and the Language of Learning. University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1986, 17.) In order to get an approximate idea of how the quotations relate to the total amount o f word entries I divided the total number o f entry words, 43,257, by 7400 quotations, yielding about 1/6 or 16%. 3 This is according to V. V. Vinogradov, “Russkaia nauka o russkom literatumom iazyke,” Rol’ russkoi nauki v razvitii mirovoi nauki i kulturv. vol. 3, kn. [book] 1, Uchenye zapiski Moskovkogo gusudarstvennogo universiteta 106 (Moscow: 1946), 36. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 Tano h TaK. [So, thus] Hap. 1) I1oao6ho, paBHO. [Similarly, equally] Jlenocmb u npasduocmb pa3CJia6jiHiom xax dyiuy, max u meno. [Idleness and inactivity weaken both the soul and the body] 2) Chm oSpasoM [This way]. Tohho mm comeopwi ecu m am . Phm. IX. 20 [Why hast thou made me thus? Romans 9:20]. Euy man cko30ho 6ujio. Burrow naua/i ceoio pem maK. [He was told so. The poet began his speech thus] 3) Hcthhho, cnpaBefljiHso, nonjBep^HTejibHO. [True, just, affirmative.] JIumb cKUdKem kmo m 6ap: yueuue ecmt epedno, Heeexcecmeo odno nojiesuo u desSedno; Tym ece hokjiohmmcm uyMuou u dypan, H cmwcym H ecm w dncb: kowhho, cydapb mate CodeceflH. h. 1 [As soon as some gentleman says: studying is bad, Ignorance alone is useful and comfortable, Immediately everybody, both the clever and the fool, Bow and say without shame: o f course, mylord, that's true.] On moHuo max aoeopun. [He spoke just like that] 4) Ctojib [so much]. Tax cuRbuo ydapim , nmo c6wi c nos. [He hit so hard, that he knocked him down.] 5) B npocTOpeuHn: a) /napoM, 6es njiaT& i. Hnocobnm eMy, padomcui na ueeo m ax. [In colloquial speech: a) gratis, without pay. I h elp ed him out, w o rk ed f o r him w ithout p a y .] 6) Ee3 HaMepeHna, ne pa3M HCJia. H m ax cue cxa3cui. [6) Without purpose, without thinking. I s a id this ju s t like that.] Rarely is a quote not identified in the SAR, as is, for example, the quote from Ivan Iv. Shuvalov under “Vitiia” [Poet]: “Mocxoecxuu sdecb Ilapnacc u3o6pa3m eumutoE [The Moscow Pamass represented the poet here.]5 Regarding the topics chosen by the compilers, the self-composed sentences show a much greater variety than the quoted material. They reflect the academicians’ wide range of interests, including foreign cultures (especially ancient Greek and Roman history and letters), morality, the conversational language, and the sciences. 4 This refers back to the word entry of “CBEPFAK), enib, Beprayji, nepra, ran., Beprayrb” [I throw down]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 These spheres of reference, while very common in the self-composed sentences, are almost completely absent in the quoted material. The quoted material, on the other hand, clearly focuses on topics of national interest: Orthodoxy, Russian history, topography, literature, and legislation. This is an interesting fact, for it proves that there is a programmatic side to the dictionary. The academicians make a political statement by consciously shaping the dictionary’s content through the texts quoted, which all refer to the Russian State and Nation. These same ‘patriotic1 topics (religious belief, literature, history, legislation, and topography of Russia) also appear in the self-composed sentences. Thus, national consciousness and the Russian empire form the ideological cornerstones of the SAR. In the following I will elaborate on this observation in more detail. 1. Self-Composed Sentences: Formal Characteristics and the Academicians’ Educational Background. Although the primary goal in the present chapter is a thematic analysis of the illustrative material, it is also necessary to draw attention to some formal aspects of the self-composed sentences. Grammatically they divide into three main groups: text fragments, affirmative propositions (3rd person), and conversational or dialogical (2n d person) sentences. 5 Identified by Sukhomlinov. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 The text fragments are mostly infinitive or nominal phrases. These are typical dictionary ‘phrases’ that illustrate just the immediate surroundings of the word in question, both semantic and grammatical. Here are a few examples: • TocKosaTfc b acecT O K O H nenajin. [To be in severe sorrow, lit: to be sad in severe sorrow.] • flpoH K H VTB Hupeh, napbm, nysbipb. [To puncture a boil, an abscess, a bubble.] • CnaSocxB, He^ocxaTKH nejioBenecxBa. [Weakness, insufficiencies, (i.e. imperfection) o f humankind] • <f>HJiococ|)HqecKoe pascyxcneHne. [Philosophical reasoning or treatise] • Chjibhbih Tocynapb. CnjiBHoe TocyuapcTBO. [Powerful Ruler. Powerful State] • Iloxofl ahopa b MocKBy. [The journey / march of the court to Moscow] • Honaxb noHomeHHe b CenaT. [To submit a relation to the Senate] • IfojiO TH Q ApxanrejioropoACKoe, rojiJianncKoe. [Linen from Arkhangelsk, Holland] In the thematic analysis below, this material will be united with the second group of self-composed sentences, namely the affirmative propositions, for, just like the latter the text splinters often contain the same valuable cultural information, especially when referring to proper names or important events (see the examples above: Gosudar’, Senat, Moskva, Gollandskoe polotno.) The affirmative propositions (second group) are marked by a verb in the third person singular or plural. As to the mode of expression these sentences range from neutral statements to arbitrary and moralizing sententious maxims. For example: neutral: • K a< J)T aH b pyxasax ysox. [The coat is narrow in the sleeves.] • PaspffApnm nesecxy k Benny. [The bride was dressed for the wedding.] • HssecTKOBbie seMJin Bcacbisaiox BJiancHocxb. [Lime soils absorb humidity.] arbitrary: • PocKomr, ecTb cjiencxBne a nnorna hbxouhhk noBpeacneHiM npaBOB. PocKomb nanennK) rocynapcxBa 6bmaex npH H H H O io. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 Pockoihb npoH 3BO AH T noporoBHSHy. [Luxury is a consequence and sometimes a cause of the corruption of morals. Luxury can sometimes be the cause of the fall of the state. Luxury causes inflation.] • EcTecTBeHHOH nonr ecxt Maxepn kopmhtb cumoh rpvn& K ) nano C Boe. [It is a mother’s natural duty to nurse her child with her own breast.] • floXBaJIbHO COnpO TH BJIflTBCg CTpaC TH M C B O H M . [It IS praiseworthy to resist one’s passions.] Since, as we know, proper names were, according to the dictionary plan, excluded from the pool of entry words (the SAR was conceived as a language dictionary, not an encyclopedia) mentions of specific places, people, events, etc., are especially interesting: • flerp I 6mji ocnoBaxenb C: nexep6ypra. [Peter I was the founder of St.Petersburg.] • Ox CaHKxnexepfiypra no Mockbbi cwraexca 730 Bepcx. [The distance from St. Petersburg to Moscow equals 730 versts.] • IOjihh Kecapb vcbihobhji no ce6e BHyxa cBoero OKxaBnaHa ABrycxa. [Julius Caesar adopted his grandson Octavian Augustus.] All of these sentences contain valuable information on the tempora and mores of society under Catherine the Great. They tell us about the current moral tenets and what the standard references were at the time: Peter the Great, the two Russian capitals, Caesar, Octavian, etc. The third group of invented illustrative sentences is marked by the “conversational” style, i.e. these sentences frequently involve an imagined interlocutor. In terms of grammar, this is manifested in the frequent use of second- person personal pronouns (ty, vy, tebe, vas, etc.), imperatives, or second/first person Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 verb forms. The sentences seem to be recording spontaneous conversational speech. Here are some examples: • R yxce ao xefia no6epycg: xor^a pacKaemtcH j\a iiosaho. [When I finally get you, you’ll repent, but it will be too late.] • Oh MHoro o xe6e Mne t o b o p h j i . . . . Hxo bh hh roBopnxe, ofleaico a Bac He cjiyraaio. ... a saM scerfla roBapHBan, uxo6 bbi cero ocxeperamicB. Te6e h x o hh roBopn, x b i HHuero He yBaacaeuxb. R BcauecKH cxapajica 3a Hero roBopnxb h onpaBAaxt ero.6 [He told me a lot about you ... Whatever you [may] say, I’m not listening to you anyway. ...I always told you, you should be beware of that. Whatever one tells you, you have no respect for anything. I tried hard to speak in his favor and to justify him.] • He C B K 3biB aH C fl c hhm; oh xe6a 3aroBopHX. ... [Don’t talk to him; he will not let you say a word.] • nepecxaHb Bpaxb, xbi saroBapHBaxbca nauHHaenib. TOBopn m H e 3aroBapHBanca. [Stop lying: You are talking nonsense. Talk but don’t start rambling.] • M em b xy nopy He 6t>mo A Q M a. [I was not home at that time.] These conversational illustrations are very similar in style to the illustrations in the French Academy Dictionary. In the DAF dialogical sentences such as these abound: “De quoi parlez-vous? Nous parlions de vos affaires. ... Oh! ne m ’en parlez pas.” It does not come as a surprise that the French dictionary, which was based on Vaugelas’ linguistic program, i.e. a program explicitly focusing on the spoken language of the court,7 chooses direct speech to illustrate the meaning of words. This same procedure, however, is a striking feature in the Russian Academy Dictionary, which is so very bookish in its choice of sentences from authoritative authors. (See the chapter on language and the discussion of the quoted material 6 Note that Ozhegov, for example, uses this conversational second/first person style in his illustrations only very sparingly! 7 See Vaugelas’ famous phrase: “C’est veritablement celuy [l’usage], que l’on nomme le Maistre des langues, celuy qu’il faut suivre pour bien parler, & pour bien escrire...” For the connections between Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 below.) This similarity in linguistic attitude indicates once again, as I have pointed out already, that the French Academy Dictionary was the Russian Academy’s nastol ’ naia kniga... The DAF was always consulted before a word entry was written. Many word definitions and many ideas were clearly taken from the French model text. The following example is one of many and will suffice to prove my point: PARLER ... L ’ homme est la seule creature qui ait veritablement le don de parler. Un enfant qui commence a parler, qui ne sait pas encore parler. Ce malade est a I ’ extremite, il ne parle plus. ... II se dit, en ce sens, de certains oiseaux qui imitent le language de 1 ’homme, comme les perroquets, les sansonnets, les geais, les pies etc. Apprendre a parler a un perroquet. Un oiseau qui commence a parler. ... (DAF, vol. 2, p. 350-351) FOBOPK) ... Mfiadeneif zoeopumb Hanmaem. Om mnoKKOu 6one3Hu zoeopmb ne Mootcem. ... B ceM CM Bicne ynoTpeSjraeTca rn. ceii Tax ace roBOpa o HSBecxH M X nraqax, KaxoBfcie cyn. IIonyraH, copoxa, CKBopen, h np: HMeromnx cnocodHocTB B& ipaacaTt HexoTopBia nejiOBenecKHa penn. Ynumb nonyzaM zoeopumb. Cxeopeq zoeopumb Hauunaem. ...(CAP, vol. 2, column 141)8 This does not mean, however, that the DAF was blindly translated. Quite the contrary was the case. The definitions and examples were carefully adapted to fit Russian reality or the academicians’ worldview. That the academicians were working closely with the DAF all along, while at the same time adjusting its content for their own purposes, is also confirmed by Sukhomlinov in his account of Dashkova’s contributions to the SAR. The president of the Academy took on the assignment of defining words of moral content, such as “druzhba” [friendship], Vaugelas, who was one of the French academicians, and the DAF. see Bernard Quemada’s Les Prefaces (13f). 8 I SPEAK. ... The baby starts speaking. He cannot speak due to his severe illness. ...In this sense this verb is also used with regard to certain birds, which are the parrot, the magpie, the starling and others that have the ability to pronounce certain human expressions. To teach a parrot to speak. The starling starts speaking.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 “dobrodetel’nyi chelovek” [virtuous person], etc. The minutes of the Russian Academy meetings document in great detail that Dashkova was not satisfied with the definitions of “amitie” in both the DAF and the Encyclopedic, and quoted her own lengthy definition, which was eventually used - in a considerably shortened form - in the SAR (Sukhomlinov 1:42-44). Instead of the bleak French “Affection que Ton a pour quelqu’un, et qui d’ordinaire est mutuelle” Dashkova gives a much more emotional definition of friendship [druzhba]. She sets the standards very high in declaring that “BsaHMHaa jnofioBt na HCKpenneM noHTeHHH, coBepmeHHon AOBepeHHOCTH, C X O T tC T B e HpaBOB H Ha O /U H H U K H X npaBHJiaX H eC TH O C TH ocHOBaHHaa.” [Mutual love, based on sincere respect for one another other, complete trust, similar morals and manners, and equal rules of honesty] (SAR 2: 768).9 One should also keep in mind that in 1773 the Obshchestvo staraiushcheesia o perevode inostrannykh knig had made an attempt to translate the DAF into Russian. The dictionary had been one of the first items on its list of books to be translated (1:376). However, the project was soon abandoned: only letter A ever appeared in print. Later, at Dashkova’s initiative, the scheme was launched again under the auspices of the Russian Academy. This time the work was completed successfully. In 1786 - during work on the SAR - both volumes of the DAF were printed. The title page gives a certain “sobranie uchenykh liudei” [a group of learned people] 9 Sukhomlinov suggests that this declaration on the importance on loyalty in friendship was addressed to Cathereine II who had once betrayed their “friendship.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 credit for the translation (Vomperskii, Slovari 70).1 0 Thus the translation of the DAF can be seen as a by-product of the work on the SAR, or perhaps the other way around... No wonder the two dictionaries have very much in common. Yet the differences between them are for the most part telling and open a window on Russia’s view of the world in the 18th century. 2. Illustrative phrases and affirmative propositions: A Thematic Analysis Among the self-composed, affirmative sentences and text splinters the following subject headings stand out as major themes:1 1 1) Everyday life routines and realities, including sentences of very general nature; 2) Church, religion, and the Bible; 3) Classical Roman and Greek language, culture, and mythology, often in conjuction with Lomonosov as the Russian equivalent; 4) Russian history and the czars, especially Peter I and Catherine II; 5) Russian and foreign geography and topography; and 6) Science and scientific discourse. 1 0 Vomperskii also identifies LI. Tatishchev, who was not a member o f the Academy, as the translator of the 2nd volume. That Dashkova and Tatishchev did undertake the translation seems to have been a known fact. In his memoirs Istinnoe povestvovanie ili zhizn’ Gavrila Dobrynina, im samim pisannaia Isicl v Mogileve i v Vitebske G. I. Dobrynin cites a short polemical and anonymous poem, that refers to the translation o f the DAF into Russian: “®paHity3CK0fi jieiccH K O H nsa T O M a cocTaBJiaei/H copoK H e n o B e K x p y f lH J iH c a nojiBeica./ P o c c h h c k o h j i c k c h k o h b ana ro^a nocneBaer/ H T p y n a T c a H a n h u m A B a t o j i b k o uenoBeKa./ PoccnsHKa o ^ H a h h o j i b c k o M x c h h o b h h . . . “ [The French dictionary consists of two volumes/And fourty people worked on it for half a century/The Russian dictionary is done in two years/And only two people work on it/One Russian lady and a Polish Jew (i.e. Dashkova and Tatishchev)] (275). An interesting point about the verse is that the author does not distinguish between the SAR in progress (the real equivalent of the DAF) and the translation o f the DAF into Russian. 1 1 The sentences I chose to excerpted from the self-composed illustrative material were at first chosen at random, as a by-product of my systematic compilation o f quotations. While I was compiling quotations, I took note of any exceptionally informative sentences, which either included proper names, or were very arbitrary and dogmatic. My findings from these random notes were later confirmed by a quantitatively limited, but systematic, testing o f self-composed sentences throughout. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 2.1 Everyday Routines Examples evoking everyday routines and realities are the most common illustrative material. Very often they appear in form o f text fragments. Here I list phrases from the beginning of volume IV: • MarasHH xjiedHoft, /tpOBjntoft, khhxchoh. [Bread, firewood, book storage] • OS^ejiaHHOH, onpaBJieHHoft Mamax. [A framed, mounted magnet] • Kynnxi. M aeT H Q C T B . MaexnocxB npHBOJitnaa JiecoM, JiyraM H. [To buy an estate. An estate rich with forest, meadows] • M aeTHQCTHaa oicpyra. [The land surroimding an estate] • Ma3aTB KOJieca canoM. [To grease wheels with lard] • Ma3anHe ctojiob mucjiom. [Smearing tables with butter] • Ma3aHBie canoM K O Jieca. MamH&ie nnraoio aombi. [Wheels greased with lard. Houses smeared with clay] • ^errapnaa MasHjnca. [Tar smear] • BMa3aTB BBioniKy b xpySy. BMajaxB H3pa3eu. BMa3aTB cxeKjio b O K O H H H H y. [To install a damper into the chimney-flue (using plaster, cement or clay). To lay tiles (using plaster or clay). To install a window into the frame (using plaster).] • BBiM a3axB KpoBjno, 3a6op KpacKoio. BuiMasaxB neuB xjihhoio BBiM a3axB xeao M a3B K > . [To fully paint the roof, fence. To coat a fireplace with clay....] • BBiMa3axB Koacy MacaoM. BBiMa3axB KOJieca aerreM.. U[eiioH ropinoK KpacKH BBiMa3aji. [To treat leather with oil. To smear wheels with tar. I/he used up a whole pot o f paint.] • 3aMa3axB mean Ha cxene. [To caulk cracks in the wall.] • B nnaBJieHHBix neuax cnycKH 3aMa3Bisaioxcg tjihhoio. [The outlets o f smelting furnaces are coated with clay.] • IIonMas&iBaxE. noflMa3ax& o6oh. [To apply paste to the underside of wallpaper.] • Pa3Ma3H3 nmoHHaa; rpeuHeBaa. [Millet, buckwheat mush.] • CMa3axB bhhx M acjiO M . [To grease a screw with oil.] • 3xo He npsMBie sxohxbi, ho cm33hh. [These are not genuine, but fake precious stones.] • HrpaxB MasoM [To play with the cue], etc. the dictionary. This procedure of establishing focal points o f interest, or attributing “subject headings” is common in the bibliographic and archival sciences. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 These sentences are valuable from an anthropological point of view. 20th century readers are offered a glimpse of a distant world that very directly, almost palpably, manifests itself in the details: The furniture almost smells of the oil it is treated with; the walls have fissures that are caulked; fireplaces are coated with clay; wheels of wagons and carriages are greased with lard. For the modem reader this is a field trip into the 18th century. In contrast to these sentences the “general” sentences lack the special flair of the time. They are very frequent, too, but less interesting: • IIoMaBaTejiBHfcie 3H aK H . [Beckoning] • IlepBoe h h c j i o Mana. B Konpe Mas. [sic] [The first day of May. At the end of May] • M aaH V T b k h c t l i o . [To dab with a brush] 2.2 Religion Very common are illustrative self-composed sentences relating to the religious sphere. The general tone is ~ and this is to no surprise — Christian, and more specifically Orthodox. However, against this background two distinct voices make themselves heard. On the one hand, there is Catherine’s enlightened voice of religious tolerance, while on the other there is the traditional voice of the Orthodox Church, unwilling to concede freedom of religion, especially to the Old Believers, whom the Orthodox considered heretics. The sentences revealing the point of view of the Orthodox conservatives are extremely emotional, whereas the ones written in favor of religious liberalism are sober and politically correct. The SAR thus Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 captures and reflects in condensed form extremely touchy political issues. In touching on the complicated relationship between the Government and the Church with regard to the status of the Old Believers, it carries an important imprint of its time. This is one of the most interesting findings of the present analysis. In the following I will carefully analyze this political conflict, using the SAR’s illustrative sentences. General Christian beliefs and dogmatic tenets are found everywhere in the pages of the dictionary. Together with sentences containing more explicitly Orthodox views they form the religious background o f the SAR: • Bor BcecHJitHHM MaHOBemeM ynpaBJiaex ne6o, seM Jiro h Mope. [With an omnipotent gesture God rules over the sky, earth and sea.] • Bca npnpoja nponoBe/tyex hum dtiTHe Boacne. [Everything in nature tells us about the presence o f God.] • BcecHJitHaa aecnnpa Boacna. BcecHjibHbiH npoMBicji. [The omnipotent right hand of God. The most powerful providence.] • Mnjiocep^HH TBoero Tocnomi, H eH 3CJieitH M aa nynnna. CyflbSti h H aMepenna Bo t t o m H eK 3CJie;m M Bi. (under HerocjieflOBaHHHH) [The grace of your Lord is an inscrutable sea. The fates and intentions of God are incomprehensible.] • CneaoBaTb EBanrenbCKOMy yneHmo. [To follow the Gospel teaching.] • HcTHHHaa Hama npH BepTK eH H O C X B k Bory nosnaerca H 3 codjnoaeHHa 3anoBeH,eH ero. [Our true loyalty to God becomes known when we follow his commandments.] • YztoBJieTBopHTB Bory sa rpexn cboh ne Morirn 6bi mbi caM H, ecjiH 6bi cbih Bo x c h h 3a Hac He ynoBJieTBopHxt csoeio CMepiHio. [We would not have been able to redeem our sins had the son o f God not redeemed them with his own death.] • BonjTomeHHBTH AHreji. BonnomeHHoe cjiobo. BonjiomeHHaa HnocxacB. [Incarnated Angel. Incarnated word. Incarnated Hypostasis.] • Hncyc Xpacxoc sospoaHJi Hac BonjiomeHHeM cbohm. [Jesus Christ has given us new birth through his incarnation.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 The illustrative sentences include numerous references to the Bible, both the Old and New Testament: 1) Old Testament: • flepBocBgmeHHHK Aapon. [High priest Aaron] • HepeMHa imaicaji na passajiHHax HepycamtMCKHX. [Jeremiah cried on the ruins of Jerusalem] • MoHceft npeaBojHJi Hspanjuo. [Moses led Israel] • MoHceft cnepsa upes HepMHoe Mope, a no tom ckbo3b nycTbimo CnnaHHCKyio nposeji napo#. [Moses led his people first across the Red sea and then through the desert of Sinai.] • AspaaM npoH3BeJi na cseT Hcaaxa n HcManna. [Abraham gave birth to Isaac and IshmaeL] • CajiOMony csepx npeMynpocTH nami 6buih boraTCTBO n cjiasa. [Besides wisdom, Solomon was given wealth and glory.] • Hocmj) cbih H aK O Bjib 6tm H CK ycnbiH xojncoBaxejiB cohhbix npH B H jeHHH. [Joseph, the son of Jacob, was a skillful interpreter of dreams.] • Hannan 6biji npasHVK AnaMa n Ebbi. Acene^a SBiJia npaBHVKa ABpaaM OBa. [Cain was the grandson of Adam and Eve. Asenath was the great-granddaughter of Abraham.] • E < i> p eM n Manaccna Sbijih npanpaBH V K n AspaaMOBBi. OaMapa no coio3y c Hynoio bBina npaBnyxa n npanpasnvKa AspaaMOBa. [Ephraim and Manassia were great-great-grandsons of Abraham. Through her union with Judah Tamar was the great granddaughter and the great-great granddaughter of Abraham] • AapoH 6biji BeTX03aBexHBiH nepBOCBam eHHHK. [Abraham was a high priest from the Old Testament] • 3nea3apy b nepBocBameHcrae npenmecTBosaji Aapon, oxen ero. [Aaron was a high priest before his son Eleazar] • AspaaM ocTaBHB Xappan, nepemen b najiecxnHy. [Having left Haran, Abraham moved to Palestine.] • Cojiomoh no npeBocxojCTBv nassaH HpeMyapBiM. Haseji no npeBocxoncTBv AnocTon. [Solomon is called the Wise because of what he excelled in. According to his calling, Paul is Apostle.] • Bo3inecTBHe Ohoxobo, Hjihhho na nebeca. [The assent of Enoch, Elijah to heaven.] • J \a § a K n AsnpoH ckbo3b seMJiio npOBajmnncB. [Dathan and Abiron were swallowed up by the earth] • Knnra necHH necnen bch cocTaBJieHa H 3 H H O CK asaH nir. [The Book of the Song o f Solomon is entirely composed o f allegories] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 • Hapofl HspaHJictcKHH paficxBOBaji bo Eranxe 430 jieT. [The people of Israel were slaves in Egypt for 430 years] • Ha acesjia AaponoBa nyqecHO nporopacjm bctbbh. [Branches miraculously sprouted from Aaron’s staff] • HspaHjiBxane no copoKOJieraeM b nycxnmn cxpancxBOBanHH nocejiHjmcfl b ObexosaHHOH 3eM Jie. [After a forty year long journey through the wilderness, the Israelites settled in the Promised Land] • CxojinoxBopenHe BasHJioncKoe. [Tower of Babel] 2) New Testament: • fbOneHHe nenoBHHHBix MjiajjeimeB b Bn^JieeMe ox Hpo^a papa. [The killing o f innocent newborns in Bethlehem by King Herod.] • Hncyc Xpncxoc no B03CxanHH C BoeM asnca AnocxojiaM. [Jesus Christ revealed himself to the apostles after his resurrection.] • Hncyc nspejiHJi caenaro noMaxanneM onen ero SpenneM. [Jesus healed the blind man by putting mud on his eyes] • Hncyc Xpncxoc B03Kpecnji epnnBiM cjiobom JIasapa. [Jesus Christ resurrected Lazarus with a single word.] • HepBQBepxoBBie Ahocxojibi nexp n HaBen. [First among the apostles Peter and Paul.] • CicaBBiBaiox, nxo 6jih3 BnsjieeMa naxopaxca sepxenncxBia ropni n Mecxa. [Word has it that there are cavernous hills and other places near Bethlehem.] • Hypa pa6 n JiBcxep, ynemiK n HaBexnnK. [Judas is a slave and a liar, a disciple and a slanderer.] • Xpncxoc AnocxojiaM pan BJiacxn BX 3axH n penmxn. [Christ gave to the apostles the power to bind and loose.] • Hncyc Xpncxoc nneo6pa3HJica na OaBope. [Jesus Christ was transfigured on Mount Tabor.] • Hncyc Xpncxoc po annex ox JJeBBi M apnn.... Eone3HH paacpaioxcfl (sic) ox HeB03pepncHocxn.... [Jesus Christ was bom from Virgin Mary... Illnesses are caused by intemperance.] The ancient Christian idea of a typological correspondence between the Old and the New Testament, propagated first by Apostle Paul, is also strongly reflected in the SAR:1 2 1 2 Georges Florovsky explains in his article “The Fathers of the Church and the Old Testament” in Aspects of Church History, vol. 4 o f Georges Florovsky, Collected Works (Belmont: Nordland Publishing Company, 1979): “The famous phrase o f St. Augustine can be taken as typical of the whole Patristic attitude towards the Old Dispensation. Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet. Vetus Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 • OSpaflbi B e r x a r o sasexa o d p a s o B a jiH xaH H C T B a H OBaro s a B e x a . Bo3HeceHHaa b nycxMHH MoceeM 3mhh o d p a s o B a n a KpecxHyio CM epxb CnacHxejia. [The rites of the Old Testament p r e f i g u r e d the sacraments of the New Testament. The serpent l i f t e d up by Moses in the wilderness prefigured the Savior’s death o n the cross.] • OdpeaaHHe ycxaBJieno caM H M EoroM npes naxpnapxa AspaaMa. OSpesaHHe Hncyca Xpncxa. [Circumcision is established by God himself through the patriarch Abraham. The circumcision of Jesus Christ.] • flpejpeneHHe npopoxoB o BomiomsHHH CnacnxeJia. [The prophets’ prophecy of the Savior’s incarnation] • JIpejpeueHfflbiH npopoxaMH Meccra. [The Messiah prophesied by the prophets] • EoronpoBHjen Hcana BecbMa hcho npencicasaji BonjioipeHne, 5 kh3hb, pacnaxne h BOCKpecemie XpncxoBO. [God’s prophet Isaiah clearly foretold the incarnation, life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ] • )KepxBonpHHomeHHe Hcaatca npoo6pa30Bajio CM epxb Ha xpecxe ctiHa EoacH H . [Isaac’s sacrifice prefigured the death on the cross of the son of God] The spectrum of reference in the religious field, however, reaches beyond these basic Christian truths and Biblical facts. The SAR is clearly shaped by the history of the Eastern Church and her canonical authors. In its references to the Eastern Church Fathers, patriarchs, Byzantine and Russian saints, and authors of church books the dictionary reflects the educational background and interests of one of the most zealous groups of compilers, namely the Orthodox priests of the academy: 1) Fathers of the Eastern Church: • BacHJiHH B ejiH K H H 6 & U I e/tH H O BpeM eH H H K rpHropHio EorocjioBy [Basil the Great was a contemporary of Gregory the Theologian] • CsirrHxejiH BacHJiHH BejiH K H H , FpHropHH EorocjioB h HoaHH SjiaxoycT nouHxaroxcH cBexmaMH nepicBH. [Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom are considered luminaries o f the church] Testamentum in Novo patet. The New Testament is an accomplishment or a consummation of the Old. Christ Jesus is the Messiah spoken of by the prophets. In Him all promises and expectations are fulfilled. The Law and the Gospel belong together. And nobody can claim to be a true follower o f Moses unless he believes that Jesus is the Lord” (31). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 • BejiH K H H A4>aHacHH eme b oxpouecTBe 6bui Mesyty cBepcTH BiM H ce6e aexBM H K aK EnncKon. [Athanasios the Great even in his youth was as a bishop among his peers] • BcejiencKHe BejiHKue yw rejin BactuiHH Bcjihkhh, TpnropHH EorocjiOB h Hoann SjiaxoycxBiii. [The ecumenical great teachers Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom] • EecejBi Hoanna Snaxoycxaro [Homilies of John Chrysostom] 2) Patriarchs: • naxpnapx KoHCxaHXHHonojiBCKHH, AjieKcaHflpHHCKHH [Patriarch of Constantinople, Alexandria] 3) Byzantine and Russian Saints: • Cb. KnpHaK oxmejiBHHK. [St. Kyriakos Anachorete] • Cb: CnMeoH cxojmHHK. Cb. Jfamnui cxojtnHHK. [St. Symeon Stylites. St. Daniel Stylites] • Cb. Oeo^op cxpaxmiax. [St. Theodores Stratelates] • MoipH nenepcKHx nynpxBopiteB; bcjihkhx khhsch Eopnca h Tjieda [The relics of the Pechersky miracle-workers, the grand princes Boris and Gleb.] 4) Authors of Church Books: • TsopitBi KanoHOB 6bijih Atmpefi Kphxckhh, ^aMacKHH, Oeo^aH h npoH. [Andrew the Cretan, Damascene and Theofanos were the creators of the canons.] Further, there are references to famous Russian churches, the Orthodox church service and rituals: • B TpoHipcoH Jlaspe ecxB saaxoBepxaa kojiokojtbhh. [There is a church- tower with a roof of gold in the Trinity Monastery.] • noMa3yexcfl pad 6o x c h h HMpex [sic].1 3 [The servant o f God so-and-so is being anointed.] • OfijraueHTre ApxnepeficKoe, CBflmeHHsraecKoe, /piaKOHCKoe. [Robes of the bishop, priest, deacon] • HpasnHHK Poxc/jecxBa XpncxoBa. XpaMoson npas/tHHK. Il,apcKOH npasjHHK [The feast of the Nativity of Christ. Church feast. Royal feast.] 1 3 This is actually a quotation from the “sluzhby sohorovaniia” ["unction service"]. During this special service, a myrrh ointment is applied to a very sick or dying person while prayers are read. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176 Another point of interest is the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church and its place in the administrative system of the time. The reader is reminded, for example, that the Kievopecherskaia Lavra was subordinated directly to the Holy Synod: • CBeTJTeftnnm HpaBHxenbCByioiipiH C hho# [The Holy Ruling Synod.] • Bo cbktoh KneBonenepcKOH Jlaspe b cxaBponarHH xoroxce [sic] CBaxefimaro CHHO^a. [In the Holy Kiev-Pecherk Lavra in the Stavropigial of the very Holy Synod.] References are made to the church’s legal powers, such as the right to divorce married people or to suspend a priest from his job: • n o co d cx B eH H O H BHH e p a3 B eaeH H M H Myxc c ^cenoio, mm pa3BefleHHaa c MyxceM xcena, ne Moacex 6 o B e e B c x y n n x t b 6pax, b cmiy qepicoBHBix ycxaBOB. [If a man divorced his wife, or a woman divorced her husband, they cannot get married again, according to the Church regulations.] • 3xox cBxmeHHHK 6mji pejibin roa noa 3anpemeHHeM. [This priest was suspended for one entire year.] These are notable in view of the fact that legislation, as I will discuss in more detail below, is one of the main pillars of reference within the group of quoted illustrative sentences. The above examples provide one with an idea of the general, affirmative Orthodox Christian tone that is characteristic of the SAR as a whole. Against this background two extreme positions stand out: the enlightened voice of Catherine’s liberal government and the strongly biased and defensive voice of the Orthodox traditionalists, both of which I will discuss below. From the very beginning of her reign Catherine had made it clear that she regarded freedom to practice one’s religion as essential in a multinational empire. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 This was consistent with the enlightened philosophy of government that the empress so proudly proclaimed. Of course, religious liberalism had its tactical advantages: it was also meant to undermine the Church’s political influence. Issues of religion and creed had traditionally been in the hands of the Church (Tsapina 4) but could effectively be used to increase the empress’ popularity among non-Christian peoples living on Russian territory, a point of great importance to her. As early as 1762/63 Catherine had issued manifestos in which she offered privileges to settlers coming to Russia from abroad. It was her goal to populate the empty borderlands, especially the South and East of Russia with new loyal subjects. Immigrants were therefore promised premiums, trade advantages, exemption from draft, as well as freedom of confession.1 4 Even Jews, who in 1762 had not yet been allowed to immigrate, were not excluded from the right to settle in Russia and enjoyed the privileges that came along with it in the statutes of 1763. Despite later changes in her liberal religious policy, primarily with regard to the Jewish community,1 5 all non-orthodox people enjoyed considerably more freedom under Catherine the Great than under Elizabeth, or later under Alexander I and Nicholas I. 1 4 See Klaus Scharf s article “Innere Politik und staatliche Reformen seit 1762” for more detail (Zemack 677-803; here 704-705). 1 5 Until the nineties they were treated fairly. However, one o f the most repressive features of Russian policy toward the Jewish community dates from Catherine’s reign in connection with the partitions of Poland. In 1791, under the pressure o f the orthodox clergy and Russian merchants, Catherine “ycTaHOBmia nenanbHO 3HaMeHHTyro uepry oceanocTH, orpamraHBaBmyK) npaBO espeeB cejurrbca Ha onpeaejieHHMX xeppHTopnax CTpam.1, xchtb b CTOJimtax, yuHTbca b bhciiihx yne6Hi>ix 3aBetteHHax h np.” (A. Kamenskii, Rossiiskaia imperiia v XVIII veke: traditsii i modemizatsiia. Moskva: Novoe literatumoe obozrenie, 1999, 228). Moreover, in 1794, Jews were ordered to pay taxes twice as high as those levied on the Christian population in the same areas. (See Isabel de Madariaga, Catherine the Great. Yale UP: New Haven: 1990, 142.) However, at least in theory Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, etc. enjoyed more freedom under Catherine the Great. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 To give an example, the Manifesto o f April 8, 1783 guaranteed the Muslims of the Crimea, now citizens of the Empire, full rights to practice their religion: .. .B03Bemaa mrreroiM KptiMcicaro nonyocxpona o «nepeMene h x 6h t e m » , OHaneacHBan h x , h t o pyccxoe npaB H T ejiBC TB O npHHHM aeT n o n C Boro oxpany h sammy xax j i h h h o c t b h HMymecxBO c b o h x h o b b ix nonnanHBix, Tax h h x sepy, CBodonnoe oxnpaBjieHHe KOTopon co b c c m h aaK O H H B iM H odpanaMH ocTaHexcx Hascerna H enpH K O C H O B enH B iM . [.. .informing the inhabitants of the Crimean peninsula o f their ‘change of status,’ it [the manifesto] reassured them that the Russian government would protect and defend the personal freedom and the belongings of its new subjects, as well as their religion, the free performance of which with all its lawful rites, will remain forever untouched] (Sukhomlinov 5: 83). The SAR reflects the Empress’ policy of religious tolerance clearly. Under “obladaiu” the illustrative sentence reads: • Bee Hapo^Bi, Pocchhckhmh FocyqapaMH odjianaeMBie. hmciot npaeo HcnoBe/jBiBaTB cboSoaho CBoe EorocjiyxceHHe. [All the peoples under the authority of the Russian Czars have the right to freely confess their religions.] Non-Christian religions are called by their names in the SAR, standing side by side with the Christian, neither shunned nor denigrated: • Saxon XpncTHaHCKHH. HyneftcKHH, MaroMeTancKHH. [Christian, Judaic, Muslim religion.] • YneHHe HyzjencKHX PaBBHHOB.[Teaching o f Judaic Rabbis.] • EspeH h MaroMeTaHe o6pe3B iB aK >T MJianeHpeB Myxcecxaro nona. [Jews and Muslims circumcise newborn males.] • Opnen EsyHTCKoit, O pam jH CK aH CK O H . [The Jesuit, Franciscan Order.] • liana TpHropHii xiii HsnpaBHJi KanennapB. [Pope Gregory XIII corrected the calendar.]1 6 1 6 The Pope, the Jesuits and the Franciscans stand for Catholicism, o f course. Note that the information given regarding the Catholic religion is more detailed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 Among the first to profit from Catherine’s liberal attitude were the Old Believers, who had been severely prosecuted since the Great Schism in 1666-67. In his study on the history of the Vyg community, an Old Believer settlement in the North of Russia, Robert O. Crummey confirms that the Empress’ words were not mere promises, but were taken seriously by her administration; the Old Believer communities thrived under Catherine II: [Peter in and Catherine] dismantled all of the secular legislation designed to penalize or destroy the Old Believers and granted them toleration, and emancipation encouraged all but the most intransigent to come out into the open. Large communities of sectarians emerged from the underground and many of the emigres returned to settle in their homeland. In the process, the center of gravity of Old Belief shifted from the old points of concentration on the frontier to the large and wealthy communities of Moscow. For several decades Old Belief thrived. 1 7 In her book on Catherine the Great, Isabel de Madariaga is very specific as to how the Old Believers’ situation was improved by the government at the end of the 18th century. (Note that the protective measures referred to in the paragraph below were all taken in the eighties, right at the time when the work on the SAR began): Potemkin, who was well disposed towards the Old Believers, helped [...] to lighten their burdens, and as a result the double poll-tax they paid was lifted in 1782, and in 1785 their right to elect and to be elected to posts in urban administration was established. After the decree of 1783 authorizing the setting up of printing presses, the Old Believers, who until then had indulged in clandestine printing, mainly in Poland, set up an authorized printing press in the village of Klintsy in the province of Starodub to produce their own liturgical texts.1 8 1 7 Robert 0 . Crummey, The Old Believers and the World o f Antichrist (Madison, London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970) XIV. 1 8 Isabel de Madariaga, Catherine the Great (Yale UP: New Haven, 1990) 141. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 Attendance at the Orthodox Church was also no longer enforced on Old Believers who were left to their own devices. Considering these facts it is all the more surprising that the Old Believers were not explicitly mentioned in the ‘tolerant’ sentences from the SAR quoted above. Catherine’s liberalism is tacitly curtailed in the dictionary. The declaration is at first glance tolerant: • Bee Hapoati, P o c c h h c k h m h TocyqapaMH oSuaaaeMhie, h m c i o t npauo HcnoBeflbiBaTt c b o S o ^ h o CBoe BorocjiyaceHne. [All the peoples under the authority of the Russian Czars have the right to freely confess their religions.] But in fact it represents a hidden blow against the Old Believers, since it could easily be read as: “All ethnically non-Russian peoples have the right to chose their religious affiliation.” The Old Believers, being ethnically Russian, however, have no choice; they should be Orthodox.1 9 Whenever the SAR explicitly mentions the Old Believers, it is in an outright critical if not polemical way. The voice of the Orthodox Church, opposing Catherine’s liberal reforms, resounds loudly. The following sentences make the anti-liberal stance of the SAR very clear: • KpHBOBepHbin: CoflepxanpiH npoxHBHtra npaBOCJiaBHofi nepKBe MHetnni huh odpjwbi. PacKOJibHUKU pasdejinmm cH ua Mnozue Kpueoeepubin mojiKU.20 [Unorthodox [literally: of crooked belief]: 1 9 That creed is not merely a personal choice but paired with one’s ethnical or rather political- territorial affiliation is also apparent from the definition and illustrative sentence o f the word “ispovedanie.” Under 3) the SAR explains: “Samaia vera, zakon, obraz Bogopochteniia, soderzhimago kakoiu libo stranoiu. ... Grecheskoe, Rimskokatolicheskoe ispovedanie." 2 0 The polemic wording of “protivnye pravoslavnoi tserkve mneniia” is here in the word definition, not in the illustrative sentence. The Old Believers are considered enemies o f the Orthodox Church. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 containing beliefs or rites contrary to those of the Russian Orthodox Church. Schismatics are split into numerous unorthodox sects.] • MHToponoJiHT Poctobckhh, B H 3C >6jIH H eH H e 3a6jiyxc^eHHa pasKQjiHHKOB cohhhhji KHHry Posmck. [Dimitry, the metropolitan of Rostov wrote the book Rozysk exposing the errors of schismatics.] • P asK Q jifcH H uecK oe 3 a6 jiy )K £ eH H e. [The errors of schismatics] • CTapHKQBinHHa: Tojik rjiynemiiHX paaK O JiB H H K O B , koh 6es pascMoxpenra cneno Bepax BceMy, h to BnymaioT hm CTapmcH, jmeyuHTejm hx. [Starikovshchina: a sect o f the most foolish schismatics who blindly believe everything that their old men, their false teachers, tell them.] Calling the Old Belief “zabluzhdenie” [an error, going astray] and its followers “glupeishie” [the most foolish] is clearly tendentious.2 1 The mentioning of the book Rozysk and the definition of “krivovemyi” as opposed to “pravovemyi,” and the Old Believers as the “enemies” [protivnye] of Orthodoxy, is equally biased. The strong negative wording is to be explained by the fact that in the Church’s view the Old Believers were heretics, who went astray {zabluzhdenie), or, even worse, actively d e f i e d the right belief (“ protivnye pravoslavnoi tserkve mneniid"). No wonder these same lexical terms (Izheprotivnoe, zabluzhdenie) appear in the SAR’s definition of “eres” ’ [heresy]: JbKHBoe TO JiK O BaH H e, npoTHBoyqenHe; MHenne npoxHBHoe H C T H H H O M y SjiarouecTHK), 3a6jiy5K«eirae b aom axax Bepbi. [False interpretation, contrary teaching; a belief contrary to the true piety, error in the doctrines o f faith] (SAR 2: 1013). 211 was not able to find a description or mention of the starikovshchina in the literature about Old Belief. Listed among the priestless groups (tolid) o f Old Believers, however, is the Babushkina soglasie, which might be a related branch. See the publication compiled by the Tsentral’nyi statisticheskii komitet ministerstvo vnutrennikh del, Raspredelenie staroobriadtsev i sektantov po tolkam i sektam (Sankt-Peterburg: 1901, 1). A short description of the babushkintsy, or babushkina vera is given in Wilhelm Hollberg, Das Russische Altglaubigentum (Tartu: Universitatsverlag, 1994), 685-686. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 Moreover, in the SAR the Old Believers are always addressed with the disapproving name “razkol’niki.” The more positive term “starover,” which appears as an entry word of the SAR as well, is defined as follows: • TaK n a sH B a iO T c e 6 a pacKOJiBHHKH HafimonaiomHe npoTHBHtia n p a B o c jia B H o fi pepicBH MHemia h ofipam-i, nomrras h x cxap eH iiiH M H npea: re M H , Karma nepK O B B npneMjieT. [This is h o w schismatics who practice rites and hold beliefs contrary to those o f the Orthodox Church call themselves, because they consider their own beliefs and rites to be older than those accepted by the Church] (SAR 1: 1022). Again, raskol’ nik seems to be the only acceptable term for these renegades. The fact that “raskol’nik” was the academicians’ word of choice is also remarkable in view of the fact that the word had actually, at least in the North of Russia, been purged from Russian administrative documents by official decree. As early as 1783 the Senate gave orders to the governor of Tobolsk and Perm to remove the negative term from the tax books. The same orders were repeated in a “Vedenie” [decree] from the Senate to the Synod and then in a Synodal decree of March 6/7 1783 to Varlaam, Bishop of Tobolsk.2 2 Indeed, as the governor of Tobolsk later reports, “naimenovanie raskol’nika, kak v knigakh, revizskikh skazkakh; tak i v prochikh spiskakh nigde uzhe ne sushchestvuet” [the name ‘schismatic’ does not exist anywhere any more, neither in the books, tax reports, nor in other lists] (Belolikov 139). Belolikov suggests that these measures were taken upon the suggestion of the governor of the St. Petersburg province, Iustin Sergeevich 2 2 V. Belolikov, “Iz istorii pomorskago raskola vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v.,” Trudy Kievskoi Dukhovnoi akademii 9 (1915) 128-41. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 Potapov, who had met and was corresponding with one of the greatest spiritual leaders of Old Belief, Andrei Borisov from the Vyg community. In this context it is noteworthy that Dashkova, the President of the Academy, is known to have been very friendly with the Old Believers. This suggests she took Catherine’s side in the ideological conflict regarding the Old Believers. Isabel de Madariaga quotes a passage from the diaries of the Wilmot sisters Martha and Catherine, close friends of Dashkova’s, who visited her in 1807 and whose account, as we may safely assume,2 3 reflects their Russian hostess’ positive attitude towards the Old Believers: The Princess [Dashkova] ... order’d a Russian entertainment in the House of Elic [sic] Alexovitch who is a sort of Patriarch to the Sect of Roscolnics. This Man was bom the subject of the Dolgoroukys but purchased his Liberty for 2000 Ster8, and is one of the richest Merchants in Moscow. He is quite a portrait of the perfection of Human nature at the advanced age of 80; simple, cheerful, active and benevolent with the most beautiful features and Silver Beard on a magnificent height of Stature render’d more striking by his Russian attire. In his capacity of Sectarian he amused me more than in that of Merchant, as a gigantic dinner was its only symbol; but as a Sectarian he conducted us to his Churches and Hospitals and Convents and Monasterys which surrounded his dwelling in a very considerable Circle (de Madariaga, Catherine 161).2 4 There is also evidence that hard scientists also took the government’s side in the Old Believer question. At least one of them, the naturalist Ozeretskovskii, who spent eight years traveling through the provinces of Russia, wrote very favorably 2 3 That Dashkova was very frank and open with the two Irishwomen is proven by the fact that she entrusted a major part of her archives, including the manuscript o f her memoirs to the Wilmot sisters for fear that, in the hands o f her family, these papers might disappear. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 about the Old Believers. Sukhomlinov includes a passage from Ozeretskovskii’s travel journal in his biographical sketch of the scientist, noting that: HecMOTpa na .zkhkocxb noHjrmif, rocnoflCTBOBaBiiiHX b pacKOJibHHHteH cpene, OsepepKOBCKHH oxstiBaexcs o nefi 6es MajieftmeH xenn nexepnHMOCxH. PacKojibhhkh - roBopnx oh - “xaKne ace xpncxHaHe, xax a h Bcax M He nonodH&iH, ho ayMaiox, hxo o c q 6 ji h b m m h cbohmh oSpa^aMH b borocjiyaceHHH Jiyqine yroautaiox Bory...” [Despite the absurdity of the schismatics’ beliefs Ozeretskovskii describes them without a shadow of intolerance. He says: “Schismatics are no less Christians than me and others like myself but they believe that with their own special rites they please God better than we do...”] (Sukhomlinov 2: 333). All the same, strong bias in favor o f “istinnoe blagochestie” [true piety] reverberates in many other illustrative sentences on the pages of the SAR, despite all religious liberalism proclaimed by the government: • XpncxHaHe tma npnoSpexeHHa csaxtia 3cmjih npe3 nojiroe BpeMa c HenecxHBbiMH soeBajiH. [To obtain holy lands, Christians waged a long war against the impious.] In contrast to the ‘positive’ Christian tenets, quoted at the beginning of this section, statements like the one here are argumentative, defensive and exclusive. They reflect the traditional views of the Orthodox Church. This illustrates how difficult it was to proclaim religious freedom in a profoundly Christian country. The cleric was bound to perceive this comparably simple enlightened step2 5 as a gesture of immense political consequence, completely overthrowing the traditions of the Church and its 2 4 Note that even the Wilmot sisters refer to this Old Believer, despite the clearly positive attitude evidenced in their portrait of him, as a “raskol’nik” and sectarian. The term “raskol’nik” was reinstated after Catherine’s death. 2 5 As opposed to freeing the serfs, for example, which Catherine also considered at one point, at least theoretically. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 dogmatic teachings. Throughout history the Church had indeed survived and shaped itself by disapproving of deviating teachings, by separating itself from what was considered the ‘wrong’ belief. If suddenly all these beliefs were reinstated and heretics were allowed to thrive, the Church’s role and history would suddenly be questioned. To justify and buttress the Church’s authorative position, it is not surprising that the SAR contains various references to the Councils ofNicaea in 4th and 8th centuries. • MaHHxencTBO mbho yace onpoBepravTQ. MneHra ApneBti na Cobope H m ceH C K O M onposepaceHM. [Manicheism has long been rejected. The beliefs o f Arius have been refuted by the Council ofNicaea.] • 3jtoMvapbiH ApHH. [Evil-minded Arius.] • EpeTHK H OTBepraBmne noKJionemie HKonaM ceaMtiM BcejiencKHM b Hhkch coSopoM OTJiyneHti ot nepKBH. [Heretics who rejected the veneration of icons were expelled from the church by the Seventh Ecumenical Council ofNicaea.] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the victory over the Iconoclasts at the second Council ofNicaea became a symbolic image of victory over heresies in general and is still commemorated today in the “Feast of Orthodoxy.” Manicheism, Arius’ tenets, and the Iconoclasts had been ruled out by the early Christian Church. The verbs used in these sentences are all very strong: otvergat otluchit oprovergnut ’ [reject, excommunicate, refute]. They make the process of “secare,” cutting off certain branches of religious belief, very clear. The Orthodox Church emerges from these sentences as the only righteous and powerful authority. Again, by reinstating the Old Believers as a religious group in its own right, a group Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. considered heretic by the Orthodox Church, Catherine threatened to undercut the very roots of Russian Christianity. What if in the eighth century the Iconoclasts had been allowed to thrive? Thus, once again, two distinct voices can be heard in the SAR: one is the enlightened voice of Catherine’s liberalism, willing to protect the Old Believers as just another religious group,2 6 the other is the conservative voice of the Orthodox Church condemning the Old Believers as heretics and other religious groups as “nechestivye,” “bezzakonnye.” These conflicting voices emerge from the SAR’s positive Christian background, its common understanding that the general Christian tenets are good and that the Bible is an important point of reference. However, as the Church claims, there were heresies in earlier centuries and there are heresies today, and they should be dealt with accordingly. In the eyes of the Church the iconoclasts of the early Middle Ages and the present day raskol 'niki share in common the fact that both are heretical. One must now ask how this clearly anti-Catherinian stance in the SAR could be tolerated by academicians who, like Dashkova, clearly supported the government’s policy of religious freedom, and by Catherine herself, who, given her interest in the project, was very likely to browse through and read the Dictionary 2 6 Catherine also saw an economic advantage in furthering the cause of the Old Believers. They were hard working and often successful businessmen and artisans. They were also abstinent. The law that first invited the Old Believers to return to Russia was issued as early as 1762 and was called: “O pozvolenii raskol’nikam vykhodit’ i selit’sia v Rossii na mestakh oznachennykh v prilagaemom u sego reestre” (Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii [St. Petersburg: n. p. 1881-1913] No. 11725; in the following PSZ). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 before and after its publication.2 7 Is this an example of daring opposition and dissent on the side of the academy’s priests and monks?2 8 Although the Orthodox clerics — most likely the priests - among the academicians did indeed voice a strong opinion in defense of traditional values, they were actually playing it safe. Catherine was an excellent diplomat and was always ready to concede to certain demands of the natural political forces in her State, including the Church. Her laws and guidelines regulating religious freedom were often revised and therefore ambiguous, as De Madriaga, Crummey, and Kamenskii all point out unanimously. After all, Orthodoxy was still the state religion and attendance at church was still compulsory for orthodox Russians. Catherine herself ostentatiously observed the orthodox rites and calendar. Despite all pretenses of religious liberalism, the State still favored and openly protected Orthodoxy (even in foreign policy, for example, in Poland). Catherine’s “Ustav blagochiniia, ili politseiskii” [General Police Regulation] of 1782 put this in legal language. Kamenskii comments: Ocodoe B H H M aH H e Ycxas yaejnui BonpacaM BepoHcnoBeaaHHa. C o^hoh cxopoHBi, npoBoarjiainajiacB pejinrH03Haa BepoxepnuMocxB, c flpyroit - 2 7 As she had done with the first volume. 2 8 The hierarchy of the Orthodox Church with the Metropolitan Platon Levshin at its head was more open to the Old Believers. Platon Levshin was the creator of a concept and movement that came to be known as “edinoverie.” He pursued the idea of reconciliation o f the Old Believers with official Orthodoxy. He was also the author o f the famous and many times reprinted “Exhortation by the Orthodox-Catholic Eastern Church to her Former Children Now Suffering from the Malady of Schism” (uveshchanie), an exhortation commissioned by Catherine herself in 1765. In his biography of Platon Levshin, entitled Metropolitan Platon of Moscow: The Enlightened Prelate. Scholar and Educator (Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Partners, 1983), K. A. Papmehl characterizes the metropolitan’s attitude towards the Old Believers as “conspiciously humane and enlightened” (15). How Gavriil Petrov viewed the question is not known to me. 2 9 Isabel de Madariaga, Politics and Culture in Eighteenth Century Russia (London: Longman, 1998), 90-91. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 HOBbiH 3BK O H TBepAO c t o h j i Ha 3amnTe npaeocjiaBHfl, 3anpeman npaBocjiaBHbiM n e p e x o A b Apyroe BepoHcnoBeAaHne, a Taicace Kaicyio-JiHSo nponaraHAy nporaB npaBOCJiaBHH. CneipianbHO oroBapHBajiHCb npasHJia noBeAemw b pepicBH. B cocxas Ycxasa SnaroHHHHa 6biJio bkjhohcho «3epuajio ynpaBbi 6jiaroHHHHH» - CBoero poAa MopajiBHBiH K O A eK C h paAOBoro rpaacAamiHa, h cjieA»m;ero 3a coSjnoAeHneM 3aKona nojmijeHCKoro. CaM H no ce6e hcthhbi YcTaBa Mano neM OTJiHnanncb ox xex, nxo pyccrae ak>ah XVIII cxonexna npHBBiKJin cjiHiiiaxb c pepKOBHoro aMBona, OAHaKO, nonas b saKon, ohh oSpexann lopHAHnecKyio cnjiy. [The Regulation paid special attention to the issues of religion. While on the one hand, it proclaimed religious tolerance, on the other hand, the new law firmly defended Orthodoxy by proscribing Orthodox Christians from converting to any other confession and by prohibiting any sort of propaganda against Orthodoxy. The Ustav defined the rules of behavior in church. The Ustav included “a mirror of fidelity governance” - a sort of a moral code for both laymen and the police supervising the observance of the law. As such, the rules ofUstav differed little from what Russians of the 18th century used to hear from the church pulpit. However, once included in the law, they obtained juridical power.]3 0 The Orthodox clerics used the SAR as a platform for airing and enforcing their views. Although the illustrative sentence • OxnaxeHne ox hcxhhhms sepbi ecxt seAHnaiimee npecxynnemie. [Falling away from the true faith is the greatest crime.] seems, at first, provocative and directed against the famous policy of freedom of religion, it actually was a safe declaration to make. It simply interpreted Catherine’s “Ustav blagochiniia” which literally read: HoATBepacAaexca h B03o6HOBnaexca sanpemeHHe BceM h KaxcnoMy npaBocnaBHOMy nepenxn b HHyro sepy. Cm. Bs&icKamiH cxaxwo 245 [sic]. 3 0 Aleksandr Kamenskii, Rossiiskaia imperiia v XVIII veke: traditsii i Modemizatsiia (Moscow: Novoe literatumoe obozrenie, 1999), 247. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 [The prohibition to each and every Orthodox Christian to convert to any other religion is hereby reconfirmed and renewed. See penalty article 245.]3 1 References to real political dissent, which even during the most liberal times of Catherine’s reign seems to have been a dangerous business, are left out of the SAR completely. Neither Pugachev nor Novikov are ever mentioned by name. Their “personas,” however, are still present through their conspicuous absence in the SAR. Works edited by Novikov are cited in the dictionary without naming the well-known publisher. Stenka Razin, who is mentioned under “zlodei,” was bound to evoke the figure of the “zlodei” Pugachev. A third example of intended “omission” or “blending out” of politically dangerous concepts and names strikes the reader of the dictionary in the entry of the word “obshchestvo,” where the possibility of “tainoe obshchestvo” is not mentioned. That this was not just an oversight, excusable in all dictionaries’ first editions, but a conscious omission of a politically sensitive item, can be deduced from the fact that the French Academy Dictionary, the SAR’s uncontested model, did include “societe secrete” under a separate heading: Societe, se dit encore quelquefois des reunions qui ont un objet politique. Societes populaires. Societes secretes (DAF 2: 753). Lacunae such as these — based on the assumption that the DAF was indeed used as a fundamental source — are meaningful in the SAR. The Orthodox traditionalists had a powerful argument on their side; the SAR was a profoundly imperial endeavor, shaping Russia’s national consciousness. Since Orthodoxy was one of the most important national characteristics of Russia, how 3 1 PSZ. April 8, 1782, section M, article No. 201. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 could it not be featured in the dictionary? This trend towards Russian national imperial interests will especially become clear in the concluding section. The Church took advantage not only of Catherine’s changing rulings with regard to the Old Believers, but also of her dislike of anything suggesting “superstition.” The empress’ lifelong fight against superstition was, of course, rooted in the rationalism of the time and was meant to serve the goals of Enlightenment. However, it also played — paradoxically so — into the hands of the Christian traditionalists. What both Catherine and the Church had in common was a negative attitude toward pagan beliefs, and any mystical, illogical rites. The clandestine rites of the sectarians, like the “radeniia,” could thus also easily be considered superstitious, “not rational,” not “enlightened.” The following curious sentence illustrates the triangular relationship just described: • 3a6jiyacfleHna astmecKHH septi 3#paBOH pa3yM onposepraex. [A sound mind refutes the delusions of paganism.] Like heretical beliefs (from the standpoint of the Church this included Old Belief), pagan religions are “zabluzhdeniia” [delusions]. The “zdravyi razum,” the enlightened bon sense, rejects them outright. This means thatpravoverie, orthodox belief, equals bon sense. In other words, Orthodoxy belongs to the category of the rational and is in tune with the enlightened goals of the government. This reflects a stunning twist of affairs, typical, however, of Enlightenment thought in Russia. The opposition “razkor [schism], “eres [heresy], “iazychestvo” [paganism], “ sueverie” [superstition] vs. “ pravoverie” [orthodoxy] and “razum” [reason] is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 found in all illustrative sentences and definitions that mention “sueverie.” This conforms both to Catherine’s anti-superstition campaign, as well as to the traditionalist Christian trend. • IhpopHnaJiHine: Kannme hjih Mecxo r^e b asbinecxBe no ofiMany aqieiioB, a cyeBepmo napoaa oxsexbi /pBajiHCb. [sic] [Oracle: a temple or place where answers were given due to the deception of pagan priests and superstition of the people.] “You are being cheated” is a very common argument used by the rationalists to fight superstition. Ratio defies and unveils “obman” [deception]. The word “deception” is part of the rationalists’ vocabulary and goes hand in hand with “razum.” Thus the sentence shows again that paganism, which is in opposition to Christian belief, is also considered irrational. The same equation is most visible in the definition and illustrative sentences explaining “Sueverie,” in which superstition is opposed to both faith (under 1) and science (under 2): • CyeBepne. 1) Ha6oacnocxb ocHOBannaa Ha HeBeacecxBe, cjienaa npHBioaHHocxb k 6orocnyaceHHK>, ho ox neBeaca, h nycxocBaxoB noHHxaeMbix HeofixoaHM k O H O M y HaaJieacamHMH. Cyeeepue ecntb epae eepbi. 2) Be3pa33yaHoe h HeocHOBaxenbHoe B epoH M C X B O HexoxopbiM ecxecxBeHHbiM npHKjnoneHHSM, 6yaro OHbia hchxo npe3BbiuaHHoe h xo Boacna ocofijiHsaro aeftcxHBa saBHcamee b cefie conepacax. Bepumb, nmo ceeepuoe cmnue npedeeiqaem nacmynamujyio eouny, ecmb cyujee cyeeepue. CyeBepHbifi napo^. CyesepHbie jnonn saxMenne comma h jiyHbi noHHxaiox snaKOM Kaxoro jih6o Hecnacxna. [Superstition: 1) Piety based on ignorance, blind zeal with respect to church services. Superstition is the enemy o f faith. 2) Irrational and ungrounded belief that some natural phenomena signify something extraordinary and reveal God’s actions. To believe that Aurora Borealis predicts a war is a downright superstition. Superstitious people. Superstitious people consider a solar or lunar eclipse to be an evil omen.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 The sentence illustrating the verb “predshestvovat”’ is also directed against the superstitious: • CyeBepHwe nyMaioT, hto BOsnyniHBia aBjieHna npejmecTByiOT icaK O M y HHfiyrp. HecuacTHio, hjih fijiary. [Superstitious people believe that athmospheric phenomena precede some disaster or good fortune.] This is in line with the scientifically enlightened statement from the physicist Lomonosov: • He acTopjiornnecKHa cyMHHTejn.Ht.ia rarrawHa ox nojioaceHHa njianex npoH3Ben;eHHBia. M. JIom. [Not doubtful astrological conjectures based on the positions of planets...] My findings blend in with and complement some of the results of Olga Tsapina in her article “Secularization and Opposition in the Time of Catherine the Great.” In her work Tsapina concentrates on the Archpriest Alekseev and the controversies that existed between the white and black clergy at the time. She demonstrates how the white clergy (priests) were able to exploit Catherine’s secularization policy against the clerical black hierarchy, the monks. Tsapina shows that the priests and Catherine formed an alliance in fighting superstition and mysticism. Alekseev felt secure in attacking his archenemy the metropolitan Platon, and Catherine chose Alekseev to evaluate Novikov’s martinist activities. To them both Martinism and Orthodox monastic spirituality fell under the category of superstitious mysticism. In the priests’ alliance with the enlightened empress “vera” [belief] and “razum” [reason] were united. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 However, the SAR does not reflect the rift between the white and black clergy, which Tsapina describes. This is not surprising, for both the white and the black clergy were involved in the dictionary project together, although it was the black clergy who did the footwork. Open attacks on the high placed monks of the academy would not have been possible. The SAR does not draw a negative image of monasticism, as did Alekseev in his “Dictionary of All Heretics and Schismatics.” (Tsapina writes that Alekseev was convinced that all monks were heretics and that monasticism was the breeding ground for Old Belief (Tsapina 16). On the contrary, words like “monakh, inok, monastyr’ , pustynnik, otshel’ nih?’ ’ [monk, recluse, monastery, anachorete, hermit], etc. are all defined professionally in the SAR and even with sympathy, as the following definition o f “ stolpnik” [stylite] shows: • TaK Ha3M BaiO TCfl HeKoxoptie H 3 yro^tH H K OB, Koxopwe ana yapyneHna nnoxn h ana EoroyroncaeHHa no HeracoJiBKy nex na cxonne cxoajih. Ce. CuMeon cm om nuK . Ce. ffan u w i cmonmuK. [This a name for several holy people who for several years stayed on a pillar to mortify flesh and please God] Moreover, from the debate regarding Old Belief as it is carried out in the SAR. we may safely conclude that the relationship between the priests and the government was difficult, to say the least, when it came to discussing the Old Believers. Although the priests knew how to interpret Catherine’s laws to their advantage,3 2 the question of whether Old Believers were to be considered Christians in their own right or heretics and renegades certainly caused tensions between the white clerics and Catherine. The monks, at least the top hierarchy, were more willing to pursue Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 the government’s policy in this question (e.g., discussion of Platon Levshin in footnote 28 above). As a result, this softens the clear-cut opposition of government/white clergy vs. black clergy, as it is presented in Olga Tsapina’s article. Catherine’s relationship with the Church and the clergy, black and white, had many faces and was a very delicate matter. 2.3 Antiquity: References to Greek and Roman Classics and History The foundation of the Russian Academy (1783) coincided with Catherine’s education reform. In 1782 the Empress had invited Theodor Jankovic de Miqevo, an Austrian Serb who had been instrumental in implementing a centralized school system in the multinational Austrian Empire, to act as an advisor for the Commission on the Implementation of Schools (Kommissiia ob uchrezhdenii uchilishch) in Russia. For his knowledge of Old Church Slavonic Jankovich was also appointed a member of the Academy from its beginning. The school reform should be seen in the broader context of Catherine’s Provincial Reform of 1775 and her review of the administrative system of her empire in order to centralize it. As Kamenskii writes: HeoSxo/piMOCTb hojio6hoh pe<|)opMM [YnpexyieHHa njw ynpaBJiemia rySepHHH] HHKTOBanacb caMon JiormcoH pa3Birraa Pocchhckoix) rocyaapcTBa. 3xa Jioraica xpedoBaua cosaaHHa cxporo D,eHTpaJIH30BaHH0H H yHHtjffllfHpOBaHHOH CHCTeM M , n p H KOTOpOH Kaac^aa KJiexomca o6mnpHOH TeppHTopnH h KaayjbiH ee oftnxaxejib Haxo^HJiHCb 6bi non HeycBinHMM KOHxponeM npaBHxeaBCXBa. 3 2 The priests could refer to the Ustav blagochiniia and declare that converting to another belief was a crime, and freedom o f religion concerned only [non-Russian] peoples living on the Russian territory. 3 3 Catherine had purposefully asked for an Orthodox person when she turned to Joseph II in search of an educational advisor. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 [The necessity of such a reform was dictated by the logic of the development of the Russian State. This logic called for the creation of a strictly centralized and unified system where every cell of the vast territory and every one of its inhabitants would constantly remain under the vigilant surveillance of the government] (Kamenskii, 238). The reform o f the school system is marked by the same spirit of unification and centralization. Okenfuss notes that The textbooks for Catherine’s nationwide network of schools were decreed to be uniformly applied to all new institutions, to the old humanist Latin academies, to nobles’ institutes, and even to private tutors and pensions, in short, to all schools in Russia and its borderlands alike (Okenfuss 198). Ideologically, the reform was based on a Prussian book of civics, On the Duties of Man and Citizen, which was adapted for Russian readers and heavily fortified with citations o f Scripture.3 4 To educate the people civically for the well being of society had been a longstanding plan of Catherine’s. In the Nakaz she had already written in the chapter on education: 348. npaBHJia BoennxaHHa cyxu nepBwa ocHOBamia npHyroTOBjunonum Hac 6h x b rpaxcnaHHHaMH. 349. Kaxcflaa ocoSeHHaa ceMtaflon xn a 6 m t & ynpaBJiaeMano npnMepy fiojitmofi c e m l h, BKjnonaiomeH b cefie see nacTHbix. 351. Bcxkhh ofiaaan ywn> flexeli cbohx cxpaxa Eoxcna, xax nanajia Bcaxaro pejioMynpna, h Bcejiara b hhx see Te uojixchocth, xoxopnix Box ox Hac xpedyex b necaxocjioBHH c b o e m . 352. Taioice b n e p a x h b hhx [^exefi] jho6obb k oxenecxsy, h noBaflHXb hx HMext nonxeHHe k y ctbhobji€hhum rpaxcjjaHCKHM aaxoHaM, 3 4 Published in Joseph Black, Citizens o f the Fatherland (New York: Columbia UP, 1979) 209-266. Like the Nakaz twenty years earlier, On the Duty of Man and Citizen became a standard text. It was printed nine times between 1783 and 1796, totalling about 47,000 copies (Okenfuss 206). Okenfuss includes a brilliant analysis of On the Duties o f Man and Citizen in his study on Latin humanism in early-modem Russia. He shows that the religious underpinnings, i.e. excessive quotations from the Bible in the footnotes o f the book, were purposefully created for the Russian reader, while, on the other hand, traces of Latin humanism were consistently purged from the text. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 h now raxt npaBHxejitcBa CBoero oxeuexBa, K aK neKymnaca no Bone Boacnen o Snare h x na s c m j ih . [348. Educational rules are the first foundations preparing us to become citizens. 349. Every individual family should be ruled according to the pattern of the large family that includes all particular ones. 351. Everyone must teach his children the fear of God, which is the source of piety, and he must teach them about all those obligations that God requires in his ten commandments. 352. Also to strike into their heads (of children) love for the Fatherland and to train them to have respect for established civil laws and the government of their Fatherland as taking care of their well being according to God’s will.]3 5 Russia’s first national school system was quickly implemented: it grew to three hundred schools with seventeen thousand pupils by Catherine’s death. The Commission created textbooks, diligently translating them from German, trained teachers and supervised the teaching methods and lesson-plans in all the schools in the country. Only lack of funding prevented the new plan from gaining full success. The Academy dictionary was clearly seen by its compilers as a contribution to Catherine’s education reform. In the first passage of the introduction to the SAR Lepekhin writes: BejiHKaa Hama CaMOuepacmja, h c x h h h o c 6naro nouuaHHBix c b o h x HasHnaioman, H3o6pejia cpeacTBO b KpaxKoe epeMH pacnpocTpam iTb npocBeoqemie BCflKOMy cocxohhhio cooTBexcBeHHoe, HacajKaa« noBcioay ynum m ia, orpaacuaa h x npeHMymecxBaMH, oSecnenHBaa bo b c c m MoHapniHMH menpoxaMH. Ox nposopJiHBOCxn EJ1 He coKptuioct, hxo Hacaac^eHHa ch h odHJibHefimHe npHHecyx njionBi, Kor.ua nayKH ea npHpouHOM «3mkc MHomecxBy npenouaBaeMbi 6yuyx: h ua6i,i HaHBamme b xom npeuycnext, SjiaroBOjnuia m axt PoccH H CK Q M y cnoBy 3 5 Nakaz Eia Imoeratorskago Velichestva Ekaterinv Vtorvia Samoderzhitsv Vserossiiskiia daimvi kommissii o sochinenii proekta novago ulozheniia (St. Petersburg: L. F. Panteleev, 1893), 122-123. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 ... OTJiHHHoe CBoe npoKpoBHxejibCTBO ynpeJKaeHHeM Pocchhkhs AKa^eMMH... [Our Great Empress, teaching her subjects on true well-being, has invented a means to quickly spread education appropriate to each estate by establishing schools everywhere, granting privileges and providing for all of them with her imperial generosity. In her perspicacity, SHE anticipated that those establishments would bring an abundant harvest when the sciences were taught to the youth in the native language; in order to prevail in this undertaking she graciously gave her protection to the Russian word by establishing the Russian Academy...] (SAR 1: V). Ukrainian humanism and the study of the Greek and Latin classics were now abandoned in Russia in favor of the native language and civil education. Okenfuss is very sorry to state: [Latin] was to be confined to those pupils who had already been selected to continue their educations in the higher schools or universities. Solely in the narrowly utilitarian sense ... did Latin langage study survive in Catherine’s School Reform. She now regarded Latin as a skill, needed by a select few. The general invitation to Latin humanist culture died (Okenfuss, 214). Despite this radical shift from Latin to Russian as the working language in the field of primary and secondary education, the SAR is teeming with references to classical canonical authors, sources, and scenes. This phenomenon is easily explained. All of the philologically trained academicians, i.e. the clergy and the scientists, who happened to be the ones most involved in the project, had Latin- based schooling, whether in the seminaries, academies, or at universities in Russia and abroad. Scientists like Severgin, Kotel’nikov, Ozeretskovskii, Rumovskii and others, were at the time publishing their scientific articles in Latin, as this was still Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 the rule in 18th century Europe. 3 6 To them it was only natural to mention under the entry word “Slovo”: *.. .cjiobo npocroe. cnom oe. Cjiobo JlaxHHCKoe, FpeiecKoe. Cjiobo cxapHHHoe, HOBOBseaeHHoe. Cjiobo /pycMMCJieHHoe. ... CnoBa hhskhm, noAJitia, npocxoHaponHBM, xynpacHiroecKHH. [.. .simple, complex word. Latin, Greek word. Old, new word. Ambiguous word... Mean, vernacular, base words, art terms.] (Highlighting mine - M.L.) Or to state slightly mockingly: • Oh tojibko no rydaM n o M a s a n sbhkom JlaxuH C K H M . [He only smeared his lips with Latin.] As I suggested in the beginning of the chapter, the self-composed sentences reflect the academicians’ educational background rather than the programmatic side of the Academy Dictionary — this task is left to the quoted illustrative material. The invented sentences are associative; they are the Dictionary’s subconscious, whereas the quotations play the role of the political super-ego, as it were. In evaluating references to classical authors, texts, and historical personas, it is worth mentioning that the illustrative sentences divide easily into three subgroups: literary, historical and scientific/philosophical. Literary references are further divided, according to the standards of classicism: poetry, drama, and rhetoric. Poets and rhetoricians are mentioned frequently, and often together. Poetics and rhetorics were, of course, the “secondary literature” most studied at the time: • Op<|)eH H OMHp nO H H T aE O T C U OTIiaMH C X H X O T B O p C T B a, a ^ H M O C C fjeH H LfniiepoH oxpaMH BexHficxBa. [Orpheus and Homer are considered the 3 6 The procedings of the Academy of Sciences were also all in Latin. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 fathers of poetry while Demosphenes and Cicero are the fathers of rhetoric.] • BnprajiHH, Omhp Sbijih npeBocxogHBie cxHxoxBoptt&i. ^HMOC^en h IjHitHepoH noHHTaioTca npeBOCxo^HtiMH BexnxMH. [Virgil and Homer were superior poets. Demosphenes and Cicero are considered superior orators.] • Omhp h BnprajiHH nowrafocxx nepBHMH Meac^y cxHxoxBoppaMH. J[H M 0C (J)eH h L[H u;epoH Sbuih nepBBie Bexnn CBoero BpeMenn. [Orpheus and Homer are considered the leaders among poets. Demosphenes and Cicero were the leading orators of their time.] • BHpnuineBa noeMa Enea^a coctoht H 3 12 necHeh. [Virgil’s poem The Aeneid consists of 12 cantos.] The names mentioned are strictly canonical. The well-known poets Homer, Virgil, and Ovid, as well as the orators Demosthenes and Cicero, show up repeatedly: • I[Hu;epoH 6& m cjiaBHbm Phmckhh, a ,Z [eM O C (j)eH TpeuecKHH opaxop. [Cicero was a glorious Roman orator while Demosphenes was a glorious Greek one.] • BexHHcxBO J[H M oc(J)eH O B O , HnpepoHOBo. [Rhetoric o f Demosphenes, Cicero.] • /IpeBHHe pHxopbi. [Ancient rhetoricians.] • H,Hu;epoH 6biji BejiHKHii opaxop. [Cicero was a great orator.] • ^ H M O c<J)eH h IjHgepoH cyxb KpacHopeuHBeimme hs apeBHHX bhxhh. [Demosphenes and Cicero are the most eloquent ancient orators.] • npeBpanxeHHg OsurnQBbi. [Ovid’s Metamorphoses.] • HoxoacfleHHe Yjihccobo, TejieMaxoBo. [Adventures of Ulysses, Telemachus.] • Apncxoxejib, Omhp, LJnitepOH, Thx-jihbhh h npou. cyxx> KJiaccHuecKHe nncaxejiH. [Aristotle, Homer, Cicero, Titus-Livius and others are classical writers.] • rOMep nasbiBaa Eocyqapeii nacxbipaMH Hapo^OB, ynoxpednji secbMa xopomyio Mexafoopv. [Homer, by calling monarchs the shepherds of nations, used a very good metaphor.] • BbHiHcaxB Jiyunrnfl Mecxa H 3 OMHpa, H 3 BnprHjiHa. [To copy out the best parts of Homer, Virgil.] • BnprHJiHH nouHxaexcx BxoptiM cxHxoxBoppeM no OMHpe. [Virgil is considered the second poet after Homer.] • CpaBHeHne. CicynMH cpaseHeHHbiH c MynamHMca TaHxanoM. B necHxx Omhpob&k h BnprHJiHeBbix naxoaaxcx npexpacHbia cpaBHeHHX. TpyaqjnodHB xax nuena; XBepfl naue A^aManxa; xpycJinsee 3anpa; jhox xax xnrp, cyxb cpaBHeHHX. [Comparison: The greedy is compared with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200 the tormented Tantalus. Wonderful comparisons are found in Homer’s and Virgil’s cantos. Laborious as a bee; harder than Adamant; more cowardly than a hare; fierce as a tiger are comparisons.] • fOneHaji 6mji hspmhbih campinc. [Juvenal was quite a good satirist.] Other sentences contain references to the playwrights Aristophanes, Terence, and Plautus. • ^[peBHHe nncarenH KOMezum 6bijih ApncxoifjaH, njianxo h TepemiHH. [Aristophanes, Plautus, and Terence were ancient comedy writers.] All of these references never go much beyond basic labeling. More interesting is the observation that the world of classic mythology is mostly associated with poetic genres, if myths are not referred to directly.3 7 This is reinforced by the fact that lexically “fable,” “plot”, “fabrication,” and “mythos” are all concentrated in one word in 18th century Russian: basn ’ : • EacHH E3 0 1 1 0BH .3 8 [Aesop’s fables.] • Hanon: BnprajiHH, TopaijHH, Obhahh cyxx. HaHJiynne H 3 Phmjmh cxHxoxBopqM. Ohh nucajra o Sorax onne BBmBenetiHBia npaBnononodneM 6acHH: cjieaoBaxejiBHO see HaHJiyminie JIaxH H C K H e cxHxoxBOppbi nacajiH o 6orax onne Sacra. [Inference: Virgil, Horace, Ovid were the best Roman poets. They wrote only ficticious myths about the gods, beautified with likelihood: therefore, all the best Latin poets wrote only ficticious myths about Gods.] • CxHxoxBoppBi roBopax, hxo JJjiana AKxeona npespaxHJia b ojiena. [Poets say that Diana transformed Acteon into a deer.] • EacHocnoBHe roBopnx, nxo Chsh$ nenpecxaHHO xaxaex na ropy KaM eHb.3 9 [The myth says that Sisyphus permanently rolls a stone up the hill.] 3 7 • apaKOH: Sacra o KaflMe, Ilepcee h ^30He; • JlaSnpuHT; ... cflenaraofi fleaanoM b KpHTe, rae M nHOTaBp 6bui aanepx. • IlajiHua r epicyjiecoBa. 3 8 Aesop’s fables are always in verse form. 3 9 Although Sisyphus appears in other Greek sources, his fate in Hades is known from the Odyssey. See Aleksei F. Losev, Mifologiia grekov i rimlian (Moskva : Mysl’, 1996), and especially Karl Kerenyi, Die Mvthologie der Griechen (Zurich : Rhein Verlag, 1964). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 This could be one reason why fiction as a prose genre w as not canonized until the end of the 18th century in Russia, only after classicism had been superseded by sentimentalism. Fiction, fabulation, and fabrication were, within the classicist world of literary rules, reserved for verse. Lastly, in the SAR. it is exclusively within the literary field that Russian contemporaries are related to classical authors of antiquity. Never do Russian names occur together with Greek and Latin figures in a historical or scientific context.4 0 • nepenecTH OMupa Ha Pocchhckhh aatiK. [To translate Homer into Russian.] • IlH H flapoB bi, r o p a u H e B b i, JIom o h o co bm ohbi. [Pindar’s, Horace’s, Lomonosov’s odes.] • Omhp nen AxHJinecoB rnea h TposHCKyio 6pam>. JIomohocob nen Hejia nerpa BejiHKaro. [Homer sang about Achilles’ wrath and the Trojan War. Lomonosov sang about Peter the Great.] • PoBHgTfcea CTHX0TB0peHH3M H C B O H M H C O M H pO M , BnprHJIHeM . [To equal Homer, Virgil in one’s poetry.] • CaxHPBi ropaaneBbi. Carapti lOBenajioBM, KaHTeMHpoBbi. [Horace’s satires. Juvenal’s, Kantemir’s satires.] Classicism, or rather the setting up of ancient classic authors as examples of good style, was still very much alive in Russia at the time, at least among the academicians. Lomonosov appears in most of the entries where classical authors are compared to modem Russian ones. He is the favoured candidate. In an article entitled “Quarrel between Ancients and Modems in Russia,” Karen Rosenberg explains that, although “the range of opinion in mid-eighteenth century Russian 4 0 The only exception I have come across is found in the illustrative sentence o f “istoriia” which includes the string: “...HcTopua o aejiax AjiexcaHflpa, IleTpa Bejmxaro...” Peter the Great had been associated with Alexander the Great already during his lifetime; see Richard S. Wortman, Scenarios of Power (Princeton: UP, 1995), I: 48. A Russian-Antiquity relationship is also alluded to in the following general sentence: flejiaTB b b ii i h c k h H 3 HCTopmcoB apeBHHX [to copy excerpts from ancient Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 letters was rather small... clearly, imitation o f the ancients was a sine qua non o f the literary art. It was the extent to which deviation from the classical rules could be tolerated which was a matter of considerable debate.” And “if Sumarokov and Trediakovskii represent the two ends of the rather abbreviated Russian spectrum, then Lomonosov should ...be placed between them, but nearer to the ancient pole.”4 1 Authority-oriented imitation o f the ancients was still canonical and standard for the academicians. This is what their education had taught them, although the dictionary was written in the late eighties and early nineties, when sentimentalism was gaining prominence. Karamzin’s famous and very successful “Bednaia Liza” was published in 1792, when the third volume of the SAR appeared in print. Greek and Roman examples are also mentioned in relation to the visual arts: • CTaxva rpyzpiaa. Cxaxyn .qpeBHHa, TpenecKHa, Phmckhh. [Bust statue. Ancient, Greek, Roman statues.] • KapraHa cna npeacTaBjiaex lOnnxepa, Anojuiona, jihk Mys. [This painting depicts Jupiter, Apollo, the face o f the muses.] • Mapc bo B ceM opyaoni Ha KapxHHe n p e a c x a B Jie H H B iH . [Mars is depicted in the painting in full armament.] • )KHBonHceH kcho B B ipa3HJi AxHJiJiabo raese h cexyioinaro. ... B M y3M K e xchbo rooSpaxcena [sic] 6ypa, CKOpSt Op^eesa. [The painter clearly portrayed Achilles in anger and lamenting ... The music vigorously represents a storm, Orpheus’ sorrow.] As for Greek and Roman history, the names mentioned in the SAR’s illustrative sentences are not so much references to ancient historians,4 2 as they are historians]. But I have never encountered anything like a juxtaposition ofN ikon’s Chronicles and Tacitus’ Annales, to take one example. 4 1 E. G. Cross, ed., Russia and the West in the Eighteenth Century (Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Partners, 1983) 196-205, here, 200 and 199. 4 2 Livy (Titus Livius), Herodotus, Sallust, Polibiev, and Tacitus can be found in the SAR. but this is the exception. See the sentences: “ O t p h b h c t o h cnor TamrroB”; “ApHCTOTem ., Omhp, IfunepoH, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 references to the historical figures themselves, and the facts and events that the classical authors describe in their works. It would be interesting to trace exactly where the classical historical knowledge came from. Since Alexander the Great and references to the history o f Rome are most extant, I suspect that Curtius Rufus’ Res Gestae Alexandri Magni and Livy’s Romanae historiae principis had been part of the former academic school curriculum. • HcTppng TpenecKaa, PnMCKaa. [Greek, Roman history.] • CoicpameHHe P h m c k o h Hctophh. [Roman history abridged.] • flpeBHHe dopnpbi HaMa^bisaJiHCb MacnoM. [Ancient wrestlers smeared themselves with oil.] • y Phmjwh Sbiji oco6;ih b oh o 6p a# jyw BdoaceHHg h x H M n e p a T o p o B , KOTopoh c BeaHKHM xopjKecxBOM o x n p a B n m iH . P e p K y /ie c B d o a c e n 6bm Ha rope Etc. [To deify their emperors the Romans had a special rite, which they celebrated in a great festival. Hercules was deified on Mount Oeta.] • PH M Jisrae nacT O nojBepaceHHBiM napop;aM flasanH npaBa PH M C K aro rpaac^aHCTBa. [The Romans often gave the rights of Roman citizenship to conquered nations.] • Y P h m j ih h BoeH anajiBCTBQ BBepaeMo 6 b ijio KoHcynaM. [The Romans entrusted military command to Consuls.] • flpeBHHe PHM JigH e no6e,zmxejieH yBeHnasajiH (sic: should be yBenneBajiH) JIaBpaM H. [The ancient Romans crowned victors with laurels.] • flajiHHHHK. Lictor. Tax Ha3HBajiHca npHcxaBHHKH, Koxopwe b flpeBHeit Phmckoh HMnepHH jim osHaneHHa BJiacxH Bbimmnx [sic] h h h o b h h k o b hochjih nyKH nanoK h o t npyxbeB, b Koxoptia B B H 3biB aO T C b xonopti. [Lictor. This was a term for the guards in the Ancient Roman Empire who carried axes bound with bundles o f sticks or twigs, to signify the power o f top officials.] • .U peB H H e H a p o flb i b 3H aK H p e s M e p n o ft nenajin h p a s K a a H n a noctmajiH r j i a s b i c b o h nennoM. [Ancient people scattered their heads with ashes to show extraordinary sorrow and repentance.] • IIonpHiiie: PaacxoaHHe onpeflejiemiyio flOTHy HMeioniiee, na KoropoM ApeBHHe P H M JiH H e h rpeKH noaBHsaiiHCB b SeraHHH. [A field o f a certain length where ancient Romans and Greeks competed in running.] X H T -JiH B H fi h npoH. cyxb KJiaccMecioie nncaTejiH”; HcTopaa CajnocraeBa, HpoaoTOBa, nojiHSaeBa”; “ H c t o p h k h r p e g e c K u e , JlaTH H C K H e.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 • flpeBHHe PHMjiflne HHHero 6es npopniiaHHH He H aH H H ajiH . [Ancient Romans never started anything without asking the oracles.] • Tht HcnpoBepr ctchh HepycajiHM CKHa. [Titus broke down the walls of Jerusalem.] • HyMe IIoM nH JiH K ) nnemnecTBOBaJi PoMyji. [Numa Pompilius was preceded by Romulus.] • PoMyn ocHQBaji ropo# Phm. [Romulus founded the city of Rome.] • HH3PH H VJica b Sea^ny Kypmifi. [Curtius jumped into the abyss.] • Kypipra pa3C K aK aB m H C B HHspHnyjica b nponacrt. [Curtius jumped down into the crevace in full gallop.] • M. KyppHH 3a cnacenae PHM a HHaBepravjica b nponacTb. [Curtius jumped down into the crevice to rescue Rome.]4 3 Important Roman figures were Hannibal and Caesar, o f whom the following sample sentences bear witness: • AHHHbaji npoBen bohcko cBoe upea AjinHHCKHe xpebTbi. [Hannibal led his army over the Alps’ ridges.] • AHHHbaji CJiaBH yio oflepacan nobetty npn KaHHax. Xpncxoc pommca npH Asrycxe, a pasnax npn TnBepHH Kecape. [Hannibal won a glorius victory at Cannes. Christ was bom under Augustus and was crucified under Tiberius.] • C bafwH M aK C H M h Ammbaji xoxa 6bmh cnaBHtie BoeHauajiBHHKH, ho nepsaro nopHuatOT b HepeniHMocTH, a ^pyraro 3a HeTepnenHBocTb. [Fabius Maximus and Hannibal were famous commanders even though they were criticized: the former - for indecision, the latter - for impatience.] • IOjihh Kecapb nporoeHHHH K H H ^ cariaM H o6BepHVBHmcb b BocxpbuiHe BepxHaa ofleacflbi, nan b Phmckom Cenaxe. [Stabbed by daggers, Julius Caesar fell in the Roman Senate after having wrapped the lower end of his robe around himself.] • K)jiHaH Kecapt oxpexca XpncxHaHCKaro, a npHHaji HflojionoKJioHHHuecKHH 3aK O H . [Julian Caesar refuted the Christian law and accepted idolatry.] • IOjihh Kecapb ycbiH O BH Ji no cebe BHyxa cBoero OKxaBHana ABrycxa. [Julius Caesar adopted his grandson Octavian Augustus.] 4 3 The last three sentences refer to a legend, according to which Marcus Curtius, a young soldier, galloped in full gear on horseback into a gap that had opened on the Forum in Rome. The oracle had predicted that if the Romans threw in the best they had, the fissure in the ground would close again. Curtius is said to have proclaimed before taking off that this was Roman courage, and the gap indeed closed right after Curtius had thrown himself into it (362 B.C.) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 The other major idol is Alexander the Great: • AjieKcanflp m h h j i Beet csex nonBeprHvxb c b o c h b jiu c x h . [Alexander thought o f bringing the whole world under his power.] • Ajieiccaimp MHorae onppBepr b o Achh rpa^bi. [Alexander destroyed many towns in Asia.] • Ajieiccaimp aasHjoBaji AxHJiJiecy... [Alexander envied A chilles...] • Ajieiccaimp, no cBHirexe-nbcxsv Kb. Kypnna 6biJi T ocynapb BejfflKonyniHHbiH, ho SesMepno Jno6onecxHBbiH. [According to Quintus Curtius’ testimony, Alexander was a generous but boundlessly ambitious emperor.] • CBepxo61.iK H O BeH H i.iH AaeKcaHflpa nocTynoK npotHB EiJtecxHOHa Bcex xpenexaxb sacxaBHJi. [Alexander’s extraordinary deed against Hephaistion made everybody tremble.] • IIo npe^cxaBJieHHH AjieKcannpa BejiHKaro nojiKOBomtBi ero pas^ernum ero IJ,apcxB0 . [After Alexander the Great’s death, his commanders divided his kingdom.] • IOjihh Kecapb 6hji copeBHHxejib cnasHbix /teji AjiexcaHflpa BenHKaro. [Julius Caesar was a competitor of the famous acts o f Alexander the Great.] • AjiexcaHPip BejiH K H H snec cBoe opvacne b IlepcHio. [Alexander the Great carried his arms into Persia.] Alexander’s father, Philip of Macedonia, is also mentioned: • OHJinnn papb M aK e^oH CK H H hmcji y ce6n HapOHHaro, Koxopbiii HanoM HHaji eMV. hxo oh CM epxeH. [Philip of Macedonia had a special envoy who reminded him that he was mortal.] Interestingly, Roman history also provides negative examples of rulership and government. Russia was, it seems, eager to find explanations for the fall o f huge, powerful ancient empires, both the Macedonian and the Roman. Negative remarks and observations, however, as we will see, are never encountered when the academicians refer to Russian historical figures and events. Russian history in the SAR is always glorious! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 • HcnpoBepaceHHe P h m c k o h HMnepHH Bocnocjie^oBajio o x HamecTBHH BapBapcKHX Hapo,n;oB. [The fall o f the Roman Empire followed f r o m the invasion o f barbarian peoples.] • B OTHomeHHH k mmy: SesnejiOBenHBiii MywrenB, BjiacxenHH, K aKO Bti Sbuih HepoH, ATTHJia, nnp. Em poda H e n o e e n e c m zo . [Regarding people: brutal torturer, ruler, such as Nero, Attila, and others. Scourge o f humanity.] • KopMHJiHpa H 3 M JKm eHHecTBa noBajiHjra Hepona k cypO BO C TH M . [The wet-nurse got Nero accustomed to cruelty from infancy on.]44 • MaKe^oHCKoe napcxBO, no Komnnie AneKcaimpa BejiHKaro, ot MeacjovcodHg ero BoenanajiBHHKOB npHnuio b ynaqoK. [After Alexander the Great’s death the Macedonian Empire fell into decay from internecine war among its military leaders.] The ancient philosophers are referred to as historical figures rather than in connection with their ideas and theories. The content of their teachings was, it appears, not widely known. They were merely icons of liubomudriia [philosophy]. • Cbajiec, C o j i o h , Bnac, X hjioh, IlHTTaK, IlepHaHtcp h Kneo^yn noHHxaioTca b nncne ce^BMH MyjpenoB TpenecKHx. [Thales, Solon, Bias, Chilon, Pittacus, Periander, and Cleobulus are considered to be the seven wise men of Greece.] • CeMB FpenecKHx MvnnenoB. [The seven wise men of Greece.] • fftnjmrop Sbiji nepB&ra H 3 FpexoB nojiynHBmnft hmh jnoSoMvnpna. [Pythagoras was the first Greek to be called philosopher.] • CoKpaT eflBa oxsanHTB B03Mor AjiKHBnafla ot .aypHBix nocxynKOB. .Z ftlM O C fjieH O T AypHBIX TeJIOflBHXCeHHH C B eJIH K H M TpyflOM OTBajHTBCa B03Mor. [Socrates could hardly break Alcibiades of his bad behavior. Demosthenes had a hard time changing his [bad] gestures.] • OMeroM yMepmBJieH Sbiji CoKpax. [Socrates was put to death by Omeg...] • BejieMvnpBM IljiaTOH. [The very wise Plato.] • F L naT O H no BejieMvnpmo CBoeMy Sbiji b bcjihkom y FpeKOB yBaaceHHH. [The Greeks held Plato in high respect for his great wisdom.] The scientists (or Greek philosophers in their roles as scientists), on the other hand, are labeled more specifically, although references to them are scarce: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 • fleM OKpHT H EnHKyp M H H JIH , H T O MHp Cefi H3 aTO M O B C O C TaB JieH . [Democritus and Epicurus thought that this world is made up o f atoms.] • ApxHMe^ nojiOKHJi nepBtia ocHOBaHira Ctuthkh. [Archimedes laid the first foundations of statics.] To summarize, we may say that Greek and Roman poetry and rhetorics were important models for the academicians. Lomonosov was perceived as the poet and orator closest in spirit to the ancient classical authors. Moreover, Greek and Roman imperial history was of special interest to the Russians of the late eighteenth century. The decline of the Roman and Macedonian Empires seems to have raised questions and concerns. The illustrative sentences refering to canonical events and names of classical aniquity reflect the academicians’ educational background. The compilers of the SAR were trained ten and twenty years before Catherine’s educational reforms had begun. 2.4 Russian History The SAR’s self-invented illustrative sentences contain surprisingly few references to Russian historical figures and events. In my estimation they do not outnumber the references to Greek and Roman historical facts, rather the opposite is the case. The following list is not complete, but gives an idea of what historical facts were on the academicians’ minds when they were compiling the dictionary. The comparably small number of references to Russian history is especially striking considering the fact that quotations from historical works illustrating a word’s 4 4 The previous two sentences reflect Catherine’s enlightened dislike o f torture (see below). In the Nakaz she had already suggested that torture be abolished as a means o f investigation and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 meaning are extremely frequent, as we shall see. This again indicates that the cultural backgrounds of the compilers, as reflected in the self-composed sentences, and the programmatic goals of the dictionary, are two different things. One should also keep in mind that many of the “seemingly self-composed” (i.e. not quoted) illustrative sentences are translated from the DAF. This certainly made the SAR more “classicist” (in terms of references to ancient authors) and more “colloquial” (including direct speech sentences) than it would have been otherwise. According to my observations, the baptism of the Russian lands under Vladimir in 988 marked the beginning of Russian history for the dictionary’s compilers. This is despite the fact that Catherine’s own history of Russia, the Zaniski kasatel’no Rossiiskoi Istorii. written for her grandsons, starts out with Riurik. I encountered a reference to Riurik only in the quoted material from these same Zapiski as well as in the definition of “Stepennaia Kniga.” Even there, however, the beginning of Russian history, the first “stepen’,” is Vladimir I (see below). To have Russia’s history start with Vladimir puts emphasis on religion as a nation building factor, and suggests that Christian belief is essential to Russian identity. The string of names listed under the entry word “velikii” sets the historical framework of Russia’s history: Vladimir the Great, Peter the Great, and Catherine the Great: prosecution. Recent studies confirm that under Catherine torture was indeed by and large not used. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 98 84 5 • BnajpiMp B eiT H K W H . IleTp Bbjihkhh, EKaTepHHa BeJiHKaa. [Vladimir the Great, Peter the Great, and Catherine the Great.] • Cb. Khjbb Bjia,n,H M H p KpecxHJica b Kopcyne. KpecxnxBCM b xpncTaHCKyio sepy. [The Saint Prince Vladimir was baptized in Korsun. To be baptized into the Christian faith.] • B eJIH K H H Kh33B Bjia^HM Hp P oC C H IO np O C B C T H JI C B . KpenieHneM. [Prince Vladimr enlightened Russia through his holy baptism.] • Kasajiep cb. paBHoanocxoji&Haro Krasa Bjia^HMupa nepBoft, BxopoH, TpexBeil, nexBepxoH cxenemi. [Holder of the Order of the Apostle-like Prince St. Vladimir of the First, Second, Third, Fourth Class.] The following sentence is worthy of note because of the international context it reconstructs for the reign of Vladimir Monomakh: 1053-1125 • AjieKcefi I h Hoann HMnepaxopBi F penecKne 6buih coBpeM eHHUKw Bjia^HMHpy II. [The Greek Emperors Aleksei I and Ioann were Vladimir Monomakh’s contemporaries.] This is a historiographical method recommended and applied by Catherine herself in her Zapiski. On the first page of her book, article 4, she writes: BcaxoMy napo^y 3Hamie CBoeft coScxbchhoh HcxopHH h Feorpa(|)HH HyxcHee, HeacejiH nocxopoHnnx; o/tnaKo ace 6es 3HaHHa HnocxpaHHBix HapoflOB HcxopHH, HaHuaueace coce^cxBenHBK ^eft h ^eamiH, CBoa ne 6y,zjex acHa h aocxaxoHHa. [For every nation4 6 it is more important to know its own history and geography than knowing the history of others; however, without knowledge of the history of foreign nations, especially the deeds and acts of neighboring peoples, one’s own history will not be clear and complete.]4 7 4 5 The dates in this section are added by myself. It helps to understand in what time frame the academicians were thinking. 4 6 Regarding the translation of “narod” as “nation,” see my Conclusion. 4 7 Imperatritsa Ekaterina II. Sochineniia. Ed. A. N. Pypin (Sanktpeterburg: Tipografiia imperatorskoj akademii nauk, 1901) 8: 7. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 Accordingly, every chapter of her book, each of which is dedicated to one Russian historical figure, includes an appendix with the names of the rulers of other countries at the time. Sure enough, her chapter on Vladimir Monomakh lists both Alexei and Ioann as neighboring Greek rulers (Imperatritsa Ekaterina II, 8: 232). There is no mention of the devastating n ash estvie Tatar [Tatar invasion] in the SAR; only the glorious victory over the invaders at the end of the Mongol yoke is referred to; 1350-1389 • MaMaeBo nodonme. [The battle with Mamai.] • Po/nrrejTBCKaa cyddoTa. CyddoTa, b koio noMHHOBemie OTnpaBjiaerca no ycommiM. Ona b nanajie ycTaHOBJiena BenH K H M Kna3eM ^HMHTpneM HBanoBHneM JJ ohckhm b naMSTB ydnenHBix Ha nodonme c MaMaeM Ha none KynHKose; noneMy HMenyeTca h JjM um poecKow cyddoToio. [Parental Saturday. Saturday commemorating the deceased. It was first established by Grand Duke Dmitrii Ivanovich Donskoi in memory of those killed in the battle against Mamai on Kulikovo Field; for this reason it is also called Dmitrii’s Saturday.] The next historical figures featured in the SAR’s self-invented illustrative sentences are Ivan the Terrible, Stenka Razin, and Czar Fedor Alekseevich: 1552 • IfapB H oaH H Bacmi&eBHu rposHBift dnui cmhphtcjib KaaancKHx acHTenefi. [Czar Ioann Vasil’evich the Terrible subjugated the inhabitants of Kazan’.] 1559 • Cbih doapcKHH: ... U,apB HoaHH BacHJiBeBHH b 1559 rony yKa3an b Mockobckom yesfle BBidpaxb noMemHKOB h ne Ten doapCKHX Jiynninx 1000 nenoBeK fljia cnyacdbi... [Boyar’s son; ... In 1557 Czar Ioann Vasil’evich ordered that the best 1000 landowners and children o f the boyars be selected for service.] 1563 • CrcneHHaajcHHra: KnHra coflepncamaa b cede poflocjiOBHe Pocchhckhx rocynapen, HanHHaiomeeca ot BenHKaro Kh. PypHKa, a nane ot cb. Ojibth h npononacaameeca no Focynapa Ifapa h BenHKaro Knasa Hoanna BacHJiBeBHna: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 Tax nasBana no xoM y, h t o ona cocxatrr H3 17 cxenenefi, H H xaeM bix ox c b . B n a ^ H M n p a BenHKaro /to L[apa Hoamra BacHJiteBHHa. [The book of Degrees: Book containing the genealogy of the Russian rulers, beginning with Prince Rurik the Great, and further from St. Ol’ga and going up to the ruler Czar and Grand Prince Ioann Vasil’evich, which is called such, because it includes seventeen ‘degrees’ [periods of rule], counted from St. Vladimir the Great to Czar Ioann Vasil’evich.]4 8 f 1671 • IlnnepoH 6nui bcjihkhh opaxop. Efijiep bc jih k h h M a< J)eM axH K . Coxpax aennKHH d>HJioco(|). CxeHtxa PasHH 6 m ji B ejiH K H il sjio/teh. [Cicero was a great orator. Euler a great mathematician. Socrates a great philosopher. Stenka Razin was a great villain.] 1682 • MecxHHuecxBO ymnnxnKHJi L[apb Oeo/top AiiexceeBHU codopHbiM neanneM b 1682 ro/ty, FenBapa 12 M H a. [Tsar Feodor Alekseevich destroyed mestnichestvo by his act at the council o f January 12,1682.] Thus Russian history was linear and glorious. According to the SAR, one ruler succeeded another, and many great victories were fought.4 9 However, there is one more theme that, albeit faintly, arises from the “mestnichstvo” and “syn boiarskii” sentences: an interest in the legal or administrative history of the country. This will be most evident in the illustrative sentences mentioning Catherine (see below). Legal documents are, as we shall see, among the texts most frequently quoted in the dictionary. More frequent than references to medieval czars are references to Peter the Great. He emerges as the great victor, the father of the nation. Peter is further 4 8 The detailed explanations o f certain religious and historical terms, such as roditel’ skaia subbota, syn boiarskii, stepennaia kniga [see above], strictly speaking, exceed the limits o f a concise definition for a linguistic dictionary and would, as proper names, rather belong into a encyclopedia. These types of encyclopedic definitions in the SAR are not followed by illustrative sentences. Since they Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 presented as the founder o f Saint Petersburg, the Russian navy, and the Academy of Sciences. His persona was, even in Catherine’s times, the most closely associated with Roman history; he himself had consciously cultivated the image of “ Imperator”(Wortman 40-46). Peter I officially adopted the title in 1721. • PocyznapB HETP Bcjihkhh noSe^HJi cjiasHO Bparos cbohx. [The sovereign Peter the Great gloriously defeated his enemies.] (Highlighting in the original.) 1695-1696 * <Djiot Pocchhckoh ecn> 3aBeueHHe Hexpa BejiHKaro. [The Russian navy was an institution o f Peter the Great.] • nexp I 6biji Q C H O B axejiB C : HexepSypra. [Peter I was the founder of St. Petersburg.] • OcHosaHHe CamcxnexepSypry nojioxceno b 1703m rofly. OcHOBaHHe M O H apxH H . [St. Petersburg was founded in 1703. The founding of a monarchy.] • Kapji XII. noSexwen 6biji coBepineHHo noa nojixaBoro. [Carl XH was completely defeated at Poltava.] • Tocyaapu nexp I no aocxosHHio HapeueH oxen oxeuecxBa. [Czar Peter I is justly called the fatherland’s father.] • nexp B cjihkhh ocHQBaji AicaaeMHio Hayx; EKaxepHHa II PoccHHCKyio AKaaeMHio. PoMya ocnoBaJi ropoa Phm. OcHOBaxB yuenoe oSinecxso. [Peter the Great founded the Academy of Sciences; Catherine II the Russian Academy. Romulus founded the city of Rome. To found a learned society.] Note in the last sentences the parallelism of Romulus and Peter as founders of capitals. Peter the Great is also virtually embedded in ancient history under the entry word “istoriia”: • Hcxopna nepKOBHaa, CBexcKaa. Hcxopna FpeuecKaa, PHM CKaa... Hcxopna o aeaax AaeKcanapa, Hexpa BeaHKaro. .. .Hcxopna CajnocxneBa, Hponoxosa, nojmSHeBa... [Church, secular history. Greek, are also self-invented, I include them here in my discussion o f the illustrative material, to highlight certain thematic issues. 4 9 The defeat of the great villain Stenka Razin is a victory too. 1703 1709 1722? 1725 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 Roman history ... The history of the deeds of Alexander, Peter the Great ... The History of Sallust, Herodotus, Polybius.]5 0 Peter the Great is for history what Lomonosov is for literature: the link to the ancients.5 1 Like Ivan Groznyi (in the entry syn boiarskii) and Fedor Alexeevich (in mestnichestvo), Peter the Great added features to and thus changed the definition of the noble class. The sentence illustrating the meaning of the adjective “baronskii” reads: • EapoHCKoe ^ octohhctbo BBefleno co speMen IIETPA BEJIHKAFO. [The title of baron was introduced under Peter the Great.] (Highlighting in the original.) The emphasis on legislation relating to the status of the “dvorianstvo” is evident in the SAR. I will return to this issue below. The Empress herself plays a prominent role in the pages of the dictionary. Catherine’s achievements, in the eyes of the compilers, were not her victories on the military front, but rather her social reforms and legislation. Under the entry word nakaz the reader naturally finds the illustrative text splinter: • Haxas kommhcchh o cohhhchhh npoeicra Hosaro yjroaceHHH. [The Instruction to the commission for drafting a new code of laws.] It is important to note that a sizable number of the academicians had been actively involved in drafting and discussing the guidelines for a new code of laws in 1767- 1768. The clerics Gavriil and Nechaev proofread the Instruction for Catherine before it went into print. Fonvizin and Shcherbatov were deputies of the nobility on 5 0 The historian Polybius (203? B.C.- c.120 B.C.) is the author of The Rise o f the Roman Empire. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 the Commission, and Barsov remained a member of the sub-commissions (chastnye kommissii) even after the original Commission had been dismissed. These men were, no doubt, very familiar with the Empress’ laws and their history. In definitions rather than the illustrative sentences, the SAR names Catherine in connection with a number of administrative innovations and institutions, officially introduced by her in the Statute of Local Administration of 1775; this substantial law also “referred back quite specifically to parts of Catherine’s Instruction” (de Madariaga, Catherine 33). • EojuhHtma ExaxepHHCKaa, HaBaoBCKaa, ropoacicaa. [Catherine’s hospital, Paul’s hospital, city hospital.] • IIpHKas o6inecTBeHHaro npHspenna. CyaefiHoe Mecxo b itapcxsoBaHHe EicaxepHHM II, ynpeacaeHHoe ana npmpemia saoB, cnpox h Bcaicaro poaa SeaHBix jnoaeft. [Department o f social care. Legal site in the reign of Catherine II, established for the benefit o f widows, orphans and all sorts of poor people.] • Cxpanneft ye3aHBm: Hhhobhhk b Kaacaoft OKpyre ry6epHHH onpeaeJieHHBin rjw 6aeHna, nxofi Himero npoxHBHaro BJiacxn, mxrepecy, 3aK O H aM , ynpeacaeHnaM, noBejiemiaM HMHEPATOPCKATO BEJIHHECTBA h ofiiqeMy fiaary ne npoH3xoamo. [Controller in an uyezd: an official in each district of a gubernia, appointed to make sure that nothing is undertaken against the power, the interests, the laws, the establishments, the orders of Her Highness the Empress, and the general good.] • Cxpanqen Ka3eHHBix aea; cxpairaen vroaoBHBix aea. B HBmemHeM 3aKOHonoaoaceHHH: hhhobhhkh pa3H&ix cxeneHeft onpeaeaaeMBie b HaMecxHHnecxBax gym coBexoB n p o x y p o p a M ... [Financial controller, criminal case controller. In today’s legal system: officials of various ranks, appointed in the offices of the govemor-generals as advisors to prosecutors...] • HajBOPHBiH cva: 1) hedkhhh: b cxomnte HMHEPATOPCKAFO BEJIHHECTBA oxnpaBaaex npaBocyane xax no yroaoBHBiM, xax h no rpaacaancKHM aeaaM ... [The court of the [Imperial] court: 1) lower: In the capital of Her Imperial Highness it administers the law in both criminal and civil cases...] 5 1 The link, however, is much more pronounced with Lomonosov. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 The academicians do not fail to point out that Catherine founded a large number of new institutions, among which, as we have seen already, was also the Russian Academy. • IleTp BeuHKHH ocHOsaji AfcaueMHio Hayic; EicaTepHHa II PoccHficKyio AjcuueMHio. [Peter the Great founded the Academy of Sciences, Catherine II the Russian Academy.] According to Wortman, Catherine was the “Russian Minerva, the bearer of peace and the protector of wisdom,” an image she too consciously forged and promoted (Wortman, 119ff). Hence, perhaps: • KapTHHa chh H3o6paacaex MimepBy. [This painting depicts Minerva.] Catherine II is also remembered as a censor of language. The czar’s legislative powers clearly extended into the lexical domain. On several occasions she forbade the use of certain words, such as “raskol’nik” in 1783 (see section 2 above). Naturally, for the compilers of a normative dictionary, establishing the rules of the Russian language, its “do’s and don’ts”, this is very important. Writing a dictionary was thus not only a theoretical exercise carried out by a few learned men and women, but a serious business that could have considerable practical consequences, as one could be officially punished for using an incorrect word. Listing the terms “s/ovo i delo, ” “chelobit ’ e” [petition; literally: forehead-hitting, i.e. bowing humbly before the czar until the forehead hits the ground] and “ra&” [slave], the SAR explained that they were considered politically incorrect. Strict measures were taken to purge them from the current vocabulary. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 The expression “ slovo i delo [gosudarevo]” was linked historically to Peter I’s much feared Secret Chancelery. A simple “word,” or denunciation “was enough to launch an inquisition in which the accused, the delator and the witnesses were all tortured” (de Madariaga, “Politics,” 103). The institution continued to exist under different names until February 9,1762, when Peter III (not Catherine II) finally abolished it. Catherine’s manifesto of October 19,1762, officially confirmed the abolition o f the Chanceleiy and also added the prohibition of the abused term “ slovo i delo" associated with the institution’s cruel prosecutions. Her manifesto was part of the symbolic measures taken by Catherine at the beginning of her reign, which gave her the reputiation of an enlightened monarch.5 3 • Cjiobo h neno: BbipaaceHHe cxapmmoe, ^o xataHX nen Kacasmeeca h osHanaBinee ^ohoc na xoro ...; nocne Kpaftne anoynoxpeSHxejibHoe, a na nocaenoK h k o HenaBH CXH oe mpaxceHHe MaronJiecxoM b c j ih k o h h MHiiocepn,HOH HMHEPATPHLJM EKATEPHHM II 1762 roaa OxxaSpa 19 m a yHHuxoxceHO h sanpemeHO ynoxpenaxb c naicasaHHeM npoaep3HHKOB Ha xo. F ‘Word and deed’: Old expression relating to secret affairs and meaning the denunciation of someone; afterwards much abused, but later ended and its use forbidden as a hateful expression by the manifesto of the great and merciful Empress Catherine II on October 19, 1762, with penalty for those who dare to use it.] The empress was indeed interested in abolishing torture as a means of investigation in civil and criminal cases (with the exception of high treason). By purging the 5 2 In his book Istoriia gosudarstva i prava Rossii (Moskva: Iurist, 1994), I. A. Isaev says that this measure pleased the nobility, for “deiatel’nost’ [Kantselarii] vyzyvala aktivnoe nedovol’stvo dvorianstva” (106). 5 3 “Zu den symbolischen Handlungen zu Beginn ihrer Regierung gehorte vor allem, daB sie [Catherine II] die Anwendung der Folter einschrankte, ... gegen Korruption und Tragheit in der Verwaltung einschritt, ... die kulturrellenBeziehungen zum Westen weiter intensivierte, ... die Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lexical expression “slovo i delo” Catherine obviously meant to remedy the abuses themselves. She officially proclaimed that she would no longer accept flimsy denunciations to justify the use of torture. At the same time, however, her manifesto concealed the fact that the secret police still existed. The functions of the Chancelery were simply transferred to a special Secret Expedition of the Senate, where they were under Catherine’s direct control: “YmiHToaceHHe KannejiapHHH He osHanajio yHHuroaceHM CH C TeM bi noJiHTHuecKoro cticKa” [The removal of the Chancelery did not mean the elimination of the system of political procecution], writes Kodan in Razvitie russkogo nrava vtoroi polovinv XVU-XVIH vv. (Skripilev 129). In the SAR the academicians, of course, underline only the positive, enlightened aspects of the manifesto. The fact that the secret police still existed was simply not mentioned. This goes hand in hand with what I established earlier about politically sensitive issues in the SAR: it is the gaps and omissions in the dictionary that point to the political taboos under Catherine. It was not favorable, to say the least, to mention the deeds or existence of the “Tainaia ekspeditsiia” [Secret Expedition]. The purpose of concealing a deep-rooted social injustice, namely serfdom, was even more apparent in the ukaz of February 19, 1786, which prohibited the use of the expressions “b ’ iu chelom” and “m b.” The academicians refer to this statute in two places in the SAR. under “b ’ iu” and under “m b'” Zwangsbekehrungen muslimischer und animistischer Untertanen einstellte sowie die religiose Toleranz fur auslandische Siedler und altglaubige Exilanten zusicherte...” (Zemack 710). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 • Ebio nejioM: 3eM HO KJiaronoca. PeneHHe cne ynoTpefijnraoca nscxapn bo Bcex npomeHHax, b npHcyxcxBeHHtra Mecxa noflasaeMBix; ho Htme no BHconaHineMy cohsbojichhio EKATEPHHM II. BOSBefliniw poccmiH Ha Bepx cjiaBBi, OTMeneno, xax h npoHSBOflHbia ox Hero: nejioSumbe, HejiodumuaR, uejioSumuuK, nejioGumnuKoeuu. II ask humbly: I bow down to the ground. This expression had been in use since old times in all petitions filed with official offices; today, however, it has been abolished, along with its derivatives “petition,” “petitioner,” “pertaining to the petitioner,” according to the highest stipulation of Catherine II who has brought the Russians to the height of fame.] • Pa6: y phmjihh rocnona hmcjih npaso b jkhshh h CMepxn pafioB cbohx, a b P occhh BejiHKOK) EKATEPHHOIO h caMoe Ha3BaHHe pa6a HBxpeSneHO. [Slave: In Roman times lords had the right to decide the life and death of their slaves, but in Russia even the term “slave” itself has been eradicated by Catherine the Great.] The definition of “6 ’ iu chelorrT in the SAR is an almost literal rendering of Catherine’s law, the beginning of which reads as follows: C eH ax cK H H , b c jie ^ c x B H e hmchhbix yica30B . - 0 6 o x M e n e ynoxpeGjieHHH cjiob h p e n e H H H b n p o m e H M X n a B b ic o u a i im e e hmh h b Ilp H c y x c x B e H H b ra M e c x a n o ^ a B a e M b ix H e n o fin x e H : S b e r n e jio M Bceno/waHeflfflHH pa6 m pa6a, h o 3aMeHe ohbix cnoBaMH h peneHHHMH: %ajio6HHita hjih npom eHne, npHHOCHT jKajioSbi hjih npOCHT HM HpeK BCenOAHaHeHlHHH HJIH BepHblH nOAttaHHblH. 06bflBjiaexca bo B c e H a p o f ln o e H 3 B e c x n e . (Highlightings in the original, M.L.) [Decree of the Senate, following decrees of the Czar. - About the abolition of the use of the [following] words and expressions in petitions to the highest instance and the offices that accept petitions: “the servant [literally: slave] bows humbly]” and about their exchange with the words and expressions: “complaint or petition,” so-and-so, “humble or true subject lodges a complaint or files a petition.” This is a public announcement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 Only in connection with the illustrative sentence under “rab” [slave] does it become clear why the academicians praise Catherine for having raised “the Russians to the height of fame.” Catherine, enlightened as ever, allegedly abolished slavery itself by prohibiting the word “rab.” The law, however, was issued at a time — 1782 — when the situation of the serfs had just worsened, when in fact the serfs were bound to the lords and their land more tightly than ever before. Catherine, however, was still pretending that she was pursuing a liberal policy. Jerome Blum comments on Catherine’s decree of May 3, 1782, through which the peasants in Little Russia were bound to the soil: Nowhere in this decree did the words serf or serfdom appear. The text of the law stated that the need to maintain order, and to insure payment of taxes, made it necessary to take away freedom from the peasants. Once again the throne enserfed its subjects in the name of fiscal expediency and public order, and once again it showed its disinclination to call serfdom by its true name.5 4 This is in blunt contrast to Catherine’s attitude at the outset of her reign. In the Instructions to the Legislative Commission in 1767 she “referred to the seigniorial peasantry not as serfs but as slaves (raby)” (Blum 469). At that time she still thought she would be able to bring relief to the oppressed subjects of her empire. She decided to cast a ban on the word officially and publicly when she understood that the Russian serfs were more enslaved than ever and events had taken the opposite direction. 5 4 Jerome Blum, Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (New York: Atheneum, 1966), 418. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 These last word entries prove extremely interesting in various respects. First, Catherine is presented not only in her role as legislator and enlightened reformer, but also as a linguistic censor. It is made clear that the Russian lexicon was also her domain. She, and nobody else, was the Supreme Lexicographer. Second, the dictionary curiously lists the words that were prohibited by decree instead of not listing them or listing those that were introduced instead. This procedure underlines how important it was to the academicians to present the empress in the role of the enlightened reformer. Third, the SAR’s references to Catherine’s linguistic manipulations make the relationship between law and language very palpable. The monarch dictates the language, the Academy in extension of the monarch’s power establishes the rules of that language. On the other hand, language, clear and unambiguous language, as Catherine demanded in her Instruction of 1767,5 5 is essential for writing the laws necessary to govern a country. Finally, the illustrative sentences that refer to Catherine’s present position as the head of Russian Empire are noteworthy: • BceBMcouafimag P o c c h h OdjiajtaxejiBHima. [Most High Possessor of Russia.] • ER HMHEPATOPCKOE BEJIHHECTBO BBicouafime nosejiejia; BceBbicouanme yicaaaxi. H SBO JiH Jia. [Her Imperial Highness ordered with all authority; deigned to decree with all authority.] • IH ,e,a;poxM BenHKHa namea MOHAPXHHH Bee nponoBenvtox. [All proclaim the generosities of our great monarch.] Many sentences generally refer to the position of the czar in general as the highest administrative authority, his fame, his role, and grandeur; as well as to 5 5 Article 454 of the Nakaz reads in the French original: “Le stile des Loix doit etre concis & simple; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 Russia as a powerful state. Often, between the lines, there are allusions to Catherine’s enlightened government. • Yicas cen cocxoajica b TaicoM roqy. [This decree was issued in the year such-and-such.] • BejiHKna qena cero F ocyqapa npeSyqyx HeM OJiHHbiM H nponoBenHHKaMH cnaBBi ero. [The great deeds of this Sovereign will be the outspoken prophets o f his glory.] • ABrycTeaiiiHH, BceaBrycxeftiiiHH. [The most august, the most glorious.] • Ero HMnepaxopcKoe BbiconecxBO [His Imperial Highness.] • Oqa Ha npmnecxBHe Tocyqapa. [Ode on the arrival of the Sovereign.] • HMnepaxpmia BcepoccHHCKaa. P h m c k h h HMnepaxop. [Emperatrix of all Russia. Roman Emperor.] • HMaHHoe nosejieHHe Ea HMepaxopcxaro BejnmecxBa. [Personal order of Her Imperial Highness.] • ER HMnepaxopcKoe BejnmecxBO BceMHJiocxHBenme noBenena, noacajiOBana. [Her Imperial Highness most graciously ordered, granted.] • HspSpaacegge Focynapa, repoa na Mean, Ha qocxe. H3o6paaceHHe ocaqti, cpaaceHHa xaKaro. [Picture of the Sovereign, o f a hero in bronze, on a board. Picture of some siege, battle.] • HanepCHHK FocyqapeB. [Sovereign’s ring.] • nnaBHxejib rocyqapcxBa. [Ruler of a state.] • Y n p a s jia x B H a p o q o M . F o c y q a p B c e f t y n p a s q a e x n o q q a H H tiM H c b o h m h m h j io c x h b o , npaBocyqno, n p e M y q p o . ... Ceft B e jiB M o a c a y n p a B jia e x rocyqapxBeHHbiMH qoxoqaMH. [To govern a people. This Sovereign rules over his subjects kindly, justly, wisely. ... This high official manages the state income.] • r ocyqapcxBo cne ynpasjiaexca FocyqapeM npocBerqeHHbiM. [This state is ruled by an enlightened Sovereign.] • Oco6a rocyqapa CBam ,eH H a. [The person o f the Sovereign is saintly.] • rocyqap& e m c ji na rqase BeHeq h b pyice cmnexp. [The Sovereign had on his head a wreath and in his hand a scepter.] • C b . HHcaHHe roBopax, nxo qsyM rocnoqaM cqyacaxB He m o x c h o . C jryacH X b ycepqno Focyqapio, oxenecxBy. [The Holy Script says that one cannot serve two lords. To eagerly serve the Sovereign, the fatherland.] • rocyqapt ceif cqaBHbiM H qenaMH c b o h m h no cnpaBequHBOcxn 3acjiyacHJi h m h sejiHKaro. [This Sovereign justly merited to be called the Great because of his glorious deeds.] • HacjieqoBaxB poqHxeqbCKHH npecxon. [To inherit the parental throne.] • Becb qqop nocqeqoBan sa FocyqapeM. ... [The whole court followed the Sovereign.] 1’expression simple s’entend toujours mieux que la figuree.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222 • BePX O BBIH C O K O J IB H H K . CTap. C O K O J IH H O H O X O T H H K , 3a6aB JIH B H IH H tojibko rocynap a ceio oxotoio. [Highest falconer, old. Falconer who amused only the Sovereign with this kind ofhunting.] • rocyaaptiHfl bo BpeM a npneMa nocna CHflexn HSBOJiHJia na npecxoae. [The Sovereign deigned to sit on her throne during the reception of the ambassador.] • YnocTOHJica 6bixb y pyioi FocyztapcKoft. [He was honored to be at the right hand of the Sovereign.] • Hpencxoaxb npe# oaxapeM F ocikhhihm. Hpe^cTogxi. npe,n JinneM r ocyztapa. [To appear before the altar of God. To appear before the Sovereign in person.] • npencxaxb iipe# npecxoaoM Eohchhm. Hpencxaxb npea jnme [sic] MoHapxa. [To appear before the throne of God. To appear before the monarch in person.] • HneflcxaxejibcxBOBaxb sa xoro y Focyqapa, y snaxHaro nenoBeKa. [To intercede for someone with the Sovereign, a noble person.] • flocxoxBajibHHH r ocyflapt ceil npeacxaBHJica na xpmmaxoM ro^y CBoero Bexa. [This praiseworthy Sovereign died in his thirtieth year.] • /Jena, HaMepeHHa, mbicjih cero Monapxa cxpeM H JiH CB k ycxpoenmo h yxBepacneHHio 6jiara cbohx nozwamiBix. [The deeds, plans, thoughts of this monarch were directed to creating and consolidating prosperous living conditions for his subjets.] • Cxpornft FocyjapB . Cxponra cyzpia. Cxporoe acnxne. [Strict ruler. Strict judge. Harsh life.] • CxporocxB saKona. YnoxpeSaaxb cxporocxB. [The stricness of the law. To apply strictness.] • Y cxpohxb GaaroflencxBHe cbohx no&ztaHHbix. [To produce prosperity for one’s subjects.] • HpHcamvxB Tocyqapio b Bepnocxn. [To swear allegiance to the Sovereign.] • Chjibhbih rocyztapB. CnaBHoe rocynapcxBO. [Strong ruler. Strong state.] • Mnorne oxpecxHBie HapoHBi noaB epnm cb CKHnexpy PoccH H CK O M y. [Many neighboring states were subjected to the Russian scepter.] • Bpara He mooch npoxHsocxoaxH HaineMy nobeflonocHOMy opyaono. [The enemies could not withstand our victorious weapons.] • BnaaBiqecxBO cero Focyqapa BecMa najiexo npocxnpaexca. [The reign of this Sovereign extends very far.] To sum up, Russian history is presented in the illustrative sentences of the SAR as follows: the role of the czar as the head of state is very prominent in sentences of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. general nature; his/her superiority, p o w e r , and glorious victories are proclaimed. The most important Russian historical f i g u r e s are clearly Vladimir, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and, very ostentatiously, Catherine II. She is presented in her role as legislator and enlightened reformer. I will discuss only briefly several other themes which occur less f r e q u e n t l y in the self-invented illustrative sentences. 2.5 Russian and Foreign Topography, Geography, and Demography. The SAR contains many references to Russian geographical and demographical information, such as: • Ox Camcxnexepfiypra #o Mockbbi cwraexca 730 BepcT. [From St. Petersburg to Moscow the distance is 730 versts.] • MocKBa ot C.flexepSypra oxcxonx 730 BepcT. [Moscow is 730 versts away from St. Petersburg.] • H3 CaHKTnexepSypra no IJapcKocejitcKon «opore nocxaBjienH MpaMopHbie Bepcxbi. [From St. Petersburg to Tsarskoe Selo, marble verst markers line the road.] • ITpocxpanHaa Pocchh nouxn co Bcex cxopoH bcjihkhmh MopaMH QKpyacaexcg. [The extended Russian lands are surrounded on almost all sides by major oceans.] • MocKBa h C.-IIexep6ypr ctojihhei Pocchhckhh HMnepnn. [Moscow and St. Petersburg are the capitals o f the Russian Empire.] • IIpecxojiBHMH rpafl MocKBa. [Moscow, the capital city.] • B HH30Bbix no Bonre Mecxax. [On the lower reaches o f the Volga.] • IIojivocxpoB KpbiM . [The Crimean peninsula.] • Hesa Bbixo^Hx H 3 Jla/joxccicaro osepa, n snajaex b Ohhckoh sajiHB. ^BHHa Bna^aex b Eenoe Mope. [The Neva comes out of Lake Ladoga and flows into the Finnish Bay. The Dvina flows into the White Sea.] • Hesa, Bonra, flpH cyxb co6cxBenHbie HM eHa pex. [Neva, Volga, Don are proper names of rivers.] • HapBCKon naavH. [The Narva waterfalls.] • Poccna MHorne mhjijihohbi xcnxejien HMeex. [Russia has many millions o f inhabitants.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 • Pocchk) HacejiaioT pa3HonjieMeHHbie Hapo^ti. [Peoples from various ethnic backgrounds inhabit Russia.] • YnpeflHXB IIoutm. ApxaHrejioropoACKaa ironxa. [To set up post offices. The mail service of Arkhangelogorod.] • CaHKxnexepbyprcKHH, Mockobckhh nouxaMx. [The post office of St. Petersburg, Moscow.] • Ypoacenen Mockobckoh, CamcxnexepfiyprcicoH. [Native of Moscow, St. Petersburg.] • ApxanrejioropoflCKaa, Cnfiepcxaa cjnona. [Mica from Arkhangelogorod, Siberia.] • Ok o jio AcxpaxHH m hoxo cojionqaicoB. [Near Astrakhan there are many salt lakes.] • flocxaHQBHXb npe^ejibi, rpannmbi Meagay ^syMH rocy/tapcxBaMH. [To establish confines, borders between two states.] • Bona UjapHpHHCKan. [Water from Tsaritsyn.] • B CropaHe soponax aceneao acc|)aJibxoM. [In Sizran iron is burnished with asphalt.] • Bepfijnojg.: b k»khoh Pocchh y KajiM bncoB [Camel: the Kalmucks in the south o f Russia have it.] • PyuHbie ceBepHbie oneHH cocxaBJiaiox see cxaacanne JlanjiaanhOB, ceManoB, KopaxoB h npon. [The tamed northern dear is the sole source of income of the Laplanders, Saami, Koriak people and others.] • C Ypajiy HeMHoro npHB03ax Hbine pbifibi. M ocKOBCKaa nonxa H 3 sceh Pocchh npHBOsnx nncMa b IlexepGypr. [Not much fish is brought here from the Urals today. The Moscow mail service brings letters from all over Russia to Petersburg.] • 3nenmaa nouxa nocneBaex b MocKBy b xpon cyxKH. [The local mail reaches Moscow in three days.] • Hpe3 Ham ropon Bee CnfinpcKHe xosapbi np0B03ax. [All Siberian goods are shipped through our town.] • Ha CaHKxnexepfiypra pa3BP3ax xoBapw no pa3HbiM roponaM. [From St. Petersburg goods are distributed to various towns.] The SAR’s illustrative sentences also contain references to other countries. These convey a clear picture of the geographical worldview, its confines and associations for educated Russians in the second half of the eighteenth century. The Americas and China exist on the outskirts of their georgraphical space. Fully integrated into their worldview, however, are the central Western European countries, such as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 England, Holland, France, Germany, and, most importantly Italy as the ancient cultural cradle, together with Greece and Egypt. Here the references are fairly specific (Seltzers water, Lower Rhine valley, linen from Holland, etc), and often relate to imported industrial goods. The examples here thus not only reflect a late eighteenth-century Russian’s travel itinerary,5 6 but also reflect Russian trade with West European countries. Here are some examples: • SanaaHbie cxpanH, seMjin. Sanaflime napo^M. 3anazmas Hhahs. [Western countries, lands. Western people. Western India.] • T ojuiaHOTM nacxo npnesacnx sum am® na KopaSjib ysosax b Ocxbhh^hk). [After luring foreigners onto a ship, the Hollanders often take them to the East Indies.] • Bi>niHcaHHfcia H3 Ahxjihh cyraa. BbnmcaHHbig H 3 TomiaHAHH nojioxna. [Cloth ordered from England. Linen ordered from Holland.] • Hojioxho ApxanrejioropoflCKoe, ToimaimcKoe. [Linen from Arkhangelsk, Holland.] • Bona 3ejibu;epcKaa. [(Mineral) water from Seltzers.] • HnxcHflg HopMaHjHg. Hhxchhh Pchhckhh oxpyr. [Lower Normandy. Lower Rhine district.] • Ohhckoh 3aiM6, BeHH pH aH CK OH 3ajiHB. [Bay of Finland, Bay of Venice.] • B HxanHH HaxoflHTca MnoacecxBO ztpeBHH X HaznmceH. [There are a great number of ancient inscriptions to be found in Italy.] • Be3yBHH h 3xna HHor^a Menxvx H 3 cefia njiaMenb h K aM H H . [Vesuvius and Etna sometimes throw out flames and rocks.] • 3xHa ropbiraex H 3 cefia no speMenaM M HoacecxBO ropronaro Bemecxaa. [From time to time Etna throws out a great quantity o f burning matter.] • PasBajiHHbi cero ropozta nocxonpeMenaxejibHbi. [The ruins of this town are worth seeing.] • Pecnvfijimca PnMcxaa, A^nncKaa. Pecnyfijimca BeHennancKaa, 5KeHeBCKaa, FojuiaHncKaa. [Roman Republic, Republic of Athens. Republic of Venice, Geneva, Holland.] • KapxHHa xpyziO B Pa^aejia. [A painting of the works of Raphael.] 5 6 On her second trip to Europe Dashkova herself, for example, visited the following places: Vilnius, Warsow, Berlin, Spa, London, Edinbourgh, Dublin, Bath, Bristol, Ostende, Rotterdam, Delft, the Hague, Leyde, Utrecht, Brussels, Paris, Geneva, Turin, Genua, Parma, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Sienna, Rome, Naples, Pompei, Venise, Vienna, Prag, Dresden, Berlin, Koenigsberg, Riga, St. Petersburg. (Dashkova, Memoires 166-228.) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 • OcTpoB Kpux. OxpoB KaHflHJi. CoSpanHe ocxpoBOB HasBisaexcg ApxHnejiaroM. AraHHCKoe K O poneBCXBO cocxohx H 3 ocxpoBOB. [The Island Crete, Candia. A group of islands is called an archipelago. The English kingdom consists of islands.] • OnHcanne Ernnxa. OnHcanne seMnaro mapa. OnHcanne Pocchh. [Description of Egypt. Description of the earth. Description of Russia.] • Hhji b HSBecxHoe speMa HasoaHgex se c t Eranex. [At a certain time the Nile completely inundates Egypt.] • flpojiHB THSpajixapcKOH .zjejiaex coodnienHe Megyiy OxeaHQM h CpeflmeMHHM MopeM. [The Straits of Gibraltar connect the ocean with the Mediterranean Sea.] • SanHCKH KnxaHCKHe. [Chinese memoirs.] • Hobbih M Hp, CBex: HacxB MHpa oxKp&ixaa b Konpe 15 Beica, Koxopaa HHane Haa&iBaexca AM epHKOio. [New world: Part of the world discovered at the end of the 15th century, also called America.] • PTHocxpaffHBia oSB U C H O B eH H H . HnocxpanHBiH HenoBeK. HnocxpanHBiH 33B IK . HHOcxpaHHBie xoBapBi. [Foreign habits. Foreign person. Foreign language. Foreign goods.] This is to show that the self-invented illustrative sentences are by far not limited to Russian matters, whereas the quotations, as we shall see, deal strictly and exclusively with issues of interest to Catherine’s empire. 2.6 Hard and Natural Sciences The number of illustrative sentences including references to the hard and natural sciences was purposefully kept low. Terms from the arts and sciences were not to be included widely in the dictionary (see the SAR’s plan, as discussed in chapter 2). Given the great number of scientists involved in the project it is not surprising, however, that the illustrative sentences in this area are all markedly accurate and professional. Very o f t e n the scientists’ definitions were too long and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 had to be shortened.5 7 In reading the dictionary’s astronomical and chemical explanations it is also obvious that specialists were at work. Here are some examples: • IIojigpHaa 3Be3na. Snea^a Bxopofi h jih xpex&eft b c jih h h h b i, HaxonamaacH npn K O H pe XBOcxa Majioif MeflsemmBi. [Polar Star. Star of the second or third magnitude located at the end of the tail o f the Small Bear.] • Hnanexa Mapc coBepniaex nyxn c b o h o k o ji o coJiHpa nonxn b ppa rojia. [The planet Mars completes its way around the sun in almost two years.] • CaxvpH coBepmaex cBoe odpamemie o k o jio cojiHiia nonxn b 29 Jiex c n o jio b h h o i o . [Saturn completes its journey around the sun in almost 29 and a half years.] • Mem. paanycKaexcH b MHHepajiBHBix racjioxax. 3 o j i o x o pa3nycKaexca x o k m o b L[apcK O H B O jtK e. [Copper dissolves in mineral acids. Gold dissolves only in aqua regia.] • Mne BejiHKas aocaaa, nxo o h b ix neyaaexca. [I am very annoyed when an experiment fails.] • flapajuiejiHBie DKBaxopy Kpyra. [Circles parallel to the equator.] The dictionary’s reader gets the impression that in the natural and hard sciences the academicians were not able to develop their full potential. An encyclopedic dictionary would have given more justice to their knowledge in these fields. It has been the purpose of this chapter to show that the self-invented illustrative sentences of the SAR refer to a variety of themes: Colloquial Speech, Religion, Antiquity, History (Russian and Ancient), Foreign and Domestic Geography and the Sciences.5 8 This thematic diversity, although centering on issues of national 5 7 For example, as I mentioned in my second chapter, Lepekhin had to cut his word entries describing the flora and fauna of Russia considerably. 5 8 Another theme of importance in the SAR is Morality. Although it is not a theme of great frequency it surprises the reader of the dictionary because of its strongly biased formulations. A variety of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 importance, such as Orthodoxy, Russia’s history and geography, and the outstanding role of the sovereign, is by far not limited to matters Russian. The diversity reflects the educational background of the academicians. They were all highly cultured men and women, but this is especially true of the scientists, the representatives of the higher nobility, like Dashkova, and members of the black and white clergy. Many had spent years travelling abroad and had attended famous Western European universities. In the conclusion of the dissertation, I will analyze the quoted illustrative sentences in the dictionary, where the range of themes is much more restricted. The quoted works all relate to issues regarding the Russian Imperial State in an attempt to foster a feeling of national identity, which was a programmatic goal of the Dictionary. influences - stoic, classicist, naturalist and enlightened ~ all manifest themselves in this domain. Without going into detail, let me just point out the most obvious tendencies. The stoic and classicist ideal, advocating the control over one’s passions, is prominent in sentences such as: • E n a r o n o j i v u e H tot, kto yMeer yjvtepnTb cboh crpacTH. [Happy is he who knows how to moderate his passions.] • floxBanbHO conpoTHBjiHTbcn C T pacT H M cbohm. [It is praiseworthy to resist one’s passions.] • 0 6 y 3 f l a T b cT p e M /ie H n e C T p a c r e ii. [To curb the drive of passions.] Enlightened and naturalist views on morals surface in sentences such as: • HpascTBeHHocTh: Coo6pa3HOCTb cbo6ohhbix hchhhh c 3aK O H O M . [Morality: The conformity of free acts with the law.] • Y u e n n e o 6 p a 3 v e T yM . B o c n H T a r o i e o 6 p a 3 y e r n p a B b i . [Studies form the mind. Education forms the morals.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229 CHAPTER V LOMONOSOV’S AND TREDIAKOVSKIPS INFLUENCE ON THE SAR; RUSSIAN NATIONAL PRIDE AND THE SLAVONO-RUSSIAN LANGUAGE Although heavily and explicitly relying on Lomonosov, his poetry and linguistic works, the SAR also reflects Trediakovskii’s ideas by refering to the language of Russia as “slavenorossiiskii” (Slavono-Russian). It was Trediakovskii who introduced the word in the seventeen forties to define Russia’s language as “Slavonic and Russian combined” (Zhivov 265). Lomonosov, to the best of my knowledge, uses the word “slavenorossiiskii” only once, in the “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh.” There, however, it has a very different meaning, namely “Common or Proto-Slavic.” In combining views and tenets of these two major eighteenth century scholars, the SAR perfectly represents the so-called “Slavono-Russian period,” a term coined by Zhivov in his book Iazvk i kul’tura v Rossii XVIII veka.1 It also supports Irina 1 My analysis endorses his concept. Earlier comprehensive studies on the 18th century Russian language focus on the impact of vernacular element on the literary language since the Reforms of Peter the Great and the increasing importance it gained up to Karamzin’s language reforms. The whole century is conceived as a patchwork of possible language solutions, where the vernacular undercurrent always points into Pushkin’s direction. See, for example, the following passage from Gukovskii: “Ilpouecc o t o t [vneshnee ob”edinenie prezhde raz”edinennykh elementov] 6 b u i y3axoneH b cepegHHe XVIII Bexa TeopexHuecKHM o6o6meHneM h remianbHoii npaxraxoft JloMOHocoBa, saTeM b K O H ne Bexa oc/K»X HeH padoTofr KapaM3HHa h 3aBepinH/icfl t o j t b k o b TBopnecTBe IlyinKHHa, noryiHHHoro co3H«aTera HOBora JiHTeparypHoro pyccxoro H3bixa.” [This process (the formal unification of two originally distinct elements) was made the rule in the middle of the 18th century through the theoretical generalization and the engenious writing practice of Lomonosov, then at the end of the century it became more complicated through Karamzin’s work and was completed only in Pushkin’s works, the real creator of a new Russian literary language] (Gukovskii 6). The question behind traditional studies, such as this one, is always: how did the Russians get there? Instead of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 Reyfman’s thesis that Lomonosov and Trediakovskii took on the role of the hero and anti-hero during a creation period in Russia’s cultural history: In the SAR Lomonosov is quoted extensively, Trediakovskii - never. The dictionary is the swan song of the Slavono-Russian epoch, soon about to end, for the focus of linguistic polemics in Russia will shift from how to best unite the Slavonic and Russian elements to how to separate them anew, i.e. the debates between the arkhaisty and novatory. 1. The SAR and Lomonosov: Evaluating Existing Scholarship The SAR is based on Lomonosov’s linguistic theories, especially his theory of style. This has been stated many times. Never, however, has a scholar attempted to • • 2 prove this systematically. It seemed too obvious to require verification. My analysis asking: What was the peoples’ perception at the time. - Zhivov proves for the first time, that no matter how much the Russian vernacular had gained or was gaining territory, it is in fact the desire to reintegrate the Slavonic into the ‘literary language” that is characteristic of the second half of the 18t h century language and literature. 2 Vinogradov in his article “Tolkovye slovari russkogo iazyka” in the book lazvk gazety. edited by Kondakov (Moscow: Gos. izd-vo legkoi promyshlennosti, 1941) states: “JIomohocob - H e n p e p e K a e M b iii a s x o p H x e x j y i a u n e n o B AKaueMirn Pocchhckqh. JIomohocobckoc yueHne o T p e x cxh/ihx BBJiaeTCH T e o p e T H u e c K H M <J>yH,naMeHTOM 3 T o r o aioBapa. Y c T a H O B n e H H H e JIomohocobbim C T K uincT H uecK H e H o p M b i p y c o c o r o j m x e p x y p H o r o H 3biK a nexc a r b o c H o s e c x ro iH C x m re c K n x o n e n o K « C u o B a p H A x a a e M M H Pocchhckoh», K o x o p b iir , xbkhm o 6 p a 3 0 M , HBnaexca o i o s a p e M ne xoju>ko c a o B o n p o H 3 B flH b iM , ho h H o p M a x H B H tiM ” [Lomonosov is the uncontested authority for the members of the Russian Academy. Lomonosov’s tenet about the three styles is the theoretical foundation of the dictionary. The stylistic norms, established by Lomonosov, form the basis of the stylistic categorization in the SAR. which therefore is not only an etymological, but also a normative dictionary](365). And two pages down: “CxmracxHuecKHe n o M e x b i, B b ip a f io ia H H b ie H a ochobc ao M O H O c o B C K o ro y u e H H fl o xpex cxjuihx HHxepaxypHoro a s b i x a - bmcokom, c p e g H e M h hh3kom, - o n p e f l e n a i o x x p y r ynoxpefiaeHHH caoBa.” [The stylistic markers, developed on the basis of Lomonosov’s doctrine of the three styles in the literary language - the high, middle and low styles - determine the range of a word’s usage] (367). It is then, however, not enough to say that “v to vremia, kak iz Lomonosova vziato 883 stat’i, - na Sumarokova [SAR] sylaetsia lish’ v 30 sluchaiakh.” [while 883 quotations are taken from Lomonosov, there are only 30 references to Sumarokov.] O r: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 will confirm that, yes, Lomonosov did influence the making of the SAR to a great extent. Not only did his poetry serve as an example for excellent high style Russian, the content of Lomonosov’s widely quoted odes also supported the dictionary’s broader purpose of creating a Russian national identity, by praising Russia and her (enlightened) monarchs, her ancient history and geographical extention, as well as “ rio H H T [H e ] « o ia B eH C K H ft cjior» [The term ‘Slavonic style’] — To my knowledge the abbreviation “si.” does not mean “slavenskii slog” [Slavonic style] hut “slavenskoe rechenie" [Slavonic word, expression], which is an important detail. I do not recall having come across the term “slavenskii slog” in the SAR at all! The common term used on the pages of the SAR. if not abbreviated as “SI.” - is “v slavenskom iazyke” [in the Slavonic language.] See, for example, under “Blizhnii” [the next] or “Belil’nik” [white make-up maker] in the first volume of the SAR. Iu. S. Sorokin in his analysis of the “Razgovomaia i narodnaia rech’ v Slovare Akademii Rossiiskoi (1789-1794 gg.)” reiterates Vinogradov, in stating without further investigation that “OioBapb h b h j i c h ecT ecT B eH H M M 3aBepineHneM pe<f>opM hi JIoM OHocoBa, CBB3aHHOH c Bhi«ejieHneM xpex o c h o b h m x CTH Jieii J iH T e p a r y p B i h c npHypouemieM k b t h m c t h b h m pa3aHUHbix cnoeB K H H 3K H aro h pa3roBopHoro H 3 W K a .” [The dictionary naturally completed Lomonosov reform linked to the establishment of three main styles and the attribution of different levels of the written and spoken language to those styles] (96). In his article “Slovar’ Akademii Rossiiskoi,” Izvestiia Akademii Nauk SSSR. Seriia literatury i iazvka 42.6 (1983), Vomperskii also fails to provide proof that “CocxaBnxe/m caosapa rrocxoaHHO odpamaaHCb k acxexHuecKHM h cJmnonorHuecKHM nneaM JIoMOHocoBa. Ero Bimsame o d u a p y a c H B a e T c a noBoony: b Bbidope c x o b h b munocTpaimax, b cnocode h x odbaceHena, b yK a3aH H H Ha cxHnHcrauecKyjo xapaKxepncxHicy caoB h o d o p o x o n peuw, b o B3raage H a nnxepaxypHbift H3biK. B ocHOBy caoBapa cocraBHTeaH nojioacfum rpaMMaxnuecKHe h c x n a H c x H a e c K H e H fleH JIoMOHocoBa, H3aoaceHHbie b «PoccHftcKOH rpaMMaxHKe» h b « r ip e f ln c n o B H H o noab3e k h h p pepicoBHbix b p o c c h h c k o m a3biKe.” [The compilers of the dictionary continuously refered to Lomonosov’s aesthetic and philological ideas. His influence can be detected everywhere: in the selection of words and in their illustrations, in the way they are explained, in the denotation of the stylistic characteristics of the words and phrases, in the views on literary language. The compilers based the dictionary on Lomonosov’s grammatical and stylistic ideas, as they were set out in his Rossiiskaia Grammmatika and the “Predislovie...”] (510). All this sounds very nice, but remains without proof: How did Lomonosov influence the “selection of entry words”? Where and how does the SAR refer to Lomonosov’s linguistic texts? What is Vomperskii observation based on? Interestingly one of the oldest and best texts about the SAR from a linguistic point of view does not refer to Lomonosov as the one and only inspiring source for the work. In Sergei Bulich’s Ocherk istorii iazvkoznaiia v Rossii Lomonosov’s name is mentioned only once, heading a list of writers the SAR quotes from in its word articles (240-246). Another more careful linguist to have written about the SAR is Rudakova. Neither in her Aftoreferat dissertatsii [dissertation abstract](Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Institut iazykoznaniia, Leningradskoe otdelenie, Leningrad 1965) nor in an older article “Iz istorii Slovaria Akademii Rossiiskoi.” Nauchnve dokladv wsshei shkolv. 1960, no. 2, does she refers to Lomonosov as the theoretical backbone of the SAR. She therefore does not seem to contend this in the dissertation itself, which I was not able to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 her religious tradition. At the same time, however, as I mentioned in the beginning, in its terminology the SAR points to deviations from Lomonosov’s linguistic ideas, which on the background of the academicians’ utter admiration for the poet and linguist are all the more striking and significant. The SAR is linked to Lomonosov in many ways. I will first briefly talk about the SAR’s connections to Lomonosov, the hard scientist. I will then proceed to discuss the references to him and his literary work in the SAR. In the end I will scrutinize Lomonosov’s linguistic theories and terminology to see to what extent it is reflected in the SAR. As to Lomonosov’s scientific texts (on Chemistry, Physics, Mineralogy, etc.), they were, as far as I can tell, not quoted in the SAR. Lomonosov, the hard scientist, is visible only faintly and indirectly through quotations from his odes or slova in lines such as Cnemao flHesHoe bnucTaeT Jlnm b totibko Ha noBepxHocrb Ten. [The luminary of the day (i.e. the sun) shines Only on the surface of bodies.]3 or H hHH B OTKpOBeHHH eCTeCTBeHHBIX TaHH B cnOKOHCTBe ynpaaCHHIOTCH. [Some silently exercize themselves in the unravelling of natural secrets.] read. In the aftoreferat she gives a very good outline of the SAR’s scope in terms of lexical groups covered and points out what its innovations were compared to previous Russian dictionaries. 3 From the spiritual ode: “Utrennee razmyshlenie o bozhiem velichestve” (1747?). - The highlighting marks the entry word, under which the quote appears in the SAR. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 Lomonosov, the scientist, is also connected to the SAR indirectly through his personal acquaintance with the hard scientists Kotel’nikov, Protasov, and Rumovskii, who were compiling and editing the dictionary. All of them were members of the Academy of Sciences and had as students attended Lomonosov’s classes in physics. The mathematician Kotel’nikov and the medical doctor Protasov were classmates and students of Lomonosov’s in the forties. In the sixties, after having completed their course of studies abroad, they were appointed professors at the Academy of Sciences themselves. Both remained loyal to their former teacher in these positions. Protasov, moreover, seems to have been a fan of Lomonosov’s writings since his student years. Sukhomlinov notes that: C Monoflbix rrex oh Hauaa 3aH H M 3Ti>C H nepenHCKOio; eipe dyayuH cryaeHTOM oh nepenHCbiBan cohhhchhh JIoMOHocoBa. [At an early age he began to do transcriptions; when he was already a student he transcribed Lomonosov’s works] (Sukhomlinov 3: 84).4 The mathematician and astronomer Rumovskii, on the other hand, turned from a diligent student of Lomonosov’s in the fifties to his teacher’s personal foe, when he too became a professor at the Academy of Sciences. According to Sukhomlinov, PyMOBCKHH OTHOCHJIOI HpOHHHeCKH K OTKpMTHHM JIOMOHOCOBa B odaacTH 4>h3hkh, a JIomohcob o6bhhh/i PyMOBCKaro b 6jih3khx CHOHieHHHX C HIOflbMH HegOCTOHHMMH H HpOHMpJIHBMMM, H HaSMBa/I ero KOMHaTHoit cobauKOH Taydepxa. 4 Unfortunately it is not clear if Sukhomlinov is refering to Lomonosov’s scientific or literary works (Sukhomlinov 3: 84). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 [Rumovskii refered with irony to Lomonosov’s discoveries in physics, and Lomonosov accused Rumovskii of a close relationship with unworthy and wily people, and called him Taubert’s pet dog.] (2: 74) Rumovskii also passionately hated Kotel’nikov for being “neizbezhnyi sputnik Lomonosova” [Lomonosov’s notorious satellite], as the astronomer calls his colleague in a letter of 1764 to Euler’s son.5 Apparently, however, Rumovskii’s antipathy towards his rival Lomonosov in the sixties (both were teaching physics) did not prevent him from becoming one of the main editors of the SAR twenty years later, where, as we know, Lomonosov’s odes are continuously quoted. It would be interesting to find out what Rumovskii thought of Lomonosov, the poet. In this context it is noteworthy that Elagin, one of the few other personal adversaries of Lomonosov’s among the academicians (in the literary field), ended up not participating in the SAR at all. He attended the first three meetings and never showed up again (Sukhomlinov 7:103).6 Thus Lomonosov in his role as a hard scientist did not have a major impact on the outcome of the SAR, although it was namely the hard scientists among the academicians who were the dictionary’s most active compilers and editors. Similarly the hard scientists never pushed for promoting treatises on scientific 5 “Kotel’nikov, neizbezhnyi sputnik Lomonosova, truditsia bolee dlia razmnozheniia roda chelovechskogo, nezheli dlia razvitiia nauk.” [Kotel’nikov, Lomonosov’s notorious satallite, works more for the proliferation of mankind than for the development of the sciences.] (Sukhomlinov 2: 75) Rumovskii had been sent to Berlin to study mathematics under Euler’s guidance. He stayed at Euler’s house und thus became friends with the famous mathematician’s son. 6 Irina Reyfman, in describing the creation of the Lomonosov-myth in her book on V. Trediakovskii, points out that even Elagin could not help praising the historian Lomonosov in his An Attempt at a Narration about Russia (1789-93). I. e. he too was under the spell of the myth, although “he did not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235 subjects as examples of good Russian language, although very much had been done in this field throughout the 18th century. The scientists at the Russian Academy had themselves been appointed members precisely because of their linguistic achievements, i.e. their writing in legible Russian both original texts and translations, on questions relating to botanies, physics, mathematics, medicine, and natural history. Worth mentioning here is, for example, Rumovskii’s translation of Euler’s letters, Rumovskii’s and Protasov’s joint translation ofBuffon’s Oeuvres completes, 1774,7 or Kotel’nikov’s mathematics textbook Pervykh osnovanii matematicheskikh (1766). It seems that scientific texts, even those that could be called generally educational, such as Buffon’s Histoire naturelle de 1 ’homme. were never considered worth excerpting, because scientific vocabulary had been declared of marginal importance in the outline of the dictionary and was included very sparingly, and only if the specific word was genuinely Russian (see chapter 2). As I will point out later, however, there is another reason why these texts were not selected: they did not deal with genuinely Russian subjects. Mathematical, chemical, biological treatises were of a general, international interest and did not add to the characteristics of Russia. The exception here is for texts with geographical and topographical content, such as refrain from sharp criticism of Lomonosov’s poetry...” See Reyfman’s book Vasilii Trediakovskii. The Fool of the New Russian Literature (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990) 9. 7 Buffon was best known for his Histoire naturelle de l’homme. The translation of this work had been assigned to the academicians by Catherine II. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 the KamchFatskaial IstForiia]. which were happily excerpted and yielded extremely rare words like: • Pasnvra, rm. c. 5 K . Hpxa. KaMH. HCTop. n. II. cTp. 41. [Ravduga. ...Chamois leather, suede. Kamchatskaia Istoriia, vol. 2, page 41.] Or: • CaxcypKH; pox. c. m h . Obhhhkh floaromepcTHtm, Tax h necxpwa. riaa. nyx. III. 142. [Saksurki... Sheep skins with long fur, multi-colored. Pallas, Travels, vol. 3, 142] On the other hand, scientific texts, had they been included, would have contributed immensely to the development of Russian abstract vocabulary. 1.1. References to Lomonosov the Poet Lomonosov’s literary works, as mentioned in the previous chapter, were - after the Bible — the texts most quoted on the pages of the dictionary. The poet was no doubt considered the authoritative author of the time. In the eighties and nineties of the 18th century the Lomonosov myth, as Irina Reyfman calls it, was in full bloom: Lomonosov... was given the title of first and best Russian poet. He was credited with all the achievements of modem Russian literature: the reform of versification; the creation of the lyric, historical prose, and even dramaturgy; and the codification of the Russian literary language. In 1765, right after Lomonosov’s death, Count Andrei Shuvalov, a minor poet and a patron of the arts, wrote about Lomonosov in the introduction to his “Ode sur la mort de Mr. Lomonosof’: “It is true that before Mr. Lomonosov we had several rhymesters, such as Prince Kantemir, Trediakovsky, and others, but in comparison to him they were like troubadours to Malherbe” (Reyfman 8). It was clearly the sublime style of his odes - both the triumphant [ ,torzhestvennye] and spiritual [dukhovnye] odes, the nadpisi [inscriptions], the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237 Geroicheskaia poema [heroic poem ], or, in prose, of his Slova — that was most admired. Fonvizin demonstrates this very concisely in his article “Pisets, pisateP, sochinitel’, tvorets” [Scribe, Writer, Author, Creator] in his Opvt rossiiskogo soslovnika, which he was writing when the project of the SAR took shape in 1783: Tluceu, H a3K fB aexcH t o t , k t o c o m m a e x C B oe h j i h n y a c o e n e p e n H C b m a e T . Tlucamenb - k t o c o h h h h c t n p 0 3 0 io . ConuH um em - k t o n n m e T c n fx a M H h n p o s o i o . Teopeu, - k t o H a n n c a n s n a M e H H T o e c o u h h c h h c c t h x 3 m h h uh n p 0 3 0 K > . Y H a c b flpeBH O CTH nucu,06 6 b m o M a a o ; H 3 h h x o t j i h u i u i c h H e c T o p , nucam enb p o c c H itc K O H H C T o p ro i. M e a c n y coHUHumenxMU H b m e m n e r o B eK a c a a B e H J I o m o h o c o b , meopeu, J i y m m tx o fl n a poccH H C K O M « 3 b iK e. [A person who creates his own text or transcribes texts of others is called a ‘scribe.’ He who writes prose, is called a ‘writer.’ He who writes poetry and prose, is called an ‘author.’ He who wrote a famous work in verse or prose is called a ‘creator.’ In ancient times we had a few scribes', Nestor, the writer of Russian history, stood out among them. Among the authors of today’s age, Lomonosov, the creator of the best Russian odes, is famed] (Fonvizin 1: 234). Examples from the aforementioned texts by Lomonosov, especially the odes, abound in the SAR. However, here and there the dictionary also contains quotes from Lomonosov’s less lofty creations in verse, such as the epistle “Pis’mo o pol’ze stekla” (1752)8 or the fable “Lish’ tol’ko dnevnoi shum zamolk...” (1747).9 8 For example the lines: BHe3anHO nepHbiii hbim Haaea rycryio Term H b Horn. yjKacnyio nepeMeHiuiCH aem>. (lines 23-24) [Suddenly black smoke covered everything in dense shade And the day transformed into a dreadful night.] or: H BHflHM b H eM npHMep d e c x m r p o c T H h ix c e p n e i r : (line 43) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 In many of these quotes, Lomonosov glorifies his homeland Russia, the chosen land, not so much because of its beauties and riches, but always as a very strong and potentially dangerous military power:1 0 Boxiqe tb o h xHTptiH 6 b w cosex, Pocchk) caM FocnoAb brnonex. [Your intricate advice was in vain, The Lord himself watches over Russia.] IIIyMux c pyutHMH bop h son. flobesa Pocacaa nobesa. [Forest and valley resound with the noise of creeks. Victory, Russian victory.] He c M e a b bon nycxnxbcfl b h o b b , MecxaMH Bpar bencnx nycxbiMH. [Not daring to fight again, The foe runs away over empty land.] Kperatx oxeuexcBa moboBb Chhob Pocchhckhx p jx h pyKy. )Kenaex b c h k nponnxb b c io KpOBb. [The love for their homeland Strengthens the spirit and hand of the Russian sons. Every man wishes to shed all his blood.] [And we see in it (i.e. glass) an example of candid hearts.] or: H crpaxc/tyT ty ace K a3 H B , xax aep3Kon Hkchoh; (line 252). [And they suffer the same punishment, as the impudent Ixion;] 9 For the full list of Lomonosov quotations in the first and second volume of the SAR. see appendix 4B. 1 0 The praise is often fairly fomulaic and reminds the reader of the descriptions in Old Russian chronicles or West European mediaval epic poetry, such as the Chanson de Roland where animated nature, the fleeing foe, the chosen country are topoi. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 Lomonosov praises Russia’s victorious, kind and enlightened sovereigns from Peter the Great to Catherine the Great: Bo m ene chtibhom h acecxoKQM ripecrynHMX o h Mnxex nparoB. [In terrible and cruel rage He (Peter the Great) tramples his criminal foes.] 3a komm CHJibHa PoccKa Baacxb Be/nncy nepacmr BcxoKa [sic] uacxb. [Whose strong Russian power Holds the immense land in the East.] J\a B03pacxex ea qepacasa, BoraxcxBO, cuacxbe h nonKH, H KynHO Aea repoftcKHX aiasa. [May her empire grow, Affluence, happiness and regiments, And therewith the glory of heroic deeds.] B nojucax cxoKpaxno pa3qaexca: Be/rHKHii nexp H 3 Mepxsbix B c x a n . [From the regiments a hundred times resounds: Peter the Great rose from the dead.] Mbi CBex saHM CTByeM , qaex EnHcasexa. [We obtain the light, Elisabeth gives it.] Tbi cbiroieuib LpeqpoK) pyxoio CBoe boraxcxBQ no seivuiH. [With your generous hand you strew Your wealth over the land.] EomHH Kpacoxoii, nopoqoH xm boraxra, HoBdoqy rpoMKHMH qenaMH repoHHa. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240 [Goddess through your beauty, through your descent a goddess, Everywhere you are a heroine thanks to your glorious deeds.]1 1 KarHTHecb macranBM C B ex m ia, Bo B e c b E K ax ep H H H H B ex , )KHBHTe7[bHaa saraa cum BnHBafica; b cepjme eit h b uneHH. [Move, happy planets, During all of Catherine’s reign, May your life inspiring strength Fill her heart and members.] Russia’s geographical extension, ranging from the far icy north down to Azov on the Black Sea, the poet’s trust in God, as well as a typically Lomonosovian soaring view and cosmic dimension all recur as themes in the Lomonosov quotes, as the following lines show: X o th B cer,n;aiiiH H M H C H eraM H noK pbixa ceBepna cxpaHa, Ffle M ep3UM M H Eopeft KpbiaaMH T boh BSBesaex 3HaMeHa. [Although eternal snow Covers the northern country, Where Boreus with freezing wings Makes your flags flutter.] Ce Hameio, peioia, pyxoio JIokhx noBepxceHHbiH A sob. [She said: through our hand Azov lies defeated.] Focnoub cnacHxenb Mne h csex: 1 1 From “Haflimcb H a HmnoM HHauHio, n p e f lc r a B n e H H y io b TopacecTBeHHbiil « e H b T e30H M eH H T C T B a ee B ejiH H ecT B a 1 7 4 8 ro,n ;a ceHTB6pa 5 a h h , n e p e n bcthum j j o m o m , naKOTopoH H 3 o 6 p a a c e H 6bin 4 > O H T aH ...” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 Koro g ydotocg? [The Lord is my savior and light: Whom do I fear?] Ho Bocnpjum M eH H TBopep H nm yKMTb b 6 jiaroneHCTse. [But my Creator received me And let me live in prosperity.] H ot Bcerpeflparo Tsoppa. O pH eM JIK ) J T p ib BCegHeBHfclH. [And from the most generous Creator I receive the daily light.]1 2 3apg darpgH oio pyxoio O t yrpeHHHX cnoicoHHbix boa B w b o a h t c connpeM sa codoio TBoeft AepgcaBbi h o b w h rop. [Dawn with its crimson hand Leads out from the quiet morning waters With the sun behind it A new year of your power.] Lomonosov’s patriotic agenda fits in perfectly with the SAR’s programmatic goal of strengthening Russian awareness, or Russian identity, by standardizing the Russian language. The academicians exploit the poet’s views and images extensively. Striking is the importance of Russia’s military superiority in Lomonsov’s poetry, as well as the poet’s loyalty to the monarchs of Russia, two features that were discussed in the last chapter in connection with how Russian 1 2 The last three quotes are taken from “Prelozhenie psalma 26.” The tone of the spiritual odes, which are lyrical translations of biblical psalms, is more private, as has been pointed out many times in the secondary literature. (For example, Gukovskii 113f.) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 history was presented in the SAR (especially the reigns of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great). On the pages of the SAR references to Lomonosov, the famous Russian poet, are also concealed in quotes from other authors, such as the first line of Shuvalov’s “Stikhi k portretu g. Lomonosova:” M ockobckhh 3Aecb IlapHacc H3o6pa3H/i bhthk> [H tO HHCTblH C/IOr CTHXOB H np03bl B B en B PoCCHK). H x o b Phmc U f r p e p o H h u t o B n p r m m H 6 h j i ...] [Here the Moscow Pamass depicted the orator Who introduced pure style in rhyme and prose to Russia, Which Cicero and Virgil did for Rome (...)] (Sukhomlinov 7:96). Lomonosov is on many occasions, as in Shuvalov’s lines, associated with the ancient classics. For example under the words “oda” and “ poiu” the illustrative material in the SAR reads: • Ieiaadiau, A!5aoeaau, Eiminiau |au- [Pindar’s, Horace’s, Lomonosov’s odes.] • iied lae Aoeeeania aiaa e Odiyineo]) adaiii. Eiiuinia Y ae a&ea Iaoda Aaeeeaai. [Homer sang about Achilles’ wrath and the Trojan War. Lomonosov sang about the deeds of Peter the Great.] It is also important to note that the first editor of Lomonosov’s collected works was among the academicians.1 3 This was the cleric Damaskin Semenov-Rudnev, rector of the Slavono-Greko-Latin academy and later bishop of Nizhegorodsk. Damaskin had spent six years at the university of Gottingen, studying philosophy, 1 3 Lomonosov’s collected works had been published twice during the poet’s lifetime (1751 and 1757- 59) and under his supervision. Separate works, such as the Letonisets. had also been published separately. Damaskin was the first to edit Lomonosov’s works posthumously. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 languages ancient and modem, and history. The research he conducted in ancient Russian history attracted the attention of the Gottinger Historische Gesellschaft, whose member he became in 1772. Damaskin’s collection of Lomonosov works in three volumes was published in 1778 under the title of “Pokoinogo statskago sovetnika i professora Mikhaily Vasil’evicha Lomonosova sobranie raznykh sochinenii v stikhakh i v proze” and was dedicated to the Rossiiskoe sobranie. The book was very much appreciated by the Empress. As Sukhomlinov notes, “Damaskin received an award of 500 rubles from the very generous hand of the most wise monarch, the Great Catherine II” (Sukhomlinov 1: 162).1 4 The edition included literary, linguistic, and scientific texts (!), and only Lomonosov’s correspondence was missing.1 5 It was superbly edited. Damaskin relied where he could on original sources, mentioned variants in the annotations, and preserved the text “Rassuzhdenie o tverdosti i zhidkosti tel” from loss altogether. The first volume opens with the well-known text on the value of church books, the “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh,” which I will yet talk about in detail. To place this text in the beginning was a natural choice, since it had been written as a foreword to the second edition of Lomonosov’s works in 1757. Damaskin now refers to Lomonosov’s foreword in his own introduction. It is the aspect of literary tradition and continuity, as outlined by Lomonosov in the beginning of his 1 4 This is an important detail, for it tells us that the edition was in tune with official politics. Catherine herself held Lomonosov in high esteem. - For information on this edition I rely mainly on Sukhomlinov (1: 158ff). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244 “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh,” that are important to Damaskin: the wealth and beauty of Russia’s language is to a great extent due to the Greek literature from which it copied richly. The Byzantine beauty preserved in Russian church books was also captured by Lomonosov, who was able to integrate it into his own writings. Lomonosov, from Damaskin’s point of view, thus forms the end piece of a whole chain of authoritative texts. Damaskin collected and published Lomonosov’s texts to make them available “dlia podrazhaniia v pravopisanii i krasote sloga” [to be imitated as to (their) orthography and beauty of style] and for young writers “vsegda pred ochami imet’ samago luchshago rossiiskago pisatelia” [to always have under their eyes the best Russian poet]. It is likely that the academicians worked with this edition in preparation for the SAR.1 6 Note that the modem author Lomonosov, according to Damaskin, is completely integrated into a literary system based on repetition of an authoritative canon. It is the first part of Lomonosov’s influential text “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnyh,” not the system of the three styles, also introduced in this text, that Damaskin is refering to in his foreword.1 7 Interesting, moreover, is the fact that a 1 5 This is standard at the time. To include correspondence in a work edition is a modern phenomenon. 1 6 Another Polnoe sobranie socbinenii of Lomonosov’s work in 6 volumes appeared in 1784-1787 in Sankt Petersburg. The acadmicians might have worked with either of these editions, if not even with Lomonosov’s own first two editions. To identify the published source of the many quotes in the SAR would be almost impossible to do unless there are differences in the texts, for the academicians never give volume or page numbers with Lomonosov’s quotes unlike they do with other quotes from texts, such as the letopisi, Ratnyi ustav. Russkaia Pravda. etc. 1 7 This confirms Riccardo Picchio’s interpretation of Lomonosov’s “Predislovie” as a document of a strategic and highly patriotic nature, advocating the cultural and religious national unity of Russia based on a byzantine literary tradition, and not the programmatic linguistic text of “the three styles,” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 churchman edited the works of the svetskii pisatel ’ [secular writer]1 8 Lomonosov. Damaskin also published Feofan Prokopovich and Metropolitan Platon. Could from a contemporary point of view the (today) secular Lomonosov have been considered a spiritual writer close to Prokopovich and Platon Levshin, (who are both also quoted in the SAR)? There was another cleric academician infatuated with Lomonosov and his elevated style. In 1778 Amvrosii Serebriakov, bishop of Olonetsk, published the Kratkoe rukovodstvo k oratorii rossiiskoi. a textbook in rhetoric, which was to a great extent based on Lomonosov’s Ritorika.1 9 Of all academicians it was Derzhavin who volunteered to comb through Lomonosov’s works in search for suitable dictionary words and illustrative phrases. 9fl As a poet he was probably closest to Lomonosov and the language of his odes , although at the time of taking on the assignment for the SAR, he had found his own poetic style already, and had allegedly “liberated himself’ from Lomonosov’s influence. which it is known for today. - Rikkardo Pikkio [Riccardo Picchio], “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh M.V. Lomonosova kak manifest russkogo konfessionaPnogo patriotizma,” Sbomik statei k 70-letiiu professora In. M. Lotmana (Tartu: Tartu University, 1992) 142-152. 1 8 Svetskii pisatel’ is an expression explicitly used in the foreword of the SAR. 1 9 Sukhomlinov says about Amvrosii: “Bmcokhm o6pa3ijOM KpacHopeunn A mbpochii npn3HaBa/i opaxopcKHH npoH3BeseHH.fi JIoM O H O C Q B a, h b dosBHiHHCTBe c/ryuaeB cTporo sepacaJica ero pHTopHKH.” [Ambrosius considered Lomonosov’s oratorial works examples of high rhetoric art, and in most cases strictly followed his Ritorika! (Sukhomlinov 1: 190). - Under the entry word “rod” [genre, sort, kind] in the SAR there is a reference to Lomonosov’s Ritorika: “Csobo sobpoflexesb ecxb pofl. a B03sepHcaHHe, Kpoxocxt, MrniocepsHe h npon. bhsbi.” [The word “virtue” is the genre, and abstinence, gentleness, clemency etc. are [its] variants.] 2 0 The court writer Vasilii Petrov was the other poet most overtly continuing to write in the tradition of Lomonosov’s odes. Petrov, however, did not show any interest in the SAR. and can therefore be treated as a non-member. Except for being quoted (and this, suspiciously, only in the third volume of the SAR published in Catherine’s politically most repressive year of 1792), he did not leave any trace on the dictionary. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 O kojio 1779 r. flepacaBHH ocosHaji csoii caMOCTHTenbHbiH nyrb b no33HH. B 1805 rony oh [RepiKaBHH] BcnoMHHan o tom , h to a o s to to BpeMHHH o h «xoTeB noApa:scaTb r. JIoMOHOcosy, h o KaK Ta/iaHT cero aBTopa He 6bm c hhm BHymaeM OAHHaKOBbiM reHHeM, to , x o tcb napHTb, He M O T BblflepJKHBaTb nOCTHHHO KpaCHBbIM HaSopOM OIOB CBOHCTBeHHoro eflHHCTBenno poccHficKOMy IlHHffapy Benejieima. a HM HIHOCTH. A RJIH TOrO C 1770 T . HsdpaTI OH C B O H OCo6bIH nyTb, 6yflyHH npeABOAHM HacTaBTteHHBMH r. Barre h coBeraMH Apyseft c b o h x H. A. JIbBOBa, B. B. KanHHCTa h H. H. XeMHHpepa...» [Around 1779 Derzhavin realized his own independent style in poetry. In 1805 he reminisced that up to that time he “wanted to imitate Mr. Lomonosov, but since the talent of this author (i.e. Derzhavin) could not be instilled with the same genius as his (Lomonosov’s), he could not, wanting to soar, constantly provide a set of beautiful words so uniquely characteristic of the magnificence and splendor of the Russian Pindar. And therefore in 1770 he chose his own individual way, guided by the instructions of Mr. Batte (?) and the advice of his friends L’vov, Kapnist, and Khemnitser”] (Gukovskii 391; highlighting mine, M.L.). The fact is, however, that in 1783, when the collecting of words began for the SAR, Derzhavin still showed great interest in the vocabulary ofhis former idol. Thus, the chain of authoritative texts as presented in Damaskin’s foreword (Greek literature -> Russian church books -> Lomonosov) found — at least temporarily — its continuation in Derzhavin. As I suggested in the beginning, all of these references to Lomonosov’s literary works, so overt on the pages of the dictionary, make it very clear that it was the sublime and lofty tone of Lomonosov’s writings that was most admired by the academicians and their generation (Fonvizin, Damaskin, Amvrosii, Derzhavin). It is noteworthy that the secular writers (Fonvizin, Derzhavin), and the clerics (Damaskin, Amvrosii), as well as scientists (Protasov) all shared this admiration. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lomonosov’s main achievement, in the eyes of the academicians, seems to have been his ability not to break with the past and the literary tradition as preserved in the Church books.2 1 This is stated most clearly in Damaskin’s foreword to Lomonosov’s collected works. The link between Lomonosov and the Old Church Slavonic heritage is also very pronounced in the SAR itself: approximately half of the word entries including a quote from Lomonosov simultaneously contain a quote from the Bible (see for example the words: bagrianitsa [crimson yam, fabric, or robe], bliudu [I take care, preserve], bliudusia [I am beware of, careful], bodrstvuiu [I am awake], borius ’ [I fight, struggle], brazda [ploughed field], brak [marriage, wedlock], brachnyi [conjugal], bran ’ [battle], brozda [bit, bridle], buria [storm, tempest], bumyi [stormy, strong, fast, impetuous.]) And this is independent of whether that given word was considered “Slavonic” or not. Under the Cyrillic letter “B,” for example, Lomonosov is quoted 62 times, hi 32 cases the word entry also refers to the Bible in its illustrative sentences. This double quoting, or biblical backing-up, as we might call it, almost never occurs in entries that cite other secular sources, such as the chronicles or other secular writers. As to the content of Lomonosov’s lines quoted in the SAR, it is their patriotic verve, the poet’s admiration for Russian military successes, the grandeur of both Russian sovereigns and the Russian people and territory, viewed as embedded in a cosmic order, that stand out as their characteristic features. 2 1 This to some extent contradicts Irina Reyfinan’s thesis of a new beginning in Russian literature associated with the 18t h century genius. permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248 1.2. References to Lomonosov the Linguist To his contemporaries Lomonosov was very well known as the author of theoretical linguistic texts, of which the detailed Rossiiskaia grammatika (1755) and the short treatise “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh v Rossiiskom iazyke” (1757) are the most important ones. Both texts deal with the problem of “style.” In order to assess how Lomonosov’s stylistic theory, and especially the still well-known theory of the three styles, as presented in the “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh,” was realized or applied in the SAR, it is necessary to summarize the two texts briefly. In the Grammatika Lomonosov discriminates between the “vysokii” [high] or “vazhnyi shtiT” [important style] and the “prostoi shtil’” [simple style] or “prostorechie” [colloquial speech]. Both styles are associated with one type of lexical material and corresponding grammatical paradigms: The vysokii shtil ’ is marked by words of Slavonic origin and correspondingly by (incomplete) Slavonic declension and conjugation patterns, whereas the prostoi shtil ’ uses Russian vernacular words and paradigms. In this early version of Lomonsov’s theory of styles it already is the content or topic of the given text that determines which style an author should use: Abstract and metaphorical ideas should be expressed in high style, while concrete and pragmatic issues should be dealt with in “ prostorechie” [colloquial speech]. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249 Two years later Lomonosov revised his linguistic program. The preface to the 1757 edition of his works (“Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnyhk v rossiiskom iazyke” [Preface About the Usefulness of Chuch Books in the Russian Language]) is famous today for Lomonosov’s “theory of the three styles” explicated there, hi fact, however, the preface consists of three parts. In the first part Lomonosov traces the history of the Russian language, the second part is dedicated to the theory of the three styles, and the third part enumerates the advantages and usefulness of church books for writers today. It has been pointed out already (footnote 20) that the “Predislovie” should also be read as a document of highly patriotic nature. In the following the first and third part will be summarized first. Then I will proceed to consider the theory of the three styles. Lomonosov sets out to explain how ecclesiastical books, written in Church Slavonic, link the Russians and their language (Rossiiskii iazyk) to ancient Greek culture. The incorporation of the Greek heritage into Slavonic was made possible through translation. Since the Russians were always able to read the Slavonic Church Books they played the role of Byzantine Kulturtrager. Lomonosov strongly advises his contemporaries to further read the Church Books, for both their content and language considerably enrich the Russian language. Chh no/ib3a Hama, hto mm npHo6pe/iH o t khht pepbKOBHHX doraT C T B O K CMMhHOMy H3o6pa>KeHHIO H T H e H B 32K H M X M B M C O K H X . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 [This is our advantage that we acquired from the church books the resources to express important and sublime ideas in a powerful way.]22 Reading the Church Books will sharpen the Russians’ sense for the difference between vernacular Russian and Church Slavonic. The ability, however, to carefully choose from the pool of Church Slavonic words, or to avoid them altogether, is essential to prevent stylistic unevenness in a Russian text: B y n e T b c h k y M e x b pasdnpaTb b m c o k h c oiosa o t nofltibix h y n o T p ed H /L H T b h x b n p m m H H b ix Mecxax no a o c t o h h c t b y n p e flu a ra e M O H MaxepHH, H a d m o a a f l paB H O C Tb cjiora. [Everybody will know how to discriminate ‘high’ words from common ones and how to use them in the apropriate places according to the dignity of the given material, observing the evenness of style] (Lomonosov, PSS 7:591) “ Ravnost ’ sloga” [evenness of style] is to be obtained on three levels: in high style, middle style and low style texts. In order to characterize these three styles, Lomonosov first divides the Russian vocabulary into three groups. The first lexical group (pervyi vid rechenii) contains the words shared (obshcheuportrebitel’ nye) by both the drevnie slaviane [ancient Slavs] and today’s rossiiane [Russians].2 4 In another passage further down the page Lomonosov 2 2 Mikhail Lomonosov, “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh v rossiiskom iazyke,” Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii [PSS], 7:590. 23 “ . . . pOCCHHCKHH H3HK . . . n o npiW HHHOCTH HMeCT p a 3 H b ie CTeneH H , BBICOKOH, HOCpeflCTBeHHOH H hh3koh. One n p o H c x o flH T ot x p e x poaoB p e n e n H H poccHHdcaro H 3biK a.” [...the Russian language ... has various levels of decentness, high, middle and low. These come from three types of words in the Russian language] (PSS 7: 588). 2 4 Lomonosov believed - this was the general belief at the time - that the Russian language had developed out of Church Slavonic, like the Italian out of Latin: “...h3ukh ot oiaBH HCK aro npoH3onuiH: 1) pocchhckhh, 2) no;ib ckhh, 3) bonrapcKHfi, 4) cepbcKHH, 5) uemcKHii, 6) caoBan,KHfi, 7) BenacKH H” (Bulich, 218; he does not give the references from Lomonosov). Accordingly the slaviane precede the rossiiane in time. The modem view, according to which Russian and Church Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 identifies these obshcheupotrebitel ’ nye recheniia [generally used words] as “slavianorossiiskie” [Slavono-Russian], and srednie [middle] words. Lomonosov gives the following examples: bog [God], slava [glory], ruka [hand], nyne [today], pochitaiu [I honor, respect, esteem]. The second group consists of words that are vsem gramotnym liudiam vrazumitel’ ny [known to all educated people], for example: otverzaiu [I open], gospoden ’ [belonging or refering to the Lord], nasazhdennyj [planted], vzyvaiu [I exclaim, call]. Here we deal with Church Slavonic words belonging to the passive vocabulary of an educated Russian. Although genetically different, they are still perceived as part of the Russian linguistic context. Neupotrebitel ’ nye [rare] and ves ’ ma obetshalye [very old] Slavonic words are explicitly excluded from this category. The third group includes “purely Russian” words that cannot be found in the church books, like: govoriu [I say, speak], ruchei [creek], kotoroi [who], poka [until], lish ’ [only].2 5 From this category of usable words Lomonosov excludes prezrennye slova [despicable words]. Slavonic belong to two different branches of the Slavic language group, namely the East and South Slavic branches, established itself only in the beginning of the 19th century. 2 5 Bulich points out that from a genetical point o f view “govoriu” and “kotoryi” should have belonged into the first category of words, since they both exist in Church Slavonic as well. This shows that Lomonosov reasoned from a stylistic - or, as Zhivov would call it, functional - point o f view, not from a strictly scientific or genetic one. Lomonosov had a very practical goal: “... sposobstvovoat’ ustanovleniiu russkoi stilistiki” (Bulich 218). Govorit’ and the relative pronoun kotoryi (as opposed to “koi” in Church Slavonic) were perceived as “Russian” at the time, and this is what counts. The whole problematic of describing the Russian literary language o f the 18th century, in itself — genetically speaking — a hybrid language already, is very well presented by Zhivov in his book Iazvk i kul’tura (110-115). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 Lomonosov then describes how to apply the three word groups in a three-style system, consisting of the levels: high, middle and low.2 6 Each of the styles is appropriate for certain literary genres. The relation of word group to style, however, is not simply one to one, as had been the case in the Grammatika (i.e. Slavonic words = high style, Russian vernacular = simple style): The first word group, i.e. the slavenorossiiskie recheniia [Slavono-Russian, or rather common Slavic words], combined with a large proportion of Church Slavonic words, characterize the vysokii shtil ’ , which is appropriate for heroic poems, odes, or “prozaicheskie rechi o vazhnykh materiiakh” [speeches in prose on important matters.] The srednii shtil ’ [middle style] consists of “recheniia, bol’she v rossiiskom iazyke upotrebitel’nye” [words, used mostly in the Russian language]. This style, however, is open on both the upper and the lower ends, for Lomonosov explicitly allows that: . . . [T y z ja ] mojkho n p H K H T b H e K O T o p w e p e n e H H a o ia B e H C K u e , b bmcokom in T H /te y n o T p e b m v i b H b i e , o f ln a K O c B e /iH K O io o c x o p o a c H o c T H io , hto6m c n o r H e K a 3 a n c a H a f ly r b iM . P a B H b iM o b p a s o M y n o x p e b H T b b H eM mo> kho H H 3 K H e c n o B a ; o f l H a x o o c x e p e r a x b c a , h x q 6 m n e o n y c x H X b c a b n o A n o c x b . [one can accept certain Slavonic words that are used in the high style, however, with great caution, so that the style does not appear inflated. One can equally use low words in here; however one needs to be careful not to sink into baseness] (PSS. 7: 589). Due to its wide stylistic variety this style is especially prone to stylistic unevenness. Therefore Lomonosov warns: 2 6 A theory of three styles was in itself nothing new. Cicero had already discriminated between grand (for rhetoric, psychagogia, winning o f men’s souls), middle (ut delectat, i.e. to please) and plain (for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 . . . b ceM nmrae a o t d k h o Had/iioflaTb BceBOSMO^cnyio paBHOCTb KOTopaa oco6jimbq TeM Tepaerca, Korna peneHHe cnaBeHCKoe nonoxeeHO 6ynex noftae poccttiicKoro npocxonapoflHoro. [in this style one needs to observe evenness as much as possible, whis lost especially when a Slavonic word is set next to Russian colloquial one.] The middle style is most appropriate for “stikhotvomye druzheskie pis’ma” [letters to friends in verse], eclogues, satires, elegies and drama, where “trebuetsia obyknovennoe chelovecheskoe slovo k zhivomu predstavleniiu deistviia” [one is in need of normal human speech in order to represent action in a lively way.] Prose should be written in the middle style. This seems to be the equivalent of an instructional and academic style, and includes the recordings of dela dostopamiatnye [memorable events] and ucheniia blagorodnye [noble teachings]. The nizkii shtil’ [low style] deploys purely Russian vernacular words (third word group) mixing them with first group words, but categorically avoiding OCS words: Ietpeee ooeeti i’ Seieiaao dch-aiey odaduaai 5iaa, niaoeaay ni ndaaieie [i.e. slavenorossiiskimi, M.B.], a to neaaameeo iaua iaoildd&aeoaeuiuo aiana oaaeydiiny... [The low style accepts words of the third type, mixing them with middle words [i.e. common Slavic, M.B.], but one should completely avoid not commonly used Slavonic words... (PSS. 7: 589). This style is suitable for comedies, humorous epigrams, and songs. Low style prose is to be used in personal correspondence and ordinary narrative texts (“opisaniia instruction, philosophy) styles (Blackall 152). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 obyknovennykh del”). This style is open at the lower end: “prostonarodnye nizkie slova” [colloquial lowbrow words] may enter the text. What had changed for Lomonosov between 1755 and 1757? Why had he added the middle style in the “Predislovie?” In the Grammar he had been describing the language from a morphological point of view. Variable grammatical forms (for example: gen. sg. m. -a vs. -u, prepositiv sg. m. -e vs. -u, or re the present participle: pishushchii vs. kotoryipishet)2 7 needed to be accounted for. To have two styles, the high and the simple, historically linked to OCS and the vernacular Russian respectively, seemed sufficient to distribute the morphological variants. Lexical pairs, like glas vs. golos easily fit this system as well: The Slavonic words would be declined the OCS way and would automatically be high-style, the Russian words, such as golos, would be declined the Russian way and would automatically be considered simple style. In this earlier text Lomonosov already mentions a group of genetically neutral words, i.e. existing in both OCS and Russian. With these words, the context would decide if they were to carry high style or simple style significance. In his new theory of styles of 1757 these common Slavic words are explicitly called Slavono-Russian. They are to form the malleable, broad and vital center of a modem Russian language that is now comparable to any Western European literary language and has stepped beyond the intricacies of diglossia or dvuiazychie. The adequate use and manipulation of purely Slavonic vocabulary becomes a matter of literary artistry. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 The m i d d l e style is capable of blending in words of various origins and erasing their genetic markedness to a certain extent, and thus capable of expanding and gaining terrain (Uspenskii, Kratkii ocherk 147).2 8 Thus, although the “predislovie” had mainly been written to increase the reader’s awareness of the outstanding possibilities of the Slavonic element within the Russian language,2 9 it actually was the Russian vernacular that had gained space and importance in Lomonosov’s theory of the three styles. Being well acquainted with the language of the church books, according to Lomonosov, could prevent a writer from committing s t y li s ti c faux pas in a Russian middle- or low-style text: it could help a writer avoid a Slavonicism, which otherwise he would not have recognized as such. This is exactly the point where the SAR steps in. Even for someone who had read the church books and the Bible thoroughly, the stylistic diversity of Russian was a problem.3 0 The SAR was precisely conceived to 2 7 Uspenskii lists all high-style vs. simple-style oppositions found in the Rossiiskaia grammatika in the very end, on pages 202-203, o f his Kratkii ocherk istorii russkogo literatumogo iazvka (XI - XIX vv.) (Moscow: Gnosis, 1994). 2 8 He characterizes Lomonosov’s middle style as “makaronicheskim po svoei prirode, odnako v budushchem on dolzhen stat’ neitral’nym - inache govoria, eto stil’ eshche ne suchestvuiushchii, ideal’nyi” [by nature macaronic, but in the future it shall become neutral — or to put it differently, this style does not yet exist, it is an ideal.] 2 9 See quote above: “Chh nonb3a Hama, hto mh npnodpenH o t khht qepicoBHMx dorarcTBO k auibnoMj H3o6pa2ceHHK> nneii Baxomix h bhcokhx...” [This is our advantage that we acquired from the church books -- the resources to express important and sublime ideas in a powerful way...] (PSS. 7: 590). 3 0 Or, as Miroslav Shetelia puts it, it is precisely the lexical and morphological variants that urge a linguistic community to normalize their language: “Razvitie normy, a vmeste s tem i vsei iazykovoi sistemy russkogo iazyka sovershaetsia i sovershalos’ imenno blagodaria nalichiiu leksicheskikh i slovoobrazovatel’nyh variantov. Kak otmechaet F. P. Filin, ‘problema normy voznikaet v tekh sluchaiakh, kogda v iazykovoi sisteme imeiutsia varianty sredstv oboznacheniia «odnogo i togo zhe».’” (“Staroe i novoe v uchenii o kriteriiakh normativnosti russkogo iazyka (opyt izucheniia Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256 overcome this problem and to tell the prospective writer, student, reader, etc. what the exact meaning - including the stylistic background - of a given word was. Words needed to be defined and fixed within a complicated and very unstable system of often double semantics. As Dashkova put it in her inaugural speech at the Academy in October 1783: ... He flocTOBano HSHicy HarueMy ... nocTOHHHaro onpefleneHHa peneHHHM h HenpeMeHHoro o iO B aM 3HaMeH0BaHHB. OTCiofla npoHCXOflHztH: paanoobpasHOCTb b conpnaceHHH o i o b . .. [... our language has lacked ... a durable definition of expressions and clear meaning for its words. This caused unevenness in the combination of words... ] (Sukhomlinov 1: 50). Again the difference between the purpose of the DAF and its Russian equivalent stands out very clearly: while the French were concerned with fixing an already perfect “bel usage” in their dictionary,3 1 the Russians were still interpreting their language as something largely unknown and unorganized. As the foreword to the SAR put it, the “rasseiannoe obilie” [diffuse riches]3 2 and the double nature of Russia’s language3 3 “otkrylo[...] ei [Akademii] polepredlezhashcheek vozdelaniiu edva predely imeiushchee.”3 4 aksiologicheskago aspekta slovamoi normy kontsa XVIII veka),” Slavia Orientalis 33. 3-4 (1984) 536. 3 1 “On dira peut-estre qu’on ne pent jamais s’asseurer qu’une Langue vivante soit parvenue a sa demiere perfection.. — perfect was the French language, — at least this was what the the French Academy’s was claiming... (Quemada, Les Prefaces 28), and “Que si Ton a jamais deu se promettre qu’une Langue vivante peustparvenir a estre fixee, .... nous avons lieu de croire que la nostre est parvenue de nos jours a ce glorieux point d’immutabilite...” (Quemada, Les Prefaces 25). 3 2 The expression from Lepekhin’s foreword to the SAR (1: VI). 3 3 “TaxoBoe c o c T o n H n e n 3 W K a ... 3acTanHna AxaneMHio n p n c o c T B n e u H H c n o B a p H C B o e ro , B H H K aT b b tot h n p y r o h h3mk c bo3M o* hoio touhocti> k» ; ” [This condition o f the language forced the Academy Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257 1.3. References to Lomonsov’s Grammatika and the “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovykh” in the SAR References to these texts can be found in the illustrative sentences and quotes of the dictionary, Dashkova’s speeches, the minutes of the Academy meetings, as well as Lepekhin’s foreword to the SAR. In the SAR under the word “ Povelitel ”’ [sovereign] we find the very beginning of Lomonosov’s “Posviashchenie” [dedication] that introduced the Rossiiskaia Grammatika: “ Iloeenumejib mhozux H3UKoe hsuk Poccuuckuu. JIomoh.” [The sovereign of many peoples (or tongues) is the Russian language (people)] (SAR 1: 596). This is a very catchy political statement, bound to please the addressee, velikii kniaz ’ [prince] Pavel Petrovich. Lomonosov plays with the double (Slavonic) meaning of iazyk: “language” and “people.” In the original the sentence is considerably longer and goes a little differently: UoBenHTejib MHorux hsmkob, hsmk Pocchhckhh He tokmo obfflHpHOCTHK) M eC T, Tfle O H TO C H O flC TByeT, H O KynHQ H CobcTBeHHBIM C B O H M npOCTpaHCTBO M H flO BO JIbC TBH eM BejIH K nepefl BC eM H B Espone. [The master of many peoples (tongues), the Russian tongue (people) is great compared to all European ones not only through its presence in so in compiling its dictionary to scrutinize one as well as the other language with utmost precision] (SAR 1: VIII). 3 4 [... opened to the Academy a field ready to be plowed but having almost no boundaries] (SAR 1: VIII). 3 5 “Povelitel’ mnogikh iazykov” is an apposition to “iazyk Rossiiskii” and therefore only part o f and not sole subject of an affirmative proposition. Truncations of this kind are typical for the SAR. as they are in many dictionaries. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258 many places where it dominates, but also through its own width and wealth] (PSS 7: 391). Not only do many peoples on the Russian territory speak Russian (Russian dominates nationally), but the Russian language also outdoes many foreign languages (Russian dominates internationally). The statement that the Russian language is widespread and covers - in a very concrete geographical sense - a huge territory, is also used as an argument for the language’s superiority in Lomonosov’s “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh.” In this version it appears almost word for word in the SAR’s foreword: Hapou Pocchhckhh, He B 3 H p a a Ha A a jib H e e pa3CTOHHHe M ecT h m o d H T a e M b ix , roBopHT noBCiOfly BpasyMHxenbHWM u p y r Apyry fl3MKOM. [The Russian people, despite the great distance of places it lives in, everywhere speaks a language that is mutually understood] (SAR 1: VIE).3 6 The idea that language functions as a political tool to define the borders of a country and its superiority was familiar to the academicians. I will return to this issue in the Conclusion. The very expression, “povelitel’ mnogikh iazykov” [sovereign of many peoples (tongues)] is also employed by Dashkova in her inaugural speech at the Academy on October 31, 1783: 3 6 In Lomonosov’s wording in the “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh” the passage goes: “Hapo,zj P o c c h h c k h h , no BermKOM y npocTpaHCTBy odHTaromnH, HeB3npaa na flanhHoe paccroHHue, roBopHT noBCioffy Bpa3yM HTe;ibHM M flpyr npyry h3mkom b ropoflax h b cenax.” [The Russian people, inhabiting an enormous territory, despite the great distance everywhere speaks a language that is mutually understood in towns and villages] (PSS 7: 590). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259 Cop,eTe;ibHHna t o j i h k h x H an iH X 6 n ta r qaex h b i h c HOBoe o ra H U H o e nOKpOBHTejIbCTBO H pOCCHHCKOMy CnOBy, TO TIb MHOZUX H 3U K 06 noeenum enbfo. [The source of so many of our good institutions today also gives new and outstanding patronage to the Russian word, the sovereign of so many tongues (peoples)] (Sukhomlinov 1: 50). Sukhomlinov points out that actually the entire first third ofDashkova’s speech paraphrases the beginning of Lomonosov’s “posviashchenie,” in which Lomonosov praises the flexibility (polyfunctionality in Zhivov’s terminology) of the Russian language: C m ib H o e KpacnopeuHe L fm te p o H O B O , Be/iHKonennaH B n p r m iH e B a sa>KH OCTb, O B H flen eB O n p n a x H o e b h t h h c t b o n e x e p a i o x csoero flOCTOHHCTBa H a POCCHHCKOM H 3bIKe. [Cicero’s strong rhetoric, Virgil’s sublime ponderousness, Ovid’s pleasant poetry do not lose any of their dignity in Russian] (PSS 7: 391). Underlining the polyfunctional character of the Russian language, Lomonosov further states - and Dashkova with him - that it is possible to express philosophical ideas as well as write scientific analyses in the native language. Moreover, references to Lomonosov’s grammar moreover appear in the following illustrative sentences: •B P o c c h h c k o m rp a M M a T H K e u e x b ip e CK JioH eH H H . [In the Russian Grammar there are four declensions.]3 7 • B P o c c h h c k o m H 3biK e c H H T a e T o i ceA M b naqe^cefi. [In the Russian language there are seven cases.]3 8 3 7 In the Grammatika. Lomonosov literally writes: “§ 146: CruionemiPi b p o c c h h c k o m m bwe naxb: n e T b i p e c y i q e c T B H T e n b H b i x h oqHo n p H n a r a x e n b H b i x ” [In the Russian language there are five declensions: four for nouns and one for adjectives] (PSS 7: 440). - The academicians, of course, refer to the four declensions o f nouns. 3 8 This is the case in Lomonosov’s grammar where he includes the vocative. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 • B P o c c h h c k o m aswKe TpH poga, M yacecK H ii, acencKHH h cpegH H H . [In the Russian language there are three genders, masculin, feminin, and neutral.]3 9 • CnpnMeuue, h h a . c. cp. Diaroji 03HaueHHbra b o Bcex HaKgoneHHax, BpeMenax h gHuax, no KoxopoMy gpyrne cnparaTB m o h c h o . Uepeoe, emopoe cnpxxcenue. ... [Conjugation. A verb shown in all declensions, times, and persons, according to which other verbs can be conjugated. First, second conjugation.']4 0 It was already mentioned (see chapter m, footnote 58) that the SAR adopted Lomonosov’s orthography. Simultaneously to the work on the dictionary, the Academy also worked on a Grammar. Dashkova had assigned this task to the priest Sidorovskii; after his death the archimandrite Apollos completed it. Independently, at the same time, the academician Barsov also wrote a grammar of the Russian language. All three scholars based their work on Lomonosov’s Grammatika. As to the “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh,” as we have seen, this text was also amply quoted in the SAR’s foreword. The text appears to have been a major source of inspiration for the academicians in their efforts to characterize the Russian language as rich, versatile, nation forming, and with an ancient tradition. Here, for example, is a sentence from the passage that describes the Greek influence on the contemporary Russian language: FpeKH npHHecnme k CjiaBeHCMM mieMeHaM xphcthuhckhh saicon, nUHjiHca o pasnpocTpanenHH onaro npenoacenHeM k h h f cBamennbix h UepKOBHbIX Ha H3BIK CjiaBeHCKHH ... 3 9 Although Lomonosov actually lists four genders in his initial paragraph on the nouns, in the following text he discusses only three: “§ 138: PocciriicKHe cyigecTBHTejibHbie HMena cyrb u e r b i p e x p o flO B : M y a c e c K o ro , aceHCKoro, cpeflHero h odujero” (PSS 7: 438-440). 4 0 In paragraph 285 Lomonosov writes: “CnpaaceimH poccHiicKHe rnaronbi h m c i o t gBa. IlepBaro cnpaaceHHa raaronoB BOTope nnpe egHHCTBeHHoro nncna HacToamero speMeHH HaioiOHeHHfl HS'bHBHTenbHor k o h h h t c h H a etub, BToporo - H a uuib.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 [The Greeks, who took the Christian law to the Slavic peoples, tried to disseminate it by translating the holy books and church books into Slavonic...] (SAR 1: VII-VIII)4 1 Although the “Predislovie” was used as a model text for describing the Russian language with respect to its history, versatility, extension, and ultimately its superiority, the system of the three styles is nowhere directly quoted. The only explicit reference I found to the theory of the three styles is in the end of the SAR’s foreword, in a passage where Lepekhin explains how the academicians chose their illustrative sentences. However, the haphazard use of the terminology indicates that the academicians were far from trying to apply Lomonosov’s theory systematically: HaKOHeu npHcoBOKyiuieHH, rtte Hyxyta xpe6oBajia, roSpaHHwe npHMepbi, h ,h,jm noKa3aHHa pa3JiHUHfl cjiotob, iyje h Kaxoe cjiobo ynorpebnaeTca, npHBejteHH npHMepbi CjiaBeHopoccnncKHe, t o ecTb H 3 k h h t pepKOBHbix h jiyuEiHX nncaTejieH cbctck h x , upe3 h to 03HauaeTca ynoTpeSjieHne hx b bhcokom h xpacHOM cuore. [Finally there were added, where necessary, selected examples, and in order to demonstrate the different styles in which a certain word is used, Slavonorussian examples were given, i.e. taken from church books and the best secular writers, through which their use is illustrated in the high and beautiful style] (SAR 1: XIV). The academicians were aware of different stylistic layers in Russian and tried to illustrate these in the dictionary. However, they considered the style of the church books and the elevated style of the best Russian writers (i.e. mainly Lomonosov’s) the same. For Lepekhin, it seems, both the church books and, say Lomonosov’s odes, were written in the ‘high and beautiful’ style, also called by the academicians Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262 the Slavono-Russian style. That this is not Lomonosov’s terminology is obvious. Lomonosov did not consider the church books “Russian” proper, although some of their vocabulary could be used in high style. However, the texts themselves were by no means part of active Russian contemporary language. He also never called the high style “Slavono-Russian.” In Lomonosov’s terminology Slavono-Russian was quite the opposite, namely the designation for common Slavic words that could be used in any style, as I explained earlier. The entries “ Nizkii slog” [low style] and “ Nizkoe slovo” [low/base word] again show that the academicians were familiar with the general notion of Lomonosov’s system of styles. Note here too, however, that their terminology is not exactly Lomonosov’s. In both the Grammatika and the “Predislovie,” for example, the original term is shtil ’ (as the German “Stil”) not slog [style]. • H h 3k h h c / i o t . C;ior, HanonHeHHWH c/ioBaMH npocTOHapoffHHMH. H u 3 k u u c jio z e noxeanbuou penu ue npucmoen. FLucamb h m k u m cjio zo m . [Low style. A style, full of colloquial words. Low style is not decent in praising speech. To write low style.] • HH3Koe o iobo. G iobo npocroHapoftHoe. [Low word. Colloquial word.] This leads to the conclusion that Lomonosov’s theory of the three styles had in general been accepted as a viable scheme, reflecting certain specifics of the Russian language, namely its strong stylistic stratification. However, it was not slavishly followed and literally applied by writers and poets, nor by the academicians themselves in writing their dictionary. This also corroborates Picchio’s observation 4l_Zhivov also quotes this passage in Iazvk i kul’tura. pointing out the similarity with Lomonosov’s original (321). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263 that the “Predislovie” is remarkable for its patriotic verve, a eulogy on the wealth of the Russian tongue, and that the system of the three styles was a byproduct rather than the main issue of the text. Let us now examine in more detail to what extent the SAR relied on Lomonosov’s theory of style. First, it is important to keep in mind that the category of style itself is hard to deal with in a dictionary, for a particular style, as Lomonosov keenly observes in the “Predislovie,” results from the combination of words, as well as specific grammatical and syntactical features. Only larger textual entities can be evaluated stylistically. Style is thus a category apparent solely in the illustrative sentences of a dictionary, where a word is used and presented in context. The academicians were aware of this, as the passage, quoted above, clearly shows. They consciously presented a word in different styles in the SAR, if necessary: in quotes from the Bible, the church books, Lomonosov’s odes, old Russian prose, and in self composed illustrative sentences that were written in what seems to be common vernacular and even colloquial Russian. All of these different “styles” often occur under one single entry (see, for example, the example “tako, tak” discussed in the beginning of chapter IV.) However, the terms “high style,” “middle style,” and “low style” are not used in the dictionary itself to categorize the type of texts displayed under one entry. It is therefore hard to decide whether the Slavonic from the Bible and the church books and Lomonosov’s poetry were considered one style, as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264 Lepekhin suggests in the SAR’s foreword, or whether these were perceived as two different stylistic levels. From a lexicographer’s perspective, however, it is absolutely possible and even advisable to define the stylistic characteristics of a single word and the academicians were eager to do this, following the example of the French Academy Dictionary. They mainly used the following stylistic markers: Slavenskii [SI., Slavonic], prostonarodnoe [common Russian] orprostorechie [colloquial],4 2 staroe [old], and foreign, and thus did adopt Lomonosov’s terminology in classifying the lexical material overall. Only Lomonosov’s so-called Slavenorossiiskie recheniia, or common Slavic words (Lomonosov’s group I) remain unnamed in the dictionary. They are equivalent to the unmarked bulk of the SAR’s entry words that form the core vocabulary of the dictionary. Whether the academicians’ stylistic evaluation of a word coincided with Lomonosov’s perception of that same word can be tested on a very small scale by looking up in the SAR the sample words Lomonosov gave for each of his lexical groups in the “Predislovie.” These were for the common Slavic words (first group): Bog, slava, ruka, nyne, pochitaiu. For the second group, the Slavonic words, Lomonosov mentioned: otverzaiu, gospoden ’ , nasazhdennyj, vzyvaiu. As examples for the third group, the Rossiiskieprostonarodye [Russian colloquial] words, Lomonosov gave: govoriu, ruchei, kotoryi, poka, lish Indeed, we find that the 4 2 On the difficulties o f discriminating between the meanings o f these terms, see Iu. S. Sorokin’s article quoted earlier. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265 common Slavic words are unmarked in the SAR, and are illustrated by text examples from the Bible as well as from simple colloquial speech. For example: CiiaBa: .... 1) Jho6umb cmey. TKenamb cnaeu. O h otcaotcdem emeu. ... 2) ... ITpuudem cuh nenoeenecKuu eo cnaee ceoeu. M ax<f>: XXV. 31. [Glory: ... 1) To love glory. To wish glory. To thirst fo r glory. ...2) ... The Son o f Man comes in his glory. Math. XXV. 31. ] Lomonosov’s Slavonic words (the second group) are also marked as Slavonic in the SAR and are illustrated with sentences from the Bible, or the Bible and Lomonosov,4 3 such as in: OxBepaaio... Cji.: ... 0meep3e ohm meou. Moan. IX. 17 H ce yotce pyxou Gaepmou, Bpama omeep3Jia e Mup sapn. M. JIom. [I open... SI.: ... Open your eyes. John IX. 17. And there, with purple hand, Dawn opened the gates into the world.] M. Lorn. All of Lomonosov’s colloquial Russian words, listed in the third lexical group in the “ Predislovie,” interestingly do not carry any marker in the SAR; they are not labelled “ prostonarodnye.” The illustrative sentences here are self-invented, with the exception of lish where the compilers give an unidentified quote in rhyme (perhaps from Lomonosov). This means that these Russian vernacular words were 4 3 With the exception o f gospoden gospodnii [of the Lord]. Since, however, all illustrative sentences are from the Bible, it is likely the absence of the marker “SI.” is just an oversight, or it was just omitted, because the adjective follows the noun Gospoden' [the Lord] which is, in turn, clearly marked as Slavonic. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266 perceived as belonging to the main bulk of the unmarked neutral contingent of words. Interesting is further that the SAR does list two of the four words rejected by Lomonosov in his “Predislovie” as too old and rare (obavaiu, riasny, ovogda, svene), namely riasny and ovogda. They carry the marker SI. and are illustrated with a quote from the Bible. We can thus conclude that, yes, the academicians were familiar with Lomonosov’s theory of the three styles but they did not apply its tenets stringently in their dictionary. Lomonosov’s perspective was that of a writer who tried to define what the Russian literary language should be like, which elements it should include and exclude. His point of view is a fundamentally Russian vernacular one. Slavonicisms are useful and, in a certain learned style, necessary ornaments, not more. They should all be known to the erudite, but not necessarily reused in a contemporary Russian text. The academicians set themselves a different goal in writing their dictionary. They were trying to gather all the lexical material from two different traditions into one place and were facing the incredible wealth of this literary heritage, consisting of Slavonic, Old Russian, and contemporary texts.4 4 Their work was to a great extent still exploratory and as if recreated the matrix on which Lomonosov had based his 4 4 Lepekhin illustrates this mind set very nicely in his foreword: “Taicoe cocToaHne H 3b iK a CjiaaeHOpoccHhcKaro 3acTaBnuo AKaaeivono, npn cocxaBJieHHH cjiosapa cBoero, B H H K a T B b t o t h Apyroisi H 3 M K ... [This state of the Slavono-Russian language forced the Academy to go to the heart of both languages ...TSAR 1: VIII). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267 theory. This is w hy the dictionary is on the one hand much more “conservative,” listing a large percentage of Slavonic words and even very rare ones. On the other hand, it accepts many Russian vernacular words, i.e. words that were perceived as markedly vernacular by Lomonosov, as neutral. The SAR is thus built around Lomonosov, it points backwards and forewards in time. The IDEAL Russian language, in Uspenskii’s terms, has come a little closer; at the same time the pool of the vast passive vocabulary of a learned Russian, however, is also still there. 2. Trediakovskii and the Slavono-Russian Language {Slavenorossiiskii iazyk) As I have pointed out previously, the term “Slavenorossiiskii” has very different meanings in Lomonosov’s “ predislovie ” and in the SAR. The academicians never use it in combination with the word “rechenie” [word, expression], which is the only combination Lomonosov admits. In the SAR the term “Slavenorossiiskii” always appears in combination with “iazyk” or “azbuka.” For Lomonosov, on the contrary, his native language is always “Rossiiskii iazyk.” Thus, in the SAR the meaning is considerably broader, and resembles much more, as I will show, the way it was used by the later Trediakovskii. The term Slavenorossiiskii iazyk itself can be traced back to the 17th century, when it “osranajio to ace, hto h «cnaBeHCKHii», x.e. Bbicxynaao xax odosHaueHHe pepKOBHoc/iaBflHCKaro asMKa (pycacoii peflaiopiH).”4 5 In this sense it was used 4 5 [.. .meant the same as Slavonic, i.e. appeared like a term for Church Slavonic (in the Russian recension)] (Uspenskii, Kratkii ocherk 139). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268 sporadically and inconsistently. In the second half of the 18th century this changed drastically, when Trediakovskii started using the word in the sense of a “synthetic language combining Slavonic and Russian.” In this meaning the word became increasingly popular.4 6 So popular, and so consistently is it used to describe a united, albeit heterogeneous linguistic landscape in Russia, that Zhivov in his book Iazyk i kul’tura associates an entire epoch with this term. The strong desire to unite the two elements, the Russian with the Slavonic, lasted throughout the second half of the century and is reflected not only in the treatises on language of the time (Trediakovskii, Lomonosov, Sumarokov, etc.), in the flourishing of the poetic high-style, the abandoning of the OCS in Church literature (Zhivov 376-406), but also in the broader cultural domain. Under Catherine II the secular (by nature Russian) and the religious (by nature Slavonic) spheres worked closely together: the Russian Academy included metropolitans and many priests, as well as scientists and representatives of the civil administration. Catherine’s New Code of Laws was first handed to the Metropolitan Gavriil for approval. At the end of his chapter “Slavenorossiiskii iazyk i sintez kul ’ tumo-iazykovykh traditsii” Zhivov concludes: 46 “ P a3JiH H eH H e « a ia B e H C K o r o » h « c jia B e H o p o c c r a ic K o r o » n a b iK a n o n y u a e T n o c i e T p e ju ia K O B C K o ro m n p o K o e p a c n p o c T p a H e H n e .” [The differenciation between “Slavonic” and “Slavono-Russian” becomes widely used after Trediakovskii.] This is a quote from Boris Uspenskii, Iz istorii russkogo literatumogo iazvka XVIII - nachala XIX veka (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1985) 176. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 H x a K , K yjL bT ypH H H CHHTeS B x o p o it IIOTIOBHHbl XVIII B. npH BO A H X B J i n x e p a x y p e k b o s h h k h o b c h h i o eflH H O ii a io B e c H o c x n , o6x>e,niHHHioiii,eH b c e d e cB ex cK H e h n y x o B H w e couH H eH H H , a b a sM ic e - k pasB H X H io e ffH H o ro B H x e p a x y p H o r o H 3biK a, c o u e x a i o ir t e r o uepK O B H O cnaB A H C K oe h p y c c K o e Havana. [Thus, the cultural synthesis of the second half of the eighteenth century leads in the literature to the emergence of one literary culture, combining in itself secular and spiritual works, and in the language - it leads to the emergence of one single language, combining Church Slavonic and Russian origins] (Zhivov 418). In the SAR the word “Slavenorrossiiskii iazyk” appears in various contexts and has the following meanings. First, in the most general sense Slavono-Russian is used to describe the heterogenous linguistic material contained in all books of cultural importance to Russia, whether ancient or contemporary. Slavono-Russian is synonymous with enormous linguistic wealth, which is extremely difficult to handle and makes a dictionary necessary: PacceaHHoe o6wme asbiKa G i a s e H o p o c c H f t c K a r o , b o MHoacecxBe pasHbix k h h x Kax npesHHx, xaK h HOBeitniHx nucaxenen, 6tmo raaBHoio flocene npnuHHOio xpyuHOCxn b npflMOM [i.e. correct] nain ero H3WKa ynoxpedneHHH. [The wealth of the Slavono-Russian language, dispersed in a quantity of different books by both old and contemporary writers, has been to this day the main reason for the difficulties in correctly using our language] (SARI: VI). The wealth of this synthetic language had earlier been praised by Trediakovskii. In the mid-forties he had - quite surprisingly, for this meant the rejection of his earlier position - turned to propagating the reintegration of Slavonic into contemporary language. Uspenskii and Zhivov have discussed this in detail. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 In his preface to the Telimakhida (1766), Trediakovskii, for example, writes: Ha htox naM npexepneBaxb flo6poBon&HO cicyAocxb h xecHoxy OpanpyscKyio, HMeroirpiM BcmopoAHoe doraxcxBO h npocTpancxBO CnaBeHopoccHilcKoe. [Why should we endure the scarcity and narrowness of French, we, who 47 we have the diverse wealth and breadth of Slavono-Russian?] (Trediakovskii 2: LXM, 138). However, as the SAR explains, the relationship between Slavonic and Russian is not only additive or synthetic, but also genetic. The compound “Slavono-Russian” refers to the origins or the provenance of Russia’s contemporary language. It could be read as: Russia’s language is a ‘Slavonic” language, similar to when we say: Italian is a Romance language, i.e. it can be traced back to Latin: CnaBenopoccHHCKHH H 3 b ik donbineio uacxbio c o c x o h x H3 OiaBeHCKaro, h / i h , acnee CKaaaxb, ocnosy c b o i o Ha neM HMeex; xoxa b npoueM BenHKoe M H O >K ecxB O couepucHx c /io b c o 6 c x b c h h o PyccKHX, n o cBoftcxBy k o h x HeKOXopbia H3 CnaBencKaro a3WKa nonepnHyxbiH HHoe OKOHuaHHe, HHoe o6pa30BaHne, a Apyran h h o b o h cmmcji nonyum m . [The Slaveno-Russian language consists mosty of Slavonic, or, better, is based on it; although it also contains a great number of Russian words proper. Some of them that were taken from the Slavonic language assumed a different ending, another form, and yet others a new meaning] (SARI: VI).4 8 Interesting about the term “Slavenorossiiskii” is the way it conceives of the dimension of time: the SAR was, in the first place, devised as a dictionary of contemporary usage and the Slavonic element in Slavono-Russian was by no means 4 7 Vasilii Tred’iakovskii, Sochineniia. ed. A. Smirdin (Sanktpeterburg: Tipografiia Akademii Naulc, 1849)3:203. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 perceived as “outdated” or “old.” Slavonic words never carry the marker “staryi” [old], whereas words from Old Russian sources do. From this perspective Slavono- Russian describes the language of the 18th century in a purely synchronic way. On the other hand, the academicians make it very clear in their foreword that the historical dimension contained in the Slavonic element is of utmost importance to them. The ancient roots of the latter, its connections with Byzantine Greece, are underlined to validate the cultural tradition. The race with the West European cultures claiming to be the most ancient4 9 had to be won. From today’s perspective it is not important if the compilers’ argument was valid. Etymology in the 18th century was a speculative science. Their ambition is important merely in a political sense: the Russians compared their own history to the history of the West. They used the same discourse and operated with the same arguments, which proves that they considered themselves part of it. In this “genetic” or “etymological” sense Trediakovskii had previously used the word “ slavenorossiiskiFin the “Razgovor o pravopisanii” where he defends the theory that the Russian and Slavonic languages are still the same and still very close, unlike the French, Italian or Spanish languages in relation to their ancestor Latin. Trediakovskii states: 4 8 Interestingly “Slavenorosskiiskii” in this meaning of “contemporary language based on Slavonic” can be interchangeably used with “Rossiiskii iazyk.” The author of the SAR’s preface assumes that “Rossiiskii” includes Russia’s Church Slavonic heritage fSAR 1: XIII). 4 9 Zhivov and Uspenskii have pointed out that this too was an all-European topos in essays on language at the time. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 . ..oiobom , t o t > K e caMMH flyx h O AHa T a> K Ayina b HameM, KOTopaa h b aiaBeHCKOM, Tax h to pyccKHii Ham hshk h easMBaexcH caaseHopoccHHCKHH, ToecTb, poccHHKHft no napoAy, a cnaBencKHH no CBoen npnpoAe. [...in one word, the same spirit and the same soul as is in the Slavonic language is also in our language, so that our Russian language is called Slavono-Russian, i.e. Russian in terms of the people [who speak it], and Slavonic by nature] (3: 203). Thirdly, in the SAR the term “Slovenorossiiskii” carries the meaning of “high- style” or “slavonicized Russian,” as is apparent from the following quote at the end of the foreword: ... npncoBOKynneHbi, rAe HyncAa xpedosana, iradpaHHbie npHMepw, n A na noicasaHHfl pasnnuHH cnoroB, rAe h Kaxoe cjiobo ynoxpedjtHexca, npHBeAeHW npHMepw CnaBeHOpoccHHCKHe, to ecxb, H3 khhx qepKOBHbix n Jiyunmx nncaTeneii csexcKHX, upes hto osnauaeTCH ynoTpedneHHe hx b bmcokom h KpacHOM cnore. [.. .there were added, where necessary, selected examples, and in order to demonstrate the different styles in which a certain word is used, there were given Slavonorussian examples, i.e. from the church books and the best secular writers, through which their use is illustrated in the high and beautiful style.] (SAR 1: XIV; highlighting mine - M.L.) Here again, Trediakovskii set the example. As he wrote in the dedication to the “Argenida”: BocnoioT one Ha npedoraTOM ceaaalidiffleeneoM a3bnce necHb Hosy; ho necHb chk> BeAHKOAenHyio h cnaAHanmyio. [They sing a new song in Russian, the very rich tongue; and this song is magnificent and most sweet] (Qtd. in Uspenskii, Iz istorii 167). It thus turns out that in using the term “Slavono-Russian,” as they did, the academicians followed in Trediakovskii’s footsteps, not in Lomonosov’s. For Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 Lomonosov “Slavono-Russian” meant neither “combined Slavonic and Russian,” nor “genetically Slavonic,” nor “Slavonicized Russian,” but simply “common Slavic.” Let me summarize. In the mid 40ies of the eighteenth century the term "Slavono-Russian"came to mean two things namely 1) the combination of Russian and Slavonic into one big pool (Trediakovskii), refering also to the genetic relationship of the two languages (Trediakovskii) or 2) - also Trediakovskii - slavonicized Russian, i.e. what Lomonosov came to call high-style, i.e. the second meaning is as if a condensed form of the first one. Lomonosov was very cautious with respect to the first meaning. He did not want to create one big pool out of two languages. He was standing with both feet in the Russian vernacular, and never called his language anything else but Russian. Slavonic was for him a “tochka otpora” [point of reference] and a useful means of enriching the Russian language, to give it more weight, tradition and loftiness. He explains this very clearly in the “Predislovie:” To know the church books is also useful to avoid (!) Slavonicisms. Lomonosov as a poet is naturally associated with the second meaning of “ slavonorossiiskii”: slavonicised Russian. This mode of Russian, as is well known, he held in high esteem and he was considered THE great master at it. However, he himself did not call it this way, he simply referred to it as “vysokii shtiF.” Slavono- Russian for him was not a stylistic term, nor one to define the language of Russia in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 general. It was a purely lexicological one, i.e. it designated the words “kotorye u drevnikh slavian i nyne u rossiian obshecheupotrebitel’ny” [which were in general use with the ancient Slavs as well as today with the Russians] and “upotrebitel’ny v oboikh narechiiakh” [that are used in both languages.], such as ruka, nyne, pochitaiu, etc. While Lomonosov is in tune with Tredikovskii and the other proponents of “Slavono-Russian” regarding the integration of Slavonic material into Russian in the high style, he disagrees with them in terms of terminology. He is also opposed to considering the totality of Slavonic vocabulary part of the Russian language. The SAR clearly uses the term “Slavono-Russian” in the first two meanings that I have described. These were certainly the word’s most common meanings, albeit not shared by Lomonosov. Thus, despite their admiration for Lomonosov, the academicians unconsciously continued in the vein of Trediakovskii, Sumarokov, Maikov and others. Their take on the contemporary Russian language was much more inclusive and comprehensive than Lomonosov’s. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275 CONCLUSION REVEALING FEATURES OF A MODERN NATION-STATE 1. The Quoted Sources: The SAR’s Identification with Imperial Russian Interests The source texts that provide the quoted illustrative material for the SAR easily divide into clear cut thematic groups, the overarching classifying opposition being religious vs. secular. The ratio of religious quotations to secular is about 2:1. There are approximately 4500 references to the Bible1 and exactly 466 references to church books and religious authors,2 together totaling about 5000. As to the secular sources, the SAR contains approximately 2400 quotations from over 150 different titles (see appendix), of which 883 are from Lomonosov. The secular texts referred to in the SAR break down into the following four groups: 1) Russian Historical 2) Russian Literary 3) Russian Legal 4) Travel accounts and geographical descriptions of Russia3 Only five texts do not pertain to any of these groups: the “Sovershennyi eger” and translations from Curtius, Horace (in Popovskii’s version), Cicero and Justinian. 1 This is an estimate. I counted 1200 Bible quotations in the first volume and far less (only 350) in the last volume. For the volumes 2-5 I assumed, without counting, the middle value between volume 1 and 6, i.e. 750. This equals 4,500. - The academicians most likely used the Elizabethan Bible. This latest Slavonic translation of the Greek text became the standard Bible upon its publication in 1757. (The academician Gavriil Petrov had at the time participated in the translation project.) 2 Listed in the appendices. 3 The poslovitsy [proverbs] quoted in the SAR could form another group of secular texts. Collections of proverbs were very popular at the time. It would be interesting to determine if the SAR relied on one of them and which. Although I do not concentrate on this oral genre in my study, the poslovitsy could easily be made part o f my argument. They were conceived as a typically Russian and especially Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276 All other texts easily fit one of the aforementioned categories. Not a single text of a broader ‘international’ scope, such as for example Varenius’ “General’naia Geografiia,” translated by the Likhud brothers,4 made it into the SAR.5 concise means of expression, which the educated elite - despite the not so educated content o f many sayings - was very proud of. 4 The title had actually been suggested by Golenishchev-Kutuzov (Sukhomlinov 7: 105). This was a translation, not an original Russian text. However, in the group o f geographical descriptive texts the academicians readily included Gmelin’s and Pallas’ “Journeys through Russia,” which had first been published in Germany and was translated for the Russian reader only later. 5 Two other categories of texts completely absent in the SAR are fictional prose and the hagiographic genre (zhitie). Secular prose narratives were probably not included because the academicians were concentrating on examples from high-style texts, such as slova [speech], odes, nadpisi [inscriptions], tragedies, etc. However, a few quotations from comedies and the poslovitsy [proverbs] were also admitted. We must simply state that the few texts o f fictional prose that existed in Russia had not entered the literary canon. (See the list of literary titles in the appendices.) Saints’ lives, however, were traditionally written in a high and woven (vitievatyi) style to underline the unearthliness of the saint’s deeds. The absence of these texts from the SAR is therefore curious and worth the while discussing in more detail. The zhitie as a genre was no doubt widely known. This is also confirmed by the zhitie-entry in the SAR. which mentions the Saints’ lives under point 2) as follows: 2) JKiroie. ... 03HanaeT Tax xce onncaHne x c h s h h h nocTonoMHTHbix h l h x nen. Ilucamtj, Humamb Mumux cexmbtx. Tlnymapx onucuecui xum un cnaenux Myxeu. )Kumue Tlempa Benumeo. [2) Life [Vita], ... Also means the description of someone’s life and his outstanding deeds. To write, read saints’ lives. Plutarch described the lives o f glorious men. The Life o f Peter the Great.] Interestingly the example for a zhitie [vita] given in this entry is the vita o f a historical political figure, not the zhitie of a saint, that o f Sergei Radonezhskii, for example! It seems that the academicians erroneously considered the original Byzantine zhitie a biography, a factual account of someone’s life, not an inspired description of a person’s deeds “po podobiiu Khrista,” i.e. to point out the Saint’s likeness with Christ. Since Saints lives often included legendary facts and miracles, their historical accuracy could easily be contested. The enlightened academicians, however, were in search of the historical troth and may have dismissed the religious zhitie for the lack o f it. Moreover, “ pletenie sloves” [weaving of words] and “vitievatost”' [winding, weaving] that characterize most Saints’ lives, seem to have carried a negative connotation. They could be synonyms for the complicated, fantastic, inaccurate, invented, and superfluous, as opposed to factual straightforwardness. To illustrate the negative attitude towards “vitievatosf’ I will refer to the SAR itself and also to a passage from Novikov’s Onvt slovaria. Under vitievatyi the illustrative sentence in the SAR is taken from Lomonosov’s “Slovo pokhval’noe Imperatritse Elisavete Petrovne” (1749), in which the author explains that he does not want to employ the “woven” style, but instead intends to be straightforward in his account on the Empress’ deeds: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 7 7 All of the texts cited define Russia with respect to Religion, Time (History), Space (Georgraphy), Government rulings (Law), and Literary Language. It is the Russian state and people, their history and characteristics, that are at stake in the SAR. The academicians were clearly concerned with shaping Russia’s national identity, and this not only culturally or linguistically, but with a strong political bias, supporting the goals of Imperial Russia. This is especially evident in comparison with the source material of other major European dictionaries. Bumueeamuu, xaa, Toe. Bumueeam, Ta, to. npiw. SaMbioioBaTMH, KpacHopeHHBbift, xnTpooioBecHHH. He eumueeammM cnoMenueu 3aMUcnoe, tuiu necmpUM npenoMenueM peneHuU yKpavueno, n u xe PumopcKUM napenueM eo3euuieHO 6ydem cue Moe cnoeo. M. JIO M O H . [Woven... adj. intricate, eloquent, artful. My slovo will be adorned neither by a woven arrangement o f ideas, nor by a colorful transposition o f words, nor will it be elevated by rhetorical soaring. M. Lomon. ] (SAR 1: 1032). In the context of Lomonosov’s Slovo, of course, this is a rhetorical figure itself but taken out of context and in the Dictionary’s abbreviated form, the sentence implies that “vitiistvo" [weaving of words] is not appropriate for historical accounts. At the same time, of course, there is great admiration in the SAR for Demosthenes and Cicero, who “sut’ krasnorechiveishie iz drevnikh vitii” [the most eloquent o f the ancient orators]. The idea that “vitievatye slova” [woven words] are not appropriate for the historical genre also appears in Novikov’s Qpyt Slovaria. Commmenting on Avramii Palitsyn, Novikov writes: [on] nncan n e T o n H C B o u a p cT B O B a H H H I f a p a Hoaima Bacnm>eBHua, n p o H M e n o B a H H e M Fpo3Haro, Kparico h He BecbMa nopanouHo; h o H3dpaHHe Ifapa Mnxamia < D e o n o p o B n u a o n n c a n co s c e M H o d c x o H T e n b C T B aM H . Cnor ero b ceft K H H re 6onbme BHTHeBaxbiH, Heacejm cxo^hm& co HcropHnecKoio npasfloio. [[he]] wrote a chronicle o f the reign o f Czar Ioann Vasilevich, called the Terrible, short and not very orderly; however, he described the election o f Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich in all detail. The style in this book is more woven than appropriate for the historical truth.] (p. 158-159) From this remark it is clear that in Novikov’s view “vitiistvo” and factual “historiography” are not compatible. Interestingly but not too surprisingly therefore, neither Epifanii the Wise nor Pakhomy Logofet - leading exemplars of this style — were listed by Novikov in the Opvt slovaria o rossiiskikh pisateliakh. Could the academicians have shared Novikov’s views? Was this the general opinion in the late 18th century? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278 All major language dictionaries since the Renaissance were inspired by the feeling of a growing national consciousness, be this the Vocabulario of the Accademia della Crusca, the Diccionairo de la Lengua castellana (also called Diccionario de las AutoridadesT the French Academy Dictionary, or Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language. References to the country’s literature and canonical religious texts were common in all of them. However, none of these lexicographic works incorporated geographical descriptions or the legal codices of their countries, as did the SAR. The Vocabulario concentrates exclusively on the “classic” poets and authors of the Trecento. Gunnar Tancke characterizes the 230 works quoted in Italy’s historic lexicographic masterpiece as follows: ... Autoren des 16. Jahrhunders sind nur sporadisch vertreten. Sie werden oft nur als Erganzung zu den «klassischen» Autoren zitiert oder wenn Beispiele aus den «guten» Autoren fehlen. ... Der Hauptakzent liegt auf der Epoche, die in den Augen der Accademia della Crusca die Bliitezeit der italienischen Sprache verkorpert, auf dem Trecento und der Sprache seiner Dichter.6 Although the DAF did not use quotations to illustrate the meaning of its entry words, initially there had been a plan in place for an authoritative dictionary. The authors proposed to be quoted were all exclusively from the literary field in imitation of the Vocabulario: Tres admiratif des travaux des Cruscanti, Chapelain prona a son tour la prise en compte des oeuvres des meilleurs auteurs anciens (Statuts, art.25) pour en extraire des phrases et les inserer dans le dictionnaire. 6 Gunnar Tancke, Die italienischen Worterbucher von den Anfangen bis zum Erscheinen des Vocabulario degli Accademici della Crusca (1612): Bestandaufhafame und Analyse (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1984) 104. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279 Pour cela, les academiciens se chargeraient d’etablir “un long catalogue des livres les plus celebres pour la prose et pour les vers” (Quemada, Les Prefaces 11). The equivalent Spanish Academy dictionary, the Diccionario de la lengua castellana (1726-39) also referred mainly to the literary maestros of the seventeenth century. In Spain these were, among others Quevedo, Cervantes, and Calderon.7 The list of quoted works published in the beginning of the dictionary shows that the Spanish academicians at the time of Philip V also quoted from medieval chronicles, such as the Chronica del Rev Don Alonso (1200-1200 a.d.). In contrast to the French Academy Dictionary, the Diccionario was not conceived as a reference work of the contemporary Spanish language; the Spanish academicians purposefully included “generalmente todas las voces de la Lengua, esten, 6 no en uso” [in general all the Q words of the (Spanish) language, whether or not in use]. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1746-1773) was the least restrictive of dictionaries as regards his choice of sources. The author, who took great pride in tackling the task of compiling a dictionary of the English language on his own,9 did not limit himself to a well-defined pool of authoritative literary texts or the langue de la cour, but included a hodge-podge of texts: the Bible, secondary literature, treatises, historiography, contemporary essays, etc. However, compared to 7 Fernando Lazaro Carreter, Las ideas linguisticas en Espana durante el siglo XVIII (1949; Barcelona: Editorial critica, 1985) 219. 8 Diccionario de la lengua castellana. en que se explica el verdadero sentido de las voces, su naturaleza v calidad. con las phrases o modos de hablar. los oroverbios o refranes. v otras cosas convenientes al uso de la lengua ... Compuesto por la Real academia espafiola (Madrid: Impr. de F. Del Hierro, 1726-39) 11. 9 Interestingly, this was consciously presented by him as reflecting the English individualism, i.e. also as a national characteristic! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280 the Russians’ imperial interests, so obviously displayed through the choice of sources in the SAR. Johnson’s dictionary strikes a very private tone. He assumed the role of an educator. DeMaria characterizes Johnson’s sources as follows: A majority of the 116,000 quotations in the Dictionary come from a handful of predictable literary exemplars: Shakespeare, Dryden, Swift, Pope, Addison, Hooker, Bacon and the King James Bible. A numerically similar group of well-known sermon writers, together with the reference works that Johnson cited, account for about another quarter of the illustrative material. In the 25 percent of the Dictionary that comes from less obvious, less philologically obligatory sources, Johnson’s educational intentions are clearly visible.1 0 Neither did Johnson propagate nor identify with the political goals and territorial interests of his country or government. Again, in contrast, besides quoting from canonical religious and literary texts (as Johnson did), the Russian academicians showed a keen interest in the history and administration of the Russian Empire. In these domains the academicians are strikingly exhaustive. They include all major legal and historiographical works, no matter when they had been written.1 1 The SAR’s quotations cover 700 years of Russian textual tradition, starting with the Nestorian Chronicle (compiled in the early 1100s, but written even earlier) and ending with writings by the academicians themselves. This is an interesting detail, for the dictionary had clearly been conceived, in contrast to the Diccionario de la lengua castellana. and very much like the DAF. as a language dictionary of 1 0 Robert DeMaria, Johnson’s Dictionary and the Language of Learning (University o f North Carolina Press, 1986). See also: Allen Reddick, The Making o f Johnson’s Dictionary. 1746-1773 (1990; Cambridge: UP, 1996) 33. 1 1 Johnson had limited himself to roughly 200 years and, at least according to his plan, did not quote from contemporary texts. It was a dictionary based on the written code o f modem English (since Shakespeare), excluding the volatility of present linguistic change. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 contemporary usage. However, the Academy’s great concern with Russia’s political past as displayed in the choice of sources reveals a strong conflict of interests. This among other things accounts for the eclectic nature of the SAR. The academicians attempted to present Russia as a State with an old tradition, not only in terms of its cultural past, but first and foremost in terms of an ancient political entity. This concern overshadowed the academicians’ efforts to define or create the Russian contemporary language. I now contend, and this is a main thesis of my dissertation, that the academicians’ concern not only with the cultural heritage of their country (typical of all major dictionaries in Europe since the Renaissance) but also with the political interests of the Russian Empire and the way its characteristics or ‘Russianness’ were projected onto Russia’s population as a whole, proves that Russia was, despite its backwardness in many respects, anticipating a development generally said to be characteristic of Western Europe as it developed in the aftermath of the French Revolution. This was the formation of a nation-state and the sentiment that goes along with it, in other words, modem nationalism. The latter is commonly defined as a “state of mind”1 2 or “political principle, which holds that the political and the 1 ^ national unit should be congruent.” To demonstrate my point, I will first give a short outline of the concept of “nation,” which is based on the works of Ernest Gellner and Hans Kohn, two 1 2 Hans Kohn, Nationalism: Its Meaning and History (Princeton: D. van Norstrand Company, 1965) 9. 1 3 Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1983) 1. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. specialists on the history of nationalism. I will then determine which characteristics of a “nation” in the modem sense of the word apply to Russia at the end of the 18th century based on the definitions and sources used in the SAR. and which do not. This is, once again, to show that Russia from the academicians’ viewpoint shared some important characteristics of a modem nation-state. Russia was to be made into one culturally unified nation. The unifying forces of language and law were important tools to achieve this goal. This programmatic aspect apparent in the SAR makes the dictionary a significant socio-historical document of its time. 2. What are Nation, Nation-State, and Nationalism? According to both Gellner and Kohn,1 4 the term “nation” in the modem sense of the word is, although not exclusively, a “voluntaristic” (i.e. subjective) concept. Two men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to the same nation. In other words, nations maketh man; nations are the artifacts of men’s convictions and loyalties and solidarities. A mere category of persons (say occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example) becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership of it. It is their recognition of each other as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation, and not the other shared attributes, whatever they might be, which separate that category from non-members (Gellner 7). The term “nation” in this sense is usually said to have its origins in the French Revolution. It is closely associated with the idea of democracy. After the French Revolution the estate system was abolished in France, general elections were Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283 instated, education made binding, and through industrialization society became more homogeneous. With democratization and the growing feeling of “belonging to each other,” as it were, the cultural elite now acted as independent representatives and leaders of the people. They were not — as used to be the case — working in close connection with the political rulers or the Church. This alliance was particularly pronounced in German Romanticism, when authors, such as Grimm and Herder, for example, were assuming the role of cultural leaders guiding the German nation. As this sense of belonging to each other (which spread among all members of a society, not only the higher social strata) became dominant, the “nation” governed by this corporate will started claiming political and territorial space. The confines of the country were suddenly defined by the extension of the nation and the territory it occupied. This is the beginning of nationalism and the nation-state. Kohn describes this process very concisely: ...it was not until the end of the eighteenth century that nationalism in the modem sense of the word became a generally recognized sentiment increasingly molding all public and private life. Only very recently has it been demanded that each nationality should form a state, its own state, and that the state should include the whole nationality. Formerly, man’s loyalty was due not the nation-state, but to differing other forms of social authority, ... such as the tribe or clan, the city-state or the feudal lord, the dynastic state, the church or religious group. Throughout many centuries the political ideal was not the nation-state but the, at least, theoretically world-wide empire comprising various nationalities ad ethnic groups on the basis of a common civilization and for the assurance of a common peace (Kohn, Nationalism 9). 1 4 Hans Kohn writes in the book quoted above: “Although objective factors are of great importance for the formation of nationalities, the most essential element is a living and active corporate will” (10). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284 To extract these basic characteristics of modem nationhood from an extensive number of (controversial) studies on the history of the nation and nationalism is necessary in order to discuss and understand the role Russia played in the European picture of the time. What was her place, where did Russia stand at the end of the 18 th century? I will answer this question from the viewpoint of the SAR. 3. “Rossiia” Defying the Definition of a “Nation” Objectively Russia was (and is) indeed a multinational state comprising a multitude of different ethnic groups (“nationalities” in Kohn’s terminology), from Tartars to Germans, to Eskimos. The academicians are perfectly aware of this and explain under “raznoplemennoi:” • Pocchio HacemnoT pasHon/ieMeHHbie Hapogbi. [Peoples of different tribes inhabit Russia.] As we know, Catherine II was willing to accept these peoples’ national differences, by, for example, acknowledging their different religious beliefs. What interests us here, however, is the subjective aspect of nationhood. Based on the SAR’s quoted material, how did the academicians view themselves in relation to fellow Russians? As I pointed out above, the part of the Russian cultural elite assembled in the Russian Academy identified with Catherine’s imperial goals to an unusual extent. The other European academies did not integrate historical, legal, and geographical writings into their dictionaries. They did not act as a mouthpiece for their political leaders. This does not mean that the European language dictionaries could not be or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285 were not exploited politically. As I pointed out in the first chapter, for example, the DAF was under the strict control of Cardinal Richelieu. With the SAR, it was the other way around. The control from above was rather lax. In the beginning at least Catherine assumed the role of an honorary editor, an almost equal member of the staff. Her suggestions were respected, but not imperative. The academicians, for instance, openly went against Catherine’s wishes in arranging the entry words in etymological instead of alphabetical order. On the other hand - and the academicians took this decision on their own - they included quotations from Russia’s historical legal documents as well as travel accounts documenting the extension of the Russian empire. The identification with the czar’s political goals was not imposed from above, but came from below. A close relationship between a thin layer of a cultural elite and the ruler/Church is typical of an agrarian society, which is not compatible with and precedes in time the modem phenomenon of the nation-state (Gellner 9-18). Homogeneity of society, attained through the literacy of all of its members and the anonymity of the industrial age had certainly not yet set in, and had not as yet eliminated the strong horizontal stratification of Russian society. According to Gellner, however, literacy and industrialization are the key traits that characterize social units affected by nationalism (Gellner 138). Kohn argues similarly. In order for nationalism to pervade the whole of society, it needs to go hand in hand with democracy and industrialism: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286 Only in the eighteenth century, through the simultaneous emergence of nationalism, democracy, and industrialism, all three closely linked in origin and continuous interaction, an ever-quickening and ever-widening process of acculturation, economic exchange, and intensification of 1 S communication started... Thus the close relationship between the academicians and the czar or, in other words, the Academy’s identification with imperial political goals, speaks against defining Russia as a nation. Not only was the horizontal stratification of society in Russia especially sharp (through the table of ranks) and the social differences between the cultural elite and the illiterate common people extremely pronounced, there is yet another historical reason for the close link between the government and the country’s learned men and women. The Russian nobility, to which all of the non clerical academicians belonged (see chapter 1), was traditionally strongly dependent on the sovereign, hi Russia the ruler’s authority was never seriously restricted by the nobility, as it was in the Western feudal states. The nobility’s lands, property, and lives could - in theory at least - be seized by the sovereign at any time.1 6 Thus the academicians, all noble ‘servicemen’ - to borrow an expression from Marc Raeff, - were prone to identify with the goals and principles of the monarch out of necessity. Their privileges traditionally hinged on how well they served, especially since Peter I. They were part of the system: The Academy was a state institution called into life by the Empress and directly serving the interests of 1 5 Hans Kohn, The Idea ofNationalism (New York: Macmillan Company, 1944) vii. 1 6 See Marc Raeff, Origins of the Russian Intelligentsia: The Eighteenth-Century Nobility (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966) 19ff. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287 Imperial Russia. This is most apparent in the quotations from the legal documents. In the 18th century, while legislation became more and more systematic, legislative power was fully transferred to the monarch: “Diana rocyaapcTBa cxa/i paCCMaxpHBaTbCH KaK BepXOBHblH HOCHTe/tb SaK O H O A axeTIbH O H BTiaCTH....” [The head of state was considered the highest instance of legislative power...] (Skripilev 42). In quoting from important state documents, such as Catherine’s “Ustav blagochiniia ili politseiskii” or the “Zhalovannaia gramota gorodam” (1785), as we have seen, the academy revealed itself as the Empress’ mouthpiece. Again, the multiethnic composition of Russia’s population, a pronounced horizontal stratification of society, as well as the close association of the intellectual elite with the ruler, speak against calling Russia a nation-state. However, I will now turn to answering the question positively. 4. Rossiia Envisaged as a Homogeneous Nation in the SAR The Academy’s concern with Russian national identity, the country’s cultural as well as political traditions and distinctive characteristics, is expressed very strongly in the SAR through the choice of quoted sources, as I pointed out in the beginning of this chapter. However, in order for Russia to be considered a nation in the modem sense of the word, there must be evidence of a feeling of social homogeneity and democracy; features that permeate the whole of Russian society, all of its population, and not only the cultural elite. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288 The SAR provides proof of such feeling at the end of the eighteenth century. A distinct national identity was projected onto all of Russia’s population. Interestingly, moreover, this embryonic nationalism hinged exactly on the parameters of ‘Russianness’ that I extracted from the sources of the dictionary, i.e. Laws, Language/Literature, Religion, and Geographical extension. This is, for example, corroborated by the SAR’s definition of “Narod” [people], which reads as follows: HAPOjf: fr3biK; iuieMJi; > K H T e;iH rocyaapcTBa1 7 , crpaHM Katcoji, jK H B y n p ie no;n; o a h h m h s a K o n a M H , h r o B o p a m n e offH H aK O B M M npnpoAHWM H3WKOM.. Hapod SnaeoynpeMdeHHWu, cunm uu, soum m eeH H biu. H apodu ceeepnue, eocmonmie. Bo bchkom rnpode ceou odu K H ooeum . 1 7 The SAR’s definition o f “gosudarstvo” [state] under 1) is very “spatial” and justifies an association with the category of geographic source texts: rocynapcTBO, craa. c. cp. 1) 3eM«H hjih crpana, o6n. [odnacrb] naeMan rocynapeM; napcTBO. 06m u pm e, npocmpannoe eocydapcmeo. Pacnpocmpanumb npedenu zocydapcmea. CmpaHcmeoeamb no EeponeUcKUM zocydapcmeau. 2) BepeTcn HHorjia BMecTo: napofl. Bee eocydapcmeo eoepadoeanocb. O6oeamumb, npoceemumb eocydapcmeo. [State... 1) Land or country, [region] given by the lord/sovereign; czardom. Vast, extended state. To extend the confines of the state. Travel through (the) European states. 2) Used sometimes instead of “people”/“nation.”] The definition of “strana” [country] is not as “special,” i.e. not stressing the extension, but rather the location, and goes as follows: C/rpaHa, h b i. c.ac. ...2) OdaacTb, rocygapcTBO. Omdaeienmie cmpanu... Mumb e nyMux cmpanax. Mapnue, 3 H o u m ie , x o n o d m i x cmpanu. Cmpanu k toey, k ceeepy, k 3anady Mexcatqm. Ombude eo cmpanu Tupcxun. M aTB.- xv. 21. Ho nmo cmpanu eenepnu m.Mxmcx.... JI. [Country ...2) Region, state. Distant countries ... To live in foreign countries. Hot, sultry, cold counties. Southern, northern, western countries. [Jesus] went to the region o f Tyre. Math. 15:21 But that it is getting dark in the countries to the West...L.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 8 9 [PEOPLE: Tribe.the inhabitants of a state, country, who live under the same laws and speak the same native language. A well administered, strong, bellicose, people. Northern, Eastern peoples. All peoples have their own habits'] (SAR 5: 43). In declaring that a “people” comprises all inhabitants of a state that live under the same laws and speak the same language, the academicians clearly associate themselves with all other inhabitants whether rich or poor, aristocrats or commoners. The unifying features of a people are common laws (odimi zakonami), by which every member of the society has to abide, a common language (odinakovym iazykom), and the territory it jointly occupies (gosudarstvo, strana). The people — and one can safely assume that the academicians had in mind the people of Russia — were indeed viewed as a homogeneous group, a nation in the modem sense of the word. Moreover, by emphasizing the importance of the territorial extension (gosudarstvo) for this people, united by language and laws, there is evidence of a close relationship between the “nation” and the “state.” Hence we may contend that the modem idea of the nation-state had entered the academicians’ minds. However, the definition of “narcxf ’ had been taken and translated, like many other definitions, from the DAF. At first glance this seems to weaken my argument. The academicians could not possibly have had in mind their own country, where so many different languages were spoken! The French original reads: NATION, s. f. Terme collectif. Tous les habitants d’un mesme Estat, dun mesme pays, qui vivent sous mesmes loix, & usent de mesme langage &c. Nation puissante, nation belliqueuse, guerriere. Nation civilisee. Nation grossiere. Nation barbare, feroce, cruelle, meschante nation. Chaque nation a ses coustumes, a ses vertus & ses vices. II n ’ a aucun des defauts de sa nation. La nation Francoise. La nation Espagnole. C ’ est Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290 I ’ humeur, Vesprit, le genie de la nation. Toutes les nations de a terre les nations Septentrionales. Les nations Meridionales. Un Prince qui commande a diverses nations. II est Espagnol de nation, Italien de nation (DAF [1694] 2: 110). In f a v o r of my argument, however, is the fact that the academicians chose the definition of the French “nation” and not “peuple” to explain the Russian “narod.” In the French definition of “peuple” the aspect of language is missing: PEUPLE. s. m. Terme collectif. Multitude d’hommes d’un mesme pais, qui vivent sous les mesmes loix. (DAF [1694] 2: 228) For the Russian academicians a common language as well as a common code of laws were nation building categories. Choosing the definition of “nation” for the Russian word “narod” [people] was a conscious and meaningful act and more than a haphazard translation from the French model text.1 8 There is additional evidence proving that the academicians considered a homogeneous society their ideal. The illustrative sentence under the entry word “osnovanie” [foundation] reads as follows: Bepa, 3aK O H bi, npaBocynne h eflHHOjjyiiiHe napoaa cyxb TBepfloe ocHQBaHne rocynapcxB. [Belief, laws, justice, and the unanimity of the people form the solid base/foundation of states.] Here again a u n a n i m o u s people, united this time through religious belief and laws, are an integral part of the state. In other words, homogeneity of the people and the 1 8 “Nation” is also the word Catherine uses in the Antidote (see below) refering to the distinct characteristics of Russia as opposed to other “nations:” “II n’y a point de nation, de laquelle l’on ait debite plus de faussete, d’absurdite, d’impertinences, que de la Russe.” ... “Les autres ecrivains [etrangers] ont fait de meme; ils ont trouve mauvais que les Russes differassent des autres nation” (Imperatritsa Ekaterina II, 7: 9). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291 political entity of the State go hand in hand. This comes very close to the definition of a nation-state as outlined above. It is crucial for my argument that the parameters of Russianness, namely Laws, Language/Literature, Religion, and Geography, as they were extracted from the text sources used by the academicians, also appear as Russian nation-forming categories in the sentences above. This corroborates my thesis that the Academy had a political program. Russian identity was characterized by specific national features that were used to define national territorial interests. The SAR actively promoted these political goals. The choice of sources for the dictionary reflect exactly what is stated in word definitions and illustrative sentences, namely that the Russian “people”/”nation” form a cultural and political unity. This is not to say that Russia under Catherine II was a nation-state. My point is that the academicians were attributing to Russia features of a modem nation-state. Its characteristics and u n i f y i n g elements were, once again: one language, religion (for specifications see below), and laws. A homogeneous people was envisaged to inhabit the vast Russian land. State and Nation were ideally to be congruent. The academicians were contributing to make this ideal come true; they were compiling and shaping a homogeneous Russian language for their people. The definition of “iazyk” in its second meaning as “language” therefore naturally mentions “narod” [the people] again, closing the circle as follows:1 9 1 9 In Russian, of course, “iazyk” can also mean tribe, and is thus a synomym of “narod" anyway. The SAR lists both “narod” as a synonym for “iazyk” as the word’s third meaning, as well as “iazyk" as a synonym for “narod” (see above). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292 Hapemie; c/ioBa h odpas pemi ynoTpedjtTetibHbia kbrhm jm6o Hapoji,OM . P occuuckoU ) A zjiuhckou, JlamuHCKOu H3UK. Burnt ucK-ymy [sic] e eocmoHHUX m u K a x . ... [dialect (?);2 0 words and a way of speaking used by a people. The Russian, English, L atin la n g u a g e. To b e v e rsed in the E astern la n g u a g es...] (SAR 6: 1037).2 1 It is by no means a coincidence that the introduction to the SAR starts out with listing the advantages of Catherine’s educational reform. The dictionary has to be seen within this broader picture. Catherine’s ultimate goal was to establish a general school system with Russian as the national “business language.” Although this project remained in an embryonic stage, decisive and bold steps were taken in this direction. The academicians, who were at the same time the creators of this new system of education, writing the text books, primers, training teachers, etc., identified strongly with this idea and were indeed working towards this goal in all earnest. According to Gellner, however, “universal literacy and a high level of numerical, technical and general sophistication are among [the] functional prerequisites” of an industrial society and of a developing nation-state (Gellner 35 and 138). From this point of view — and although the program’s implementation was only at its earliest stage — Russia was, as to the intention, ahead of its time, anticipating an age that would first fully develop in the Western European countries. My statement that religion was one of the unifying elements, contributing to the homogeneity of the Russian people, needs further explanation. As I showed in 2 0 “Narechie” is not an entry word in the SAR. What the exact meaning was at the time I cannot tell. 2 1 This definition is also a translation of the corresponding French word article. In the DAF the text reads as follows: “LANGUE, signifie aussi, L’idiome d’une nation. La langue grecque, la langue latine, la langue frangaise, etc. Les longues orientates. Les langues indo-germaniques ou aryennes. Les langues semitiques ...” (DAF [1878] 2: 98). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293 the f i f t h chapter, freedom of religion w a s propagated by the enlightened Catherine, but remained a controversial issue. However, based simply on the quantity of quotes from religious sources, most of which were markedly Orthodox (references to the Orthodox church service, church books, the Slavonic Bible), we can safely say that Orthodoxy was widely considered a feature of “nationalist” importance, especially by the clerics among the academicians. This is moreover confirmed by the definition 99 of “zakon” m the meaning of “religion,” where “narod” is again part of the wording. 3AKOH, Ha. C. M .... 2) O n p e a e n e H H H H o d p a s 6oronoHHTaHHH, c o fle p K H M b iH H 3B ecrH M M H ap o flO M ; s e p a . ... [Specific kind of reverence to god, practiced by a certain people] (SAR 3: 9). It is possible that in the definition of “narod,” as quoted above and as translated from the French original, “vera” [belief] was not added to the elements constituting a “people” for reasons of political correctness. “Catherine had decreed religious liberalism; so let it be!” the academicians may have thought. In the sentence illustrating the word “osnovanie,” however, religion was clearly made into a cornerstone of the State and People. In the French Academy Dictionary under “fondement” the illustrative sentences reads as follows: La justice, les lois, la fidelite des peuples, sont les plus surs fondements des trones, des monarchies. Detruire la justice, c ’ est de saper les fondements de I ’ Etat... In the French illustrative sentence, which again seems to have served as a guide, there is no mention of “religion” as a nation building element. This was added in the 2 2 In the 18th century the word meant law and religion. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294 Russian dictionary entry. It is telling, moreover, that the French “fidelite” was transformed into “edinodushie” [unanimity] in the Russian illustration. A vertical social relationship, i.e. the loyalty to the throne, in the French context is transformed into a horizontal social relationship, i.e. the equality between fellow Russians, in the SAR. Many other sentences underline the importance of religion to the Russian people. In the following illustrative text fragment the “holiness” of belief parallels the holiness of the “law,” another proof of the importance of both for a homogeneous Russian society. CBHTOCTb 2CH3HH. CBHTOCTb XpHCTHaHCKHH Bepbl. CBHTOCTb SUKOHOB. [The holiness of life. The holiness of the Christian belief. The holiness of the laws.] (Highlighting mine, M.L.) 5. The Outstanding Importance of Law and Legislation in the SAR The following table lists in each of the columns the main topics appearing in the dictionary’s text types (I. The self-composed illustrative sentences; II. The Quoted text sources; III. The sentences defining “narod” as a homogeneous entity.) It shows that the spectrum of themes is broadest in the self-composed illustrative sentences. The topics which the quoted sources refer to focus on certain of these themes, namely Russian History, Russian Language, Orthodoxy, Russian Geography, and Legislation. These themes constitute the characteristics of the — Russian — people “narod,” as we have seen, a direct translation of the French word “nation,” not “peuple.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295 Table 7: Overview of Themes recurring in the Self-Composed Illustrative Sentences. Quotations, and in Connection with “Narod” (I) (II) (III) Themes Recurring in the Self- Composed Illustrative Sentences tSAR’s Educational Background) Themes under which all Quoted Texts in the SAR Fall (Parameters of Russianness = Political Program) Themes Recurring in Sentences Mentioning and Defining “narod” History History (Language/Literature ) B Language/Literature Language (“narod”) Religion Religion Religion (“osnovanie”) Geography (both foreign and Russian) Geography Geography Laws (in combination with Russian History, esp. Catherine) Laws Laws Ancient Roman and Greek culture Sciences The homogeneous “unanimous people” as characterized under “narod' and “osnovanie" (column HI), if compared with the list of categories extracted from the textual sources (column II), lacks only the historical dimension. That is, the “people” in the word definitions of the dictionary is defined from a synchronic point of view, whereas the source texts prove that the academicians’ idea of national uniformity and identity included the idea of a common cultural and political past. The most important and consistent parameter determining the Russian national identity clearly is the Law.2 4 The theme of Russian legislation is extremely prominent in all of the three text types listed in the table above. The self-composed illustrative sentences teem with references to Catherine as legislator (see chapter 4). The quoted illustrative sentences, too, make extensive use of historic legislative 2 3 This is not an important topic in the self-composed sentences, and occurs mostly in connection with Lomonosov’s rhetoric. f l j would also include Geography here. However, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to discuss Geography in detail. Catherine was extremely interested in the Russian provinces. She commissioned Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296 texts, beginning with the Russkaia Pravda (11th century) and ending with the “ Manifest o zaemnom banke” issued in 1786 by Catherine herself. The sentences defining “narod” as a homogeneous entity always mention the laws as a unifying force as well. Thus historic legislation and Catherine’s laws enjoy indeed a striking presence in the SAR. References not only to specific laws, but also to the role of laws in general are very common. All of them allude again, as the following sentences show, to Catherine’s role as an enlightened reformer of legislation; they are also reminiscent of her famous Afafezz/Instruction, which was based itself on Montesquieu’s L’Esprit des loix: • HaKa3aHne b 3aKOHax raaBHOH mmciot [sic] npe,n,Mex B03flepxcaxb Hapofl ox npecxynaeHHH. [The purpose of punishment in laws is to prevent the people from [committing] crimes.] • HpaBCXBeHHOCXh: Coo6pa3HOCXb c b o 6 o a h w x fleamm c 3aKOHOM . [Morality: The conformity of free deeds with the law.] • Cxporocxh 3aKOHa. Ynoxped/iflxb cxporocxb. [Strictness of the law. To apply strictness.]2 5 Let us examine all three of these issues. The first quoted sentence is a paraphrase of article 83 of the Nakaz. where Catherine states: “Dans ces Etats, on s’attachera moins a punir les crimes qu’a les prevenir... “ The preventive function of the law and fund ' expeditions, in which those members o f the Russian Academy, who were also member* * ’ L \cadem v o f Sciences, took part. 251 quote the Instruction/Nakaz in French, because Catherine compiled it in French. It was consecutively translated into Russian. The many published editions o f it were bilingual. I quote from the following publication: Nakaz Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva Ekaterinv Vtorvia Samoderzhtsv Vserossiiskiia dannvi Kommissii o sochinenii proekta novaeo ulozheniia. Instruction de sa Maieste Imperiale Catherine II. pour la Commission chargee de dresser le proiet d’un Nouveau code de Loix. (Sankt-Peterburg: L.F. Panteleev, 1893) 10. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 297 and punishment is also expressed in article 61 of the Nakaz. Here the Empress says: “II y a des moyens pour empecher les crimes; ce sont les peines. The second sentence — on morality — clearly refers to article 38 of the Nakaz. Catherine talks about the duty of the citizen to abide by the law for the benefits of society and asserts that personal “freedom” corresponds to what the law allows. At the same time, the law has to take into account the specific characteristics of the society it is meant for: II est necessaire de se former une idee claire & exacte de la liberte. La liberte est le droit de faire tout ce que permettent les Loix.... The law helps the citizen not to become subject of his/her passions. It enhances the good in people with the help of “reason” and is thus morally sound: C’est un grand bonheur pour l’homme de se trouver dans des circonstances telles, que, quand ses passions le porteroient a etre mechant, sa raison lui fit neanmoins voir plus d’avantage a ne pas l’etre. (Nakaz. article 32) Morality is a civil responsibility, neither associated with religious values nor limited to the deeds of the individual. In the third sentence I consciously chose “strictness” and not “severity” as the translation for “strogost’.” Catherine wanted to eliminate as much as possible arbitrariness and randomness in the legal practice of her country. In the Nakaz she writes in the seventh chapter entitled “Des Loix en particulier”: C’est le triomphe de la liberte civile, lorsque les Loix criminelles tirent chaque peine de la nature particuliere de chaque crime. Alors tout l’arbitraire cesse; la peine ne descend point du caprice du Legislateur, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298 mais de la nature de la chose; & ce n’est point Thornme qui fait violence a l’homme, mais la propre action de l’homme (Nakaz, article 67). She wanted everybody to strictly and equally abide by her laws: L’egalite de tous les citoyens consiste en ce qu’ils soient tous soumis aux memes Loix. but she was not for severe punishment, as she was also for the abolishment of torture (see chapter 4): De bonnes Loix prennent un juste milieu; elles n ’ordonnent pas toujours des peines pecunaires, elles n’infligent pas toujours des peines corporelles. — Toutes peines qui mutilent, ou defigurent le corps humain, doivent etre abrogees (Nakaz. article 96). Although Russia was an autocracy and the sovereign held the ultimate and unconditional power, all of the above sentences cater to the modem idea of the “contrat social.” Here again, the underlying idea was that the society was homogeneous and equal. The identification of the academicians with this idea is not surprising, for many of them, as I also pointed out earlier, had been actively involved in the legislative activities of Catherine’s reign. They had been delegates to the Commission for a New Code of Laws. They had felt part of one society, willing to reshape and take on new civil duties in accordance to new laws. As, however, the Commission was dismissed and the laws were still issued by the sovereign, who kept the supreme legislative power after all, one could easily argue that the unification of the people under Catherine’s laws and centralized administration completely contradicts the democratic nature of the nation-state. Instead it rather harkens back to the pyramidal structure of an absolutist society. The French definition of “nation” in the DAF of 1694, in which the laws also play an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 299 im m anent role, w as based on this absolutist idea of centralized control through laws. This is very different from the later enlightened idea of laws, protecting the rights of the citizen, often against the government. I contend, however, that the SAR shows Russia as occupying a middle position between absolutism and a democratized nation-state at the end of the 18th century. The dictionary documents exceptionally well the potential transition from one to the other, illustrating Cassirer’s thesis that the Enlightenment was firm ly rooted in the rationalism of the 17th century. Weit mehr als es ihr selbst zum BewuBtsein gekommen ist, ist die Epoche der Aufklarung ... von den vorangehenden Jahrhunderten abhangig geblieben. Sie hat nur das Erbe dieser Jahrhunderte angetreten; sie hat weit mehr geordnet und gesichtet, entwickelt und geklart, als sie wahrhaft neue, schlechthin-originale Gedankenmotive ergriffen und zur Geltung gebracht hat. Und doch hat die Aufklarung, trotz all dieser inhaltlichen Abhangigkeit..., eine durchaus neue und eigentixmlicheForm des philosophischen Gedankens ausgebildet. Auch dort, wo sie ein schon vorhandenes Gedankengut ergreift und bearbeitet, wo sie ... lediglich auf dem Fundament weiterbaut, das das siebzehnte Jahrhundert gelegt hatte, gewinnt doch in ihren Handen all das, was sie erfaBt, einen veranderten Sinn und schlieBt einen neuen philosophischen Horizont auf.2 6 By choosing a French dictionary that was finished in the age of Louis XIV as a model and by transferring and altering the absolutist definitions of important social terms such as the French “nation” and “loi” into Catherine’s enlightened setting, the role and function of “narod” and “zakon” changed substantially on Russian soil. It so appears that the judicial reforms and alterations that Catherine, the enlightened monarch, had enthusiastically announced in the Nakaz in the beginning of her reign 2 1 1 Cassirer, Ernst, Die Philosoptue der Aufld&rung (1932; Tubingen: 3X .B. Mohr [Paul Siebeckl. 19731 VII-VIII. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 0 0 and that had later never been fully implemented, were still very much alive in the minds of — at least — the academicians. In writing the SAR the compilers of the dictionary were responding to another demand of the Empress that dates from the beginning of her reign. In the Nakaz she insisted that laws be written in comprehensible Russian, in a clear and unambiguous style. Together with the ecclesiastic books her new code of laws was meant to serve as a primer. The dictionary contributes to the realization of this idea: in defining and clarifying the meaning of Russian words it strives to ensure linguistic accuracy. In the preface to the SAR Lepekhin, the academy’s secretary, writes: HeocnopnMa chji ncTHHa . . hto 6e3 no/raaro codpamifl c h o b h pencil h H e o n p e f l e iw T o n H a r o h m 3HaMeHOBaHHH, H e m o > k h o . . . n o n b 3 0 B a T b c a OHbiMH b n p o H 3B eA eH H nx pa3yMa c H e c o M H e n H o io T o n n o c T b io Morymeio a r y a o iT b n p H M ep o M . [It is an uncontested truth ... that without a complete collection of words and phrases/terms and without determining the meaning for them, one cannot... employ them in works of reason with undoubted/unquestioned precision capable of serving as examples] (SAR 1: V-VI). It is thus clearly the idea of “law” from Catherine’s early and most liberal and enlightened legislative period that survived in the SAR. although at the time the dictionary was published these liberal ideas were generally no longer in force. 6. History of Russia in the SAR as the History of Legislation In the fourth chapter we saw that the self-composed illustrative sentences do not contain very many references to Russian history prior to Peter the Great. The text sources, however, from which the academicians quote are to a great extent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. historiographical writings, both ancient chronicles and contemporary histories of Russia. The quotations from both the legal and historical texts reveal that one aspect is of utmost importance to the academicians: the organization and transformation of the Russian State through legislation. Thus the history of Russia, according to the SAR, is not only based on the principle of royal succession, as the Stenennaia kniga showed, but the SAR documents the creation and formation of the Russian Imperial State by means of the sovereigns’ rulings. This reinforces the notion that history is politics, man made, and forged. In this view, too, the SAR clearly coincided with Catherine’s own approach to history. The SAR quotes from Catherine’s Zapiski under “dei” [deeds]. The quotation is from the beginning of the Empress’ Notes Relating to Russian History: Hcropkh ecrb ctiobo TpeuecKoe, oho 3HanHT Hen w m fleaHHs. 3aratCK. Pocchmck. Hcxopn. 1.1. [History is a Greek word, it means Deed or Deeds. ...] The earliest Russian historical event mentioned in the SAR goes back to the pre- Christian beginnings: The Varangian Riurik was invited by the Ilmen Slavs to lead their people (presumably in the 9th century).2 7 Again the quote that alludes to this legendary event comes from Catherine’s own historiographical work, who, in turn, had taken it from the Povest’ vremennvkh let. Under “zemlia” [earth, soil, land, country] the SAR explains: 3eMjm, M/m, c. )K . ... 4) Hacrb nosepxHOCTH seMHoii obirraeMOH K aK H M Hndyflb napogoM; PocyAapcTBO. S e u n x n a iu a een u K a u o d u x tn a , a n o p x d x y e n eu Hem; n p u u d u m e e n a d e m u h o m u . 3an. Kac. Poc. H crop .... Remember, that in the references to R ussian history contained in the sell-corTiDosed.iiliistra'tivg sentences, h istory starts w ith Vladimir and the baptism o f Old Rus’. permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 0 2 [Land... 4) Part of the earth’s surface inhabited by a people; State. Our land is vast and rich, but there is no order in it; come to rule over us.] Note Catherine’s underlining of the chaotic state, the absence of order and regulation, in the early ‘Slavic’ country. The idea that legislation and history are tightly intertwined, and that the latter is a backbone of the state is expressed in a decisive way in Catherine’s Antidote, a highly polemical review of Abbe Chappe’s Voyage en Siberie. In the section entitled “Du Gouvemement de la Russie depuis 861 jusqu’en 1767” the Empress makes fun of Chappe who had characterized Russia’s rulers as “tyrants.” To speak of “Autocracy,” however, concedes Catherine, is justified. It is the form of government that suits Russia’s needs best because of the immensity of the Empire. She then procedes to point out mockingly that, by the way, her Instruction had been banned in Chappe’s ‘liberal’ France. Abbe Chappe should better look into the tyrannical habits of his own country instead of criticizing Russia. Catherine then contends that laws have always played an important role in Russian history: Or apprenez, ignorant, qu’il y a peut-etre peu de gouvenemens ou la loi soit plus en respect que chez nous. Aucunjuge grand ou petit ne sauroit donner un decret sans nommer la loi... Sachez encore ... que les loix romaines s’introduisirent chez nous avec le christianisme, parce qu’elle faisoient parti des loix de Teglise; que le Grand-Due Yaroslaw, pere de St. Alexandre Nevsky, fit reduire par ecrit les loix qu’il fit, qui etoient calquees sur les anciennes loix deNowgorod.29... Le Czar Iwan ^_This is an autoreference to the beginning of the Nakaz, where she justifies autocracy, in Russia just the same wav. The idea is also reflected in the SAR. Under “derzhava” [power, equivalent to gr. “kratia”] the academicians explain: aepacasa: T o c y n a p c T B o ; 3 eM Jin , c r p a H a B e p x o B H o io BJiacraio y n p a B J w e M a fl. P o ccu u cko x d e p x a e a . [plus Lomonosov quote] ^Russia's past, in the view of the academicians, includes the history of Novgorod, for they quote from the Novogorodskaia letopis’ quite extensively in all sis volumes of the SAR. This chronicle Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Vasiliewitsh fit faire un: Le czar Alexis Michailowitsh un autre. (Imperatritsa Ekaterina II 7:83). This idea is strongly reflected in the SAR as well. Russian history, as captured in the quotations in the SAR is marked by the unusual presence of legislation. Vladimir Monomakh’s Russkaia Pravda, the first Russian legal document, is extensively quoted. Ivan Vasilievich (the Terrible) is very present, not only through the illustrations from the Tsarstvennaia kniga and the Stepennaia kniga, but also through the references to the legal works compiled under his reign, such as the Sudebnik (1550) as well as the Stoglav, a collection of church regulations, compiled by Makary. Then there are references to the first Romanovs, Mikhail Fedorovich (1613-45) and his son Aleksei Mikhailovich (1645-76), who ruled Russia after the Time of Troubles, from Dvortsovye zapiski, a very detailed diary of the czar’s political activity (what he said, whom he met, how he was dressed, who was present, etc.). Another extremely popular text with the SAR, documenting the same period is the Ustav ratnvkh del velikh kniazei Vasiliia Ivanovich Shuiskago i Mikhaila Fedorovicha, a compilation of martial laws. Interestingly, and this is part of the religious controversy apparent in the SAR, the Church Schism of 1666 is not referred to directly by the academicians. Instead Nikon, too, appears in the role of legislator, as the following examples show: covers the time from 1017 through 1352. i.e. historic events that precede the conquest o f Novgorod iri 1489 under Ivan III. permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304 • 3 a ii H H ii a : 2) b npeBHHX saKonax: HaoieflHe ... Pyicon. k h h t . 3 a p y K o i o Hmcom riaxp. [(literally: ‘the what-is-behind’)... in the ancient laws: heritage... Notebook written by Patriarch Nikon] • K o p M n a a K H H ra : K n H r a c o R e p s E c a iita H s a ic o H b i p e p K O B H b ie h n a c x m o rp a> K A aH C K H e, c o d p a H H b ie r i a x p H a p x o M H h k o h o m , h ynoxpebnaexca x o k m o b c y n a x AyxoBHbix. [... Book containing church and partly civil laws compiled by Patriarch Nikon, and is used only in church courts.] After Ivan IV it is clearly Czar Aleksei Mikhailovich who is the next outstanding historical figure. Like his great predecessors he is mostly remembered in the SAR for his work in the legal field. Quotations from his Ulozhenie [Code of Laws] (1649), which was actually still the valid legal code at the end of the 18th century, abound in the SAR. The third Romanov, Fedor Alekseevich, is mentioned under the word “mestnichestvo.” The academicians explain: MecxrorcecxBO yHHuxoacHn Ifapb Oeogop A/teKceeBHH codopHbiM A e flH H e M b 1682 rosy, IeHBapa 12 a i m . [Czar Fedor Alekseevich abolished ‘ 'mestnichestvo’...] The abolition of “mestnichestvo" was an important step towards the establishment of a pure service nobility in Russia and the consolidation of the Russian nobility. This process was finalized by Peter I with the introduction of the Table of Ranks in 1722 (Isaev 88-89). Throughout the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries the “mestnichestvo” system had privileged a few old boyar families [the ‘aristocrats’ of Russia] and had thus worked against the individual merit of rank-and-file noblemen. The “Akt ob otmene mestnichestva” (1682), mentioned in the SAR, was not a simple addition to Aleksei’s Ulozhenie as this was the case with other “ukazy.” The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305 document took the form of an “obshim[yi] zakonodatel’n[yi] pamiatnik.” [extensive legislative monument.] The legislative acts of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great mainly complete the picture. Thus from the point of view of the SAR the milestones in Russian history are characterized by legislative activity. This is the alternative picture painted by the academicians of Russia’s past, as opposed to the bleak picture conveyed in the self-composed illustrative sentences, from which basically only Peter I and Catherine stand out. In conclusion, the analysis of the word entries of the Russian Academy Dictionary (1789-94) has shown that the academicians strongly identify with the political goals of the Russian Empire. At the same time I was able to show that a new and modem understanding of nationhood had entered Russia and that the cultural elite had embraced Catherine’s enlightened ideas dating back to the beginning of her reign. This was at a time when Catherine herself had taken a very conservative stance in view of the dangers of the French Revolution for Imperial Russia. 3 0 V. N. Latkin, Lektsii po istorii russkago prava (S. Peterburg: Tipografiia odinochnoi tiur’my, 1912). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306 WORKS CITED Amburger, Erik. “Die Griindung gelebrter Gesellschaften in Russland unter Katharina II.” Wissenschaftspolitik in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Ed. Erik Amburger et al. Berlin: Camen, 1976. 259-270. Belolikov, V. “Iz istorii pomorskago raskola vo vtoroi polovine XVH v.” Trudy Kievskoi Dukfaovnoi Akademii 9 (1915): 128-141. Bibliia cirech’ knigi sviashchennago pisaniia vetkhago i novago zaveta. Moskva: Sinodal’naia tipografiia, 1904. Black, Joseph L. Citizens for the Fatherland.Education, Educators, and Pedagogical Ideals in Eighteenh Century Russia. New York: Columbia UP, 1979. Blackall, Eric A. The Emergence of German as a Literary Language. 1700-1775. 1959. Ithaka: Cornell University Press, 1978. Blum, Jerome. Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century. New York: Atheneum, 1966. Bulgakov, Makarii. Istoriia Kievskoi akademii. Sanktpeterburg: tip. Konstantina Zhemakova, 1843. Bulich, Sergei K. XIII v. - 1825. Vol. 1 of Ocherk istorii iazvkoznaiia v Rossii. 1904. Miinchen: Otto Sagner, 1989. Burdzhalov, Eduard N. Tsarism v bor’be s frantsuzskoi burzhuaznoi revoliutsiei. Moskva: Vysshaia Partiinaia Shkola pri TsK VKP(b), 1940. Buryshkin, Pavel Afanasevich. Bibliographie sur la franc-maconnerie en Russie. Paris: Mouton, 1967. Cassirer, Ernst. Die Philosophie der Aufklarung. 1932. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1973. Cassirer, Thomas and Nelly S. Hoyt, trans., eds. Encyclopedia. Selections. By Diderot et al. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, [1965.] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307 Chistovich, Ilarion. Istoriia Sanktpeterburgskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii. Sanktpeterburg: Tipografiia Iakova Treia, 1857. Cross, E. G., ed. Russia and the West in the Eighteenth Century. Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Partners, 1983. Crummey, Robert O. The Old Believers and the World of Antichrist. Madison: Wisconsin UP, 1970. Dashkova, Ekaterina R. Memoires de la Princesse Dachkaw d’apres le manuscrit. Arkhiv Kniazia Vorontsova 21. Moskva: Universitetskaia Tipografiia (Katkov), 1888. de Madariaga, Isabel. Politics and Culture in Eighteenth Century Russia. London: Longman, 1998. —. Catherine the Great. Yale UP: New Haven, 1990. DeMaria, Robert. Johnson’s Dictionary and the Language of Learning. Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP, 1986. Diccionario de la lengua castellana. en que se explica el verdadero sentido de las voces, su naturaleza v calidad, con las phrases o modos de hablar. los proverbios o refranes. y otras cosas convenientes al uso de la lengua... Compuesto por la Real academia espanola. Madrid: Impr. de F. Del Hierro, 1726-39. Dictionnarie de l’Academie francaise: dedie au rov. 2 vols. Paris : Chez la veuve de Jean Baptiste Coignard ... et Chez Jean Baptiste Coignard ..., 1694. Dictionnarie de l’Academie francaise. 2 vols. Paris: Librairie de Firmin-Didot, hnprimeurs de l’lnstitut de France, 1878. Dmytryshyn, Basil. Imperial Russia: A Source Book. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Dobrynin, Gavril I. Istinnoe povestvovanie ili zhizn’ Gavrila Dobrynina, im samim pisannaia fsicl v Mogileve i v Vitebske. Sanktpeterburg, Pechatnaia V.I. Golovina, 1872. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 0 8 Encyclopedia ou Dictionnaire raisonne des sciences, des arts et des metiers. Eds. Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond d’Alembert. 5 vols. 1751-1780. New York: Readex Microprint Corporation, 1969. Ermolaev, Igor Petrovich. Proshloe Rossii v litsakh: IX-XVII1 w .: Biograficheskii slovar’. Kazan: Izd-vo Kazanskogo universiteta, 1999. Fasmer, Maks. See Yasmer, Max. Florovsky, Georges. Aspects of Church History. Wavs of Russian Theology Vols. 4 and 5 of Collected Works. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1979. Fonvizin, Denis Ivanovich. Sobranie sochinenii. 2 vols. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1959. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaka: Cornell, 1983. Gukovskii, Grigorii A. Russkaia literatura XVIII veka. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe uchebno-pedagogicheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1939. Hardtwig, Wolfgang. Genossenschaft. Sekte. Verein in Deutschland. Miinchen: C.H. Beck, 1997. Hollberg, Wilhelm. Das Russische Altglaubigentum. Tartu: Universitatsverlag, 1994. T m Hof, Ulrich. Das gesellige Jahrhundert. Miinchen: C.H. Beck, 1982. Imperatritsa Ekaterina II. Sochineniia. Ed. A.N. Pypin. Sanktpeterburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, 1901. Isaev, LA. Istoriia gosudarstva i prava Rossii. Moskva: Iurist, 1994. Isakov, S. K. Tmperatorskaia Sanktpeterburgskaia Akademiia Khudozhestv. St.Peterburg: [Akademiia khudozhestv ?], 1914. Kamenskii, Aleksandr. Rossiiskaia imperiia v XVHI veke: traditsii i Modemizatsiia. Moskva: Novoe literatumoe obozrenie, 1999. Kerenyi, Karl. Die Mvthologie der Griechen. Zurich: Rhein Verlag, 1964. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 309 Kohn, Hans. The Idea ofNationalism. New York: Macmillan Company, 1944. —. Nationalism: Its Meaning and History. Princeton: D. van Norstrand Company, 1965. Latkin V. N. Lektsii po istorii russkago prava. S. Peterburg: Tipografiia odinochnoi tiur’my, 1912. Lazaro Carreter, Fernando. Ideas linguisticas en Espana durante el siglo XVIII. Barcelona: Editorial Critica, 1985. LeDonne, John P. Absolutism and Ruling Class. The Formation of the Russian Political Order 1700-1825. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. —. Ruling Russia: Politics and Administration in the Age of Absolutism. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984. Levitt, Marcus C, ed. Early Modem Russian Writers: Late Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Dictionary of Literary Biography 150. Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1995. Lomonosov, Mikhail V. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. 11 vols. Leningrad: Nauka, 1950-1983. Losev, Aleksei Fedorovich. Mifologiia grekov i rimlian. M oskva: Mysl’, 1996. Makeeva, “Iz istorii iazykoznaniia.” Voprosv iazvkoznaniia 1961 (5) 109-114. —. “Iz istorii izdaniia Slovaria Akademii Rossiiskoi (1789-1794).” Kniga 13 (1966)219-225. —, “Neizvestny! otryvok pervogo akademicheskogo slovaria russkogo iazyka.” Leksikograficheskii sbomik VI (1963) 88-97. Margolis, Iu.D. and G.A. Tishkin. Otechestvu na p o l’ zu, a rossiianam vo slavu. Iz istorii universitetskogo obrazovania v Peterburge v XVIII-nachale X IX v. Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1988. Marker, Gary. Publishing, Printing, and the Origins of Intellectual Life in Russia, 1700-1800. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 310 Masson, Frederic. L’Academie francaise. 1629-1793. Paris: Librairie P. Ollendorff [1912?] Matore, Georges. Histoire des dictionnaires francais. Paris: Larousse, 1968. Nakaz Eia Imperatorskaeo Velichestva Ekaterinv Vtorvia Samoderzhitsv Vserossiiskiia dannvi Kommissii o sochinenii proekta novaeo ulozheniia. Instruction de sa Majeste Imperiale Catherine II. Pour la commission chargee de dresser le projet d’un Nouveau code de Loix. Sankt-Peterburg: L.F. Panteleev, 1893. Nikol’skii, Konstantin. Kratkoe obozrenie bogusluzhebnvkh knig Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Sanktpeterburg: Sinodal’naia tipografiia, 1985. Novikov, Nikolaj Ivanovich. Opvt istoricheskogo slovaria o rossiiskikh pisateliakh. 1772. Moskva: Kniga, 1987. Okenfuss, Max I. The Rise and Fall of Latin Humanism in Earlv-Modem Russia. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Ostrovitianov, Konstantin, ed. Istoriia Akademii nauk SSSR. 2 vols. Moskva: ANSSSR, 1958. Ozhegov, S.I, N. Iu. Shvedova. Tolkovvi slovar’ russkogo iazvka. Moskva: Az, 1992. Papmehl, K.A. Freedom of Expression in Eighteenth Century Russia. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971. —. Metropolitan Platon of Moscow [Petr Levshin. 1737-18121: The Enlightened Prelate. Scholar and Educator. Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Partners, 1983. Pekarskii, Petr Petrovich. Istoriia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk v Peterburge. Sanktpeterburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1870-1873. Pellisson-Fontanier, Paul. Histoire de l’Academie franpaise. Ed. Charles-Louis Livet. 2 vols. Paris: Didier, 1858. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311 Picchio, Riccardo. “Predislovie o pol’ze knig tserkovnykh M.V. Lomonosova kak manifest russkogo konfessional’ nogo patriotizma.” Sbornik statei k 70-letiiu Iu. M. Lotmana. Tartu: Tartu U, 1992. 142-52. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii. 33 vols. St. Petersburg: 1881- 1913. Quemada, Bernard. Les Dictionnaires du franpais moderne. 1539-1863: Etude sur leur histoire. leurs types et leurs methodes. Vol. 1. Paris: Didier, 1967. —, ed. Les Prefaces du Dictionnaire de TAcademie francaise 1694-1992. Paris: Honore Champion, 1997. — . Origins of the Russian Intelligentsia: The Eighteenth-Century Nobility. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966. Reddick, Allen. The Making of Johnson’s Dictionary. 1746-1773. 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Reyfman, Irina. Vasilii Trediakovskii. The Fool of the New Russian Literature. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990. Rickard, Peter. A History of the French Language. 1974. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Rosenberg, Karen. Between Ancients and Moderns: V.K. Trediakovskii on the Theory of Language and Literature. Diss. Yale U: 1980. Rudakova, I.F. “Iz istorii ‘Slovaria Akademii Rossiiskoi’ 1789-1794.” Nauchnve dokladv vysshei shkolv. Filologicheskie Nauki. 1960, No. 2. —. Slovar’ Akademii Rossiiskoi. 1789-1794. [Avtoreferat.] Leningrad: 1965. Semennikov, V.P. Materialv dlia istorii russkoi literaturv i dlia slovaria pisatelei epokhi Ekaterinv II. St. Petersburg: 1914. Shetelia, Miroslav. “Staroe i novoe v uchenii o kriteriiakh normativnosti russkogo iazyka.” Slavia Orientalis 33.3-4 (1984) 535-40. Shevyrev, Stepan P. Istoriia Imperatorskago Moskovskago universiteta 1755- 1855. Moskva: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1855. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312 Skripilev, E. A., ed. Razvitie russkogo prava vtoroi polovinv XVII-XVni vv. Moskva: Nauka, 1992. Slovar’ Akademii Rossiiskoi. Ed. M. Osterbiu. 1806-1822. Odense: Odense UP, 1971. Kochetkova, N. D. and A. M. Panchenko et al., eds. Slovar’ russkikh pisatelei XVIII veka. 2 vols. (A-P) Leningrad : Nauka 1988- Slovari i slovamoe delo v Rosii XVTP v. Leningrad: Nauka, 1980. Smirnov, Sergei. Istoriia moskovskoi Slaviano-greko-latinskoi akademii. Moskva: Tipografiia V. Got’e, 1855. Smith, Douglas. Working the Rough Stone: Freemasonry and Society in Eighteenth- Century Russia. DeKalb, 1 11. : Northern Illinois UP, 1999. Sochineniia i perevody izdavaemve Imperatorskoiu Rossiiskoiu Akademieiu. 2 vols. Sanktpeterburg: hnperatorskaia Tipografiia, 1805-1806. Sorokin, Iu.S. “Razgovomaia i narodnaia rech’ v ‘Slovare Akademii Rossiiskoi’ 1789-1794 gg.” Materialv i issledovaniia no istorii russkogo literatumogo iazyka. Moskva: Izd-vo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1949. Vol. 1: 95-160. Sorokoletov, F. P., gen. ed. Istoriia russkoi leksikografii. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 1998. Sreznevskii, V. I. and A.L. Bern. Izdaniia Tserkovnoi Pechati vremeni hnperatritsv EHsavetv Petrovny 1741-1761. Petrograd: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, 1914. Sukhomlinov, M.I. Istoriia Rossiiskoi akademii. 8 parts [vypuski], Sbomik otdeleniia russkogo iazvka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi Akademiia Nauk 11 (1875), 14 (1875), 16 (1877), 19 (1878), 22 (1881), 31 (1883), 37 (1885), 43 (1888). Nendeln: Kraus, 1985. Svodnvi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoi pechati XVIII veka, 1725- 1800. 5 vols. Moskva: n.p. 1963. Tancke, Gunnar. Die Italienischen Worterbiicher von den Anfangen bis zum Erschienen des Vocabulario degli Accademici della Crusca (1612): Bestandaufiiahme und Analyse. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1984. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313 Throm, Hermann. Lateinische Grammatik. Dusseldorf: Padagogischer Verlag Schwann, 1967. Tolstoi, D.A. Ein Blick auf das Unterrichtswesen Russlands im XVIII. Jahrhundert bis 1782. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1884. Tred’iakovskii, Vasilii. Sochineniia. 3 vols. Ed. Smirdin. Sanktpeterburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, 1849. Tsapina, Olga. “Secularization and Opposition in the Time of Catherine the Great” James E. Bradley and Dale Van Kley, eds. Religion and Politics in Enlightenment Europe. Notre Dame UP, 2001. 334-390. Tsentral’nyi statisticheskii komitet ministerstvo vnutrennikh del. Raspredelenie staroobriadtsev i sektantov po tolkam I sektam, Sankt-Peterburg: n. p., 1901. Uspenskii, Boris A. Iz istorii russkogo literatumogo iazyka XVIII - nachala XIX veka. Moskva: Izd. Moskovskogo universiteta, 1985. —. Kratkii ocherk istorii russkogo literatumogo iazyka (XI-XIX w .) Moskva: Gnosis, 1994. Vasmer, Max. Etimologicheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka. 4 vols. Moskva: Progress, 1986-1987. Vinogradov, V.V. “Tolkovye slovari russkogo iazyka.” Kondakov, N.I., ed. Iazyk gazety. Moskva: Gos. izdatel’stvo legkoi promyshlennosti, 1941, 353-463. —. “Russkaia nauka o russkom literatumom iazyke.” RoT russkoi nauki v razvitii mirovoi nauki i kulturv. Vol. 1, kn. [book] 1. Uchenye zapiski Moskovkogo gusudarstvennogo universiteta 106. Moskva: n. p., 1946. [n.p.] Vomperskii, V.P. “Slovar’ Akademii Rossiiskoi (1789-1794).” Izvestiia Akademii Nauk SSSR. Seriia literaturv i iazyka 42.6 (1983) 508-514. —. “Iz istorii Rossiiskoi Akademii (1789-1794).” Russkii iazyk v shkole: Metodicheskii zhumal 1984/6, 86-91. —. Slovari XVIII veka. Moskva: Nauka, 1986. —. “Rossiiskaia akademiia (1783-1841).” Russkaia rech’ 1992/3, 3-11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314 —. “E.R. Dashkova - vydaiushchiisia filolog i organizator akademicheskoi nauki v XVID veke.” Izvestiia akademii nauk. seriia literaturv i iazyka 52.4 (1993) 3- 11 . —. “E.R. Dashkova i Rossiiskaia Akademiia.” Russkaia Recti’: Nauchno- populiamyi zhumal 1994/2, 76-82. Wirtschafter, Elise K. Social Identity in hnnerial Russia. DeKalb : Northern Illinois UP, 1997. —. Structures of society: Imperial Russia's "people of various ranks. DeKalb : Northern Illinois UP, 1994. Wortman, Richard S. Scenarios of Power. Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1995. Zhivov, V.M. Iazyk i kurtura v Rossii XVIII veka Moskva: Shkola “Iazyki russkoi kul’tury,” 1996. Zemack, Karl, ed. Vom Randstaat zur Hegemonialmacht. Lieferungen 1-12 (1976?- 1993). Vol. 2 o fHandbuch der Geschichte Russlands. Eds. M. Hellmann, K. Zemack, G. Schramm. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1976-. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315 APPENDIX A: ANNOTATED LIST OF THE SAR’S VISIBLE TEXT SOURCES The following is a complete list of the texts quoted in the SAR arranged by theme. In the fist line, marked with dots, I give the abbreviation variants used in the SAR. In the second line I give the precise bibliographical data. The place of identification is given after the arrow in the third line (for example: -> Sukhomlinov) and, if possible, the number of the book’s entry in the Svodnvi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoi pechati XVIH veka. 1725-1800 (Moskva: Izdanie Gosudarstvennnoi biblioteki SSSR imeni V. I Lenina, 1963). My comments are added indented at the end of each entry. Within each thematic section the texts are arranged either in chronological or alphabetical order, whatever is most reasonable. I. HISTORIOGRAPHY 1. Chronicles and Other Ancient Historical Works • Apxanr: JieT: Letopisets, soderzhashchii v sebe rossiiskuiu istoriiu ot 852 do 1598 goda. Pechatan v moskovskoi topografii, 1781 goda. [Arkhangelogorodskii letopisets] Sukhomlinov, vyp. 8, p. 21. Sukhomlinov explains that the chronicle is called Arkhangelogorodskii because the manuscript was kept in the house o f the Archbishop of Arkhangelogorod. • BocKp: JieT: | BocKpecencK. neronHCb Russkaia letopis’ s Voskresenskago spiska. Chast’ I-II. Sankt Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1793-1794. Since this chronicle is quoted only in the last two volumes of the SAR, both published in 1994,1 assume that the academicians were referring to this edition. However, this needs to be confirmed for no volume numbers are given in the SAR. Krug in his report to Rumiantsev inl813 reveals that for this edition the editors had been told to cut out passages dealing with extremely harsh measures taken by Ivan IV. I.e. at that time Catherine did not wish to be associated with her “terrible” predecessor: “Es sind ... einige stellen, das harte verfahren des zaren Ivan Wassiljewitsch betreffend, unterdruckt worden, doch auch daran war die akademie unschuldig; man hatte ihr vorgeschrieben diess zu thun. Unter der jetzigen Regierung wtirde diess ffeilich nicht geschehen” (Sukhomlinov 3: 327). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316 • JJpeBH : Jiex: Drevniagg letopistsa chast’ pervaia, soderzhashchaia v sebe povest’ proizshestvii, byvshiyh v Rossii pri vladenii chetyrnadtsati velikikh kniazei, s 1254 do 1379 goda... izdannaia po vysochaishemu poveleniiu pokrovitel’nitsy i zashchitnistymuz. VS. - Peterburge,pri Imp. Akadimii (sic) nauk. 1774goda; and Drevniago letopistsa chast’ vtoraia, soderzhashchaia v sebe povest’ proizshestvii s 1379 do 1424 goda. Spb., pri Imp. Akadimii nauk. 1775. -» Sukhomlinov 8: 21 • UpeBHsm BHBH H o4>H K a | JlpeBH: Poc: B h b j i : | P o c c h h c k . B h b ji . | Pocc. B h b j i . • IlpO gO JI. flp. B H B JI. I Tip. flp. Poc. B H B J I. I npOflOJI. Pocc. B H B JI. . . . Edited by Novikov -* Svetlov: Izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ Novikova. Serial, mostly historical. This book is also heavily used by the academicians despite the political dubiousness of the editor. Interestingly the SAR included quotations from this work even in the last volumes, although Novikov had already been arrested. • Jlexon. nop, j i c t o m 1177 • Jlexon: nog 1192 rogOM Source cannot be established without looking at the various publications of the letopisi. The Drevnii letopisets is not meant, since it starts recording events later. • Hecxop: jiex: Letopis’ Nestorova, s prodolzhateliami, po kenigsbergskomu spisku, do 1206 goda. Bibliotheka rossiiskaia istoricheskaia i t.d. Pri imperatorskoi akademii nauk. 1767 goda. — > Sukhomlinov 8: 20 • Hhk. jiex: | Hhkoh: Jiex: | H: Hex: | H.JI. • BBegeHHe Hhk. jiex. • Ilpog. Hhk. jiex. Russkaia letopis’ po Nikonovu spisku, 1767-92. -> Sukhomlinov 3: 326. This chronicle is one of the texts most extensively quoted in the SAR (see Appendix B). The Nikonovskaia Chronicle was published in 8 parts. The two first volumes were edited by Baschilov, who had done a maginificent job according to the academician Krug, a disciple of Schloezer’s supervising the publishing of the Chronicles at the Academy of Sciences in the beginning o f the 19t h century. In a report to the minister of Enlightenment, Rumiantsev, Krug reveals important facts regarding the goals of the project and the market situation: For the most part the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317 publishers, including the historian Mueller, and, as Sukhomlinov mentions in a different place, also Platon Levshin, who was supervising the publication of the Novgorodskii letopisets at the Moskovskaia tipografiia, were very concerned with preserving the authenticity of the sources and opposed to truncating or “correcting” the originals. Their goal was to make original Russian historical sources available to a greater public. While their intentions were noble indeed, reality proved not always favorable. There were not enough historians capable of carrying out such a sophisticated job. The academicians who were appointed to edit the medieval sources at the Akademiia Nauk were often scienists and simply lacked the appropriate historical and linguistic knowledge. Krug moreover complains that the published chronicles do not sell, although they are very affordable: “Die meisten handschrifen unserer bibliothek sind bereits seit langerer Zeit gedruckt; leider werden sie nicht gekauft, obgleich sie ausserst wohlfeil sind;” (Sukhomlinov, vyp. 3, p. 326-327) There was no market for original chronicles, as there would probably not be today. The fact that the “Introduction” and the “Continuation” of the Nikonovskaia Chronicle were not quoted with a volume number like the other Nikonovskaia Chronicle citations leads to the assumption that they were published separately. Needs to be confirmed. • HoBor. Hex. | Hcmrop. J l e T o n . | Hob. Hex. Letopisets Novogorodskii, nachinaiushchiisia ot 1017 godu i konchaiushchiisia 1352 godom. Pechatan v moskovskoi tipografii. 1781 goda. -> Sukhomlinov 8: 21-22; and 2: 136 It was published under the supervision of Metropolitan Platon Levshin. It had previously been published already in the second part of Novikov’s Drevniaia vivliofika. • 0 6 ocafle TpomjK. Monacx. | 0 6 oca^e Tpompc. m o h . | Ocas. TpoHu;. Moh. | Bsaxne Tponn;. Moh. | etc. -> Avraamii, Monk. Skazanie AvraamiTa PaliTsvna. O. A. Derzhavina, E. V. Kolosova, L. V. Cherepnin, eds. Moskva; Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1955. The academicians refer to the second and central part of Avramii Palitsyn’s Skazanie, of which many handwritten copies exist. (In their introduction to the 1955 publication of the Skazanie given above, the editors list and describe 98 copies of the text held in different Russian repositories.) This central part is a very detailed account of the occupation and liberation of the Troitsko-Sergiev Monastery in 1610, when the monastery, which had been seized by the Poles, was defended by the Russian common folk. Due to the heroic event it relates the text has always been considered as a monument of national pride. The edition used by the academicians for their dictionary seems to have been a published version, for page and not “list” numbers are given. We may therefore assume that the academicians were referring to the first edition of the Skazanie, published in 1784, which Derzhavina characterizes as follows: “B 1784 rogy «Cica3aHHe» 6 b m o b nepBHft pa3 H3gaHo; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 318 Karan pyKonncb 6bi/ia nojioxcena b ocHOBy axoro H 3flaH H H - H en3BecTHO . Hsnamie B b i n o O T e n o HeHaynHO, xexcx He C B epeH c nyuniHMH crmcraMH h c o n e p j K H x MHoro H eT O H H O C T eft h npHMbix o i i x h 6 o k . Bxopoe H3aaHHe, 1822 rona, c h o b o b c j i o b o coBnasaex c nepBW M h noBxopnex ero o h i h 6 k h . 06a H s n a m i H ocymecxBneHbi b MocKBe b CHHOflajibHoii xHnorpa(J)HH.” [In 1784 the "Tale” was published for the first time; which manuscript it was based on is unknown. The publication was not prepared professionally, the text is compared with the best copies and contains many inaccuracies and outright mistakes. The second edition of 1822, coincides exactly with the first one and repeats its mistakes. Both editions were printed in Moscow at the press of the [Holy] Synod.] • OnbiT TpyffOB Bojibh. P o c c . co6pan. | Tpyn. Pocc. Co6. — » Svodnyi katalog Serial, containing mostly historical texts. • Peub CkhcJ jckhx hocjiob k Ajick: Ben: y Kypiput [Translation from Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historia Alexandri Magni.] -» Okenfuss 91, 93. -> Novikov, Opvt 96. Okenfuss reports that a Russian translation of the text was published in 1709,1711, 1717, 1723, 1724. Novikov identifies Stepan Krashennikov as the translator ofKvint Kurtsii, O delahkh Aleksandra Velikago, n.d. [in the fifties?] and says that this had been done “s prevelikim uspekhom.” Which one of the editons was used I cannot tell without looking at the publications themselves. In general, however, it seems the academicians always prefered the latest editions. • CreneH. K h . Stepennaia Kniga. The book was composed 1561-1563 at the initiative of Metropolitan Macary and others. - 1 do not know which edition the academicians used. Stepennaia Kniga is also an entry word in the SAR, although it is a proper name. T h e d e f i n i t i o n i s t h u s o f t h e e n c y c l o p e d i c k i n d a n d r e a d s a s f o l l o w s : “ K H H r a c o f l e p x c a m a a b c e 6 e p o n o o i O B H e P o c c h h c k h x r o c y n a p e i i , H a m m a i o m e e c H o x B e j i m c a r o K h . Pypnra, a n a v e o x c b . O n b r a h npoHonxcaiomeecH no T o c y f l a p n t f a p a h B e n H K a r o K h h 3 h H o a H H a B a a w b e B i m a : x a x H a 3 B a H a n o x o M y , h x o o n a c o c x o h x H 3 17 cxeneHeil, r p H x a e M b i x o x c b . B n a f l H M H p a s e r a K a r o h o I f a p a H o a H H a B a c H H b e B H n a . ” (SAR, v o l . V, c o l u m n s 750-751) • Ifap. Kh. | IfapcTBeH: o6n t. KHHra | IfapcTBeH. KHHra | IJapcT. Kh. Czarstvennaia kniga, t.e. letopisets Czarstvovaniia Czaria Ioanna Vasil’evicha. Napechatan s pismennago, kotoryi syskan v Moskve v Patriarshei biblioteke. V S.-Peterburge, pri Akademii Nauk 1769 goda. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 319 -» Sukhomlinov, vyp. 8, p. 20-21. The Czar's Book was published under the supervision of Count Shcherbatov, one of the Russian Academy members. It is not clear to me if “Czarstv. obshch. kniga” als refers to this edition or if it is a different book. • IJap: tier: | I^apcx. Jlexon. Tsarstvennyi Letopisets, soderzhashchii rossiiskuiu istoriiu ot nachala tsarstvovaniia kniazia Vladimira Vsevolodovicha Monomakha do pokoreniia Novagoroda. Spb.: pri akademii nauk, 1772 goda. -» Sukhomlinov, vyp. 8, p. 21. These annals, too, were published under the supervision of Shcherbatov. • H h h o b h . Pocc. rocyflapeik ? Chinovnik rosiiskikh gosudarei s raznymi v Evrope i Azii khristianskimi i makhometanskimi vladetel’nymi i prochimi vysokimi litsami o vzaimnyh chrez gramoty snosheniiakh izdrevle po 1672 g., kak oboiudnyia mezhdu soboiu titla upotrebliali i znaki druzhestva, pochteniia, preimushchestva i velichiia iz”iavliali. Vybral sokrashchenno iz podlinnoi rukopisnoi knigi, sochinennoi po poveleniiu velikago gosudaria, tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha, vseia Rossii samoderzhtsa v 1672 g ., i dlia liubopytstva liubitelei otechestvennoi istorii izdal Imp. Rossiiskoi akademii chlen, kollezhskii assessor Timofei Mal’gin. Sanktpetersburg: pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1792. -> Svodnyi katalog: I I 4028. Mal’gin was also an academy member. 2. 18th Century Historiographical Works • SanncKH k HCTop. Ilexpa Bejmicaro and • JJonojra. k Hex. n.B. | ^ ohotih. k h c x . Ilexp. Ben. | Tojihkob. nononH. k Hcxop. II. B. Ivan Ivanovich Golikov. Deianiia Petra Velikogo, mudrogo preobrazitelia Rossii. Moscow: Univ. Tipografiia u N. Novikova, 1788-1789. — . Dopolnenie k deianiiam Petra Velikogo, Moscow: Imp. Univ. tipografiia u V. Okorokova, 1790-1797 Svodnyi katalog Several facts are important in connection with this book, which I was able to see at the Special Collections Department at Stanford. First the censor’s imprint authorizing the publication of the volume appears to be signed by Anton Barsov who, as we know, is one of the Academy’s members. Another interesting Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 320 information is contained in Golikov’s largely autobiographical foreword to his book. He relates that in 1761 he had served as a delegate of the Belogorodskaia provintsiia to the Catherine’s Commission on a New Code of Laws. Thirdly, it is noteworthy that the first 12 volumes were printed by Novikov, whereas the supplements were not, for Novikov had already been forcefully removed from public life. Moreover, the quote on page 306 of volume 2 of the supplement series, from which the verb “okhrabrit’sia” is taken for the SAR turns out to actually be a quote from Palitsyn’s Skazanie ob osade Troitskogo monastyria woven into Golikov’s historical account. Thus the SAR appears to reflect and capture a tightly knit world of intellectual, public and official life. Interconnections between academy members and quoted sources are manyfold. In other words, leads that at first glance seem to point to an outside source, to an ancor in time, will often send us back to the original and will thus create a circular connection. For example, in quoting from Golikov the SAR does not only establish a historical link with Peter the Great, canonizing or rather confirming him as a national hero, but through the Barsov’s “odobrenie” also refers back to the SAR itself. The same happens with regards to Golikov, the author of the book. Although not an Academy member, Golikov does not fully stand outside of the SAR, does not build an independant pillar o f the Dictionary, but is very much interconnected with the academicians through his participation in the work on Catherine’s new Code of Laws, just like Gavriil, Fonvizin, and other Russian Academy members. • 3an. Kac. Pocc. Hcrop. | 3an. KacaT. Hcxop. Poc. Ekaterina II, Zapiski kasatefno rossiiskoi istorii, chasti 1-6. Sanktpetersburg: Imperatorskaia tipografiia, 1787-1794 -» Svodyi katalog: I 2137 Although the first three and a half parts had earlier been published in the Sobesednik liubitelei rossiiskogo slova (1783-84), the SAR seems to refer to this independant edition, and more precisely to the first three volumes, all printed in 1887. I deduce this from the fact that the quote from the Empress’ history under the entry word “dei” mentions volume I, p. 1. Since the first pages of the first issue of the Sobesednik were dedicated to Derzhavin’s “Felitsa,” the journal cannot be the source of reference. All other quotes from the Zapiski, albeit not accompanied by volume or page numbers, refer to the early medieval history of Russia, covered in the first volumes of Catherine’s Notes. • Hssecx. ffBOp. | HSBeCT. O ffB O p H H . F. Miller, Izvestie o dvorianekh rossiiskikh, ?: Rakhmaninov, 1790 -» Sukhomlinov 8: 24 -> Svodnyi katalog: II 4233 • HsBecT. o nyr. IleTpa Ben. k rop. Apx. | O nyrera. FLB. k ropo/ny ApxanrejiBCKOMy | O npninecTB. IleTpa Bejimc. k ropofl. Apxanren. | O npuniecTB. IleTpa I. k ApxanreJibcicy Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321 Q vysochaishikh prishestviiakh velikago gosudaria, tsaia I velikago kniazia Petra Alekseevkch... iz tsarstvuiushago grada Moskvy na Dvinu, k Arkhangel’skomu gorodu, troekrano byvshikh;... Izhdeveniem N. Novikova I Kompanii. Moskva: Universitetkaia tipografiia, u N. Novikova, 1783. — > Svodyi katalog II: 4723 According to the Svodyi katalog, the accounts compiled in this book by the “preosviashchennyi Afanasii” were based on eye witness reports on Peter’s voyage and manuscripts preserved “v Dvinskikh tserkvakh.” • Hssecx. o C T a p n H . cxen. h h h o b | Hssecx. o c x a p . H H H ax | O c x a p H H . h h h . ? Meant is most likely Shcherbatov’s article “O apeBHHx h h h ax 6m bhihx b Pocchh h o aoidkhocxhx K a>K ,n;ara H3 h h x ” in : Opyt trudov Vol’nogo rossiiskogo sobraniia, ? — > Svodnyi katalog IV: 195 •Hcxop. o Poc. xopr. Mikhail D. Chulkov. Istoricheskoe opisanie rossiiskoi kommertsii, pri vsekh portakh i granitsakh, ot vremen do nyne nastoiashchago I vsekh preimushchestvennykh uzakonenii po onoi Gosudaria Imperatora Petra Velikago I nyne blagopoluchno Tsarstvuiushchei Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Ekateriny Velikiia. Sanktpeterburg, Imp. Akademii nauk. 7 vol., 1781-1788. — » in Sukhomlinov, vyp. 8, p. 24 -> Svodnyi katalog. in 8177. Here the book figures under the title Istoriia o rossiiskoi torgovli with a reference to M. Chulkov. • ifitpo Pocc. HCX. Khilkov, Andrei Akovlevich, Kniaz’. Iadro rossiiskoi istorii. Moskva: Pri Imp. Mosk. universitete, 1770. According to Russkie pisateli XVIII veka, the book is actually attributed to Khilkov’s secretary A. I. Mankiev. -» Svodnyi katalog: II 4037-4040 • f l n o p i t . sanH C K M [ f l a o p u . s a n n c o K j flB o p p o B & ix 3anH C O K Povsiadnevnykh dvortsovych vremen Gosudarei TSarei i Velikikh Kniazei Mikhaila Feodorovicha i Aleksiia Mikhailovicha zapisok. Moskva: Pri Imp. Moskovskom universitetie, 1769. -» Special Collections, Green Library, Stanford. Svodyi Katalog: II 5432 The book does not give the name of an author or editor, there is also no foreword explaining the provenance of these daily notes, recording official events, like ceremonies, trips, meetings, etc. in which the Czar was directly involved. It consists of two parts, covering the times from 1632 through 1645 andl646 through 1655, respectively. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 322 In the SAR one of the quotes taken from this work reads as follows: “Bapxam eumumou beomopxoU, m h c m 3eesdKU 30Jiomu.” [Double-sided (?) embroidered velvet,....] In the original text the sentence actually reads: Bapxam euwneeou deoeMopxou, m urn 3ee3dicu 3onomu [Double-sided or extra-dense (?) dark red [lit.: cherry red] velvet, on it little golden stars] This is part of a meticulous description of the Czar’s representational gear at the reception of two envoys from Poland on June 26,1636. Descriptions of the Czar’s clothing as well as the positioning of persons around a dining table, or at a ceremony, etc., build a constant element of this book and occur on every page. The visualisation of political power and public relations seems to have been of utmost importance to the authors of Povsiadnevnykh ... zapisok. • O flpeBH. Poc. I. 71 [ IIoBecT. Pocc. npeis. Shcherbatov, Mikhail Mikhailovich. Istoriia Rossiiskaia ot drevnieishikh vremen. 2 vol. 1770-1771. -» Istoriia Rossiiskaia ot drevnieishikh vrem en. 4 vol. S.-Peterburg: Tip. M. Akinfieva i I. Leonteva, 1901-. H . LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER I. Historical Church1 and Secular Laws • 3aK . lO cT H H u aH -> Svodnyi katalog under Iustin ? • PycK. IIpaBfla | Ilpas. Pycocaa • PycK. npasfla h o b . H 3 ,n ;a H H H n p a s n a P y c c K a n hhh 3aKOHM bchhkhx khhsch RpocnaBa B n a jp iM H p o B H H a M o H O M a x a , c n p e n o n c e H H e M jjp e B H flro o h h x H a p e u H H h c n o r a H e ynoxpedHTeHbHbie hmhc, h c o6t > ] ichchhcm chob h HasBaHHH, H 3 ynoxpebHeHHH BbimeflrnHX. Hs^aHbi HtobHTenHMH oxeuecTBeHHOH HcxopHH [x.e. Bohxhhhm] 1792. Sukhomlinov 5: 91 I do not know, which edition the SAR used before 1792 for the first two volumes, when the reference is simply “Rusk. Pravda.” From volume four on the SAR quotes “Russkaia Pravda nov. izdaniia” Isaev points out (13ff) that there are three different 1 The Church laws are included here with the list o f secular texts, because they were also included in the Ulozhenie of 1649 which was the valid code of law in the end of the 18th century. Moreover, the Church’s codes were, of course, administrative texts and should not be considered qualitatively the same as religious liturgical texts. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 323 versions: the Kratkaia, Prostrannaia, and the Sokrashchennaia Pravda. The SAR is referring to the Prostrannaia, dated 1113 or later. • f ljp e B H H e K O H C H C TO p. y K a s b i ??? • KopM H . -» Kormchaia kniga. Napechatana s originala Patriarkha Iosifa. Moskva: Tipografiia P.P. Riabushinskago, 1912. • ApxHBbi HnocTp. Kojiji. TpaMOTbi bcjihkhx KHaseii No. 3. f. TarameBa H a cynebHHK LJapfl H san a BaouibeBHHa crp. 2 npHMenaHne 8 [?] • Cyn;. | Cyn;e6. | Cyflebn. | Cyn,e6HHK | H3 cynebHHKa • Cyflebn. CTonKOBaH. TaTHBgesa | Cyn,. ctohk. | Cynebn. c tojik. TaM. (sic) • CygebH. E(. H. B. 7058 roga • Cyffe6H[HK] Djapa Hsana BacKuibeBHaa Sudebnik gusudaria tsaria I velikago kniazia Ioanna VasiTevicha, i nekotorye sego gosudaria I blizhnikh ego preemnikov ukazy, sobrannye i primechaniiami iz”iasnennye pokoinym tainym sovetnikom I astrakhanskim gubernatorom VasiFem Nikitichem Tatishchevym. Moskva; pri Imp. Univeritete, 1768 — » Isaev 47ff. -> Svodnyi katalog: III 6936 The Sudebnik [Book of Laws] (1550), like the “Stepennaia kniga” is one of the few proper names listed in the SAR. The explanation reads as follows: “YaoaceHHe, K H H ra coflepacantafl b ce6e 3aK O H bi h yKa3bi IfapeM HoaHHOM BacmibeBHHeM HaflaHHbie.” (vol. V, column 952) [Code, book containing the laws and decrees issued by Czar Ioann Vasil’evich.] This edition of the Sudebnik, prepared by Tatishchev, was published by the member of the Academy of Sciences Gerhard Friedrich Muller, who also wrote the afterword to the book. Novikov confirms this in the Opyt, where he wites about the historian Muller(russ.: Gergard Fridrikh Miller): "... H3flan... Cyne6raiK Ilapa HoaHHa BacwibeBHua, codpaHHbiii h c npHM euaHHUM H HCTopmrecKHM H nonoraeHHbiii TatebiM coBeTH H K O M TaTHipeBbiM.” [... published the Book of Laws of Czar Ioann Vasil’evich, compiled and ... with historical annotations by the secret councillor Tatishchev.] (p. 140). Miller wrote indeed the afterword to Tatishchev’s edition of the Sudebnik. • CroniaBH. sonpoc 17 - » Isaev 40 Stoglav, code of regulations, formulated by the church council of 1551. It was gathered by Ivan IV. and the Metropolitan Makary. Contains the Czar’s questions to the council, and the churchmen’s answers. Adressed questions of secularization of church land. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 324 • TaMoac. ycT. 1571 rop;. | TaM . ycT. 1751 (sic) | TaMoacen. ycT. 1751 | TaMoac. ycraB E(apa HtaaHa Bacmi&eBEraa 1571 • TaMoac. y c T : 1572 rop;a • YKas. Il,apfl HoaHHa BacHJi&esHua Most likely also referring to an ukaz from the Sudebnik compiled by Tatishchev. • PyKOHHCHOH CHHCOK papfl f&eOflOpa HsaHOBHHa O HOBOpOTHOH HOHDIHHe Archival document, most likely kept in the former Moskovskii Glavnyi Arkhiv Ministerstava Inostmnnyh Del, today Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi Imperii (AVPRI), [Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire]. (-» Sudebnik Tsaria Feodora Ioannovicha 1589g. Moskva: TipografiiaG. Lissnera I A. Geshelia, 1900. [Reprint: Tsar Theodore’s Code of Law. Letchworth Herts, England: Prideaux Press, 1978.]) I was not able to locate this customs law among the 231 articles of Fedor Ivanovich’s Code of Law, which is an extended version of Ivan IV Sudebnik and had never been published until 1900. The academicians seem to refer to a separate document, as mentioned above. • PaTH. ycT. Radishevskii, Onisim Mikhailovich. Ustav ratnykh, pushechnyh I drugikh del, kasaiushchikhsia do voinskoi nauki, sostoiashchii v 663 ukazakh, ili stat’iakh, v gosudarstvovanie tsarei i velikikh kniazei, Vasiliia Ivanovicha Shuiskago i Mikhaila Fedorovicha, vseia Rusii samoderzhtsev, v 1607 i 1621 godekh vybran iz inostrannykh voennykh knig Onisimom Mikhailovym. 2 vol. Sanktpeterburg: Pri Gos. voennoi kollegii, 1777-1781. — > Sukhomlinov, vyp. 7, p. 118 — > Svodnyi katalog, III 5797. The book was donated to the library of the Russian Academy by Turchaninov. It was extensively used in the SAR (see appendix 2). According to the Svodnyi katalog the manuscript was found in the Oruzheinaia Palata in 1775, and the publication initiated by count G. A. Potemkin. • YcraB. u,epKOBH. • YcraB; and perhaps • YcraB: raajs: — > Orthodox Eastern Church. Typikon. Ustav, sirech', Tserkovnoe oko. Moskva: 1641. Physical Description: 999,179 leaves, illus. Printed by the authority of Czar Mikhail Teodorovich and Patriarch Iosif. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 325 • YjioiiceHHe • YflOxceHHe E[ap. AneKc. Mnxaii. — » Akademiia nauk SSSR. Sobornoe Ulozhenie 1649 goda. Tekst, kommentarii. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987. In the SAR this is the text most quoted after the Bible and Lomonosov. Although the 18t h century witnessed several attempts at compiling a new code of law (under Peter I, Elizabeth, and, of course, Catherine), none eventually lead to a successful update. Therefore the Code of Laws of 1649 was still the valid legal code at the time of Catherine. Catherine’s major legislative acts and reforms (see below) have to be seen as replacements of parts of this Ulozhenie. The Ulozhenie stands out as the fist attempt at systemizing the laws of Russia, although legislation was still casuistical. It is also the first thorough compilation of all existing (both Church and secular laws) in one place. The scope of the document speaks for itself. The 967 articles were presented in 25 chapters under specific headings, for example: “O sude” [About the Court], “... o gosudareve dvore ...” [About the Czar’s Court], “O rozboinykh i o tatinykh delekh” [About robbery and theft cases] etc. For the first time, also, the legal status of the ruler was defined and the rules of succession were layed out. The Ulozhenie was originally published in 1649 in two editions, one in May and one in August of 1649. The second edition was just a corrected reprint of the first edition, the content was not affected. In 1737 a third edition came out. Here the orthography was modernized. Under Catherine six more editions were printed, in 1776, 1778, 1779, 1780,1790, 1792, and 17962! All of them were reprints of the 1737 edition. Since the quotes in the SAR reveal a modernized orthography (for example, “istets” instead of “ystets”) and arabic numbers3 we may safely assume, that the Russian academicians were using one of the contemporary editions of the Ulozhenie. Most interesting is the fact that the Ulozhenie began to be used heavily as a source text only with the second volume of the SAR. The first volume contains one single quote, whereas the second volume includes 47, the third 60, the fourth 74, the fifth 45, and the sixth 37 quotations. The programmatical side of the SAR seems to have been reinforced when the dictionary project was already under way. • PyKon. k h h x . 3a pyicoio HincoHa Etaxp. ? ? ? -> check: BX 597.N5A36 • POSMCK | P03MCK. KHHX. -» BX 597. D 52 N43 1910, BX 597.D 52 S 55 1891 Shliapkin, issled. i materialy 96 05742 2 Catherine died on November 26 of that year. It is therefore most likely that the edition of 1796 was still published under her reign. 3 The seventeenth century editions used the cyrillic numbering system (1. ed.) and written out numbers (2. ed.). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 326 Under Po3'bucK (sic) the SAR explains: “Hhmhtphh MuTponojiHT Poctobckhh [1651-1709] H 3.uan K H H xocy nou sbshhcm posbiicK (i.e. nospodnoe HCcaeROBaHne, H S ’ MBnemie) t o j i k o b pacKoubHHnecKHx o Bepe” (SAR III: 338). The academicians seem to be referring to an OCS edition consisting of various parts, for they mention chasti and glavy, and in one incident list (foliation instead of pagination). • Yscas 1714 MapTa 13 h 1725 rofl. Mann 24 hhcji. • Yct. bohhck. • Ycxas bohhckhh, 1716 — » Skripilev, p. 135 -> Isaev, p. 112. This collection of laws included law enforcement regulations, for example, how to prevent social gatherings in public places, and the like. Isaev explains that Ustavy were “CdopHHKH, coflepxcaBirote HopMbi, O TH O C H m necH k onpeueneHHOH c^epe rocyuapcTBeHHOH ReaTeJibHOCTH...” • Ynas 1722 rona, Anpenn 6 aha 2. Laws Issued under Catherine II. • MeaceB. HHCTpyK. ra. v. nymcx. 1. H H C T pyK U ,H H 3eMneMepaM, k reHepajibHOMy Bceil HMnepHH 3eMeab pa3MeaceBaHHio. -> PSZ I, vol. 17, no. 12570 (February 13,1766), or M H C T pyK ifH H MeacesbiM rybepncKHM KaHifeuApHAM h npoBM HpHHAbHbiM K O H T O paM . -> PSZ I, vol. 17, no. 12659 (1766?) • PeKpyr. ynpeacfl. 1766 -> PSZ, I, vol. 17, no. 12748 (September 29, 1766) • YnpeacA- ni. 1 16 ra. 11.18 | ex. 213 • YupeacA. o Py6. | YupeatA. | Yupeac. aah ynp. rybepn. • YupeacA- rybepn. | YupeacA. o ynp. Fybepn. | Bmcoh. yupeac. o ynpaBji. rybepH. • Bbicoh. o rybepn. yupeacA.... • Bmcoh. ynpeacAeH. w ia ynpasa. Pocchhck. H m h . § 250 YupeacAeHHe aha ynpaB/ieHHH ry6epHHH BcepoccHHCKoil HMnepnH. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 327 — » PSZ, vol. 20, no. 14392 (November 7, 1775) -A Isaev 145 -» Skripilev 134 This law is also mentioned in the explanation of the entry word OdmecTBeHHoe npH3peHHe: Eloa hum H M eneM ynpexcAeHM Mnnocepaoio EKATEPHHOK) II b 1775 rofly bo Bcex rydepHHHX npHKa3bi, K Q TopbiM nopyneno noneneHHe n Ha3npaHHe napoflHbix ynH O Tiiit, C H p T C K H X flO M O B , dortbHHit, dorafleneH, aomob a m HenneHHMbix 6onbHbix, pjw cyMacmeamux, aomob padoHHX h cM H pnTertbH M X . (Ynpeacfl. o ynpaBA. rydepm) • Yicas 1781 roji;a. Anpen. 3. anaia. MMeHHbiH flaHHHH ceHaTy. O cyfle h Haica3aHHHX 3a BopoBcxso pasnwx poflOB h o saseneKHH paboHHX aomob bo Bcex PydepHMax. -> PSZ, vol. 21, No. 15147 • Yct. OjiaroH. YcTaB O naroH H H H H hhh normpeHCKHit PSZ I, vol. 21, No. 15379 (April 8, 1782) — > Skripilev 134. — » Madariaga 292 • O npeHMyin;. ABopae, Eicax. II o6nap. 1785. Anpea. 21 • O ABopaHCXBe (cxaxba) | o Asopan. • ^BOpaH. rpaM. cxaxba 76 • ^CaaoBan. TpaMOxa Asopan | acaaoBan. ABop. rpaM. | acaaoB. ABop. TpaMOTa • YaoaceHHe o ABopaHCXBe • YaoaceHHe o ABopanax PpaMoxa Ha npasa, BoabHocxn h npeHMyrpecxBa 6aaropoAHoro poccHHCKoro AsopaHcxBa [^KaaoBaHHaa rpaMOxa AsopancxBy]. Section A of this law is entitled: “O ahhhbix npeHMyipecxBax ABopaH.” -> PSZ I, Bd. 22, No. 16187 (April 21,1785). — > Zernack 804ff -» Isaev 145 -» Skripilev 144 The quotations are not always literal renderings of the original, for example: “HBopHHKa BbimeainaH 3a HeflBopaHHHa M yxcy h actam H e coodin,aeT A B O pH H C T B a.” In the original the text goes as follows: “flBopHHKa, BbiinefliHH 3a M yaca sa HeaBopflHHHa, fla H e ahhihtch CBoero coctoahhh; ho M yacy h ^exflM H e coodrqaeT O H a ABopaHCTBa.” (A.7) Under Lichnoe dvorianstvo the sentence is from section G. 21: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 328 “By^e oTeu; h c b i h h m m h u h h m npHHOcamHe jimmoe h b o p h h c t b o , h npedbiBaaxi flBamaxb neT b oiyxcbe 6e3nopouHO, t o B H yK y AosBOM excfl npoorxb H B opH H C T sa HeftcxBHTenbHaro.” • FopoflOB: nojioac: | ropoff. nonoac. r paMOTa Ha n p a s a h B b iro flw ro p o fla iv t Pocchhckoh HMnepnH [Charter to the Cities] — > PSZ I, vol. 22, No. 16188 (April 21, 1785) -» Zernack 802 • Maimtfj.1786 roff. Hjohh 26 a. [sic] • MaHn«f>. o saeMH. 6 a H K e 1786 r. Hiohh 28 a- M aH H (]jecT . 0 6 y u p eacA eH H H F o c y fla p c T B e H H o ro s a e M H o r o 6 aH K a. -> PSZ I. vol. 22, No. 16407 — » Zernack 669 • YicasH. kh. 13 ? ? ? [ s e a e T b K aK o e A e u o O K pecH H T b h u h H 3i»acH H T b.] HI. LITERARY AND LINGUISTIC WORKS, ARRANGED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY ABBREVIATION Except for a handful of quotes (from Lomonosov, Ablesimov and M. Popov) all citations are from “high style” texts. • FpaMM. Man. F p e K . Grammatika Smotritskogo, Moscow 1648 [first edition 1619]. -> Sukhomlinov 1: 221 In his article on the academician Apollos, who wrote a grammar for the Academy based on Smotritskii’s, Lomonosov’s as well as Sidorovskii’s works, Sukhomlinov expains why Smotritskii’s grammar was actually called Grammatika Maksima Greka. Taxoe Ha3BaHne [“rpaM M aTHKa MaxcHMa Fpexa”] flaBajm eh [rpaMMaTHxe CM OTpHUKoro] noxoMy, u t o k MOCKOBCKOMy H 3flaH H K » npn/ioaceH oTBeT MaxcHMa Fpexa BonpocHBmeMy ero o rpaMMaraxe, pHTopHxe h 4>H Jioco(j)H H . • fHyxoBH. Khh3« BuaflHM. M ohom. Dukhovnaia velikago Kniazia Vladimira Vsevolodovicha Monomakha, nazvannaia v suzdal’skoi letopisi Pouchen’e. Sanktpeterburg: 1973. See Sukhomlinov 5: 374 The text was edited by Musin-Pushkin and Boltin, both academy members. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 329 e EaceMec. Con. 1763 ro«. • EaceM. Con. 1764 Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia -» Pekarskii, Petr Petrovich. Redaktor, sotrudniki i tsenzura v russkom zhurnale 1755-1764 godov. Prilozhenie k XH-mu tomu Zapisok Imp. akademii nauk. No. 5. Sanktpeterburg: [Tipografliri'a Imperatorskoi akademii nauk] 1867. PN5280.E9 P4 Mostly literary • Ep. KocxpoB: Hbmafl. | Ep. Kocrp. E. I. Kostrov, Iliada. Ermil Ivanovich Kostrov (1755-1796) was a contributor to the Sobesednik and thus closely linked to the Russian Academy. The quotations are from his famed high- style translation o f the Iliad in alexandrines, first published in 1787 and containing the first nine books of the Iliad. • [He. H e. MysaHOB:] -» Sukhomlinov 8: 43. In the SAR the illustrative sentence under “vitiia” is not marked as a quoted sentence. Sukhomlinov recognized the sentence and identified it as being from Shuvalov. • H3 coh. M. IIonoB[a] | ^ ocyra IIonoB. In Opyt slovaria Novikov identifies Mikhailo Popov as a member of the Commission on a plan for a new code of laws (170). The SAR quotes two times from M. Popov. However, in both places, i.e. under the entry words xcHTbe [entry word: xcH TH e] and CKynaio, we find the same lines, namely: Bone xcHTbeM cbohm CKvnaeT H cyflbdnHe flOKynaeT: JJm n e r o a H e 6 o r a T ? • K[hh™hh] fl[a n iK O B a ] | Kh. flaimcaBa • [flamKosa] C t h x h k EfL BEJIHHECTBY, [Sobesednik 1 (1783)] • Hannncb Kh. flaiinc. sneaaHHaH k H3o6paaceHHio Eh BeranecTEa, [Sobesednik 1 (1783)] Both o f these titles were published on the first pages o f the journal together with Derzhavin’s “Felitsa.” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 3 0 • M JI. | M. JIOM. | JIOM OH. Mikhail Lomonosov. Sukhomlinov counted 852 quotes from Lomonosov’s works in the SAR. Most of these quotes are from the Odes, the Nadpisi, the Slova and the Geroicheskaia poema. A few examples of his epistles and fables are also included. A list of these quotes from the first, second and last volume of the SAR are included in Appendix 3. For details see my chapter V. • MHxanDi XepacKOB • M.X. Poccnafl. • M.X. Bnap,. Mikhail Kheraskov. Rossiiada (1778) and Vladimir vozrozhdennyi (1785). • H. lio n . IIhcm. o cthx. H. IIonOBCKHH -> Novikov, Opyt slovaria Novikov writes about him in Opyt slovaria: “ O h npenoxcrm c TlarnHCKaro x3biKa b PoccHftcKHec t h x h FopaHHeByenncTonyocTHxoTBopcxBe . “ (168) • Onep. MenbH. AdjiecHMon: MenbHHK, kojihvh, odMamnHK h cbht. Onepa KOMHHecKaa The popular opera was first performed in 1779; the quote is from the first scene 1,1. • Petrov | B. Xlexp. Eh. | B. IleTp. The court poet Petrov was not immediately nominated member of the Academy and showed from the very beginning no interest in the SAR. His works are quoted solely in the third volume. Both these facts, Petrov’s nomination as well as the sudden frequent quoting from his works in the third volume, suggest that his name was utilized to please the Empress. The third volume of the SAR appeared at the hight of Catherine’s repressions in 1792. The Eneida references could be read as an attempt to compensate for the quote from the arrested Kniazhnin in the previous volume. • CodeceffHHK: | H s codecefln; Mostly literary • CyMapoKOB: • Tpareff. C h h h b . h Tpys. The second citation refers to Sumarokov’s third o f nine tragedies “Sinav i Truvor” (1750). The play is set in the middle ages in Novgorod. The two brothers Sinav and Truvor love the same women: Il’mena. Il’mena loves Truvor. Sinav, who is the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 331 monarch, marries Ilmena anyway. Truvor and Ilmena commit suicide. According to Gukovskii Sumarokov shows that feelings should not dominate actions, for this leads to a tragic outcome for all. This corresponds to the morals of the time. However, another theme of the tragedy is - and Gukovskii could not say this under Stalin -, that a Czar, however powerful he might be, cannot dictate and rule over the emotions of his subjects. Love is not subject to political control. • Tparefl: Poccnas Iakov Borisovich Kniazhnin, “Rosslav” (1784) • U,Hn;ep. cjiob. 14 npoTHB Ahtohhh -> Okenfuss: “De officiis” published in 2400 copies by the Academy of Sciences in 1761. IV. GEOGRAPHICAL WORKS • KaM u: H C T op: K pa-r. on n c. K aM U . ii, 202 O nH cauue 3eMnn KaMuaTKH, couHHeHHoe CxenaHOM KpaineuuHKOBHM, atcafteMHH HayK npotJjeccopoM (1755) -» Svodnyi katalog • FMeii[HHa] nyr[emecTBHe] | n y rera . Pmot. | Ily r. Em . | FMen. ILyxem. Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin: Puteshestvie po Rossii... (1771-85) — > Sukhomlimov 1: 347 S. G. Gmelin is not to be confounded with his uncle, also a naturalist, the academician Johann-Georg Gmelin, who had for the first time described Siberia’s flora in Flora Sibirii. vol. 1-4, 1747-1769. The SAR is most likely referring to the edition published in 1781 by the Obshchestvo staraiushcheesia o perevode chuzhestrannykh knig na rossiiskoi iazyk, as announced in Sanktperterbugskiia vedomosti Tan. 1, 1781 under knigi napechatannye • Kpax. Feopr. crapHH. 71 [?] • OnucaHHe BenosepcKa • OnucaH. Kajiyaccicaro naM. • OnucaHHe TandoBa (1636) • Onuc. aanopoac. ceuu. E»ceM. cou. 17601 . 411 h 414 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 332 • nan[jiaca] nyr[emecTBHe] Pallas — > Sukhomlimov 1: 347 Most likely referring to the edition published in 1781 by the Obshchestvo staraiushcheesia o perevode chuzhestrannykh knig na rossiiskoi iazyk, as announced in Sanktperterbugskiia vedomosti Jan. 1,1781 under knigi napechatannye. V. RELIGIOUS (Incomplete, see Appendix E) VI. MISCELLANEOUS • Erep. | Erep h crpeji. | Erep. | KHHr. Erep. h cxpeii. | Orpeji. CoBepnieHHtiH erept., mm 3HanHe o Bcex npimaivieiKHOcTHx k pyaceiiHoit h ncoBOit oxoTe... 1779. — > Sukhomlinov 8: 24, 379. • H 3 opyaceitHOH [nanaTbi] | CodpaHne b o c h h b i x opyflnii Sukhomlinov explains that Dashkova ordered from the sud’ia masterskoi palaty a list and the corresponding drawings of objects held in the oruzheinaia palata (7: 139). • Pen. i i c o b m x o x o t h h k o b Dashkova had commissioned interviews with people, including her own father and Panin, to write down definitions of special hunting terminology. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 333 APPENDIX B LIST OF ENTRY WORDS ILLUSTRATED WITH QUOTATATIONS FROM SECULAR TEXT SOURCES Under the quoted titles (left column) this register lists all the words, under which the quotations appear in the SAR. Depending on whether the entry words are marked as “Slavonic” [Slavenskie] “old” [starinnye], or whether they appear without a stylistic marker, they were entered in the Slavonic-column or the Neutral-column. SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. Unidentified ( c ; i a B . p o c c ? ) B e p c r a H 3 p flf lC T B O C B H fle T e jI b K p a c o T ic a 6 e r y B eC T H H K n o B H H y r b (sic) K p e iM J H O C B J I e B H a 4 ) a H B 0 3 6 p a H f lK ) [ A f in e c H M O B : ] O n e p . M e m K O JIO X O B K 3 n p O C T O H a p . A p x a n r [ o r o p o f l C K H i i ] T O T [ o n H c e i t ] ( 1 ) B e n i . e ( 1 ) B n a f l b in H b i H (2) c y r H S K ) , c y r a H T b [AT ( 2 ) r o p f l O M b i c ^ e H H b i f i o n l y , r p a M O T a c r a p H H . not included in SAR] r p H f l H H p a H r p H A H H C T a p H H . 3 a r o H ( 1 ) 3 a o 3 e p b e n e p e e M fle C S X H H H H K n e p e n M a T b ( 3 ) 3 H M O B H in ;e o 6 ; i a c x H . 3 J i a T o n e u a T H b i H c x a p H H . ( 3 ) K O H H H a K O p M H n e U B C T a p H H H O M K o p n a y n o T p . K p e c m a T b i f t B c a n t H K K O p M H H H H O K O B C T a p . ( 4 ) p a 3 M e x H a a r p a M o x a ( 4 ) M H H i n e c T B O (under c x a p H H . m o n a s h e s t v o b o t h M e c H H H b iii c y f l c x a p H H . n e u t r . ) n m u a n b H H K c x a p H H . ( 5 ) c K a p a ( 5 ) p y 6 ^ e n H H K c y x o T H b i i l c y f l O B a a cum c x a p H H . ( 6 ) X a ffflH K n e p H o d o p e u [AT o n l y , n o t n p o T o p included in SAR] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 334 SECULAR SOURCES NE U T R A L SLAVONIC ET AL. A p X H B b I H H O C T p . K o H H . T p a M O T b l B e H H K H X K H H 3 e fi No. 3. F. T a T H i n e B a H a c y « e 6 H H K L t a p a H s a H B a c H n t e B H ^ a e x p . 2 n p H M e i a r a i e 8 [? ] Q K Q H b H H H H h lH C X a p H H . B e c e f l . 3 a a x . | B e c e f l . S a a x o y c x . 6 a H 3 H a n o f i e f f H o e m a n c x B O h m a B C X B O c x a p H H . n o f i o a e H H e H e p n o M o p c K . x a p H c j j . e x p . 2 5 6 o p a a H e x . m h h . | H e x b M h h . | M h h h h H e x . O k x . | A s r y c x 16 a h h M h h . n e x e f i . | n p e f l H s 6 p a H H b i H c o c e n c x B y r o n o f li H H X H e ( 2 ) x e p a M H f l a h j i h x e p a M H n a K T iH p r p e n . m r a p H K r p e n . n o p y 6 c x a p . c n y a ( M e p a c x a p H H H a a b C b h i h ;. H H C a H H H y n o M H H a e M a a ) K e p a M H f la h h h x e p B a M H f l a x p e n . Kjmp r p e n . k b h p h k r p e n . H h h o b h . P o c c . I o c y f l a p e f t . K y c x o f l H H a a x . ^ B o p p . 3 a n H C K H | f l B o p p . 3 a n H C O K I R B O p p O B b I X 3 a n H C O K n a x H H H b i i i 1,49 flB O e M O p X H H n e n a x H H H e c x B O c x a p H H . M O B H H K c x a p H H . y x a 6 H H H e i t c x a p H H . f l o n o ™ . k h c x . n e x p . B e a . o n a o m c x s o H a p y H H c x a p . f l p e s H H e K O H C H C x o p . y x a s b i o 6 e m H B a i o c H ff,p e B H [ H i i ] / i e x [ o n H c e p ] ( 1 ) 6 o p B a p x a B e H H H K r p o 6 o 3 « a x e a b y a a a e u ; ( 2 ) B J i a c x o f l e p x c e p flH B H O H O p O X O B H 3 H a 6 a a r o n o f l p a x c a x e a b H b i H ( 2 ) H H X H e ( 2 x ) H 3 b I M a X b C H H M aiO C H E p a b lK H H H H p a b I K o 6 m e ) K H T H e (3) H 0 B 0 3 a K 0 H H e C a M 0 3 a K O H H O H X y M eH C X B O H r y M e H C X B y r o ( 1 ) r r p H B o a o K a c x a p H H . B e f lO M e p c x a p H H . 2 ) p a 3 r a a c n e c x a p . B e a H K o e r o s e n n e ( b c x a p . K H H r .) B e n e p H H a r o f l H H a c x a p . 3 r o a o B b e ( b a p e B H . k h h x a x ) ( 2 ) n p H r o p a n e c x a p . r p a i o c x a p . r p a M o x a r o p a a x H a a c x a p H H . r p o M n y m a x b , b a p e B H . a e x . r p y H a n p o r p e x c x a p H H . a a H I U H K c x a p H H . n o a y a e H b n o a a H H i n e c x a p . flH B C X B O a e x H H e n n o c x a p H H . ( + ) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 335 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. K H B ep a e a n c r a p H H . K a e r u y sa a c H T H e b c r a p H H . K e n r a x lOIHpOCHHK H K p b M O m a H (2) KOCTOJIOM ( u n d e r 3aacHXOK) KpaM OJIK) (3) S H M H H p a c x a p H H . n o flK p y 'iH B a io OTSHM H e c x a p H H . K y n a H ry M e H r p e u . n a K y n a io x e p d p x c x a p H H . o x a o r KHH5KHH CX apH H . x o a c y x c x a p H H . (4) npH M C T O K o n o x o K b c x a p H H y p a 3 M e T 3 H aH H B O ... M H3HHHM H y K p a f i c x a p H H . noflM O C T be K y3H b c x a p H H . MeCTHOH KHH3B n o x e x H H H c x a p H H . n a y 3 0 K x e x o c x o B e p c x a p . H aiU ieU K H B p ep K O B H . H apeH H H H3nOBHHXbCH C X apH H . 6 e3ruiH iH ;H biH (4) c y M e a c n e c x a p . n e p e n o a o x p a s M e x H a a r p a M O x a c x a p H H . n O p O H H b lft y M 3B H T b C T apH H . y r a i p a j o M H 3rH X b c x a p H H . ir y c T o n iy M H p y iO c x a p H H . n b iT a io p o 3 M H p n e (2) c x a p . M H H I3H c x a p H H . ( 5 ) p y m y c a n a M o p u H b iH C T ap. C BH peJIbH H K 3 a M H x n e c x a p . y c o d H u a H H ip e a io d H e c y r y H o m e p e H C T B O c ra p H H . n o B c e n o ip H b iH ( 6 ) XaMOaCHHK O n p H H H b lH c x a p H H . y x y c H H K o x a d H a c x a p H H . (2) y in K y ftH H K ( s e e o t h e r n e K a a b H H n o cx ap H H H O M y c o l u m n ) ( u n d e r p e k a r n i a CaMOUHHCTByK) n e u t r . ) i p a r a e H H e n e u a a y r o c x a p . (5) n o p a n y c x a p . p o n a x b c x a p H H . n o p y d e a c n e c x a p H H . p y K O f te jib c x s y io p flH eu ; c x a p H H . (2) n a c a f l c x a p . H OCaflHHK c x a p H H . c a H f la n e u c x a p . c a H o a r o d e u c x a p . C B ecT b c x a p . n o c B H C x e a b c x a p H H . CBOflKHHH n o cx ap H H H O M y Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 336 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. ( u n d e r c B O H H H H a n e u t r . ) C B eT JIH IO C B n o c x a p H H . c n e n o T y i o H 3 C T a p H H H B lf t C T a p H H . C T a p n e c T B O C T a p . H a C T O JIB H H K C T a p H H . B 0 3 C T a H J iH B C T p a H . ( s i c ? ) n p H C H H C H H K C T a p H H . ( 6 ) T B IC H IT K O e C T a p H H . y u a H C T a p H H . y i m c y H C T a p H H . X H T p O K C T a p H H . H 3 H a n a J I B H b I H C T a p H H . H H C J ieH H H K C T a p . u i e n i a C T a p H H . IH H A H H B IH C T a p H H . n O C O JIB H H K C T a p . m a n j i H B B i H C T a p . K [ H n r n H f l ] ^ [ a n i K O B a ] | K h . HCH 3HB (2) f l a n i K a B a — C t h x h k Eft BEJIHHECTBY J lb C T e p ( S o b e s e d n i k , I, 17831 n p n p o a a — H a n n H C B K h . J f a i i i K . H 3 T O U J H T B H a K OTO . . . f l a p b l 3 f le n a H H a n k H 3 o 6 p a > K e H H io Eh B e / i n n e c T B a f S o b e s e d n i k , I, 1783] [ H o B H K O B , ] f l p e B H H H (1) C B aa-C H B aT H B H B H H O i^ H K a | f l p e B H : P o c : n p H p a f l e T b c x a p H H . B h b j i : ] P o c c h h c k . B h b j i . | P o c c . (2) TOfflHOCTB (2) n a B O J iO K a C T a p H H . B h b j i . n p H r o H H i o t o j i o b c t b o B b i m e f l u i e e H 3 a e M e c T B e H H B i il y n o x p e b j i . H 3 T O H b a p e B H . y n o T p . ( 3 ) K H K a r o c T H H o e C T a p . flO K O H H a H H e r p H B e H K a b a p e s . k h h t . K O T O p a H H e a e H e a c H H K b c x a p H H y (2) K p e C T H B IH K p B IJ IB p O H e p a c a B e n B b i i u e a m . H 3 y r iT p . am r u b i n u s ( 3 ) flO K a H H H B a K ) C T a p H H . 6 e 3 J ie n H n ; a flO K O H H a /Ib H b lH C T a p H H . n e T O B H ip e ( 2 ) K O p O B a H H H K B C T a p H H . C B a a e b H O M o b p a a e (4) M a 3 H J I B H H Ija K o r a y j m C M H p H o e n j i a T t e K p a B n e i l c T a p H H H o e (2) c n n p a i o c B K y p H H K C T a p . n o j i a B o n i H H K c x a p . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 337 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. (5) C B eB H H K n o c e j i b C K H f t ( 6 ) n p o x o p r a e p x H b i H H i e p x o n p H B O f lH a H a a n H C b m e p x y i o y r y m y a x b j ie x H H K c x a p . m o d n x e j i b c x B o JIIO flH H n e p e n e u a . . . b c x a p H H y n e K a j r a c b ( 4 ) o 6 H H 3 b C X a p H H . O H H H e ir O J IO B eH H H K c x a p . o c M H H u e e c x a p . o x a f i H a c x a p H H . o n a m e H b c x a p . 3 a n o H a b c x a p H H H O M y n o x p e 6 j i e H H H [ i n t e r e s t i n g c o n t e x t ! ! ] n o n j i y x c H o e c x a p H H . n p a B o f i n e c f l x o K c x a p . B b i n y c K b c x a p . 3 H a H H J io y n H H H H H B b iii (5) n p n p a n e x b c x a p H H . H a p O flC X B O c x a p H H . p a 3 p a x b e c x a p H H . p y 6 e > K H H K c x a p . o c b i n a x b H O B o d p a u H b i x b H p e B H e M C B a j i e d n o M o d p a y e ( 6 ) x y 3 J iy K p o y c x a p H H H o r o y d o p a [ H o b h k o b ,] r ip o ff lO J i. f l p . B h b j i . I rip. f l p . P o c . B H B J I. I I lp O f lO J I . P O C C . BH BJI. n p a B a n r p a M o x a r r y n b i m r p H B e H K a ( b y p e B . K H H r .) ( 1 ) r p o 6 j i a , r p e d j i a c x a p H H . H B o p c K o f i c x a p . n 0 3 0 B H H K c x a p H H . n e p e K p o i i M e c s y a c x a p H H . n e p c x a x n y a c x p a H . [ s i c ?] J f y x o B H [ a n B e j M K a r o ] K h h 3 h B j ia f lH M j H p a B c e B O J io flO B H H a ] M o H O M [ a x a ] c o j i c x a p . K h h t . E r e p . | E r e p h c x p e n . | E r e p . | C T p e j i . [ C o B e p m e H H b i f t e r e p B ] B b ix e H K a H a x e ^ K a X e H e X H H K u y x b e ( 2 ) E a c e M e c . Coh. 1 7 6 3 r o y . n j r y r E a c e M . C o u . 1 7 6 4 x o p 6 a a o E M e j i[ H H a ] n y x [ e r a e c x B H e ] | r i y r e n i . E m c ji. | riyx. E m . | ( 2 ) n o r o H H H [ A T o n l y , n o t i n c l u d e d i n S A R ] K a p M a K x a M a p c K . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 338 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. r M e n . I l y T e u i . a c a p x a a p b i 6 a a c a p x a a H x p a H aaC H B B H K ) H a a c H B H a io c n a c T b ( 3 )H K p H H H K n o x a T H a i o p i > i 6 a a o x e e B b e (4) M T H H a n a 3 n a n x a n n a c T ( 5 ) p e » c a p e 3 a / r b m H K C a H flO B c a n x o B a f l 6 e a y r a C B H H H a T K a ( 6 ) T y 3 B y K T y M a x H a « 6 b i m c n a n n e n e H b F o p o f l O B : n o B o a c : | r o p o f l . n o B o n c . ( 2 ) T H B b fle iiC X H H ( 3 ) H M e H H T b iH r p a a m a H H H H M e H H T O C T b (4) M e m a H H H M e m a n c K H f t ( 2 ) F p a M M . Max. F p e x . H e f lO B b iH H w f i [ b . 6 , o n l y i n AT, not i n c l u d e d i n SAR] ( b C B a B e H C X H X r p a M M a T H x a x : ) 6 y x B a c y i y d a yKmne I l e T p a B e B H x a r o [? ] a c H T H e H 3 B e C T [ n e ] O A B O p B H [ e X p O C C H H C K H X I H 3 B e C T . f lB O p . U a U I H H X B c e n b H H u e i i 6 / i a r o p o f l i i e C T p H n H fl U a p O U H H X C T a p H H f l B o p e u x H H c n y r e M C T a p H H . x p a B H H f t c n y r e M c x a p H H . p o f l o c n o B H b i e b i o a h c r a p H H . c n a n b H H x C T a p H H . c n y r e M C T a p H H H o e p e n e H H e p b i H f l a C T a p . n o a p b i H f l a C T a p . B O B H H H C T a p . C O X O B b H H U H H n y T b C T a p . n o f l c o x o B b H H n e H C T a p . H a n a n b H b iH c o k o b b h h k C T a p . p f l f l O B b l t i C O X O B b H H X C T a p . n o c T e n b H H K h n o c T e n b H H n e i i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 339 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. C T a p . C T p a n n e f t b C T a p H H y . . . C T p a n n e f t c K /n o n e M C T a p H H . H 3 B e c T . o n y r . I l e T p a Ben. k r o p . A p x . | O r x y T e i n . II.B. k r o p o a y A p x a n r e f l b C K O M y IIO H H B H O H n p o c B e T H 3 B e c T . o C T a p H H . c r e n . h h h o b | H3B ecT. o C T a p . H H H a x | O C T a p H H . HHH. n a n a T a 3 o a o T a a p a 3 n p a B H a a n a x a T a y r o n o B H o r o c y f l a ? [ s e e a l s o B m c o h . o r y 6 e p H H H ynpeacfleHHH, r e f e r e n c e , n o t c l e a r ] o p y x c e H H H n e i i c r a p , c r p j m n e i f t c r w a T b e M c r a p H H . O n p H H i e c T B . F l e T p a B e n n i e . k r o p o f l . A p x a n r e n . | 0 n p n r a e c T B . I l e T p a I. k A p x a H r e n b C K y ocaonHbiH B C K p O H H 3 opyxcefiHOft [ n a j i a T b i ] M e p e K T M H b ie K H p a C b l C T a p H H . H H c r p y K p . h A p r a K . O j i o t c k . Tocyfl. I l e T p a I. C o n e p H c T o p . o P o c . T o p r . H eflO H H C b ( 6 ) T a n K h h t . E r e p . h c r p e n . | E r e p . K a M H : H C T o p : (1) 6erw K (2) flb lM H H K (2) n p H K a3 H b IH e p H H K H axcH B a (3) nofl3op n p H K a 3 H b ifl H aK B aca K /Ib l K O C T b U Ib kot M opcK oft foca ursina H aK oneT H H K K O H IT ia K n o K p y n e H H H K /iax T aK H aao6H bie K H H n n ,b i a y 3 a H (4) M aH H x a M a H H tH K M e flB e flO K h h h M eflB eflx a M O T b ip b najmacH (5) paBflyra (3) K y flK H C T a p H H . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 340 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. 3 a c T a H B a i o c b 3aCTOH O T C T O ft c y x o H o c ( 6 ) O T T y ra x a x a / r a a H y H H p a r a a r a a u i a j i p a K n e B C K . n a T e p . jih c t 5 1 c y i m i o c b K o p M H . H e T b ip e H a f le c H T H H p w 6 jIK )C T H T eJ Ib c a M o O o p e p B e H K ) B e i p e p K p a T . F e o p r . C T a p H H . 7 1 [? ] ( 5 ) c y p c x a p H H . K p a T / o i i h c . K a M H . i i , 2 0 2 P y 6 M O P C K O H E p . K o c r p o B : Mima.r . [ 1 7 8 7 ] | E p . K o c r p . 3 p K ) n y X O M , y M O M [ 3 p i o C j i.] S e M H b lf t 3 H 3 K 3 0 f lH e C T B 0 J l e T o n . n o f l b c t o m 1 1 7 7 H B O p O B H ft J l e T o n : n o f l 1 1 9 2 r o p o M H p O B H H H H ( 1 ) B C T a p H H y M a H H t j ) . 1 7 8 6 r o f l . M k > h h 2 6 p . P O C T M a H H c ]) . o 3 a e M H . 6 a H K e 1 7 8 6 r . H i o h h 2 8 p . B 3 H T B H TO H a C T p a X M e a c e B . h h c t p y k . n O H H H O K M h h h h M a p T a . flO C T O H y flH W H H a n p H M . n p H 3 M B a H H e: rip H 3 b iB a H H e o i e p y e T H e n o c p e n c T B e H H O n o o i e n p e j y io i K e H H H . ??? H. H e x : h . 1 C T p . 1 9 7 HJI. h . 2 , C T p . 3 6 n O B e C T H H K C T a p H H . 3 p p a B m o C T a p H H . H e c T o p [ o B a ] H e x [ o n H C b ] B a > K H B a K )C b r p o 3 a y M b i K a i o H o c n e T H n e p e f l r o p o f l b e C T a p H H . r p H B H a C T a p H H . ( 2 + , 3 ) r p H f l H H p a H r p H flH H C T a p H H . (1) r p o 6 H H , r p e 6 j i n C T a p H H . K y r a a i o c H C T a p . M O B H H C T a p H H . M b IT O O T H b n o C T a p H H H O M y ( u n d e r o t c h i i S I . ! !! ) p O H fl C T a p H H . C B e C T b C T a p . C T a B H T b CTHT C T a p H H . C b lH O B e p C T a p H H . ( 6 ) T a n b C T apH H . H h k . nen | H h k o h : ner: | H. J l. ( 1 ) O o a c H H p a 6a6m o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 341 SECULAR SOURCES | Pocc. ;ie T . no Hhk. c n n c K y . NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. 6 o jio H b e (2) B aa c fly C B a«a B a» cy y s o H CBHTKa C TapH H . H 0B 03H H K n a B o n o K a C TapH H . n 0 B 0 3 B03H TB BOTOTWHblM C T ap. naB O H O U H TblH B e a c a (2) B peM eH H H K B e ip H H C T apH H . B ea y H H flo n o c n y a c e d H H K H3BCTHHK HOM OKaHOH r p e n . e flH H O co B e T e n 2 ) r p a f l h j i h r o p o f l CTOHHHHblH ( b (2) r o c T b A peB H H X K H H ra x ) (2) r o c T b 6 a n p H r o p o R O K C T ap. rp o M H b iii rp a H o fijiiO flH e c x a p . n p e « a T e /ib H b if i TO pO flH fl C TapH H . A o 6 p o fle H C T B n e r p H B H a ( b c T a p H H y ) (2) C K H n eT p o aep aK aB H e r p y n a H ecH T H H a A apO B H TW H CHeM H C beM fleC B TH H H O ft (C T a p .) aceH O nO K O pH B M H H e cH T o e n p e y f lH B n a i o C TapH H . ( 3 ) y 3 o p o n n e fleTCK H H C T ap. H H o n e c T B y io H eK H n aceH (3) 3HM OBHHj;e o d n a c T H . KHH>Ky H 0 3 0 p y H > C TapH H KOHHHa K Jian a (2) K O neH H H K K jie B O T a p b c x a p H H . KOM CBHine j m e o m ie B e T a i o K p e c T H o e p e n o B a H n e KHHH B Cji. K pH K . . . n o flK p y n H B a io KJIHHaHHH C T apH H . O K yn KJIOCHblH (2) y fle m e H H b iH KHflH C T ap. KHH5KHH C TapH H . (4) M paM O pH H K K O p3H O C TapH H . OTM eTHHK K opM H H K C T apH H . ( u n d e r M e n e H o c e p kormchii SI.) n e p e M H p H b in K O T o p a io c b b H b iH e n iH eM M H r a e n b H3WKC p 33M O JIBHTb H e y n o T p e d H T e /ib H b iH M o n n a n n e H e n o B a T b K p e c r c x a p H H . n o M O T n a T H (sic) K y3H b C T apH H . O T M ecT H e ( u n d e r jiajjmx otmshchenie) n afle H H H K C T apH H . M eCHHHHa n y a a ( 2 ) 3HOHbipCTBQ j i y n y C T apH H . o p a n n o n y u a H c r a p H H . o c r p o r n p H n y n a H C TapH H . n a T p n a p x H H H b lC K ap b C T apH H . n o n e n a T a T b n r o f lb C T apH H . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 342 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. n e n j e p a (!) i i o /i o b h h ( u n d e r p l a v y i S I.) (4) B3BeTHHK C T ap. OTHOHOHHTb M H pyiO C TapH H . f l o n o m a HOMHHOK B C T ap H H y TaK nOJICTB H a 3 b iB a rm n o p T H in e n a M H T H a a K H H ra C T ap. n o p in e H B M o rra a n b H H K c r a p . n o a c M o m ra n b H b iH C TapH H . M O B H H ira ( u n d e r m o v n i a ) ( 5 ) n p o p a a c a i o C T ap. y p a a c a io 3aM H T H e c r a p . p o 3 H io ( u n d e r r a z n i u ) H a a p a C T apH H . n o p 0 3 H H T b C H H an p ac H C T B O C T apH H . p e a c y c b y H e B e n r a io 3 a p e u b e H eT H H C T apH H . (2) p a a c y c b (!!! p a> K y C T apH H . H H H ten K )6 H B b lft s a m e o d H O IU H b lH m e a n i n g ! ! ) nO H ap O B H H K C T ap. H 3pn> K aiocH ( s e e r i g h t o 6 a c a C T apH H . c o l u m n ) o r H e B a a 6 o ;ie 3 H b C K o p a o a a a y r a C T ap. H O c n e n iH b iH o c a o n C T ap . n o c T p n a c e H H H K O TH H ft n o C T apH H H O M y p a 3 C T p H ra io c b ( u n d e r 06e3C T yflC T B 0B aT bC H o t c h i i SI.!!!) n p o c e f l b i i i B c n a a K a C T apH H . o n a c C T apH H . (2) ( 6 ) 3 a r a o p O naC H tH K C T apH H . H 3 T O p a H 3 n e u a a o B a T b C T ap. T paBD IO Cb c n o n a T y p H H (T y p , h o w e v e r , s ta r .! ! ! ) n a a B H T H c a C T ap. 3 a T H H H a a n m i t a n b n o a o m a i o C T ap. y u H T e n b H b ift n o a c T H H ita C T ap. | q e n K a i j n o p o K H C T ap. m e n o M n o p T b i JOpTO BH IU e npoujeHHK C T ap. B c e n b H H u e ir H a n p y r H H C T apH H . n p a M H u a C T ap. n H T b p o T y (5) H 3 p a a a C T apH H . p o 3 H b ( u n d e r r a z n ’) v s t a r i n n o m u p o t r e b l e n i i p a M e H b C T apH H . s a p a T H T H c a c r a p . H 3 p y u a io p e s e H C T ap . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 343 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. p e io c H C T ap. p aflO B O H HOJIK C T apH H . p a a c y B C T apH H . y n o T p e d n e H H H H 3 p a » c a K ) c r a p . 6 e 3 H a p a f lH e c r a p , n o p a f l C T ap. H a c a fl C T ap. n o c a a c e H H H K C T ap. C B a T a io c b b c x a p . y n o T p e d n e H H H i i o c o 6 h b h h C T ap. C K BepH O TB O pK ) C T ap . C M e p n C T ap. CTOHBHHH r p a f l n o C T apH H H O M y ( u n d e r c t o h h h h b ih r o p o f l ) ( 2 ) C T p o n o T K b ift ( u n d e r C T p o n O T H b lH ) C T p b lfi CTHT ( b C TapH H H O M y n o T p .) c y x n o C T apH H . c y p H a C T apH H . c y x M e H b C T apH H . c o c e a i o c a OTCeH b C T apH H . ( 6 ) O T T e ru ra e n o C T apH H . ( u n d e r O T T e n e n b n e u t r . ) T H U iaiO C T apH H . T H yH ( u n d e r T H yM ) c r a p . T b U Ib e C T apH H . 3aTbX H H e C T apH H . TbICHHCKOH C T apH H . C T a p H H .: o x p a K XOpTbXH C T apH H . T en b H H K C T apH H . THT7HO C T apH H . B e jie y M n e X O p T b lH C T apH H . — B B efleH H e H h k . j i c t . n o n H o m H e ( u n d e r noxiH O H b) — r i p o f l . H h k . ;ie T . 6 a cK a n c T B O ( u n d e r 6 a c K a n e c T B o ) | H o B o r . J l e x . | H o B r o p . J l e T o n . | H o b . JieT. ( 1 ) depK O B en; 6 o p B e p d H H i^ a B e n e ( 2 ) ( 1 ) n o d e n H m e B O ip a H H u a C T apH H . n e p e B e T c r a p H H . n e p e B e T H H K C T apH H . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 344 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. B 3 B O H H T b B e f le n o c T a B H T b B e n e ( 2 ) ( 2 ) n o r o H A p a s r o H y r o H f l i o n o r p e 6 H a ftM H T ( 3 ) K p e c T o n p e c T y n H H K K p y n y c b ( 5 ) n o c a f lH H > i e f t ( b u t p o s a d n i k s t a r i n . ! ! ! ) n p e c T O f l c c T y n a r o c f l [ o n l y i n A T , n o t i n c l u d e d i n S A R ] ( 6 ) T B e p ^ b y r o T O B H T b [ A T o n l y , n o t i n c l u d e d i n S A R ] T H H K ) ( 2 ) r o c r e b H H K c x a p H H . r p a f lO B H b lf t C T a p H H . n o n y r p H B H a C T a p H H . r p H H H H u ,a h r p n n H f l C T a p H H . ( 2 ) H B O p H m e C T a p H H . ( 3 ) 0 3 H M H U a C T a p H H . n e p e 3 o p C T a p H H . K O T o p a o d e T i n a j i n e H B y b y T c r a p . ( 4 ) M H JIO C T H H K C T a p H H . c y n o p C T a p . ( 5 ) c r o n b C j i. 3 H auH T 0 flB O p flH C T B e ( C T a T b f l) I 0 f lB o p H H . | Q n p e H M y m . f l B o p f l i i , E K a T . I I o 6 H a p . 1 7 8 5 . A n p e j i . 2 1 | J f B o p H H . r p a M . C T a T b H 7 6 | > K a flO B a H . T p a M O T a H B o p f l H | A c a n o B a H . f l B o p . r p a M . | a c a flO B . f l B o p . r p a M O T a n o 3 B O f l f l e x c f l flB O pflH H H ( 2 ) c o o d i u a K ) nOM eiB(HUHH K H H r a P o f l o c n o B H a f l 6 a p o H 6 f l a r o n p H o 6 p e T e H H M H B H K y n H o e n p a B O 0 n p H u i e c T B . I l e T p a H . k A p x a H r e f l b C K y | O n p H i u e c T B . I l e T p a . B e n n i e k r o p o f l . A p x a m e f l . B C K p o ii O C flO n H b lft O r r a c a H H e B e / i o s e p o c a ( 6 ) T a r a c b i O n n c a H . K a a y a c c K a r o H a M . d e n o n o M e c T H W H O n H c a H H e [ 3 e M j m ] K a M M a T [K H ] | K p a T . o n n c . K a M H . ( 3 ) H H H flX a ( 4 ) M y x o M o p ( 6 ) x a e a c H b i e O n w c a H H e T a H 6 o B a ( 1 6 3 6 ) ( 3 ) K p e n o c r b ( 3 ) o d n a M b i c r a p . O n H C . 3 a n o p o K . c e n H . E a c e M . c o f l . 1 7 6 0 I . 4 1 1 h 4 1 4 ( 3 ) K y p e H H b iH O n b I T T p y flO B B o J I b H . P o c c . c o 6 p a H . | T p y n . P o c c . C o 6 . ( 4 ) B 3 n o n e ( 6 ) m a x o c T b m e p T b ( + ) ( 3 ) K O H IO IIIH H C T a p H H . K p a B n e f t C T a p H H H o e H e j n o d n e C T a p H H . ( 5 ) y p b i B C T a p . o c b i n a n o C T a p . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 345 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. nocan cxapnH. ocbinaro cxap. O flpeBH. Poc. I. 71 caHHHnen cxapnH. IIan[/iaca] nyx[einecxBne] caiccypKH IloBecT. Pocc. jupes. nepxa IloroBopKa incomplete (3) 30B nonan Ha 3ydbi IlocflOBHita incomplete (3 )30By Ilpam m t: im ct 2 Ha o6op. CXapHKOBIItHHa flpuroBopKH incomplete (3 )30By npoflo/i. np. Bhbji. | IIpoflOHac: npes. Pocc. Bhbtiho<|). | ripOflOJDK. Pocc. BnBJI. n030BHHK cxapnH. H. Ilon[oBCKHft:] E Ih c m . o c t h x . ? 6pyc H3 con. M. IlonoB[a] | JJocyrn IlonoB. aoixbe (non acnxne) cicynaM Petrov | B. riexp. Eh. | B. Ilexp. ( 3 )3a6oxa 33KOH aapa 3B0HKHH 3BepcxByio no/iy3Bepb npH3HaK Q3HpaiO aydep XpH3eBHbIH (3) 3MneBnacbin 3/raxbift 3penne Cji[obo] ElpeocB. IT/iax [oHa] Ha /laaapeno socKpeceHHe OK aflK ) IlyxemecxBHe JlenexHHa [AT only] nocKoxHHa [AT only, not included in SAR] PaxH- . ycx: (1) daxanbiK depeacaxofi doit doft nonomeBHbifi doitcbeMHoft cxeHodoH cxeHodnxHMH doHHHBblH 3adoflHHK dmi3HHa dpeBeHHon dpOHHHK dpycoBbin dypHocxb deryHen BannxncH H3B03Hbie rnonn 0d03H0H Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 346 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. n p H B O S H b ie mom B epB H M H BHH O T B o n aacH B aro BOJIOKHTHO p a 3 B e c BeCTOBIHHK (2) 2 ) r a c f jy r a m a r a x o B H H i ia C T apH H . ( n a c T b 2) p a 3 r H 6 H b r a ( 1 , CTp. 9 0 ) r a c a p w C T apH H . ( n a c T b 1 , H e 3 ro flH e , h H e 3 ro fla C T p .5 0 ) ro B O B a (3) r a c j i o C T apH H . (1, e x p . 71) rO A O B H blft (4) TB 03A O B aT bIH C T apH H . (2, r o p o K o n C Tp. y r a p 186) A aBH H ft T B 03A O BaTO C T apH H . (2, 186) n o o T fla B H io c b rp H B e H K a ( b A p eB . k h h t .) ( 1 ) a a a a i o c n ( 2 ) r p o T C T a p H H .+ nOHBHT p a 3 A a B u ;a A en ex cH O H C TapH H . o 6 a e p H y T b h t o n a p H C H H o io AH ByiOCb C T apH H . nOABOHOK H a A o 6 b e C T apH H . n o « b e M ( 2 x ) c b e A H H a n e H b e C T apH H . n p n e M e (J )p o c H H a C T apH H . n p o e M H b iH 3 a x c o r C T apH H . C b eM H b lft HAH C biO M H blft x c a r p a * e p e 6 e H 3Ke3A p a 3 M e p H O H C T ap. (3) o n o 3 H a r o c b 3H 3M H A o a n p a io (2) + 3H 3M A B C T ap H H y K aM eH K a n p H 3 o p (2) K a p a u b iH x a A H T a C T apH H : K a p x a y H a K a p T a y H H b ift KOHI B H b lH eH IH eM H3bIK e KAAII OAHOKOAHH n o f lK a n H B a io n o A K o n n o A K o n m H K K o n e iiH b ift OKOpM K o m e B b iii K p y > x a/ro x p e n b H e y n o T p e 6 H T e A . (4) p a r a . y cT a B 0 6 0 M KH yTb M OCTOBOft TOAOBa C T ap. CM blKaiOCb M yA T aH C T apH H . M o r o p e i i C M y ra C T ap. p a 3 M e p H b IH o p r a H x a c r a p . M e x n e n a A b C T ap. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 347 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. c aM o n a flb H H K 3 a n a a 3 ana/ii> H M H i m a m )K e;ie3H biH B3IIOJIOX B3IKMIOHIHMH n o p o x o n e j i e u n p a n o p n p o T a s a H H H K H a n y c K n p a c o n i m m a n b c r a p r a . ( 2 ) n o jm a H H H C TapH H . n p o T a 3 a H C T a p u n . (5) p o ra T H H a B b ip y 6 3 a p y 6 e H b h 3 a p y 6 C H apH fl p a a p H ix a io H aflcaflH O n o c o 6 n e ( u n d e r n o c o d c r a o ) ji,o c n e n iH b iH flo c n e u iH H K C T o p o x < e B a a r o /i o B a o c r e p e r a T e ^ b H b if t y c T p o e H H b iii cn>Ky M a /io y n o x p e d . p o d jiH B b iii C Tap. B 3 p y 6 C T apH H . o p y a c e fiH b iH c r a p o p y a c e n b H H C T ap. O C aflH blH B CTapH H HO M y n o T p . n o c a f l C T ap. C B eT b iu n o c T a p H H . ( u n d e r s v e t o c h n e u t r . ) c r p a a c a ( 6 ) p a T H . y c T a B 3aTpaB O U H H K ( u n d e r 3aT paB H H K ) T y p b i T y n io c b 3 aT H H H aa m i m a m . 3aT H H H bift C T p e n e p OHTeUJHHK C H 6M H IO c n ,e n c p e n H b if t u e K M a p b u y n p H H a n ia H u o B a H r o j i o s a m a n u o K o n ( + ) ru a H U O K o n H b ifi in a H iiy io L u a ii'iy ro c b o d m a H U O B a T b n o A in a H p o B a T b n p m u a H U O B a T b niK O H iiH B biii UIKOflHO m o d o p T a p T o y ji f l0 3 0 p m H K C TapH H . 3 a T b m b H O H C T p e n o K C T ap. (2) n p H T y n H e C T apH H . 3aTHHIH,HK C T apH H . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 348 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. acax(1) PeKpyT. ynpenm. 1766 c t b t 2 M eJ IK O n Q M eC T H B IH Pen. ncoBbix o x o t h h k o b nofl03peTb 3Bepa Pent C kh< J> ckhx x io cjio b k Anex: Ben: y Kypnna T O P03M C K | P03M C X . K H H F . (3) K pecTBO BaH H e, a. 1. ra. 6 nepeKpeipHBaro, n. I l l, ra. 20 (5) cK H T O H aaajibH H K , 29 (6) xpH C T O BipH H a (biased), j i h c t 25 h 29 Ban, nacTh 1 (6) niapoBHMH, k h . 1, ra. 5 Pyxon. khhx. 3a pyxoio HnxoHa IlaTp. 3apHHpa [= Hacnenne] PyxonHCKoft cnncoK papa 4>eopopa H BaH O BH na o IIO B O p O T H O M nO IIM H H e. nyno (crapHH. M O H eT a) PycK. IlpaBfla | PIpaB. Pyccxaa B H R O X C B O fl B IipH H K BH pH blft rpnBHa C T apH H . rpH PH H C T ap H H . PycK. npaspa h o b . H 3 ,n ,a H H B (6) xonon odenbHOH, poK napH O H (4) HoraTa (crapHHHaa... M O H eT a) o6en C T apH H . O T H H ipaH K H C T ap H H . O T H H IH H H H T H yH C T ap H H . onex C T apH H . OTapnna C T apH H . naxoma C T ap H H . (5) p o 6 h t h C T ap . peM eC T B eH H H K C T apH H (under neutral peM ecneHHHK) ypO K (B C T ap H H H O M ynoTpedn.) p y d n b b C T apH H y ... p e 3 crap. C pe3H T H C T ap. pap B C T ap H H H O M ynoTpedaeHHH (2) paA O B H H C T apH H . papa b C T apH H . ynoTpedneHHH (6) THyn C T ap. xenon K adanbH O H crapHHHoe Ha3BaHne... Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 349 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. Cn6 np: h c t : T e i u i o B a a i cTapHHy H b . M b . IIIyBajioB b h t h b (under b c t h b ) CKa3aH H e 0 6 ocafle TpoHpKoro M O H O C T bipa: Bshthc TpoHpKoro M O H O C T bipa 1 ) BQ3HJI0 2) roHbda B sropoK rp O M H b lH pa3rpoM (1) C K H neT poflepacep Ha#o/i6a flO M O BH blft B o c n p n e M H H K (3) 3epH in,H K o63Hpaio 6e3K O H H bIH (4) M e J IH B O Meuenocep O T M ecT H H K (under otmstitel’) odH HaceH H e H eM O T yio (under nemotsvuiu) (2) ruieHyio (under pleniu) (5) H3pyneHHe pyH flyK p y u e B H H a C K H neT poflepacep nocnemecTBO ocTpynjunocs (6) Tadop o x p ad p H T B C H jDKeuapb majiocTb noipaacneHHe n p H p e / i b e3flHBO C T apH H . ro H K a C T apH H . r o c y a a p H H C T ap. ( + ) r p a n o B H b if t C TapH H . rp a ^ o e M C T B O C T ap. rp a M O T a C T apH H . (3) p a 3 R O H b e n p o c T O p e u . (3) nofl3HpaTaft K 03H C T B 0 C TapH H . O T J iw ra io yjieruemie (4) Meneu; C T ap H H . 3 a M b X H U ie H H H K C T a p . H a x p a C T a p H H . H eM K O C T apH H . npO C T O > K e H e M T b ip b n e u H B o C T ap. (5) peMecTBo no C T apH H H O M y 6e3peMecTBo pyHHHpa C T ap. 3apyniHTbCfl C T ap H H . odpbiflaT H O C B eT aT H HacBeipHHK C T ap. ( 6 ) n O T a K O B H H K n p H T p a n e 3 H H K x p a d p c K H o x p a d p H T b C T ap. (2) CodecenHHK: IH3 codecefln; rOTXOBOJIOMHblH flp H H b (6) Tax (quote from Dashkova’s “Poslanie k slovu tak,” published with Derzhavin’s “Felitsa” on the first pages of Sobesednik.) T axaH be CodpaHHe BoeHHbix opyflHh ( 5 ) C H a p g f l CojioBeitKHH JleTonHcep Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 350 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. C r e n e H [ H a f l ] K n [ n r a ] ( 4 ) M e c T ( u n d e r m s t o ) ( 5 ) 3 J i o p a f l s a o p a f l H b i f r c o n p e n n e ( 6 ) T a H M H U H I I I H H ft H 3 T O p a y c M o m e e p S JIO X H T pC T B O C a M O H H H H e i m i d e H H e o 6 o h m o o c n o n C T a p . n p e n p o c n r e c r a p H H . p a 3 n p a n o c r p a H . (? s i c ) C r o n i a B H . B o n p o c 1 7 x y j r C T a p H H . C y a . n p a B e x u H K n p o T p a B a n o n e ( b c r a p u H y ) 6om>moft n o n x c r a p H H H . n e p e a o B o f t n o x x C T a p H H H . C T O p O X C O B O ft n O H X C T a p H H H . e p T a y j i b H o f t n o / i x C T a p . c n p a B a b C T a p H H . n a p e s . n H T e H E q H X ( u n d e r n a T H a n i H H x ) C T a p H H . C y « e 6 . | C y a e d H . | C y j j e d H H X | H 3 c y a e O H H K a u e p H b i e r a o f lH n o n e T H a a ( 3 ) x o p M n e H H e c d o a p c x H M c y a o M h j i h 6 e 3 O H a r o C T a p H H . n o j i b m H x C T a p . n p O T H B e H b B C T a p H H y n p o n a T e H b e c r a p H H . C T BT O K O T T H T H B a T b C H C T a p . yT H X C H T b C T a p H H . C y n e 6 H . c T O J iK O B a n . T a T H i p e s a | C y s . c T o n x . | C y a e d H . c t o j i x . T a M . ( s i c ) H O IH JIH H H H X c o x a n e p e c y a u H K O n p H H H H X C T a p H H . c p o u H a n C T a p . p o x o r n C T a p . n p a B a a , n e s a s p y x a C T a p . p y u b C T a p H H . c y f l 6 o n p c x o H c y f l C M e c T H O ii C T a p H H . 6 e 3 c y f l n a f l r p a M O T a C T a p . H a c n C T a p . c e n o x c a T B a C T a p . C y f l e d H . I f . H . B . 7 0 5 8 r o a a f ly d H H a C y n ,e d H [ H x ] I f a p a H s a H a B a c r o i b e B H u a d o x p H H BOTlOCTb ( + ) B O flO C T eJ IM H H H IIO B b lT O K IIO B b lT H O B o n o c T e n b C T a p H H . xcajio6wu,a C T a p H H . H c a n o B a H b e ( b C T a p H H y ) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 351 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. noacHnoe ikukhh noacenHMft CTOHTb y rpaM oxbi [A T only, n o t in clu d ed in SAR] CyMapoKOB: ( 1) B om yiocb p a3BpaT (2) ryflOK flep30CTb Hep30CTHbIH /i,oar (3)Ha3afl 6 e33aKOHHHK 3aHUHCT nHTb 3a 3flpaBne [zdravie SI.] SflOpOBO npH 3HaHHe 3HaKOMbiii 3pHHHH 3y6 n a 3y6 3y6 aTbiii 3eBaio nan o6jimax) (5) poirraH be (u n d e r ponTaHHe n eu tr.) (6 ) aaceyHHTeab (3 ) 3sep b C 03H«ai0 C 0 3 M T e J Ib 3pK) n p e 3enbHbifi (6 ) THTyn naT. TaM05K. ycT. 1571 t o r . | TaM. y cr. 1751 (sic) | TaMoacen. ycT. 1751 (3) K O C JH C npOMblTHTb UJiaBHbXH npOMblTHTb naaBHbiii nyflOBin,HK CTap. (6) TaM5 « y CTap. npoTaM oacbe crapHH. npOTaMKHTb CTapHH. (2) TaMoac. ycT: 1572 rofla TaMoac. ycraB Lfapa H Bana BaauibeBHHa 1571 MOpHHKa CTapHH. onpnuH H a CTap. [Khsdkhhh:] T parefl: PoccnaB rpycTHO Tparefl. CnHaB. h T p y s. acene30 Y ic a 3 . Ifapa H oaH H a B acH /rbC B H H a p a 3UHHBIO Yica3 1714 Mapxa 13 h 1725 rofl. Mana 24 hhcji. BbixynHoe npaBO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 352 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. Yicas 1 7 2 2 rcwa, A n p e r a 6 # h h K 0 3 b ip b Y K a 3 1 7 8 1 r o f la . A n p e B . 3 . H H O ia. p a d o n e f t HOM y K a 3 H . KH. 13 OKpeCHHIO y jioB ceH H e ( 1 ) B e p a ( 2 ) H o e 3 « H a fl n aM B T b C T apH H . ( 3 ) y 3 o p o H H b iii x o a c e H o e o h B e s x c a a ro B O B a C T ap. c x m x y c b ( u n d e r c x o x m y c b 3 ) 3H aM H Ch.) H 0 3 0 p H a i0 K H H ra C T apH H . HCK ( 2 ) OTXOHCHlt C T ap. H C T ep K e B a p b r p e n . H CTIJOBHH n o K B O B cea c x a p . od^bHCKHBaiO OK O BBH H H C T apH H . o d ’ BHCK ( 2 ) 0 6 'bH CK H biH ( 2 ) KOpM O BO H B C T apH H . 0 6 'b H m H K y n o T p e h B e H H H CHHCKHBaK) ( 2 ) K p a B u e H c T a p H H H o e CbHCKHBaiOCb BHCHBBK) C T apH H . ( 2 ) C tH C K H B aT bC fl MOKB/y C 060H 3 O nO B H H H H T b C T ap. CbICK ( 2 ) BH XyiO C T apH H . CbllU H K B H X O B aH H blH odbIC K C T apH H . K a d a n a ( 3 ) H 3 B a r a io x a d a n b H O H ( 3 ) 6 e 3 K a 6 a n b H O H 6 e 3 K a 6 a n b H O H aK a3H bIM O T K a3H bIH ( 2 ) B K H H yT b B T IO pM y K B e n m o n o K /ie n n o K B e n H b iii KBHUy nO K BO H H O e jo ie T b [b Cb. it means something B y n a io c H C T apH H . ( 2 ) else!!] n o K O Jie H H O n p H K ap M T iH B aio npoKopM K o p ^eM H H i^a K O p H M ap b H O B O K p em eH H b ili H O B O K p em eH ep HaKpHBe K p eilK O H COH HaKpenKO B b iK y n H o e n p a B O OKynaiocb______ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 353 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. O K yn jc y p s /ia io B H JiraH H H H n p o a w r a i o c b n o jiH H H o e y jm ic a 6 e3 n eT H O ( 4 ) y n o :* . H aM eT H blH nOflM CT M O C T O B ipH H a ( u n d e r M o s t o v o e ) MOCTOBHJHK M O T naH H e m h t u h k ( u n d e r m y t n i k ) ( 2 ) y M b im /ie H H e M eHHIO M eHHIOCb M eH O B H blH H SM eH H H H d e a o M e c r e u ( u n d e r b e l o p o m e s t e t s ) M a n o n o M e c T H b ift C T aponO M eC T H blH H H 30B M H H n 0 H H 3 0 B b IH c o u e f t H a o h h BOTHHHa n p o c T o ( u n d e r o t c h i n a n o t m a r k e d SI.!!!) BOTUHHHbiH n p o c T o ( u n d e r o t c h i n n y i n o t m a r k e d SL) b o t h h h h h k ( u n d e r o t c h i n n i k , ili - ) s a n a n e H H e p a a n a m K a p a 3 n a i u H o f t H O B o p a 3 n a u iH O ft n e u a T H a a n o im iH H a OTHHCB n p u n i r c K a o ru ia n H B a io c b n o jio H e H H K ( u n d e r p l e n n i k n e u t r . ) M MTO n o M e c T b e C TapH H . n o M e c T H b if i (2) n o M e c T H o f t n p m c a 3 C T apH H . o n a c H a a rp a M O T a c r a p H H . n e p e n H C H a a K H H ra n o a o H C K H ft C TapH H . n o / m a a n o p O T b H O S flp n B CTapH H HO M y n o T p e d a e H H H n p a B Q H fle caT O K C T ap. n H T b T a 6 a K n p o c T O H a p . h C T apH H H O e n u r y x n a T H H a b apeiiH O C T H . . . b H o B e r p a a e Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 354 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. n o n c v iH K a ( u n d e r p o p o l n e n i e ) n p a B a a rp a M O T a n p a s H T b h o o t h , fle H B ra n p a s e x c n p a B e a c H M H y n p a B a p a 3 n p o c p a 3 n p o c H B ie p e u H 3 a n o p n p y flO B b ift 3 a n p y f lH b ili flo n p H M a O TixyrH BaK ) B iiy c T e n y c T o u i b nyT H B IH rra e n b H H K n H T a io n H T K a nblT O H H blH n H T e t e a a n p o f la a c a (5) y n o a c e H H e O T p a d o T b iB a io c b o t p o t t o k ( u n d e r o t r o c h n i k ) pO flC T B eH H blfl B nO pO flH T bC fl CTapH H HO M H e f lo p o c n b y n o T p e d jie H H H c p o a i b i H nO p y T H H K B CTapH H HO M O TCpOHHblH y n o T p . po> K a n o p y x a 3 a p y 6 e a c H b iH H a p B ftH H H b C T apH H . y n o T p . n o p y d e a c H b if t (2) (2) H ap y ra T e /ih C T B O o i o b o H e n p H r o K e e C T apH H . n o p y r a T e n b cjiyxcwrbiti C T ap. 3 a p y u H b iH H e n o a iy iiiH H K c r a p . n o p y u H b if i COUIHBie JHOflH C T apH H . p a f lH a a r o n r p n f lH a a a a n n c b C T a p o c T a ry d H O H c r a p . A O C JiyxcH B aiocb COTHfl B C T a p H H y ... flo c M a T p H B a ro COTeHHOH TOHOBa C T apH H . flOCM OTp COTHHK c t o h b b ih h k ( u n d e r c T o a a e i j ) descyanafl rp a M O T a C T ap. C T a H (3) n e p e c y n ; b C T apH H . C T aH O B blii n o c r o a a o e n p o c y ^ H T b C H B C T apH H . npO C T O H C T a B m o cb ( 2 ) n o f lC T a s a C T p a r r a a c y a o B o f i x o f l 3H aM eH O B aH H H Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 355 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. sacy flH T B n o c y n 3 a c e u H b ifi (6) T ad ax H H K ( u n d e r x a d a u iH H ic ) CTaKHBaiOCb c x a u ic a x a M r a xaT H H M H T a x e d H b iil H s x e p a x b x o n o u y x o a o K a ( u n d e r x o a o u e H H e ) BblXCWIOHHXb BblXOBOUeHHblH n o x p a B a n o x p a B a e H H b if t | uenoB aabH H K O T p e /iO B a x H C fl B ix en e u e p n a f l b o jio c x b u e p n a a c o x h h C 3« flo e 3 fl H 3 e fla io (2) n p o e c r a HBJIHIO H eBBO U H blH Be3bH B O U H O o 6 r b S B m m c b ( 1 + ) H CaU H blH (2) 3 a 3 b iB H a a rp a M O x a 6e3 bH M H H H O x a r n o X H rab iH ( 2 ) x a a c y c b h x a r a i o c b x o j io iic x b o n p o x a M O x a ,e c x a p n H . y x e i o i e p Y jio a c e H H e o f l B o p jm a x n iM H o e a b o p h h c x b o y ^ O M e H M e O flB O pflH C T B e 0X B 03H bIH ABOpflHCXBO (1,2) nO K O /ieH H blH Y n o aceH Jie IJ ^ a p . A n eK C . Mnxaft. H axH c y n c ro jiQ B b i 3 f la n a 3eM B H , n o M e c x b a 3flaX O H H bIH (1,2) Hanaro n a f lA a u a a a f l n p a i o (3) 3 a « o p (1) HeCHXHH c f la x b 3eMK>, n o M e c T b e ( b c x a p H H y ) eM-cno H M aro n p H JIH H H O fl flB O p c x a p . x a r a o f t flB o p c x a p H H . n o a c e r c x a p n H . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 356 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. flecH TCK O il ( 3 ) n o a c e a e 3 H o e c x a p H H . f le T e n b iin (1) aceH K a b C T a p H H y ... .n o d p io atH B O T b i [ u n d e r atH B O T G i . , e.3'b b u t BblM aK ) i n * m e a n i n g : s a e M H a ro naM H T b H M e tm e , H aftM H T c r a a c a H H e ...] n e p e e M n o a tH T O K C T apH H . n e p e H M a x b n p o a tH T O K C Tap. E n H C K o ru n , n p o c T o a te E i m c K o n o a b C K ufi A p x H e n H C K o m ib , A p x H e n H C K o n o a c K H H a c a a o B a a b H b iH 3 a a tH r a io 3 a a o t r a T e a b n o jta c H r a io n o x o t r a i o n o a ta c e H H e p a 3 a tH r a K ) c a atH B O T H H H blH >KHxeHCKaH 3 a n n c b a o m e itK H H a t n a a a 3 a n w c b a o u i o e C T a p o a tn a e it o d a tH B a ro c b a e e p e d e f i t h t j io h n p o a tH T O H H b iH . c x a p . ( 2 ) Y c x a B x n e d o jio M J ie im e b n e p K O B H b ix K H u r a x Y c T a B j j a p a H o a H H a B a c m ib e B H H a [ s o u r c e o n l y m e n t i o n e d i n AT, n o t i n SAR] a a fly H K a Y c t . d n a r o u . B 3 ao M ( u n d e r B 3 /io M aH H e ) n p n c T a B rp a a y ta H C K H x s e n . Y c t . b o h h c k . d p n r a f l a cjjpaH U . Y c T a B : r a a s : X p a H H T ea b H H K Y CTaB. n ep K O B H . d y n n a b H H K Y u p e JK fl. r a . 1 16 O x p y r r a . 1.18 O K p y atH b ift c t . 2 1 3 flB o p H H C K aa o n e ic a Y u p e a y i . o F y 6 . | Y u p o t y t . B e p m e H H e p a T M a n H eM . | Y u p e x . f la n y n p . r y d e p H . | n e p e s e p i n a i o n o c a f l c r a p H H . Y u p e a c fl. r y d e p H . | Y H p e a y u o o d a a c x b ( + ) n a a a T a a a T . y n p . F y d e p H . | B m c o h . y u p e a c . o B O p y n p a B jr. r y d e p H . j B m c o h . o a6enh h k , a d e f lH H ira ( 1 ) r v d e p H . v u p e a e n . . . . 1 B b ic o u . COBeTHHK Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 357 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. r y 6 e p H . y n p e a c f l . . . . | B m c o h . y H p e a w e H . jyin y n p a B a . P o c c h h c k . H m h . § 2 5 0 p a 3 n p a B a n p o K y p o p C T p a m e H K a 3 e H H b ix nen, c r p a n - neii y i w i B H M x M en c T p f l n n e H y e 3 f l H H f t B e p x H H f i 3 e M C K H fi c y f l HH5K H H 11 H a H B O p H H H C y fl B e p x H H f i H a f l B o p H b i f i cyp, c o B e c T H O f i cyn y e 3 f l H M H cyn o 6 m ; e c T B e H H o e n p H 3 p e H H e n p o x y p o p C T e n e H H b if i T o p r o B a a x a 3 H b n a a a T a r p a a c a a H C K a r o c y n a n a a a T a y r o a o B H o r o c y « a ? [ s e e a l s o H s B e c T . o C T a p H H . c r e n . h h h o b , r e f e r e n c e , n o t c l e a r ] B a a e x c H H K B o c n p : n e T : | B o c K p e c e H C K . j i e T o n n c b ( 6 ) T a s a p b i ( 3 ) T O B a p ( u n d e r T a B a p ) ( 2 ) n o T K H y T b ( 5 ) C T H r. ( B C T a p H H H O M y n o x p . ) ( 2 ) C T S T O B H H K C T a p H H . ( 6 ) T a a b C T a p H H . Mwxawi X e p a c K O B ( 3 ) 3 a p r o m a .a B y 'iy M.X. P o c c H a f l . ( 3 ) S B y ' i y 3 a e n i H H H n p n 3 M B a m t e ( 5 ) meopeu, Poccuadu [ s a m p l e p h r a s e ] ( 3 ) 3 f la H H e 3 H a K 3 a a T b i i l 0 3 / r a i i i,a iQ 3JIO M.X. B / ia f l . B C 3 fle 3 p K J C b [ H b . H b . I I I y B a j i o B : ] B H T H H 3 a K . lO c T H H H a H n o « y 3 a c x a p H H . S a n w c K H k H C T o p . I l e T p a B e f lH K a r o ( 4 ) O H H C H H K 5 8 8 [ s i c ] O T i m c b I I , 1 7 4 n p H H H C b - n p o n n c K a , IV, 1 9 5 n a e a c H H a X , 1 2 2 o n e m H T b c a V I I I , 3 4 ( 5 ) o d p o H K a I I , 2 1 1 . ( 5 ) p O H H H C T a p H H . n a c e x a ( 6 ) T a p x a H T a T a p Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 358 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. n o c n e m e c T B O I V . 1 2 4 , 1 5 3 ( 6 ) p a 3 T O K x a r a e i r 4 > y 3 e H H H K ,I J o n o ; i H . k H c t . n.B . | f l o n o r m . k h c t . I l e T p . Ben. J F o j i h k o b . f l o n o j i H . k H c T o p . n. B . B p e c H O T y ( !! ! p e c H O T a a l l o n e S I .) y r H H I I I , 5 0 0 o x p a O p H T b C H , 2 , 3 0 6 Q IU IO H IC T B O C T a p . H a p y n H C T a p . n o n p M H f l a c r a p . 3 a c e H H B I H C T a p H H . n o p a 3 p 0 3 H H T B C B C T a p H H . [ E K a T e p H H a : ] 3 a n [ n c K n ] K a c [ a T e B b H o ] P o c c h h [ c k o h ] H c t o p [ h h ] | 3 a n . K a c a T . H c r o p . P o c . 1 3 a n n c K . P o c c h h c k . M c T o p n . ( 2 ) n e w 1 , 1 . ( 3 ) 3 a K O H M r p a a y p H C K H e 0 3eMnn 0 K a c a T e ^ b H o [ s a m p l e n o t r e f e r e n c e ! ! : S a n w c K H K a c a T e r i i H o P O C C H H C K O H H C T O p H H ] K H H >K y 0 3C M C K H H 0 ( 3 ) c o 3 H f l a H H e 0 ( 5 ) c e n e n b H H K ( b C T a p H H y ) I I I , 4 7 4 ) e o 4 > [ a H ] E [ p o K o n [ o B H H ] 3 a 6 o 6 o H B i I f a p c T B e H : o 6 i p . K H H r a | L f a p [ c T B e H H a a ] K H [ n r a ] | L f a p c T B e H . K H H r a | D r a p e r . K h . 3 a r p y 6 H T i> f l a i o n p a B f l y O T fla T b B H H y , n p o c T y n x y B O H O U IH B b lH X C a B O B a B b H b lH ( 3 ) n o f l 3 e M e ; m e , n o f l 3 e M e ; i b e 3 b I H H b lft j i e r n a i o H H X O H eO T JIQ H C H blH mo6o ( 4 ) M H p o B a « r p a M O T a 6 e 3 n o M e c x H M H n e n a n y i o c H ( 5 ) n e p B O C B H T H T e n b X ie p B O C B B T H T e n b C T B O n o c o 6 a ( u n d e r p o s o b s t v o ) n o c o n i H b i f i n e n o B a n b H a H 3 a n n o , H i H b a i o n c a K ( 2 ) H C aT H H K fle C H T H b lft r p H B e H K a c x a p H H . ( 2 ) H c e H H T B a n p o c T o a c e H c e H H T b b a ( 3 ) H Q K O H U a J Ib H b lH C T a p H H . 3 a K o n C T a p H H . K O p M O B H T H K C T a p H H . K o p M n e H H e b C T a p H H y . . . K O H I B H b lH e iH H e M B 3 b I K e H e y n o T p e 6 H T e n . ( 4 ) B C T a p H H H O M y n o T p e b n e H H H o n a n a ( 5 ) n p H p O H C e H H b lH C T a p H H . p a c a B e p C T a p . H 3 p O H C T a p . O H H O p H flO K C T a p H H . C T O JIbH H K C T a p H H . ( 6 ) T a p a C T a p H H . ( 2 ) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 359 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. L fa p : Jie x : | IJ[a p c T [B e H H b ifi] pa3B Q X cy o d e T H M H J I e T o n [ H c e p ] p a 3 B e p 3 a io M H p B e n e n e p e s e c H e C T apH H . B en eB b iH k o jio k o ji 2 ) r o B o p C T apH H . M ajIOBeBHbllft o d r o B o p C T ap . 6 e 3 B e p H e c r o p B o p K a C TapH H . 6e3H aB eT H H M B eH H K oe ro B e H H e ( b C T ap. flaaB eH H H a KHHT.) 3 r o n o B C T apH H . 2 ) n p e flT H H K rp a p o d H T H M H C TapH H . p a p o B a H H e (3 )0 3 eM C T B 0 B aH H b IH p e B T e p b ( b C T apH H . n e r .) K a T o p r a p eM ecT B O ( p o c n e s K o n o p a C T a p H H H b in ) o ic p e r w f lio c b fleCH TH H H H K C TapH H . f le n n C T apH H . ( 4 ) M eTbU Ib n p H H T H H K C T apH H . CMHJXOBaTbCH c y e M h j i h cyH M c r a p H H H o e p a 3 M C H H aa 5KHTHH H HCHTbH THOflH M ejKHOM ecHHHe B 03M H T eH H e C T apH H . n o H iO K aio (under nukaiu) ( 3 ) 3 e n e tiH H K n e jib ( u n d e r p l e v y S I.) O T3H M H e C T apH H . n p H M /tro 3H aM eH IH H K C T apH H . K e p a M H p a , h h h x e p a M H p a ( 5 ) 6 o r o p o f lH u e H p e n e H H e r p e n . p e p K O B H o e ( n o t m a r k e d K O T O paiO C b B H blH eiH H eM S I.) C M epT O H O cne H 3bIK e C b ip o flf le p H e y n o T p e d H T e rtb H b iH KOpOM OJTbHHK HO C TapH H . ( 6 ) T aeM ( u n d e r 3 a x n H n a io c H , - i h h c h . . . n e u t r a l o x y p e T b k r a m o l ’n i k ) IH H flbH H K n a B H p a C T ap . n p e n y x aB C T B O B aT H ( u n d e r H 37iyK aBCTB O BaTH ) h i o 6 o b h h k b C T ap. k h h t o x ( u n d e r n e u t r . ) /HOflCTBO C T apH H . ( 4 ) c y M e T M O H H pa C T apH H . npH M O C T M OTHaiO C T apH H . H 3 H b ip H H C T ap. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 360 SECULAR SOURCES NEUTRAL SLAVONIC ET AL. coBonpomaiocH coBonponxeHHe npOCTMHH ( 5 ) H3paBHHBaK> CTapHH. p T a C T a p H H . o 6 e p y n b H3pH2CaiO CTap. 3 a cx eH H e CTapHH. cy p H a CTapHH. ( 6 ) TeJIbHHK CTapHH. B ejieyM H e xp H C T H aH ory6eu ; CTapHH. U jH U ep. C7IOB. 1 4 npO TH B A h t o h h h H poH H H r p e n . [n p H M ep : n p H H T H b l 6e3CM epTH bIM 6 o r a M 6 y n y T n a m H fiH aroflapeH H H h acep T B bi H am H n o y6H eH H H TOHHKaro M H O xcecTBa r p a a tn a H .] f lf lp o Pocc. HCT. y c e'ieK Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 361 APPENDIX C LIST OF ENTRY WORDS ILLUSTRATED WITH QUOTATIONS FROM LOMONOSOV SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL SLAVONIC B a c M a ( J l e T o n H C . 1) ( l ) d a d o m c a H S B a B ^ a i o d a r p H H H it a d a r p o B B i f t d m o / t y d a r p H H b i n d m o s y c f l d e r e M O T e B p . d o f l p c T s y i o 6e p e r y 6o p i o c b 6e p e r 6 p a K c o d n p a i o i w o h h d p a n n b i H 6 h k > 6 p a H B 6 o h d p a H H b i f i d n a a c e n c T B O d p e H H b i f t d j ie c K 6 p o 3 . n a 6 ; i e m y B 0 3 6 y > :< fla K ) f i j i H c x a i o 6 y p a 3 a 6 f f y a c j i a i o 6 y p H b i i i d jie flH C K ) 6 e flC T B H e n a d / n o ^ a i o H 3 B a f lH H b I H d o r a T C T B O H H 3 B e p r a i o d o r a H f l O T B e p 3 a i o 6o > K e c T B e H H b if i O T B e p c r a e 6 e 3 6 o a c H M H b h h o Jiar. o d o f l p j t i o c b o d n T e n b o d o f l p e H H b i i i B H X p d o p e f i B / i a r a n o d o p H H K , n o d o p H H p a s n a f l b i K a 6 o f l 3 H b B n a f l b lH H b lh * 6 p a 3 f l a B n e n y 6 p a T H 3 B J ie K a K ) d p o c a i o o d n a K d y p j i H B b i f i H 3 B H e 3 a 6 M B a i o B O H H C T B O H 3 6 b I T O K B o n x B O B a H H e 6 b I C T p b I H ( 1 , 2 ) s p a r ( 1 , 2 ) d b lC T p O s p a n 6e r ( 1 , 2 ) s p a n s d e r a i o n p e o d p a m a i o H a 6 e r o T B p a m a r o ( 1 , 2 ) 1 Lomonosov’s works are specified very rarely. Here the academicians refer to: KpaTKHH PocchhckhH neronHcen c pojtoaioBHeM. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 362 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL n p n d e r a i o 6cm 6ejxHbiift 6 e s 6 e R H b i f i 6e36eja;HO no6ena 6enbm uoBeimreicb OTBepSKeHHMft noflB epaceH H iift noflBepraio B e p x n o B e p x H O C T B CoBepuiaiocb BeceBbHbiii BenepHHH 3aBH C Tb o6HTaTe;iH B i i x p e M BblO Cb p a 3 B H B a iO C b CBHBarocb BnacTb BBafleHHe B B a M e T e ^ b (+) o6jia,naT ejib BOBHa o 6 n e i i |H C H b c p a M O T y O T B Jie ic a io c b BOfla BOHHH B O e H H b lH BOHHCKHH BOHCKO BOIOIO flO B O JIbH blH H 3B O iieH H e II0 3 B 0 JIH I0 BOH e p a > K f la BpaHe6HbiH B p a T a BO3Bpamai0 B03Bpamaiocb B 0 3 B p a T HeB03BpaTH0 o 6 p a m a K ) o S p a m a r o c b o 6 p a T H o ___________________ SLAVONIC neBepne 0 6 e T 0 B a H H b IH Bem aio o6emaio (1,2) B H I H fflH H b h c c o h (under b h c c ) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 363 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL_____________ B p e > K y (non Bpexfly) B peflH T eB B H B lft B peH B peflH B IH 6 e 3 B p e flH b ift 6 e 3 B p e n H O n o B p e a tf le H H e B b ic o x a (3,4) BblCOKHH (1,2,3+) BHCOKO B b llH H H H B C eB b im H H B 0 3 B b iin aK > (3+) B 0 3 B b iraeH H M ll n p e B b i m a io n p e flB e B H b m H eB eacecT B O s e ^ a io O T B e+ H B aiO n o B C A a io n p o n o s e f l a T e n b BCHBaK) B e m a io c H B eH H aH H e B eH + aH H M H BepHO B e p o n o M e i; BepO H THO CTb H eB epO H T H bJH H 3 y B ep H e H M O B e p H b iii B H T H esaT b lH HaseT 6 e 3 H a B e T H b if t OTBeT COOTBeTCTByiO npH B eT C T B O COBeT ( 1 ) BeT bB b 6 e 3 B e C T H M H B03Bemaio B 0 3 B e iX I,a iO C b n p e f lB 0 3 B e m a io (2+, 3+) H3BeC TH M H (2) npe^Bemaio n p e flB e c T H e B e io s e x p [ h j w c a a se H C K o e , n o t c le a r ] pa3BeH H H bIH _________________________ SLAVONIC Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 364 SAR VOLUM E NEUTRAL SLAVONIC o 6 a 3 a H H b IH y B H seH H B iii B e m je M y B H 3 a io H ey B H flaeM b ifl ( 2 ) r a a a H H e ro p r tb lH H r e p o h r o c n o j t b r e p o f tc K H ii r p a j t , n p o c T o a c e r o p o a re p o fiC T B O r p w c T H y c T H e n o r a 6 e n b ( 1 ) , 2 ) ) r p n a y r a a B a r p n a y i i t H H H e 3 a rn a flH M b iH o r y c T e s a i o r a a c ( 3 ) , 6 ) ) fla B e fle rn a c H O B 03flB H raK » n i a i i i y B 0 3 flB H rH y T H 6 p a H b ( n o t B o a r a a in a K ) e x p l i c i t l y m a r k e d SI. b u t c o r a a c y i o c b r i g h t a f t e r v o z d v i g a i u ) c o r a a c H O a e p 3 a i o ( 2 x ) ra y S o K K fi * a e c H H ita ra y 6 o K H H c o h A n a H b r a y 6 n H a n p a r H H B 03A 0X H yT b H 3 n iy 6 H H b i, h m H3 H b ix a n H e 6 y p H o e r a y 6 n H b i c e p w a OTflO XH O BeH He B3171KH B3CMIO H a r6 e H H b ifi o d 'b eM B K ) ( 2 x ) p a 3 r H 6 a io np H eM JiH K ) ( 2 x ) r a y m a i o c b n p e fln p H e M B K * ( p r o s e ! ) r a e s pa33KeHHK> rH e B H H H OTaCeHHK) p a 3 r o B o p y r o B o p H3rOHHK) H a ro H H io O T o rn a H H b iH n p o r o H B i o p a 3 r o H H io (1),2)) p a 3 o rH a H H M H 6 y r o p n p H r o p o K r o p H b iii ( 2 x ) r o p n o c T b B 0 3 r0 p flH T b C H rO p K H H r o p b K a a K a3H b r o p e c T b r o p H H n o r o p i o (4x) c r o p a i o , h c r a p a r o ro c n o flC T B y io 3KHBOT [ p r o s e ! ] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 365 SAR VOLUM E NEUTRAL_____________ TOTOBblft npHyroTOBaHHHH v s. n p H yroT O B ^ eH H B iii n a r p a n a H a rp a flH T ea i. o r p a .u a r p o a c y ( 2 x ) rp 03H b IH ( 2 x ) r p o M a n a ( 2 x ) OrpOM HblH OrpOMHOCTb r p o M ipO M K H ft rpOMKOCTb rpOM OBblH r p e M /n o ( 3 x ) rpeM H inH H n e p y H 3 a rp eM eT b norpy3H T b k o t o b n en a jie, b n n a n e n o r p y a c e H H H H b H e B e x e c T B e , b o Mpaxe H eB eji;eH H fl... rpbi3y r p e x n orp H 3aK ) ry6/iK ) ry d n r e jib H b iH rycTbift ( 3 x ) r y c r o T a ( u n d e r r y c x o c T b ) rymy c r y m a io crym eH H M H H apoB aH H biH d jia ro fla p e H H e flaro ( 4 x ) BflaiOCH B 0 3 fla i0 n o f la T b o T p a f ly n o a a a H C T B o n p H fla ro p a 3 n a io c b A B H ateH H e ( 3 x ) HBHraio ( 2 x ) B 03flB H rH yT b paflOCTH blH KJIHK B 0 3 flB H r a io cb ( u n d e r BQ3flBH3aiOCH Q l . ) _____________ SLAVONIC Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 366 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL SLAVONIC B 0 3 ,u ;B H rH y T i> m (not specified as “prosto,” but under vozdvizhennyi S I.) noflB H m yT M ft noflB H r A C H b papb B ecenw flH eft H eH H H ua A H e B H H H A H e B H O e C B e T H J IO fin aro fleH C T B O (under blagodenstvie, not marked S I.) B cefleH H H it noB ceflH eB H biii n o n A H eB H b iH nonyA eH H H fi flepaty A e p > K a B a A ep acascT B O B ceflepaotTenb E A H H onepacH ua (under E A H H O fle p a c e u ,) c«epacaT b y A ep acH B aio n p o A ep 3 K H H « ep30C T b (3x) npoK epsocTb pasA uparo pa3flop A ecH H u a A H B A I Q C b H a flH B H T b C H y A H B A H K ) y flH B A B IO C b fle T C K H ii, h jih fle T C K O H (prose) 6e3A H a M e flA K ) n p O A A H T B flO A , A O A H H a , ... *O A O A e sa ro * H e O A O A H M b IH noapaAcaio p aaA p aA caio A p e B H H H A p e B O A p e M O T a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 367 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL____________ Jiopxcy (2x) flpaxnocTB flyx (2x) flbirny B03flyx (2x) flyraa ^ymeBHiifl B3op (bhthhctb. aior) BenHKOflymHM H enHHOflyraHHH ayro flblM flb lM T IIO C H B03flbIM HXHCH flea OTHejIXK) O T fle/E E K lC b npeRen (2x) 6narofleHHHe flo6pop,eTe;u> coflexenb eA H H B IH eflH H C T B O eflH H H TH aX C O eflH H H IO C b coeflHHeHHbiil BHHM 3IO B H H M aH H e BHHM axe/IbHblft B3aHM HbiH (2x, 1 prose) 3aH M C T B yH > o6'bHTb O K O M 06’ beM JiiocH o6HHMaio (under odbiMaio Cn.) n o flH H M a io npHHTH M H p npHHTH nrauy npHHTHe n p n a T H b if i npH H T H O C T b npiM3Hb npH H T C T B O npH H H T H C ecTecTBO (2) ecxecTBeHHbiH npncyxcxBHe e4>Hp xcaxgja (2) X taflH O C X b______________ ____ S L A V O N IC R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 368 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL SLAVONIC > K M K H H aca/IO C Tb acaaeio n o x a p B 03>K e*iB acepxsy B 035K eH H bIH paaacaceHHblft 3K «y (3) . oacrmaio (2) oacH^aHHe acenaio aceaaeMMH jKeaaHHbift acenaHne BO»gieaeHHbiH BceBoxcfleaeHHHH >Keaeao acepno >KepHOB JKeCTOKHft ( 2 ) acecxoKO O 5K eC T 0H aK ) oacecTOHeHHbifl acHflKHii aC H 3H b ( 3 ) aC H B blfi acH BO (2) [prose!] acHBJiio [not clear whether SI. or not!! in the second example] aCH BH Tenb aCHBHTeabHBIH OaCHBBHK) oacHBaeHHbift acHxeiicKHH floacHBaio a c n a a acMy naacHTb acepraa noacnpaio acynxa ^yp^y_______________________ (3) s a 3 a 6 a 6 o H b i 6 e 3 3 a 6 o T H b ift saK O H b i rp a^cA aH C K H e y3aK O H eH H bIH __________ 3 B e3,Q iH b IH 3Bepb 3B€pCKKM 3^paBHe 3ejme R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 369 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL SLAVONIC 3apa 3 H TKfly 03ap»K ) 3 H > K flH T e n b saTea o6n|. npocT O H . 3 H H K ) saair 3naT bift 3 B O H 3no 3 B y K 3 H b lft 3 B C 3 fla 3no6a 3 B e p C T B O anodH H H n 0 3 flp aB /T H K ) 3 n O C T b 3eaeH w ft H e3no6H bIH 3 H a T H B IH (2) 3 M H ft npM3HaK 3 H 3 H H e 30B y (2) 3 H 3 K npH 3H B aH H e 3 H aM 3 C 0 3 b IB a H ) 3 H O ft 3 P H T C H B 3 b IB a K > B 30p npH 3biB aro o6o3peBaio 3 0 flH flK rpen. y30p0H H bIH 3 p K )C b 3peawH 3pax 3y6, i. 3eppano 3bl6h B 3 H p a K ) 3bi6yH irii necoK no3opHnre pa33eBaio npe3peH H e H «y npe3opcTBo X O fl npo3panHbiH b30m th Ha npecron, Ha T pcrn 3bi6m o B 3 0 ftT H H a y M , H a MblOIb 3bi6m ocb npeB O C xoflH bift [prose!!] Bocxoacny (3) H axoacy npeB03xoagry C H H 3 X O flH T e a b H O C T b Bxoacny o 6 x O A H T ejib C T B O o6xoacny oTxoacy (non O Txoaqry [not npenxoacfly marked S I, but npmiienea, npnmnen, npnmenbHHK continues: o d H H y iO C H npocTO ace ... O T X o ac y ] H cnonH H noxon B 3bicK yio [prose!!] npnxoacy (under npHxoncny Cn.) C H H C K a H H e ynoTpedHTenbHoe b (2) bhcokom cnore npnxoflHT nnecic, 3 B y K , Bonnb b o K a M H H naT. yum* KnoK oipy H® t xnoKony npnxofl H eyxnoH H o npoxoacy (under npoxoacny Cn.) C K O H n aB aio [sic] npO H T H C K B 0 3 b O F H b H B O fly * K p aT K P in , no Cn. THMeHHe [!!] ocTb (prose!!) H M fl O T K p O B eH H b lH H M eH O B aH H b lft C O K p O B eH H H H H C K p a B 03K ypH T bcn (Cn.!!!) H C K p eH H b lit nHK R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 370 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL HC KpeH H O H C K peH H O C T b HCTHHa H eH C T O B blH H m y HSTbHCKaHHe H3TbHCKaHHbI$t npO H C K K a ^ c y c b flO K a sb iB a io n o K a 3 a T e 7 ib yKa3biBaio c x a s b iB a x o c H ( u n d e r s k a z y iu s ia S I.) Ka3HIOCH K aK ( u n d e r k a k o S I.) ( 2 ) K a /iu a n KaMeHHCTblH Kacaiocb (2) 3aKHneao cep/me, 3aKHnena K p O B b* KHUTIHBblfl C K JiaA biB arocb K JieB eT aH H e KJIOHIO n p e K B O H a io n p e ia iO H H T b K O Jien a npeioioHBiocb n p e K T O H eH H b iH HMeTb rnaBy npeKaoHeny * npeioioHHbift B eK * npeKnoHHocTb BeKa * CIOIOHJHOCb CKHOHHblH yKHOHHIOCb K a y H d /n o c H k jh o h SaKMOHeHHblH KneHycb, h K/iHHycb KOB KOBapHHK K O BapC TB H e Kone6mo Kone6mocb H en o K O Jied H M O KOHUyCH KOH'-iaiO K o n b e ( u n d e r k o p i e S I.) K o p a d a b ___________________________ SLAVONIC HHSjiaraio R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 371 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL SLAVONIC K o p a rra K O peH B nO K O pfllO n o K o p c T B y io K O T o p b ift ( e n t r y w o r d ! ! , a ls o li s t e d : K H ft, a n a k o h ) re p a ir K p a ftH Jtft K p a cH b iH ( 4 ) K paCHO K p a c o T a ( 2 , o n e p r o s e ! ) K p a c o T a f l y i m i a n a fly in e B H a fl K p a c y io c b K p a m y K p a in y c a y K p a m a i o y K p a ra e H H b iil n p e K p a r p a i o K peM H H C TblH B 0 3 K p e m a io K pO B b KpOBOnHHCTBO K p o B a B b iii KpOBaBBK) K p o n /n o KpOTKHH B 3 K p b IB aro 3aK pbiB aK )C b O T K pblB aiO O T K pblB aiO C b n o K p b iB a io ( 2 ) n o K p b iB a io c b H O K p b lT b lft n o n p o B ( 2 ) n o K p o B H T e n b C K p b iB aio ( u n d e r s o k r y v a i u , b o t h n e u t r . ) C K p w B a io c b ( u n d e r s o k r y v a i u s ’, b o t h n e u t r . ) CO K pO BH IIte K p y r C B e ra H e d e c H b ie K p y r a K p y T b lH K p y u y c b jc p y u iy c b c o K p y in a i o K pbM O K p e r u u o H C K y m aio R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 372 SAR VOLUME (4) NEUTRAL___________ CKOBHBaiO JlHB-p jia s y p b A erK H ft 7ie>Ky HawiejKHT npHHan«eacy n e u y TICTaiO JIHKyiO m i n e H S /iH B aio ( u n d e r h 3tcuhio C j i.) CJFHBaiOCi) a n u H H H f t n o d s a H H e H a rc araT b n c v ia r a io ^ y K a B b iH B b is a npHM aHUHBM H M a x po3Max M euTaHHe M e 'i b MHJIOCTb MHHepaa M HH yiO M KHyBIitHM M H p M HpHbltt CM HpflK) CM HpeHHblit ( 3 ) MaanocTb (!) M H O ^cy yM H03K aK ) y M H o acaio cb B 0 3 M 0 K H 0 M OaH H eBH flH blH 3aMorraaTb yM O T iK aK ) M paU H blH desMpauHbiii M p a 'iy c a Myacaiocb M y u y Myuyca Mecrb (under mshchenie) OTMipaio (under otmshchevaiu) SLAVONIC M a m ie ( u n d e r m a a n i e all Si.) Mraa M e m y ( u n d e r n e u t r . m e c h u ! ) noMusaHHe noMomb (although not explicitly marked SL, it is followed by the words: prosto zhe pomoch’) HOMOCT C M y rp a io ( 2 ) npeMenHK) (under peremeniaiu n e u t r . !!) 3 a n o H a ( d o e s n o t h a v e a n e u t r a l meaning only SI. and star.) n p e i o y npa nyT H H K ( 1 ) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 373 S A R V O L U M E N E U T R A L S L A V O N IC BblCOKHH MbICJIH * XIGMblHIrtHK) n o M b ic e ^ y M b im /iE K ) M eHHIOCb B M eiiilK ) n e p e M e H H io c b n e p e M e H a ( p r o s e ! ) 6 e 3 n p e M e H H o 6 e 3 M e p H b iH B M e m a io y M H r u a io 6e3M J5Te)KHO CM H T eH H blft H a iT ib iii H a n p a c H b iH H a n p a c H O H e 6 o B O S H eceH H blH (2) n p e B 0 3 H o n iy H a H o r n y n o H e c T H x p y A b i n p o H H K a io o6HOB7IHK)Cb o r o H b o rH e H H b ift n o j i r a e T a h n o js r n e T OKeaHCKHH y M H b ie, M b x o ieH H b ie o h h ( o h h alone SI.!!) (2) op/xiiM O T eij c n a c e H H e c n a c e H H b iH B Iiep B K ) n e p y n H 3 n e in p f lio H s n e n ^ p e H H H H n H T a io ro ia* ieB H b iH ruieM H c o n n e T a T b ( u n d e r s p l e t a t ’ n e u t r . ) n jie c K i w o a H enJT O ^H blH n ^ o ^ c y c b iu x y r n 0 3 flH b ie HOTOMKH noicoft R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 374 SAR VOLUME (5) NEUTRAL SLAVONIC CnOKOHHBIH CnOKOHCTBHe n O H H blfi H3IIOJIHeHHBIM noio npaBsa (2) npaBAHBbift n p a B H J io npOTHBH&IM ( 2 ) n o n n p a r o n o n p a H H b iH c n n p a i o c b nycKaft (under pust’) nycKaiocB H3ixycKaio n y T B ( 2 ) nyuHHa nbuiaio nHTa paBHBlil ( 2 ) oxpafla paxcflaio nopofla pa>Ky nopasKeHHBiH pa3HBIH pacxy paTHHK (under ratai) npepBiBaio (under pereryva=) n o p B iB a io Pflero pfleiocr, peBy peB nopoK n o p o n y p*y poca pOB pyraTentcTBo Bpyuaio HapymuTe^B pa3pyraaio pa3pym aiocB pB IK aiO penry CBHCT Pyxa Bojkhh (example does not exactly contain these words: BceBBIUIHHH ... Kpemcoio xe6a pyKOio. 3aiItHTHT ) C B eT B Cn. 3HanHT... CTorna nocTaBHTH 3aBeT R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 375 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL_____________ CBeTJMO nace/iHK) CHJILHMH (2) CHHexa O C H p Q T C T b CHHK) A O C K aK aT b C K H pfl CKop6m >iH under h t t h K O M y b cjiefl: “.../ He X O H C T rpemHMM b cjiefl CTynaTt.” ocJiennflK) C M epTH Blft B C T H X O T B O p C T B e H B B H T H H C T B e noacoOTenHafl nocneuiHMft HenocTH>KHbiH (under H enO C T H aC H M blH ) CTO pH nH blfl CTynaio 3acxynHHK npecTynHbiH n p o c T y n a i o B 03C T aro HacTaBJieHHbra n O C T aB O T IO npeflcraBMKs C TpaH a CTpax (2) C T p a rn y CTpamycb ycTpameHHHH C TpeM H H H a C T p O K ) H eC TpO H H blH y c T p o e B a io cnaflKocrpyHHbiH crpena cyflbda H 3C bIX aK ) cesep C eK H pH blH H3ceneHHbiH (6) yrBep>KfleHHbiH TBopen TBapb SLAVONIC 6) TBep^b TBOpK) n ;a p b R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 376 SAR VOLUME NEUTRAL Teicy (2) Tepaiocb T H IIIH H a TneH TMHCH nOTOM KH Bosxopr (2) H 3T O prH yT B Jljx O T T O paceH H B IH CTHpaK) Tpyn TyMaii TmeTHblH Tiuycb Te/io TeHb (2) T e c H b ie n p e ^ e ^ b i y M a TeCH H ) T eC H IO C b yremaio T H > K K H H BblTHrHBaiO yacac y^cacaiocb ynosaio navKa 6 e 3XHTp O CTHbl H xpaHio HepHblH neiixyH HHH CHHTaTb (1) npe3 nyp n y io o m y m a i o Boscbmaio tqeflpoTa h me^pocTb lor H pO CTb SLAVONIC R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 377 APPENDIX D LIST OF QUOTES FROM LOMONOSOV AND SUMAROKOV IN THE FIRST, SECOND, AND LAST VOLUME OF THE SAR No Name ( J I o m o h o c o b ? ) : H t o Bcye no6pbix M H e, CKazm, cbihob rv6urbl JloKOTie H paxaocTb ofipam aTbca He BQ3 6 p a H H T m o h m ycraM. EeacHT b cboh n y rb c BeceabeM MHoraM, IIo x o jim b m rposH bift H cikwihh. M e c T a , MecTa H p a x c a f tm n e , CBHaeTejiH y re x m ohx. Bee UBexw t b o h i i o b j u i h , H npHHTHOCTH np o n ajin . HacTaBH, TocnoHH, Ha nyTb CBHTbIM TBOHM 3aKOHOM, KpenBHmaroca b ohom . Tbi Moaeemb m i JleBHafoana Ha y«e BbiTamHTb ea 6per? CbiHy rnynoM y He noMOipb 6oraTCTBa, A m e He KynHT MyspocTH H3pHHCTBa. ? JIq m [ohocob: KpaxKHii P occhhckhh] neroim cfeix c ponocnoB H eM ]. U,apb M ean BacHJibeBHHt n o n p a a 6 a c M y c ijapeBMM Hso6paxceHHeM. J I o m o h o c o b : Y x c b 6a6oHKa 3 b i6 aeT C H rry ro M , y CTpM H BIHH Cb 3a neC T pH H B K H M flpyTOM. • * H 3 6 a B b MeHH OT XHH](HbIX p y x H o t n y a cH X H a p o a o s b j i& c t w . BarpQBbiH o6naK b ne6e pe^eex. • * rpflflu xpacHeftmaa fleHHHijbi, FpaflH H CBeTBOCTbK) ffllja, H 6«ecKO HHCTefir 6 arpgrom bi R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. YTeuib nenanbHbiH cepgpa. • Korga saps 6o rp jm u M okom PyMHHeii yMHoacaeT p o s. B o3pn b necax Ha EereMOTa, H xo M H O B O C O T B O peH c t o 6oh, K ogiogeft TepH ero o x o ia Ee3BpeflHO nonH paxb Horoft. HayKH... B macTgjiBoft xch3h h yxpainaioT, B HemacTHofl cgygaft 6epervT. H peKH ga Texyr c h o k o h h o B Te6e nocgyiiiH bix 6ep erax . H paTaft b HHBax 6e3MHTe>KHO CTopHHHbiH imon ga co6epeT. • ? B n p H r o p x a x 6b io t k x i o h h n p o 3p a H H b i. H e CMex b 60ft nycTHTbca BHOBb, MecTaMH Bpar 6exoiT nycTbiMH. • * Be3CMepTHH gocroftH bift Myxc, EgaxceHCTsa Hamero nprnoiHa, 3aB H C T X H B bIM O T T O p X C eH pO K O M . Yxce npexpacH oe c B e ra ro ripocT epao 6jieci< cboh n o 3eMHH. H CMIUHOT H p e 3 g O g H H b l 3 g aH H b I, HeM 6nem eT OpMB cbohx xpaax. TaM cnopHT xcnpHa Mraa c BOgoft; H ab cojiHenHbi ny r a 6xecTHT? Ogexcgoft g ip e p n h x 6gHcraioT Kax 3xaTOM HcneippeHHbift xpaM. • * OTBep3Jiacb HBepb, He BHgeH xpaft, B npocTpaHCTBe 3a6xvxcgaeT oko. HeBexcecTBO n p e g Heft 6xegHeeT. • * B O T m e TBO ft XHTpwft 6blg COBeT, P occhk) caM Focnogb 6jnogeT. • * Coro3bi pa3pymaTb 6giogHTecb XpaHHTe HCKpeHHO npHH3Hb. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 379 Ho MbICAb h boaio noABpraex SaKOHy B oanno bo bccm, H to a h o o h h h Ha6moflaeT Bo BceM Tenemm csoeu. Tw cwiuienib menpoio pyxoio C so e 6oraTCTBQ n o 3cmjih. BornHH Kpacoxoft, nopoAOii tbi 6oraH «, noBCK>ny rpoMKHMH AenaMH repoHHH. [H a fliiH C B H a n jn n o M H H a n H io , n p e a c T a B n e H H y io b xopxcecxBeHHbiH achb x e3 0H M eH H T C T B a ee BennnecxBa 1748 rofla c eH X A 6 p n 5 aha, n e p e f l acxhhm aomom, HaKOTOpOH H306pa3KeH 6bIA <j)OHXaH... BoacecTBeHHbiM ycxaM npHAHneH, MoHapxHHA, cen kpox khh mac. MeHH B ceft 5KH3HH He O T A aft flyrnaM jh o ach 6e36oACHBix. O BBI He ApeMAKJIEtHe OAH C rp e ry m n a He6ecHbiil rpaA1 . Bbl 6oA pC TB Y H BO B peM A HOAH, KorAa noKoacB cMepxHBi cnax. yxua MOH B03BeceAHXCH O noKpoBHxene CBoeM, H paflocxmo ofioApnTca m eA poxoH ofionpeHHbift xpyA. Xoxh bcerAaiHHHMH CHeraM H noKpwxa ceBepHa cxpaHa, TAe Mep3AbiMH E o p en KpwnaMH Tboh B3BeBaex 3HaMena. TaM BHXpH nnaMeHHbi icpyxaxcx, Bopto m n cb mhoxcccxbo bckob. rio6opHHK MHe H B or MOH 6yAH IlpOXHB CTpeMHipHXCfl BpaXOB. O 3acxyn;ieHHH xBoeM. H a c x y x craffa. r o H a e x b n y r , H aecoM 6e3 6 o a 3 h h xoahx. Hxo6 p axaii Mor Hs6paxH BpeM A, Korna 3eMAH noB epuxb ceMA, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 380 H g a x t K o r g a noKoft 6pa3gaM. H a c a g i m B H »cy h C B H m eH H b iii, B EgeMe BbimHHM HacaacgeHHbiii, Tge nepBwft y3aKOHeH 6paK? Hagegcga TBepga B036y*gaex Bo3BbicHTb rpoM KO 6paHHbiH rgac. Korga ko 6 p a H H ycxpeMHxca, To M o p e KaK k o tc ji khiihx. BoeHHbix He cxpaumxcH 6eg: B e> K H T oxTygy 6paHHbift Bpeg. K a x 6 p a x y C B o eM y a x ig H g c g , K a K 6gH>KHHM, TaK hm yroxcgaxb. K o r g a 6 w C M epT H biM x o g b b h c o k o B o 3 m o > k h o 6 b r a o B 0 3 g e T e T b , H t o 6 k c o g H g y 6peHHO Hauie o k o Morgo npH 6gH X C H BH IH C b B033peTb. (KOHb) KpyTHT raaBOH, 3ByHHX 6p03gaMH. M e x a g n h m ia M e H b b g o g 6 p o c a e x . H a g e a c g a o h m x o 6 o g p a e x . Hageacga xeepga B036yacgaex. TaM 6 y p g H C K pbi aaBHBaex, H a g H H H H n g a M e H b n o x c H p a e x . TaM K O H H 6vpHbIMH H O X aM H B3BHBaiox k He6y npax rycxoft. E v p g H B b ix B H x p e ft H e 6 o h x c h M n p e 3 H p a e x m o h h h h 6 g e c K , X O X B OX C M epX H bIX C O K p O B eH H O rpggymnx 6bixne 6emeft. 3a6bis h Menb h cxpaM h cxbig H npegcxBgaex cxpauiHbifi BHg. H M o p e Harnett x h h i h h m y * e npegegbi n p e s o c x o g H X , C b OHM H36bIXKOM M H p HaBOgHX. H 6bicxpoH KO H b nog h h m R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. KaK 6ypHQft Buxpb KpyTHaca. H to MoaceT co6 ctbchhwx FlaaTOHQB H 6bicTpbix pa3yMOM Hcbtohob PoccHHCKaa 3eMaa poacgaxb. Yace TpaxHyBiiiHCB aencHH ancr CTparaHT ero, KaK ap b ra cbhct CKB03B B03gyX 6bicxp0 ag p aeTHIUHX. T o rg a yBHfleB 6 er cbohx 7Iyna CTbignaacb cpaMy h x . B caMoii cpegHHe OxeaHa Oh 6wcTpoH npocTHpaaex 6er. Fopa, hto FopH30HT Ha cym e 3aKpbiBaaa, BHe3anHO c 6epery Ha 6biCTpHHy 36eacaaa. Ce 3HOHHbie KacnnftcKH 6 p e ra , r« e BapBapcKH npe3peB H a6em , C kbo3b CTenb h 6aaxa IleT p n p o m ea. B Te6e nageacgy noaaraio, BcecMbHWH TocnoflH, Bcerga; K Te6e h Hbrae npH6eraio, fla b BeK cnacyca ot cryga. ^ hbhtcb HbiHe Bca BceaeHHa ripeMyflpbiM BbiiHHaro cygb6aM, H to ot HanacTeflt 3 a w x cnaceHHa PoCCHH 3pHT KOHeU 6egaM . Yace MJiageHHeocHe B3raagbi IlpegB03Bemaan Te OTpagw, H t o 6 e g H b iM H b iH b O T B eM JieT c x p a x . Tbi cepgpe gyxoM yKpenncb, O Focnoge Myacanca, H 6eacTB M eM He K oaeBancb; Ha Bora noaaraftca. FIpe6ygyr Bee n o a a 6e36egHbK OTBeprHyB aioTy Baacxb tboio. E e 3 6 e g H O e g e T b n y rb K y n e g H B H gH T K p a ft B o a H a M n a o B e n . IIIyM HT c pyabHMH 6op h goa. IIo 6 eg a PoccKaa no6ega. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 382 • * BeneHineri MpaMopa pyicoio mo6oBb seaex nepes codoio. 32* [Asterisk stands for: Lomonosov quote in combination with biblical quote] vs. 62 quotes total Ce obpas H3Baan npM yaparo U pon. noBejIHTenh MHOrHX H3BIKOB H3bIK P occhhckhh H36aBb, HH3BeprnH Hanie 6peMH. Ce poH O TBepaeeHHQH pa6bi. Eflsa jKenanHyio 0Tpa«y BenH K O M y BHynian a iyx rpa/jy, OTBepcTHeM CBHmenHbix ycr. Ce Hameio, peioia, pyxoio JIe> K H T nOBepXCeHHblH A30B. - - M b iaib n Borno nogBepraeT 3aKOHy Boaono b B ceM . BocTopr BHe3anHbift yM iu k h h ji, BeneT Ha sepx ropw bbicokoh. Cbcthbo A HeBH oe bnH CTaeT ZEnm b xoiibKO aa noBepxHocxb Ten. Ha«eama Hama coBepimmach, H cnaBa b n y rb cBoft ycrpeM nnacb. BecenbHbiH uiyM, rp e b y m n x icprnc, HaHocHT roT(|)aM CTpax Bernne. Ho HTO CTpaHbl BeuepHH TMflTCH, H Acnxflb xpoBaBbix Kanneil AbioT. H ce yace pyxori riarpaHOH, Bpaxa oTBeps/ia b Mnp 3apn. CpeflH BoeHHbix 6ypb Hayxn naM O TK pbU i, H MHp senaMH Beet h 3aBH C Tb yahbha. rioArHexy byH H O C T H Benena aaTb n , Hto6 CHoea BocnbiaaB ropena BHyxpt Botea. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 383 Pa3Hbie o6H xaxejm pa3HMMH o6pa3bi eflHHy ripeBOSHOcax. JKenaa epecn HCXoprnyTb TBofi poflHxenb, HcnpaBHXb nepKBH h h h n o a i e u i b chio o6 iiT e jib . Bbi H arnw BnxpH He flep3afixe P esexb, ho KpoxKO pasrnam aftxe PIpeKpacHbi HaiHH BpeMena. H xo O hhckhx peK cxpyn flbiMaxca, H flonbi c BaaroH imaMem. nbiox. SacxynHHK h Cnacnxenb moh, Hofl BJiacxb M H e flan Hapofl cb h to h . H acxo MbicneHHbiH B3op Ham, o6o3peB pa3Hbie xopacecxs o6pa3bi, 6narocflOBeHHoe Ea BaaaeHHe b flenb ceft yKpamaroipHe, n a npecB exnoe r a p e E a o6pam ;aexca. O x xna6eft chx h 6e3flH B/ianexenh boa bo3h h k. O caaBa aceH b CBexe caaBHbix, P occhh paflocxb, cxpax s p a re s , K paca BaaaexeabHHH flepacaBHbix. fla Ha ero npHMep h Ha flena bcjihkh, CMOxpa Becb cMepxHbix pofl, CMOxpa 3eMHH BnaabiKH, rio3H aiox... % naxo BHflexb n a 3eM m B ceB binraaro rpeflpoxbi, H He B H U lH ThCH H H KOm BjiaflblHHHH flo6pOXbI. Ho caM xonb BenHKaro rocyflapcxBa oSaaaaxeab k xarocxHbiM xpyflaM npocxep poaoroHHwa H HOMa3aHHbia flaa HOiiieHHa CKHnexpa h flepacaBbi pyKH. He MpaK jm b o6naicax pa3BHaca? Him oxKpwaca 3paK PlexpoB? CgHnaca M r n a , P e p o H b Heii, H e 3pHx h x oko, cnyx He ayex. H choahh... Bbex BHxpeM Bosflyx 3 co6oro. 3 mch Bbexca n o xpaae. Mne B caxaa Boma 6bixb Kaacexca ropa. C oflHoii cxopoHbi Bneaex aro6onbixcxBO h 3HaHHe oxeaecxB y HyacHoe, R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 384 O flep3KHft MHpa HapyixiHTenb TbI Men npO TH B M eH H H 3BH eK . y>Ke B e/IH K H M H KpbiaaM H Plapamaa noa o6aaKaMH, B npeaeabi c a a B a c r p a H 3 s y a H T . H CBepx raaBbi fla o6aeKVTca Moh npoTHBHH b cxya h c p a M . B npH H TH H M h BeaHKoaeimoM paio paayM moh H b ra e o 6 p a m a e T c a , h to oflHofr HBCTymeH A o 6 p o a ;e T e « H P T B a e ic a e T c a K p a co T O W n p y r n a . H3BHe BoeBa;ia IUBeipia, rtoabuia, KpuM; H3BHyTpt ace CTpeabijbi, pacKoabHHKH, K03aKH, pa36oHHHKH. KioMeHB b 6perax cbohx M yTHTca V L B O H B I CKpblTb nofl 3eMjm TmHTCa. Bo3flBHrca b sanaae BOtobi yacaCHbift rpoM. Tpy6oio 3H aK aaex k bqchhoh Henorone. Bohhckhh 3ByK ocraBh BeaaoHa, H Mapc BaoacH cboh myMHbiii Mea. Yace h MopeM h 3eMaeio Pocchhcko bohhctbo xeaeT. YicaoHaioTca, aaiOT xpe6eT PoccHficKOMy bohckv. Hapoflbi K H flH e He 3HaioaH H ayK H Boiqiot npmaMH h HanparaioT ayKH. Tor«a MaTeMaraaecKOMy h ®H3HaecKOMy yaeHHio, npeacne b aapoaefiCTBO h BoaxBOBaroie BMeHeHHOMy,... 6aaroroBetooe noaHTaHHe npHOCHaocb. [CaoBO noxBaabHoe Hexpy BeaHKOM y] Yace Maaflaro Mnxanaa Bwaa k TO M y aoBoabHa cnaa Ynaamyio MocKBy noaHaxb. JoBoabHa aaaoM M aTb, aoBoaeH h m OTeij. . . Oaa HcnoaHHTB aceaaHHe Bcex Pocchbh; ohh H3BoaeHHe Toa [?] coBepuiHTb nocneuiaioT. H ecaH Pocyaapb aceaaeT ropoa B3axb, rio3BoaHa 6bi H aM 6oft HaaaTHH oKOHaaxb. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. OflHaKO pyxb f f lin t nacTb pa3HHyji, PaspancH b pome bootch soft. Ha poB, Ha Ban 6eryT sparaMH yKpenneHHbiH, He pafi BparaM B03BecenHTbCfl HepaBeflHoii Bpaacpoii cBoeP. Meacfloyco6HMMH npepKOB H aiim x BpaacaaMH. .. He6ecHOfi cHHeBoft opeaH naBJiHHa nocpaMzweT BpaH. He pe«Ko BnanaeT b 6oae3HH aenoBeK. Oh H iper iiom oihh, x o th c n a c ra c b o t MyKH, H 5KH3HB C B O K ) npOflHHTb, B paHaM paeTCfl B pyKH. H m hchh o6paTH Ha HOBbie naxopbi. H cepppeM h yMOM m o k bemh o6 p am aio cb . MeHH hio6obb HexepneaHBa Q6paTHo b rpafl neT poB 30Bex. npOTHBHBIH CTpaHbl repOHCTBOM H TpyflQM Bbi b co6cTBeHOH ce6e npeo6paTHHH pom. H bjihct xpaB p a 36o p , h 3 HaHHe Bp a H e6HO. IpaflCKH spaT a 6.mopeT hx CTpaaca h 3anop. O h PoccaM B03BpaTHa cTapuHHoe HacnepcTBO, SnopeeB H3Tp e 6 m h ycMHpmi cocepcTBO. Bee m r z i j w , HTo6bi hm Mnapbix papeft y3pen>, H B POM bI BQ3BpaTHCb, C IIO K O H C T B H e HMeTb. C xaH C H Te poMa Bam noHTHxeabHbiii B03BpaT, H to BBinyipeHw bw npocTpancxBOM hobbix spaT. HeM MHoro 3HaHHH norH 6no HeB03BpaTH0. H to 3Haa npaBHna H3bicKaHHbi CTemioM, MbI M OHCeM OTBpaTHTb OT XpaMHH HaiHHX rpOM. T ocnopb n a npaBepHbix B3HpaeT, H HX B ITyTH CBeM XpaHHT; O t rpemHHX B3op cboh OTBpaipaeT. n y c x a i t Be3pe rp o M ap u CTOHyT; R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 386 Ho BaM He MOJKeT T O BpeRHTb. BHyxpeHHbie 6ojie3HH 6biBaioT 6eacTBeHHee Hapyacroix, Tan h b Heap ax rocyaapcxBa BoenHTaHHaa onacHocTb speflHTeahHee bhchihhx HanaaeHHfi. JtamaeT rojitoh shoh 3RoposbH h yMa. A cTyaca b Ceeepe hhhtojkht Bpea caMa. MeHH T B O H H K O H bB BpeflHbl SI b nayra h b cepnw C K yro. JleKapcTBa, hto b creioie xpanaT h cocraBHHioT, B cTemie orhom O H e 6e3BpeaHbi npe6biBaroT. KoajoneH TepH ero oxoxa Be3BpegHO normpaTb hotoh. YaofiHee HapyacHbm H3Bbi HCHeaaioTCH, H exerra BHyrpeHHHH noBpexaeH H H . Koab HeacHo (fjaopbi 3Recb 6oraTCTBo! KoHb Cp0RHQB03flyxa npH H TCTBO BorHHe KpaCHblX C H X Bbicox! TBoefi jih xHTpocTbio BsaeTaeT Open, Ha BbicoTV napa? BocTopr BHe3anHWH yM nneHHa, Be/iex Ha Bepx ropbi bbicokoh. Ot o6aaic bhrht oh bbicokhx, B Boaax h n p o n a c T a x raySoKHX, Hto a eMy Ha roimy aaa. Ho KperiKOH Mbimaefi h bhcokoh Ybhruih naeHbi yxpenH. BbicoKH MbicaH pa3pyraaTCH, H ropaocxb H X H BJiaCTb M H H C T [?] Koraa 6bi CM epTHHM Toab bbicoko Bo3mo>kho 6biao B03aeTexb. ^HBHTCH HbIHe BCH BceaeHH, npeMyrRbiM BbimHaro cvab6aM. EnarocnoBeH tboh nyTb BceBbmmaro pyxoio: MorymecTBO ero npeaxoRHT npea to6oio. H yKpauieHHoe npeaiaBHHMH aenaMH OTenecKoe papcTBO B03BbicHaa. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 387 r ocnoflb ynanraHX BP3BbimaeT, H tik)6ht npaBejtHbix pa6oB. Korfla rojioc m o m BexHKQflyiHHeM ex yxpemieHHbiii rpoM xe B03BbicHXbcx Moxcex, xax... H pa^ocT H , HHaflexc^M H cno/m ena, xpacyiicx.OTKyH h BOSBbimaiicn. H BHflfl BoaBBimeHHYK) flo6pofleTexb, H acxaamaiomyiocH CBoeio M3floio, 3aBHcraio yrpH3aeMW (3Xbie) Hcxaiox. H 6bm o b jiejie peM ynaHHO MacTepcTBo: npesbiCH JO cbohm paneHbeM ecrecTBO. Rax b H M eH H TBoeM IIpenBeqHbiH riocTaBHx HaM noKOH ceHb. C x e x x o n p H B O flH T a a c H p e 3 O n x H x y k c eM y , n p o r a a B r x y 6 o x y i o H e B e a e H H x T bM y! HeBexcecTBo npefl Hell 6xejmeex. H e B enaa, xoxb Be/m xoe H cxycxao xpe6yexcx k oioxcemiK) oioB a, hx flocxoftH aro, noHWHe yMOxmuiH. QToejutH Tbi C B o e fl c hh m c h x h! CpeflH H apona BeneraacHO F losenaio xBaxy t b o i o . TepoHCKHX no«BHroB xpaHHTexb, H nponoB enaxexb IlapHacc. ExHcaBeraHbi BoeHHbix flexa K ax M H pH bix bo s e x BeHHaeT noxBaxa. 0 6 x ax aex cx M o n a p x H H X Ham a b nop<J)Hpy, noM a3yexcx Ha papcxBQ, seHHaexca, npneM xex cxnnexp h /tepjxaBy. CBxm eHHeiimee n o M a 3 aH H e h B eH q a H H e H a B c e p o c c u f l c x o e FocyflapcxBO BceMHHJiocxHBeHniHfl CaMOflepxcHpbi a a m e x n p a 3f l H y x ... BexHXHX 3px M oHapxoB w u ep b Ox BepHbix bccx ceflp H36paHHy, Pyxoro BbiiiiHxro BeHxaHHV. M h x o BexHXHft cell Myxc h h o x xoro x y m ie noxBaxen 6wxb He Moxcex, xpoMe x o ro , xxo nox;po6HO h BepHO xpyjmi ero h s h h c x h t. Ho x o k m o npoflep3XHx BepoxoMiiQB sa h c h c x o b c x b o H axasaxa. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 388 O thhjih nocjieRHioK) k x o M y Haneacay h Meaeftinyio BepoaxHocxb. Hxo cero nyaHee, axo HeBepoaxHee Morao BOcnocaeaoBaxb? YnocxoBepfliox pasHbia rocynapcxBa h ropoflw, Koxopwe caaBOio e ro hbm jkhm h, bo cpexeHHe cxeKaancb. Jlmub B cn o M H io , B H acy a, KaK 3 /n n x ca H 3V B ep. Hoca y jK acH O H ( J m q t b c x p y a x k n y a H H e a e p H o f t, H x O C 0 3 « a H B CKOpOCXH Ile X p O M H eH M O B epH O ft. C nocnem ecxB yiox MHe b no6eameHHH H e B e p r a . He B H X H esax b iM c a o a c e H H e M 3 a M b ic a o B , ran n e c x p w M n p e a o a c e H H e M p e a e H H f t y K p a ra e H O , H H ace P h x o p c k h m n a p e m i e M B 0 3 B b iin e H o 6 y a e x c n e M o e c a o B O . M oh noae3Hbi BceM cosexbi, Ox axHxeaeft mohx HaBexbi, npeaynpeagi,aH oxBpam y. B x o a o flH O H 3flecb cxpane o x 6ypb noapoB flaiox, Be3MoaBHo 6aeHHe h 6e3HaBexeH xpya. Branxe, B H flH Te H C ix o aH eH H e o 6 e x o B a H H a r o B aM n p e a3 H a M eH O B aH H H M H 6 a a ro a e H C X B a . Ofla BBi6paHHaa H3 Hosa: 36eph cb o h Bee c ra w [HbiHe] Myacaftca, cxoh h aaft oxBex. M BeaHKHM neaaM ero cooxBexcxBvromeMV h BeaHKHM MOHapxaM npran iH O M y B3opbi ayaraHCb. O xB oofly cabim eH ra a c aceaaHHH h npHBexcxB. 06uiHpHaro rpoMaay CBexa Koraa ycxpoHXB a xoxea, Ilpocra im xBoero cogexa? IlpeK pacH oe npeM yapocxH B peso B03pacxex, h sexBH cboh pacn p o cx p ex n o Bceft BceaeHHOH. 3aaxofi yace nemmubi nepcx 3a;;ecy CBexa B ocpbia c 3Be3flaMH. Bo x p a M e B 0 3 B e n x v B eaH K O M I I p e c a a B H y io X B a a y t b o i o . T bob aepacaBa B03B e c r a x c a , R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 389 H npaB.ua m hoio g o He6ec. He BceMH Jin chm h rofla po>KfleHHOH EgHcaBexe npegB03BemeHbi oxenecKHa Aodpogexera, npeflBOBemeHO oxenecKoe papcxBO? Yxce M JianeHHecKHe BBraaflM npegB03BemagH Te oxpagbi, H xo 6egHbiM HbiHb oTBentmoT cipax. Te6e h x 6bmie H SBecTH O Bee eflH H O H . K cbohm hio6obhk) ropa, BaM Ka3Hb h mhjiocxb o6em aeT. K ax yxpeHHH 3apa cnaex, K orga geHb H C H bift ogemaeT. Snecb Temibifi B03gyx noBeBaa, BecHy npHHTHy npegBemaji. Cne npegBecTae IlpHpoflbi Xoxa npegcTaBHao xorga, H xO T bI B03BecegHHIb HapOflbl... KaKoft npHBTHbiii 3e<f)H p BeeT, V l HOBy CHgy B H yB C T B O J Ib C T ? TaM Be'rpbi cHJbHbie, m e g cBjiox bo BTiacxH, C o Bcex CTopoH oioxcacb k noni6e;ibHOH H anacxn. Ko3aHKHx noab 3agHenpcKHH TaTb Pa36HTb, n p o raaH , KaK npax, paaBeaH. H C K oabK O oaTapeH npen 3paK O M c h m nbiaaex, Koab M H o r o ecTb eM V o 6 a 3 a H H b ix cepaenl (Hagmicb 1 k cxaxye Ilexpa BenHKoro) Era3aBex BenpeM h caaBOii V BH 3eH H a. XHxpwx cexeft He crniexaex, H x o 6 bI B HHX VBB3 COCefl. Y K p a c H g e p x c a B y h B e H e g e a H e v B a g a to m e io go6poxoio c /ia B H . H o BHipraee B036ygHui ygHB/ieHHe, sammee noKa3aa no30pHipe npeg ohbmh scero C B exa. Ogxcga EfapcKaa notJiHpa h bhccoh. Hxo XBepab c co6ofi b coio3e cbhjkct. H B O iH X b h x x h JlyHe yKaacex. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. H h t o y ro flH O r i p e n to 6 o b o . Bcersa xBOpuxn H ayH H . TBopeu noKptiTOMy M H e t m o k ) IIpocTpH npeMyapocTH nynn. rip o n e fl HHCTefluxHil /iyn Ha XBapb. K an npeBo oh pa3npocxpaH H xca, Hxo 6 h h 3 T e K v m n x b o a pocTeT. Yace h MopeM h 3eM)iefl P O C C H H C K O B O H H C T B O T C H g X . B nomine XHiiiena ry6oKOH. Mera, mH Tii h KpenocTb creH, IlpeA Bokbhm rneBOM rH K U ib n m en . Ho h to cxpaHM BenepHH tm b tc h ? Hxo bm! o no3flHbie noxoMKH, riO M blC H H Te O H aU IH X R H H X ? Bo3Topr BHe3anHbra yM mieHHJi. Ha B c x p e n y c ji h k o m <I>Hpc y c e p n c x B y a c n e n n i T , H ro c T H o c eH H B , b B Q C T p o re ro B o p H T . H xaaflHbi pyKH npocxHpaa, Hx ropflbift H 3xopraex h v x . K HeCHOCHOft C K O p6H H aH IH X fly iH SaBHCXJXHBbIM O X TO PaceH pOKOM . 3flecb iu/ieM c raaBOil, xaM xpyn jiexan. T v M a H M H a O Tipe, B poce nepHaxa rpy«b. O h yxpo, Benep, hohi& h fleHb bo xm exHbix noMhicrrax npoBQjpiT. Xfiany BceBbmmeMy BaarjM Ke rio x in H C H a y x MOW B 0 3 C b m a x b . H h o h HMeex K p e n x o xego, Ho c/ia6 b hcm nyx, n yM He3peji. I I o b h rioicpbuia M p a n n a h o h l , R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. B3om«a Ha ropm nepHa Tern, H Tax b ch »CH3Hb e r o npoxoA H T , r io « o 6 Ho KaK n ycT ap t c h b . YM a n p e p e p w T e c m i. H tO Tax TeCHHT 6 oH3Hb MOP p y x . H paflOCTHK) B0 3 XHipeHHbIH TecHxcb BSHpax Ha tboh npaxop. YTeinb nenajibHbia cepppa. H t h x c x h x rop c e p p p a TpaceT. Tw M oaceiiib jih JleBHa(J)aHa. Ha ype BbiTHHVTb Ha 6per? HaM b o h o m vatace xa3anocb, H t o M op e B HpOCTH CBOeft C n pepepaM H He6 e c cp ax ca p o cb . XOTb IlOJIK npOTHB MeHH B0 3 CTaHb; Ho a He yacacaiocb. Ha MHOXcecTBO He y n o B a P r e H TeM He6 e c He p ap p axcap T e. HayxH roHouieP nHTaioT, OTpapy crapbiM noparoT, B ipacTPHBOft X C H 3H H yxpamax)T, B HeipacxHOH cpynaP 6eperyr. Pi b h p h m b HeM npHMep 6e3XHTPOCTHbix ceppep. n o ca>xe raapb, xoT b 6eft. Bcio 6 ypexnb n e p n ot Hep. CBeTHipHMHCH PemVHMH n o X p b I T x a x M ep H b lM H P p iT a M H . T p e 6 b ip t w , x a x n b c t p o P h o m r a g e . n p e x p a c H W H c e p y c r p o w i c s e t ? T h cneji p h nyp M Horoo6paHbix Ciapa xopaipHH n o pHy? Tyr no3pHo 6epHoP b o p x n p H M eran H t o nepe3 h y p nepeMyppHP. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CBHJiaca Mrjia, repon b o Heft; He apHT h x o k o , cayx ne ayex. Kaxyro paaocxb uiymaio [sic - omymaw ? 1 , Kyaa a Hbrne BoaHecen! Xsaay BceBbiraHeMy Baaabixe noxmHCH, flyx Moft, soscbiaaxb. IIIeflPOToft o6oflpeHHbift ayx. BHHM aft xax ior nyajmy aaBnx. Hpe3 M H O X C eC T B O B eK O B CXOHaH, H 6ypeft apocxb npe3Hpaan. fepoft xe6a poaHa, Hocnaa Fepomxa: Kaxoft 6biTb aoaaceH naoa? He HHHoft xax 6orHHH. B03pacTeT ea aepacaBa, BoraTCTBO, caacxbe h noaxH , H xynHO aea repoftcxHx caasa. B Heft 3pH TC .a H C TH H H bl flo6pOTbX, repoftcTBQ, xpacoTa, meapoxbi. T m x nponacTH mchh nocxaBHa, Hxo6 a cbok) norH6eab 3pea. Bpara, xoxopbie BceaacHO, norafieaH Moeft xoxax. Ho h pyxH h raaBbi cbihob P occhcxhx k HomeHHio roTOBW. Y c a b iiH H , F o c n o f lH , M o ft r a a c , Koraa x Te6e B3HBaio. H ycxb ra a c Beceawft pa3aaexca, nycT b ceft npnaTHbift ra a c npoM aexca n o xoaMaM, porqaM h ayraM . Cpean Hapofla eeaeraacHO. noBeaaio xsaay tboio. C MnHepBOft cnabHbift Mapc raacax. Oh Bor, oh Bor xBoft 6bia, Poccna. Hxo6 B03flyx, Mope h seMaa. EancaBexy B03raamaaH. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CeMy CBHiijeHHQMy raacy cornacveTca Bcex nojwaHHMX xce/iaHHe. R b fle c a T b c T p y H x e 6 e c o rjia c H O . I I c a B M b i h n e c H H n p H H o n iy . O t o6^aK HBfleT oh (Opexr) bbicokhx B BOflax h n p o n a c x a x x;tv6 okhx. CTOKTOXIbM rn y fio K H M CHOM n O K p b lT b lft, IIpocHHCb, n o 3 H a f i rieTposy K p o B b . Ha cyray t o h h t rxry6HHV H c MopeM flo*Hb h rpafl MexnaeT. M oH apx y3peB b nyra, k o jib 3«o6eH p o x HecbiTbiH B3HOXHVB H3 I7Iv6HHbI ■ . ■ OflHHM o6o3pHT B3rjIHHOM CBCT. H BeHHOCTb npe^cTOHT npen Hew, P a 3 rH V B m H K H u ry B c e x b c k o b . H e nornymaBCH oh Ha Maaofi m ap coKt h , H to6h norH6maro CTpaaaHHeM cnacxH. B o rH e B e chbbhom h acecTO K O M . O t r a e B H a r o naca axe/iaex, r a e 6 yKMTbCH. Korji,a ot aepaocTH hx xpoTKO OTBpamaa, H M H p H o ft p a 3 r o B o p o B e p e o 6 e ru ;a x i... K p a p n p e nuieT 6oflbum x 6 o a p jyra vroB opa. npeM yapocT b CHfleT b cyn c to6 ok> . H3XOHHT XteCTb H KOB C XyX IOK ). Oh Bepx He6ec k Te6e npeie/ioHHT, H xyHH CTpamHbifl HaroHHT B o c p e x e H b e s p a r a M t b o h m . H tO OH n pO T H B H blM H B eT paM H OxrHaH » c n B e T b xpaio n y a c e m. PoccnficKo cojiHpe na Bocxojxe B cevi o6m;e B03ameaeHHbift fleHb n p o rH a a o b peBHOCTHOM Hapo«e H h o h h h nenanH xeHb. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 394 Ffle b pocKoniH npoxnaflHbix xeHeft H a n a c T B e cxaHymiDC eaeHeft JIOBfllHHX KpHK He pa3rOHflfl. TyMaHbi Mpaxa paaroH fla, H paflocTb H ainy npeaB apaa, n o r a , neca, 6 p era » c h b h t . CpeflH pa3rHaHHbix MpaHHbix 6ypb, B cero npcB exaee cuaex B oxpyr h 3aaxo h aa3ypb. B epx cBBmeHHbift ro pHHX M ecr. MOH (flHpa) HHCJIO yMHOXCHX 3Be3a> B o3B bIC H B H IH C b RO ropHHX M eCT. H m BOflbi, aec, 6yrpi»i, cxpeMHHHM, Tirpais creim p a s e n n y r b . B n pH ropK ax 6bK>T xax)HH no3paaHbi. M m flep3 KHH B3 o p BparoB noTynHM, Ha r o p g b i b m h [?] h x HacTynHM. H apogw HbiHe HaygHTecb, CMOTpa n a crpauiHy ro p ab ix xaaHb. EaHHa tokm o 6paHb KpoBaBa. IIpHHyaHaa npaBgHBOH Meab npoTH B y ropaocTH H3Baeab. T o p a b iH K ) c v n o c T a T Q B c T e p x H . H e aaft BparaM B03BeceaHTbca, H e a aft npe3opcTBOM B03ropgHTbca. 3a ro pbKH caesbi h 3a CTpax, 3a rpo3HO BpeMH h naaaeBHo fla 6ygeT p aaocxb noBceaHeBHO. Bbi ropbicv xa3Hb ce6e H 3 M e n o ft 3acayaotaH. O Tbi, hto b ro pecTH HanpacHO. Ha B ora p o n m e n ib aeaoBex! CBepxaioT ohh pa3apaaceHHH Kax y rab b ro pHHae peaxaaeHHbift. H a t TyHHbix ro p BepxH ro p a x . R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 395 Koaeca th x c k h h n o n n ym icaM H o c p b in a x , F jia3a OTHaHHHbix K p o B a s b ia r o p a T . Kaic oiabHbift aeB CTaga BoaKOB, H t o KaacyT o c T p w x p a n 3y6oB, Oaeft ro p a iH H x to h h t c rp a x o M . Eme ropHT bo M He oxoTa. TopaCeCTBeHHblft B03BbICH Tb TOH. K cbohm bio6obhk) ro p a. BaM xa3Hb h MHaocTb o6emaeT. K xe6e ropHT yaee H3flaBHa. PoC C H H H H C K peH H a B K »60Bb. Ax ec/m6 hmhc Poccob Bcex K Te6e r o p a m a mm cab oncpbiaacb. Ige MoaceiHb t h o t Heft yicpbiTbca? flaMacK, Kaup, Aaenn cropH T. rocnoflb cnacHTeab M He h CBex: Koro a y6oioca? rocnoflC T V H yT B ep acaeH H a mhoio, ft 6 y a y 3 a e c e r f l a c t o 6ok). BcHK KpOBb C B O K ) irpOHHTb X O T O B 3a M H o r a a tboh ao6poTbi, H k noftnaHHbiM tbohm m egpoTbi. • 06 p a m a e T M yacecxB eH H oe P o c c H ftc x o e bohhctbo n p o x H B H e n p H a x e a a o p y a o ie , n p n y ro T O B a e H H o e H3 r o p PoCCHftCKHX. H e c a H r p a g TOMy a y g n a c a , H t o K y p H H ft, B H fla M p a a H y n a c x b , C pasijecfly b O Hyio ckohhb. Oh flo6po,aeTe/ib qpes Harp any B Hapofle 6yHex yMHoacaTb. • Hmcbh ero (IleTpa BeaHKaro) b ochobbhhh noKa3aTeaa, b Tpyae o6ogpH T eaa, b coBepraeHHH H a rp a g H T e a a . Ifapeft h irapcxB 3 e M H b ix O T p a g a B o 3 a i o 6 a e H H a a T H U iH H a, B aaaceH C T B O c e a , r p a g O B o r p a a a . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. H M H e H a n o M o i g b o h o o t h c h . K o r g a npO T H B H H K M He r p 0 3 H T . T a M B e p H b ie p a 6 b i n p e c x y iiH H x a M ro p 3 H 7 tH . • O T O B C i o g y o n a c H O C T H r p o 3 H JiH , h n a r y S f l b i f l c a e g c T B H s n p H y ro x o B JiflX H C b . B eacH T b c b o h n y T b c B e c e g b e M m h q x h m n o XOJIM aM r p 0 3 H b lft HCnOBHH. Ha rpo3Hbix CTaH eM m b i B a x a x . Kax m o b h h h 6 e 3 r p o a H b i x T y a b C x p e M H M C H O T 3 e M J IH B 3 e H H T ? Y x c e O p e x o s e p C T e c H a e T C H b o c a g e , H b x a M e H H o f t x p e n a c b n p o T H B H T c a r p o M a g e . Chh y a c a c H a a r p o M a g a K a x H c x p a n p e g T o 6 o f l o g H a . 06mHpHyx) rpoMagy cBeTa Korga ycxpoHTb h xoTea. C T o a n b i o x p y r e r o o r p o M H b ie x p H C T a a a b i. B eg H X c o 3 g a T e g b H a n i b o rp p M H O C T H H e 6 ecH O H . H r p o M v T p y 6 ea M e r a a e T . n j i a a e B H b i i i n o 6 e x c g e H H M X c t o h . H x y H H c T y a a M H c n H p a i r a c , H y c T p e M J i a a c a r p o M H a r p o M . H rp O M b l C H iy M O M B O g C B O ft T p e C X C O e g H H H IO T . • Jlern nexpoBoii gugepn r p o M X H . O T x p t i T b i e c T e c T B a y c T a B b i , Tfloeji y M H o x x a T r p o M x o c T b c a a B b i . • H t o x a a c e x y x p o T a c b H a M rp o M O B aa 6 y p a . H g H p y c o r a a c H B c T p y 6 o i o , Fp e M H , h t o B b i n i H H x o p y x o x ) 0 6 p a g O B a H P o c c h h c x h B c s e T . S g a x b iM H n p e a c g e t h r p e M e j i b g e p x s a x y c T aM H . ,D,oxoJte Poccbi H e npecTaHyx. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 9 7 F p e M e T h b n o f l c o j i H e H H o i i k o h p h [ ? ] . I f l e C T laB H b l B O H C K P O C C H H C K H X C a e f lb l, F a e h x H i p e r p e M H T no6esH. KpyroM ero H 3 o6aaicoB r p e M B m n e n e p y H B i 6aeipyT. O K O H b n p o c T p a H H o c T B 3 p n M i r o i p o K y , r u e M o > K e T 3 a r p e M e T b t b o h aryx. H a c b n a a a e norpy3Ha r a y 6 H K O M . To b M p a x e B a p s a p c T B a r a y 6 o i c o n o r p v a e e H H b i . . . . T o c x a B c e M r p b i 3 a a r p y a H . F ly C T b 3 f l o 6 H a 3 a B H C T b H fl C B O H a b C T , I ly C T b C B O H B3BIK flp H C b r p b I 3 e T . f t b n p o n a c T b C B e p r 3 a r p e x C o a o m . r p g f l H k 6 a a a c e n H O M y n o K o i o . F p a g H h p a p c r a y H 3 f l e c b c o m h o i o . X O T H O T C M e p T H b I X C O K p O B eH H O F p a a v i P H X 6 b i T H e B e x p e H . M e H H o Q 'bH R h j o k o h H a p o f l , B ny^H H e a norpa3 ray6H K ofi. O c M e p T H b ie , H a h t o b h C M e p T H io c n e r a H T e ? H t o n p e a c a e B p e M e H H a y p r a p y r a b h r y & x r e ? KoHep rv6HTeabHbia 6paH H . H 3 a b i B [? ] rycT bix b h x o a h t B o a K . K o a b c a a f lK O r ry T H H K n o a H B a e T . B r v c T O H TpaBe, rae ic a iO H . H a p e B r y c T b i x n p o x a a a n y T e H b . Eipe K p y T H T c a M r a a r y c T a a . B 3 H p a e T e c k b o s b T e H b r y c r y i o H a p e a y nrapoTy 3 e M H y t o . FycT aT T a x a p c K o f t KpoBbio f l o H . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. H B 0 3 g y x o r y c r e g o t n o d iie H H b ix n a p a [ ? ] . T o g o a c g b n p o ^ b e u ib naM ruiogoH ocH Q H rioflHH B, crvcTHB bo o6;iaK n a p . C ryineH H biH h b im o m s o s g y x p seT . B 6 p e r a x g a gbiOTCH t h x o peKH, H e cM ea n p e 3 n p e g e g BcrynH Tb; fla n p n g y T see crpaHbi g a g e io i C K O H p eB 3 eM H bix xe6e cgyxcH T b. Oh p agH TBoero 6ga*eH C T B a, I l a p o B f lo c T H T H e T c o B e p r a e H C T B a [ ? ] . • r i o a u a H H b i e , H a c a a x c n a i o i n ,H e c H g a p o B a H H H M o t l o c y g a p a B 0 3 g i o 6 g e H H b i M n o K o e M . • I lp H H O C H T C fl [? ] 6 g a r o g a p e H H e TocygapbiHe 6 g a r o H e c T H B e t a i e : f t . He fla g , He g a h tbi gbBOBy n p eB y )K h b o t m o h g o KOHga n oxcpaT b. B c e x gceH X Baga E nncaB eT . C g a g g a ftm H ii My3aM B ex ga eT . • BceM g a a npH M ep, x a x n p e M y g p w fl ygH T egb h n p ocB eT H T egb . . . . C6epn c b o h B ee CHgbi HbiHe, M y g ca iicfl, c to ii h g a g o t b c t. Kt o CKopo TOgb T e6n K a g n a x . pOCCHftCXOH ygHT BgaTbCH BgaCTH. H aH ocaT MHe Bpaacgy h 3 g o 6 y . H t o 6 TeM MHe 3a g o 6 p o B p3gaT b. O H a [?] npencTaTegbCTBOM o T p a g y nOTUgHTCH 6egHbIM HOgaBaTb. K gE O H H B p y g H T b , n O g g a H C T B a B 3 H a K , M Sogbmeft H36e>xaTb nanacT H . T o g H K o e 3 e M e g b n p o c T p a H C T B O K o r g a B c e B b iiH H H H n o p y n n g Te6e b c g a c r g H B o e n o g g a H C T so . rip ocT H , h t o p a 6 t b o h k rpoMKOH e r a s e I I pH gaTb g e p 3 H y g H ex p a cH o ii c t h x . B nogxax CTOKpaTHO pa3gaeTca: R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. BeJIHKHH r ie T p H3 MepTBBIX BCTM. I l y c T B r a a c B e ceg b ifl p a3 gaeT C fl. O T K p B M H C B TOHHO HM ( c T e K g O M ) g B H X te H H H C B e T H g . ■ H npH M eTH B - B gBHXCeHHHX CaHOBHTyK) nOBOpOTUHBOCTB. j B H a c e H b e M x a x x e T y c H e x o H n a H H b i c n o s a . • Odogpaioinaro P o c c h i o , H anaBinyx) naxn gB H raT B c b o h m b i h i i i b i . f t C B B ir a y CTHXOTBOppeB IX iyM , KoTopbix neap ne noracH T C H , H d y g e T gB H raTB H xym H X yM . Coopy>KHg ceii rpag, B03gBHrHyg xpaM Hayx. X o Tb 6 bI BBI H a H ac B03gB H rgH CoK)3HBI B arnH BCe CTpaHBI. IlycKaft Bpara bo3 ubhthyt 6pam. H a B o r a n o g a r a i o c b . Ot xjix6eft chx h 6e3gH BgageTegb Bog b o 3 h h k ; B o 3 g B H raH pagOCTHOH MOpCKHH n T H g b l K /IH K . PadOTOK) HX p y x CHH B03gBHrgH CB CTeHBI. H s xaM eH H bix d y rp o B B 0 3 g B H rH y ra CTeHa. FIOgBHrHVTBI XBagOH, HCHOgHeHHBI Hage>xgBi. Tepoio m o h b h b T y T Pepofi: He T m e r a o h c t o 6 o h T p y g H g c n , He T ip e T e n n o g s n r m o h h t b o h . O x o g B B e g H x a g o 6 p o g e T e g b B n e x p o B b ix gH flX HBeTeT. B e c e g b ix g H eft n p e x p a c n b if t n a p x . 3gaT O H yxce g e m m in g n e p e r . 3 a B e c y C Bexa B c x p b in c 3Be3gaM H. H t o o h h d n ecx o M npO H H ixaeT? H g H e s H y b c h o c t b n p e s b iin a e T ? flo c T H ra o gH eB H oe g o n o n H o n n c s e T H g o ; H o b r a y d n H e g H g a r o p m p a r o H e c x p b i n o [ ? ] . R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 0 0 CBeTHflo gH eB H oe 6flHCTaeT. Ho B ocnpH H Ji M eH jj Tsopep H flan acHTb b OnarogeHCTBe. H o t B c e i p e f l p a r o T B o p n a . r i p H e M m o n y m > B cegH eBH bift. JJj ih H a n iH x n oB cen H eB b ix flen, H to t h TBopHTb HaM n o B en en . Y x c e M pawrcn cbct nongHeBHbift, rioBCiofly BHfl h cnyx nnaneB H bift. rionfleH H bift ceeT a x p a ii o 6 r a e n OTBancHbifi F aMa. 3a kohm CHflbna PoccKa BnacTb Benmcy gepsKHT BcTOKa [sic] nacxb. EorHH fl, K oea gep>xaB y 06H H T b He M O iyr cegbM b M opeft. B o r a H H , K o e i i B n a c T b , B n a g b i n e c T B B c e x n p e B b i i u e , JepncaBC T Bo K poxK oe BecHbi n p eicp a cn o H THUie. ■ T o c n o flb b o B c ex npegnpH H T H nx h n e n a x aB rycT eH m nn E flH H o a ep n o m b i H arnen ecTb npeflBOflHTenb H 3am ,H THH K . npeT H inH M o k o m B cegepncH T enb B o3p eB Ha nonK B enepH H ii p e ic C nepncH C T p eM n eH H e roHnmnx YflapH B nnaM eHHbiM 6 h h c m . K t o M o p e y g e p > x a f l 6 p e r a M H , H 6 e 3 g H e nononcHn n p e g e n ? • H u g e g p y ro H T hc[>hc M e)K gy cpancaniOEgHM HCH ropaMH n n b ix b g e p 3 a e x . Tax fynoT Pocchiickhh b h o h t gep 3aeT. H cxp aacgyT Tynce Ka3Hb, x a x g e p sK o ti H x c h o h . I I p o g e p 3 x a r o x r o p e Bennxoft n p H xoB an . T ge HWHe n o x B a g b 6 a t b o h ? Tge gep3QCTb? rge b 6 ok> ynopcTBO? O t m c t h 6e3COBecTHyro g ep 3 Q cx b , R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 401 H o t M e H H H e O T c x y ir a . H o B b im H H H 3p a K c b o h O T B p a m a e T O t F o t < | ) c k h x ocgengeHHBix C T pan, H T e M n p o H e p 3 Q C T b h x C M y m a e T . Y r p iO M M T y H H p a 3 H H p a e T , IIoflHflBraHCb c g n a Mopcxaro g e g : C «y6aM H khmhh noxHmaeT, H r o p b i f lB H T H y B p a 3 n n p a e T . H a M e c T e 6 p a H H h p a a a o p a H ,B e T b i c b o h p a 3 C b i n a e T O g o p a . E n a r o c B O B e H F o c n o g b m o h B o r M o k j g e c H H u y y K p e n H B H H . T B o e i i g e c H H u e H noxpbisaft Ot K J ie B e T a H H H b o x c h h x . Y B H g e B C M e p T H b ie o x a x e n i y m B H j m c t ! • T o M y B ce M y K o r g a H a g H B H T b c g g o B O g b H O H e M oxceM , bo3m oxccm im H 3 o 6 p a 3 H T b O H o e cbobom ? • TpygaMH BeKH ygHBHTe. • KoTopoM y H brne b c h B cegeH H ag no cnpaBeggHBOcra ygH B ggeTC g. • K t o mot noM bicB H T b, hto 6bi o t a e T C K Q H , xax K a3agocb, H r p w , Togb B axcH oe, Togb B enH K oe Morao B 03pacT H g e n o ? T b i c T B e p g H g n a H b npocrpH b b i c k o h , C n a c H M e H H ot mhothx B o g . H o B 3 0 p T B O ft B 6e3gHV n p o H H g a e T , H e 3 H a a h h x a K H X n p e g e g . 3 B e s g a M H H c n a H e T , 6 e 3 g H e g H a . T b o h g i o 6 e 3 H b if l g o 6 p o T b i B g e x y T k T e 6 e m o h m e g p o T b i . B 6 e 3H H C g e H H b i n p o M H e T c a p o g b i J o 6 p O T T B O H X H en O X C H b lH C g y x . H e M eg g H B IH H H H M ago K c e 6 e e r o n y c m g . n p o g g H T F o c n o g b e r o n o T O M H , R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Rena h x B 0 3 B e n H H H X r p o M K H . M e T a /u i h im a M e m b g o n 6 o p c a e T . C x y n a e x n o B e p in n n a M C T pornM , I lp e s p e B iviyfioKO gHO g o g H H . CxpeMacb k n p u H T C T B a M Beiimeft H e rn , OaoneBaemb 3HMy, cnern. E a ne QfloaHMQ bohcko I l o npaBge xogHx no 6 opaxb. E g e M H o rn e H a p o g b i x m a T c a Jparnx MHe b g a p aoBHXB 3B epeft. H K y n H O c H e f t E l e x p a X B aaa, Moeft 6 h gnpe n o g p a a c a g H . Ha M H o a c e c T B o H e y n o B a f t T e , H x e M H e 6 e c H e p a 3 g p a a c a ftx e . K o r g a 6 h g p e B H H B e K H 3 H a g H T b o io i p e g p o x y c x p a c o x o f t . K a x g p e B O o h pacnopcxpaHHxca, Hxo 6hh3 xexyipHX Bog pocxex. Kaxaa 6 ogpaa gpeMoxa Oxxpbiaa M blCJIH M HBHOft COH? Ox pesy nee h 6 per gpoaorr, H x b o c x n e c o K h n b i g b M y x n x . [ r o B o p a o a e B e ] r i p e g P o c c K o ft x a x g p o a o ix o p a n p e f t, C x p e c H a e x B H y x p b X o x h h c b o h x . I I p H e M g e x a e c x B H p h i o x o x n a a g p v a c H H a ; I l e p e g o n a M H h x n o 6 e a a h K O H H H H a . ^OKoae gpaxaocxb o6 paipaxbca He B 0 3 6 paHHX m o h m ycxaM. Yxennin a b neaa/iH Hoa, K o r g a n o x o n o M M H p x a a H H a ; f l y r y nocxaBHg b 3 H a x n o x o a , H XO K ) C H H M 3 a B e X H H H H g . T o 6 o ft m o h g y x B 0 3 B e c e g H i c a H p e 3 B e e H H c a o M He gaHHbix gHeft. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 403 H p e s c x e m . h r o p b i B 3 o p n p o c T p n , H g y x c b o h k xeM C T panaM s n e p n . K aK H a n o a a x n o a c a p b Hanane y x y n i e n , Ho Bgpyr a b ix a H H e M h s n e n a a o x cH B a eH . T B o e n p e x s a a b H O h m h m n i i e x Heaoxora caasa b b c h h o m a b g e , Bcerga rge xaagHbift CeBep gbimeT. Me* M o p eM pynmaca h B 03gyxoM npegea: floxcgio H a B C T p ea y goxcgb c K H nam nx Boan aeT ea. 3gecb T e n a t r a B 0 3 g y x noBesaa C aio O o B B K ) nameio coraacH O . ■ n o xaK H M nyxxM oh m e c x B O B a a , n o g KOXopuM g p eB O M H M e a o x g o x H O B e H H e . Korga c gyraeio pa3aygaxca, M xaeHHa naoxb hx b npax nagex. i t k C B exy x B o e r o h h u ; a [?] Bnepnio B3op gymeBHhiH. T B o e ft B eaH K Q gym H oft B o a e H x o M oxeeM 3 a c n e B 0 3 g a x b . O B bl C X paH bl egH H O g V IH H b l, O fib iK TTTH gcHXb b M O H apineH B o a e T lH K y itx e ... F g e xoabxo s e x p b i Moryx avTb, ripocxynnx xaM noaKH opaHHbi. B e H 3 a n H o n e p H H H gbiM H a B e a r y c x y i o x e H b , M b H o g b y x c a c H y io n e p e M e H n a c a g e H b . • f l p y r a e H a g b i M a m H a c a p a 3 B a a H H b i p a 3 3 o p e H H b ix ox H e n p n a x e a a r p a g O B c b o h x c o c a e s a M H B3H paK )X . C k x o h h , S H x e g H x e a b ! HeSeca, KoCHHCb rOpaM, H B03gbIMHXCH. B oxpax h b gegax saM npHMepw npegcxaBaaio. Cegnx h Hora n p o c x H p a e x Ha cxenb, rge XnHy oxgeaaex npocxpaHHaa cxena ox H a c . R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. T fle b o jib h m njieHHHKH cnacaaca c h h h t, Ot M H pa oxgeaacb h M opeM h cB A T bm eft. • B n p e g e a a x y g e p a c a T b B p a ro B . P a s c b in b B p a ro B t b q h x n p e g e a b i, K aK 6 y p e il n a e B b i pa3aceH H . • 3acJsv>KHBumx 6aaro g ea H H eM o 6 o g p a e T . • TaKOBbiM 6aaropa3yMHbiM M H aocepgneM m egpaa F ocygapbiH H p a cn a o g H T b g o 6 p o g e T e a b , nOpOKH HCKOpeHHTb TIHHTCfl. T b i Harneft p a g o c T H CBHflereab, T b i 3p H m b ycepA H fi H aniH x anaic, H t o H biH e HaM n o c a a a C o n e T e a b H p e 3 c e il 6 a a ro c a o B e H H b iil 6paK . 0 K o a b n p e c B e T a a a a a M n a g a T 0 6 0 1 0 , B o a c e B 0 3 a c e H a , ^ a a i i a u m x n o B c e fln e B H b ix a e a . H c xeM , k t o b n a r y 6 y n p H s o g H T , B e g H H O M M e c T e 3 a c e g a T b . EgHHCTBO OHbIX CHJl gOKa3aHO CTOKpaTHO: M b i a e x a H biH e acgeM n p H H T H aro od p ax H O . H a n o a H H BOflbi Kopo6aaMH, M o p a coegH H H pexaMH. T aM acagHOCTb c n a r a o c T b io H a 3 a o coegH H H aacb. O h 6 o r , o h 6 o r t b o h 6 b u i, P o c c h h , O h H geH bi B 3 g g b T e6 e naoTCKHH. BH H M ail, K o a b b peBHOCTH yacacH O , O h k H o B y H3 x y g H p e g . M oH apxH H e M o eil b b i H p a sy n o g p a a ca ilT e. H r a a c y M oeivry c o KpoTOCTbio BHHMailTe. • YM Hoacaa BHHMaHHe h 6aaro ro B eH H e n p eg cT O H m n x c b o h m MOHapraecKHM raacoM . B H H M aT eabH blil CBOH B 30P H a 3gaHHH B03B 0gH T. • B3aHMHbiM c o k)3 0 m c o n p a r a e x h x egHHCTBO B epbi. F g e BexBH npeK aoH H C b 3 eaeH b i B c o k > 3 B3aH M H biil c o n p a a c e H H b i. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 405 Mm CBeT saHM CTByeM , g a e x E n n c a B e T a . • B cneaax c b h t m h ojrrapb ijeayeT h opBeMJieT. • C B H m eH H blH y5KaC MBICHb ofiB eM B eT. Korga H a xojiMe k t o b m c o k o m Ceflfl, B O K p y r o 6 T b e M je T o k o m . • Ot r e p o i l c K a r o b h BH gy h Bospacra c BeBHHecTBeHHOio K p aco T O K ) c o e g H H e H e H a ro H anny? Tlo3BO Jih n p o c x e p T b h m r a a c H 3 M e c T y e g H H e H H b i x . • Fge Kpeme o O B e M a e T C H npaB ocygH e h M H aocepgne. n p O C T p H C B O e H p e 3 B O gbl OKO, Kogb M H O rO o 6 h BB ro p H 3 0 H T . Be3CHgeH THTOTy n o n H H T b . • r i p n e M g e T C K H m p b E e p o ftC K y pyicy.. • E o c n o g b n p H m e g b p e B c o x p a H H e T , h B g o B n p n e M g e x h c n p o T . • H M H p n p H B B o 6 g o 6 b i 3 a e T . • Bnga ero Tyioxc npneMBiomaro nmiiy. ■ IIp H flT H e OTenecKaro seHpa. • K a K o i t n p H H T H b iH 3e<J>np s e e T ! • H t o T o g b n p H B T H b iH c o h C M y m a e T ? n p H H T H O C T H H B C e y T e X H I^ B eT aM H y c T H g a iO T n y r b . C oK >3M p a s p y m a T b O a ro g H T e c b , X p a H H T e H CK peH H O n p H H 3 H b . Kogb H excH O OBopbi 3gecb 6 o raT C T B O , KoBb cpogHO B03gyxa h p h h t c t b o . Tyga p a c T y x p H M ceB fioraT C T B O M , Tyga t b i n p H B B e g e m b n p H B T C T B O M . - B3Hpaa H e K o r g a c e n a T P h m c k h h Ha TpaaHa Kecapa, CToamaro npeg KO H cyBO M g m h p h h b t h h o t He r o K O H cyB bC K aro gocT O H H C T B a, B 0 3 ra a c H B . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 406 • H o r g e o H o e n o c T H r a y T b , h t o B em iK H H r o c y g a p b n p e g n p H e M g e T ? • H h h c m e c T e c T B o H e a o B e H e c i c o e k 6 o x c e c T B e H H b ix c b o h c t b e m n e n o g x o g H T d n H x c e , x a x n p o ip e H H e M nOBHHHbIX H CBo6 oXCfleHHCM OT H aggOKaipeil K 33HH. Jlflx o6m efi o ia B b i 6oacecTBa. TaM paBHa c n a a ecrecTBa. O xK pbiT bi e c T e c T B a y c T a B b i, TBoeft y M H O xcaT rp o M K O C T b c a a B b i. • H H b m B O TK pO B eH H H eCTeCTBeH H bIX T aH H B CIIOKOHCTBe ynpaX CH H IO TCfl. • Kobb B e x iH K O io p a g o c T H i o B o c x H r p a x o T c a M e c r a c B H ig e H H b iH , n o c e m a e M b i a n a c r e ea 6 o r o y r o g H b i M XipXiCVTCTBHeM. MeHH He x c a x c a a c r p y H n p o 3 p a H H b ix , H o iiryM npHHTHbiH b poxxxax 3gaHHbix IIocneiiiHO pagocTHa BgeneT. H 6 o n b i n e k n j i a B a e b i o b h c m xcaxcga B o c n a g H J ia c b . TaM xcaxxHQCTb c H a ra o c T b io H a 3jio c o eg H H H g acb , H k pa3X H iix;eH H io 6 o ra T C T B a y c T p e M H g a c b . ^C axiK a h c y n o c r a T O B C M epT b. 3 a B H c r a o n a MeHH B 3 x x p a a M c HcagQCTHIO B 0 3 flb ix a H , Ko M H e b o 3 h o c h t C K o p 6 H b if l r g a c : O KOHb B egH K O b H eM gBH>KeHHe c e p g e g H o ! F epoH C T O B , p s e H H e , gocaga, t h c b h xcagb. n p e g C T a B H B 3 g o 6 y h x r H y m a n c b h x x a j ie x o , Hto pog hx oropgy HeBHHHOCTbio CBoexo. T aM H o m b i o o t n o x x cap o B g e m , T a M R H eM B XlblHH HOIIXHaa T eH b . B o C T O K H g b g H C T b lH OKCBH C b o h x o a e H a n p e x o i o H H iO T , H a c e p r y H b in e B 03xcH raK > T . Te6n npeB03Homy XBaaoio, Y c e p g H e M k T e 6 e B 0 3 x c e H . K T e6 e h i o 6 o b h h i o B O SxceH H bi \ Eme y c e p g H e e ro p x iT . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ho peBHOCTBio n u n m Hapog k Te6e B03aceH. n p H M H pasaceH H B i k MecTH CTpembi. M 3 H e n ( 3 t h b i ) p a s a c e H H a a p e n a T e x a a b n y g H H y . E < j)np, 3 e M 7 ia h n p e H c n o ^ H H 3H>KAHTeaH c o c rp a x o M acgyT . H e 3KflH JIBCTeiJOB CBOHX 3aiH H TB I. Te6a M O H a p u m a c g y T n e p T o r a , H o p ( J ) H p a , c K H n e T p h n p e c T o a . M o c K B a e g r n r a H a K oeH a Y n a B , n e p e g t o 6 o h c t o h t , Baacbi cegbie npocrapaeT, T e 6 a , 6orH H H , o acH g aeT . Ot B ac (nayK) Po c c h h oacH gaeT lU.aCTJIHBBIX H CnOKOilHBXX a e T . K o r g a n o o a o rg aH B H m h o t o m C H a 6 g n a g p a x c a n u iH M H ac 3 a a o ro M , M a a g a r o n a s a a g a p o B a B . K p e n H T O T e n e T C B a g i o 6 o B B C b i h o b P o c c h h c k h x g y x h p y i c y . )K egaeT b c j i k n p o a H T B b c i o k p o b b . M b i acgeM a c e a a e M a ro r g a c a : O gH aK O e c a n s p a r o cT asH T K o B a p H y 3aBHCTB caM c o 6 o h , To H ac a c e g a H H b i n M H p n p o c a a B H T . M cnogH H g Bor c b o h c o b c t b i C aceaaH H eM E aH caB exbi. O B e c T H H K c n a c T B a B o a c a e a e H H b i f t H a c h 6 y g y m H x p o g o B . • B ceB oacgeaeH H biH 3 a a o r BoacecK H H k naM M H a o c ra . > K e a e 3 Q 6 p a H e f t g a H e 3 H a e T , C a y a c a b x p y g e 6 o 3 M o a B H B i x c e a . K a x 6 y p e f i n a e B B i p a 3 a c e H H . n O K p O H OTeneCKH 3aKOHBI, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 0 8 r iO J IK H npOTHBHHX QTHteHH. 3eMra, BOfla, aeca noKoae6aaHCb Tan, Koraa H 3 M H o n i x B f l y p r x c e p a m c h h u x noaan 3 H a K . KaK a c e p H O B cepape o h HMee-r. Ho Koe cepape t o h b acecroKO? Ho ax acecTOKaa cyab6HHa! Bo r n e e e c h j i b h o m h a c e c T O K O M n p e c T y n H H X o h m h t c t s p a r o B . Ho B H x p a K y p T O C T B n p e a c e c T O K a . K o h b 3J i o 6 a acecTQKo K a 3 H H T c a ? R B flp O C T H O a ceC T O H Y EranTy cepape B 03HeceHH0. Ohm ynpflMCTBOM 3H B IM O X C eC TO H eH H bl Cyab6HHy C H JIH T C fl Ha BpeMfl OTBpaTHTb. O h o ( c T e i o i o ) B x o a x c h h k h x T e a o x c K B a a c H H O T B p a r p a e x . nacTyx crapa roHHeT b ayr, H a(H3HH aacTb 6aaaorr CB oeii. E o c n o f l b c a M a c H 3 H b m o i o 6 a K > a e T , Koro a y c T p a m y c a ? 3h m o k > 3a cTexaoM hbctbi xpaHHTca acH B b i. TaM HeMeH c Hperaoro [?], TaM Bucaa, Oaep, Illnpea, }KHBoe B a n iH X a e a MeaTaHHe HMea, Texyr c n o a x eH H eM ... • 0 6 p a m a i o T C H n p e a h b m h x c h b q e a c a a f l a a H H i H H y cT a, n o B e a e B a ro ip H H H a c B 0 3 C T a B H T b . • Cne npHBOflHT na naMXTb HCTOpHa h c t h x o t b o p c t b o , xoxopoe nporaeaniHa aeaHHH x c h b q onHcya, xax HacroHipHH npeacTaBaaeT. • C p o a H H K H b aoM e M o e M npea o a a M H m o h m h h c h b o t aH n m aH C b . O T p a a a B c e x x c h b h t , c T O K p a r a o B b i r n e fie a c T B . )K H B H H X H e e r o b c e M M e c r e 6 a a r o a a x H n p n a a c T H b i H O B b ia t b o h a a 6 y a y T p a r a . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 409 O t b i n p e c B e T J ib iH n p eH B O H H T en h I^ B e T y m H X , A b iin y iu tH x ^ k h b h t c h b . KaTHTHecb macTUHBbi C B eT m a, B o Becb EKaTepH HHH BeK, )KHBHTe7ibHa3 B a in a c n a a BaH BaH ca b c e p s u e e ii h b 'u ieH b i. T b i M b io ib MHe n p o c B e x w ; fleaaM H I le T p CHaOjpiT, B era K a f lm e p b e r o m enpoT O H qxchbht, • OacHB^eHHoe n p H M e p o M e r o m h o h c c c t b o c H e B e p o n T H o io n o c n e in e o c T H io c o B e p m a / i o b c h m k h h r p o M a f lb i. E m en b M bi Maao yroM H iracb ) K h t 6h c k h x T ax cecT b io 6 peM eH ? K t o KaxceT C T ap w x c m m c ji b o a h h x e ip e M n a a u x , T ot 6 y a e r sc eM npH M ep, iioxchb B aacoB ceflb ix. C u e 3JiaTy o h h c t h t > kh/iy, FIOHyBCTByiOT H KBMHH CHJiy T 0 6 0 H B03CTaBHeHHbIX H ay x . H CHHbHOft KpenOCTbK) CBOeiO 3 a Jiec h peK H To t iJio b >KMeT. Ha TyHHbix n axcH T iix xpaHHTca O ra fla b T p aB e b o jio b t o h c t m x . Kor^a 6 bi apeB H H b c k h 3H a a n T b o io m e a p o T y c K p a c o T o il, To 17; a 6 bi >KepTBOii noHHTanH rip eK p acH M H b x p a M e o6pa3 t b o h . B a c M C TH TeabH bill n o x c p e T H eyK ocneH H O M e an . r i a c T y x c b o h c i i a f l K o f i c o h n o K H H y a , H iKVHKa 6 pOCHHCH C HUM B 6 0 H. PyH bH b o c a e fl p y ab H M K pyTH Tca, H caHBHiHCb m o k c o 6 o h H cypqaT . Tbi no TeM sa K o n aM , K o T o p b ie n H c a a ; Cm ch jich 3a 6 a 6 oH aM . T bi (KyxcHeaHK) CKanenib h n o e n ib , C Bo6ofleH , 6e33 a 6 o T eH . [3UKOHU zpaitcdaHCKue] R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 410 IIpeM yflpHH mac ceft Co x o m o h o b, M oH apX H H H , ceft mac ecT b t b o h . llp e O y fle T T B ep x b t b o h x aaKOHOB Orpaxa h c t h h b i C B X T o ii He cax a h B H x ey a C B am eH H bift, B EaeM e B m ija h h m H acx cA eH H b iH , Fxe nepBbiii v 3 aK O H eH 6paic. 3apa OarpaHoio pyxoio Ot yrpeH H H x oiokohhhx b o a B b lB O A H T C C O A H p e M 3a co6oio TBoefi A epacaB bi h obbih t o a- H cepA A e Q 3apaeT B aH C T arorpH M ayxeM mexpoT. Bcex npHaTHOcreft saTen B noA 6opoA O K yM ecT H . IU y M a m H e a h c t m n y r a i o T p o 6 k h x 3aH U O B . K O aH C T aiom H M npeA eaaM M n p a IIIyM aiA H M 3 B O H Q M B O S H e C H C b . HcxycTBa hobh, Topr, H ay ic H . IT o O e A O H O C H b i C A bim a 3 b v k h , B aaxcaT c b o iI B H y rp e H H H H i i q k o h . O T K p b ia a c b 6e3A H a 3Be3A n o x H a . 3Be3AaM A H caa HeT, 6e3A H e A na. H eH 3M epH M 0H b H eA pax 6e3A H H Ha3Ha'raa c a o b o m 6era 3 B e3 A H b i. Opyxcne A aH o npnpoAOio 3B epaM . C T p e ry x p H x 3BepcKOH 3 p a x h o cax cx eH H b ix 6aeA H o cT b , H 3 o 6 p a x c a a H B A pyr H a c H a n e h 6exH 0C Tb. H ayK H c B o ab H O C T b K ) o t 3B epcT B a 3am Hm aeT H xpa6pbix M binmeio pacT H T h yxparaaeT. Hto6 3A pasH e ea 6esu;eH H 0 JJjia H a m e i i noab3bi 6esnpeM eH H O K ax B eaH aa B ecH a pBeao. flep3aH Te M y x cecT B O M O T eaecT B O npocaaBHTb, MoHapxa C B oero no6eA O io no3apaBHTb. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. M e ^ H h i m i e M b i O T i i o x a r r e , H b x p a 6 p w p y K H p H e c b B 0 3 M H te 3 e a e H b i b c t b h h p b c t k h . F o p T a H H M e f lH b iB p b i r a iO T a c a p C B H p e n b if i. r ib iB a H 3 e ; i H e , x c e n e s H b i p e e r s a i o i e n b i . I I p e M y f lp o c T b T a M o s n a o x e T x p a M . T e 6 n 3H X C H H T eJIb c o x p a H H T Bo B c e x n y T B x 6 e 3 n p e T K H O B e H H y . Y a c a c H b iH H y ^ H b iM H p e / ia M H 3 H a c jx H T e x ib MHpa h c k o h h , C b o h m h n o a o a c H B cypb6aM H Ce6x irp o a ia B H T b b H a m n p h h . O p jib i H a x o e H e B3HpaiOT, H t O H b B O B b I H eJIIO C T H 3 H K IO T . B 3a a T b i e f lH H c o B b B O M 6 e 3 C H J ib H b iH a r H e p c n a n , M r o ; i y 6 b c n c r p e d o M 6 e 3 6 e p H o b n e e p e T a n . r O H H T e H H p a n O C T b ip H T C H , H t o Hipyr 3jm p y m p M o e i i . B /ta > K C H K TO K 3 flb I M B COBeT H e X O P H T . H t o 6 b 3 n o 6 e i u iO T b m o k » n o a c p a x b , r ip O T H B H b l y C T p M H H H C b . H 3 6 a B b MeHH OT 3JK)6H bIX p y x . f lo K O J i e P o c n o p H 6 e 3 r H e B y H a 3H O C T b h x 6 y p e n i b t h B 3n p a T b . O h y 3p H T c /i e p c T B H H n o c n e u i H b i B H e 3H o 6 H B b i x c b o h x p e i i a x . T b i x a x 3M H K ) n o n p e r a b n o p o x H , F I h T O H H a C y ilH T H I b T b i H a HbBa. K o H H K y K 3 H 3 H H H M OXOTy f l a e r n b H a p o p y T B o e M y . T e 6 n n o c T a B w i b 3H a x 3a B e T a H a p 3 H a T H e H H i e io n a c T b i o C B e T a . B m e p c T H o B e n e l i 3H a T e H b q j i k . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ffle 3HaK ctoht tboh x n o 6 ea . llpH 3H aK H M y ac ecT B a b p y x a x h x o c r a B M io T . Tfle M e p 3 jiB iM H B o p e fi x p n a a M H [sic] T b o h B 3B eB aex 3H aM eH a. CyM apoKos: BenHKHH r o c y a a p b ! CM ym aeTca H ap oa, H B ee b o b h v io t c h x a x 6 y p e f i t o k h b o h . H H xeeyH H TeH H p a 3 c e a a H p a 3 B p a ~ r. H BcaceyHHTeHH pa3ce>j/iH pa3BpaT. H e B e H u e H o c e a a b B e a n x o a e n H O M r p a n e . O b h , K O T opw e cT p eM H T eo . H a Ila p H a c , H e c T p o f ia ro r y a x a HMea r p y 6 o f t r a a c . 3 a aep30C Tb 6 y a e n i b T a M t m MywTbca b o BeKH. f lx o aep 3 Q C T H b iH o p e a B w r a e o 6 a a x B 0 3 a e T e a . i l 6 y n y H e a a a b t o , h t o a o a r n o B e a e B a e T . B e a H K H H n e a o B e x , B e a H K H f t r o c n o a H H , KaK XTO HH TO BO pH , eCTb TH TV a He o h h h . B e a n x o ii t o c i io h h h x t o h h h 6oabtuoft H M eeT , B e n n x o ii neaoBex, x t o m h o t o p a 3 y M e e T . BeanxoH r o c n o a H H , JIox H e 6wa b secb c b o h B ex Hh xoHb KaanryaHH Beanxoft neaoBex. H e B 0 3 B p am ,ai0 T C H H a 3 a a x h c to x b m b o a b i, Hh x H a M n p o m e a n i H e M aaabie H a u iH roflbi. K o a b HCTHHHbl CBHTQH HaHaAbHHXH He BHeMaK)T, H 6e33axoHHHXQB H eH axa3ya aeM aioT ; H a h t o 3 a x o H ? Hab Toaxxa aaa t o t o , h t o 6 6 h a H a n n c a n o h ? H t o cei? a e c Tecen 6bia, h c h h c t , M BeaaJIM OHH, HTO OH H H e 3aftHHCT. B o r a e B e n e a o B e x m o T e v u m m caM biil 3B epb. [n u m b 3a 3 d p a e u e\K o r a a n H T b e m b i m y M H O 3 a 3 a p a B H e H 3 a H u iH O n b e M , R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. K aK yio «e;iaeM apyroMy no/ibsy reM ? B t o m cyeTHO e M y aflo p o B b H o a o ifla e M : C b o c j i h i u b t o h b k o n o s p e a c f la e M . S a o p o B Q 6 p a x ! c i c a 3 a n o c e a K o r ^ a t o a b B y . I lp e M e H b i c 'la c T H H c y r b CBOHCTBa 3 g e n iH H c s e T a . Oh npaBay n a n e B cex n o f l B / r a c r a b i x H a6aioflaeT, H B ee c b o h H a n e i i y c r a B b i co3HflaeT. B e c c M e p T H b iH T B a p e ft o 6 a a f le a T e a b , O p a B H T e H b H e 6 a h 3 e M /in , Been BceaeHHbiH co3flaTejib. I I p H 3 H aH H e B H H bi k n p o m e H H io ycnex. K t o iu ia n e T o rpexe, t o t nyB C T B yeT c b o h rpex. Te6e m o h H p a B 3HaKOM, n p H T B o p c T B a r r n y m a i o c b . P o n r a H b e H a T e 6 a s a o a e c T H b ie c y r y 6 a T . • O k j io t h r. CyMapoKOBa. • O e a T p P o c c h h c k o h . O e a T p r. CyMopoxoBa [sic] R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 414 APPENDIX E LIST OF ENTRY WORDS ILLUSTRATED WITH QUOTATATIONS FROM CHURCH BOOKS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS TEXTS CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. AKa<j>. B oroM . | AKa<j>. COBeT o6paflOBaHHbIH B oroM aT ep e | AKa<|>. B oroM aT . MHoroBein;aHHbiH HeBecTOKpacHTeabHHHa b HepKOBHBIX K H H rax... ( n o t m a r k e d S I.!!) T aiidH H ua (u n d e r TaftdHHic) ( 6 ) yTaeHHbifr A ic a c f): B o r o p o fl. | A K a tJ ). BcenyfflHBifi oflynieB jieH H biH n p ecB . B o r o p o fl. HeHeBecTHaa H edecH bie K p yra H epyKomteTeHHHH ciiaffKoyxaHHbiH CBeTonpHeMHbiH AKatjj. H n c y c y B36paHHMH AKa4>. K oH fl. 1 B03HHCMBaTb XBajIbl KOMy AKa4>[HCT] n p ecB : B o r o p o fl: 6e3rnacH biH AieaxJ). C b . B apB ap. yueBeureH Hari A h t h (|)o h : | A hthc[). odoaceH H e HCHBOHanaaHe CBeTnerocb B nar. EBaHr. JlyK 2 7 b h c t . cxponoTCTBO (u n d e r CTpOnOTHOCTb) B o r o p o fl. | B o r o p . rOpOXHHtHblH HeCBeflOMblH BOCnpHBTblH (3) n p o m ecT B H e B o r o p o fl. b n oH efl. rseuepa Bce3naTHH TMOpHHHblil E oropoflH H eH r a a c a v MH0rOBO3flbIXai0 B o r o p o fl. B ocK p . r/i 6 6e3neTHO H h h . BoacecTB. JlHTypr. r y d a (2 ) 3 jia T o y cra ro . n p e n o fla io c b (2 ) H h h o b : A p x n e p . B xop cT B yio H h h BeH'iaHHfl B eH uaroca (sic , d h . n ic h t slav. tr o tz E n d u n g !) H h h . H cnoB efl. B o r BHflHT jcaHOH r p e u . H h h . K peip. o n p a B flb iB a io cb x o jih th n o cT onaM (u n d e r h t t h n o nbHM CTonaM) H h h JlHTyprHH. flflOMbrfl (5) H3pflflHO dnaronecT H B efiH iH H H eocyxfleH H O (3) noKajTHTb R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 415 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. c n p o c / i a B J i f l i o c H ( 5 ) C a B a o < |» e B p . c o e f l H H e H H e T h h n o B e u e p j M B e / n i K a r o T p H C B K T b lH f la M a c K H H I o B e p e [? ] d o x y C a M O d b lT H b lH C B . f lH O H H C H h : 0 B J ia c T H ( n o s t y l e i n d i c a t i o n , i t l C B H iu e H H O H a u a m iH 6 ) i f y x o B H H f t M a p r a p H T 1 0 0 S i c r e H . o r a a m a i o E K T e H . H a H H T H H . [? ] d a a r o y B e T B H B b i i t E k t . o n o d e n e H a B p a r a H e ilO B H H H O C T b E K T e H . n p n B O flO C B H m e H . O C B H m a iO C b E k t . n p H n o r p e d e H H H y n o K O H io c H ( u n d e r y n o K o e B a r o c a ) < E > n /ia p eT : x p e d n . H a B e H i a H . T b IC H U K O H C T a p H H . € > e B p . 2 4 r o B e i i H b i H T n a c a 3 . A h t h ^ o h 1 n p H C H O X H B O T H e D i a c a 4 . A h t h 4> o h 3 ) K n B m o c b D i a c a 6 . A h t h ( J ) o h 1 B o c n e p a i o T n a c a 6 . A h t h i J j o h 2 p a B H O f le T e r r b H b iii Ip. H a 3 . | F p H r o p . H a 3H a H 3 . | d a c H e H H w h B d o x a t o T p H r . H a 3 . | [ F p H r o p H H d n a 3 H b B o r o c a o B h t i h H a 3H a H 3 e H ] | H a s . d e r c T B y i o ( 6 ) T e p n e j i H B O C T p a c T H b i ii ( 6 ) T e p H O B u m e F l M n e p a T p H n y . G i y x c d . 3 n a T o y c T . M H o r o n e T C T B y io Y n a K o i i b H e « . I l a c x H r i e a e H a H p M [ o / i o r n o H ] | 1 ) H a u a j i o d b i T H b i f i H p M o a f o r a o H ] | n o d e f l H b i h n p H B e n e H H e H p M o a o r . [ n p H n e B , H p M o c b i , y f l o d o o d p a m a T e n b H b r a H e B e m e c T B e H H w i i C T H X H B K S H O H e ] . iip e f ld e /i,C T B V K ) T p e B o a H e H H e B C H H y r o H H 3 B 7 ie K a K ) H 3 B H T H H C T B O B a T H B O f lo c T n a H e H d a a r o B e m a i o H e e p e f l H M b i i i y r p o x a i - o o r y m a i o H e T b ip e f l e c B T O f l H e B H b i ii [ s e e t r i d n e v n u i u u n d e r s i . e x a m p l e f o r i n c o n s i s t e n c y ? ] B b lC O K O p a p C T B y iO n p e f l o n p e f l e n a i o c o n e T e n b o d b e M m o c a 1 The Dukhovnyi Margarit was excerpted by Turchaninov, who submitted the words to the academy in November 1783. Apparently, however, his words were not included in the final publication o f the SAR. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 1 6 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. n p H e M H i o a i B o r o n p M e M H b i h n p H H T H e n p H H T H b if t n p e e c T e c T B e H H b i f l n p e e c r e c T B e H H O c o e c T e c x B e H c y m H i i e flH H O C y iU H B I H c o n p H C H O c y m H b i i i ( 2 ) ( 2 ) I r m o l . 2 ) n p e f l B 0 3 r a a m a i o c o r n a c y i o r j i y b m i a (b b h t h h c b . o i o r e ) [ s e e m s t o b e t h e s a m e a s si.???] 6 o r o y r o ,n ; H O r o c n o f lC T B e H H O r p o M o n B a M e H H a a n e n j B . B c e r p e M H m a n n e m t B c e r y b H T e f lB H B iH H y i n e n a r y b H b i H r y 6 H H B B iil flB J O K H M b lfl ( 3 ) B 0 3 flB H 5 K e H H B IH H H e c B e r a b i f i T p H H H e B H y iO H T p H flH e B C T B y iO ( + ) ;j,e p > K a B C T B y io o b f l e p x c y H e o f le p a c H M O c o f l e p a c y c a ( u n d e r c o f l e p x y c b ) c o a p o r a i o c H B o a p y a c a i o flO X H O B C H H e o r H e n o x H O B e H H B i ii b e s f l w x a H H b i H 6 o r o n y x H O B e H H M H f ly m e j i O B H T e r t b H b ii i H y m e T J ie H H B iH H y ilie T B H T e X b H H H ( 2 ) K p a c H O f l y u i H b i i l f le B C T B e H H b lii M a T e p o n e B C T B e H H a a B c e n e T e a b B e C fle T e B B H B IH H O B O fle T e B B R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 417 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. HOBOfleftCTBO H en a T era m e HOBOCOflenaTH B3HTHCX OT CpeflBI ^HBOnpHeM Hblft BorOnpHHTHblH n p M T eB H m e (2 ) CTpaHHonpweM fliocH (2 ) OCymeCTBOBaHHMH npHCHOJKHBy COJKHBy npeanoB C H paio (3 )I r m o l. nepB03B;aHHbrtl B03C03HflaK) [!] BO3C03flaHHe cH H 3xoacfly n p e fl3 p io KpeCTOBHflHO n p o3H p am xpecT oo6pa3H W H np03pHTeBBHbIH xpecT O o6pa3H O n p 030p B H B 0 (2) x p ecT H o e ApeBO H e3bi6jieM H fi B3birpaTHCB HflOBOHeHCTOBCTBO raecT B yio n en iem ecT B y ro (2) nemexo>KB;y H am ecT B yio npeH M ym H li HeHCTOBCTByiOCB KOJiecHHperoHHTe;ib nOKpOBeHHblft B o ro n en H b ifi B o r o n e ir a o (2 ) (4 )I r m o l. MaHHe (u n d e r m a a n ie a ll Si.) MHpOHaua/IbHHK B p ep x o B H b ix npeM H pH bift XHHrax (but not eflHHOMy^peHHO S I!!) HeH3MeHHO MAaaeHCTByio BorOHOCHblH HeMOKpeHHblH 5KHBOHOCHMH HeMOXHHO ornefloxHOBeHHW H HeH3MeHHbIH orH enartbH bifi h coH SM eueH H e orH enanH M bifl ruioTO H oceu, o6pa3H O (2 ) (2 ) OpraHCKHH CHHcnaflaio n n c r y H eonanbH biil noH T r p e u . Heona;ibHO B oronncaH K biH XCHBOUHCyiO n p eH n n cb iB aio (u n d e r n e u tr .) HeruioflCTByio nyUHHOpOAHblH R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 1 8 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. npaniHbm c/iaAiconeHHe BcenexbiH MHoroneTbiH necHoneHHe CTia^KonecHeHHtiH necneHHO nenpaseflHyK) (5) Irmol. Ha^a/ropoftHbift 3eM H O pO flH bIH nepBopo^KAycfl opoiuaio nopoflHTH BceopyacHMfi poco^aTe^bHHH pyKOHomycfl pO C O H O C H blft aiaBocjioBeHne (see SI. column) pocoTo^y npenpocnaBJiemibra orHepocHbiH flO C T O H H H e OTpbirHyTH C 7IO B O ceKycb H 3peiIIH TH C iI npeceKaeMbifl C B C T O B O flC T B yio (under CBeTOBo^c^y Cji.) cseTOflaBei} C BeTO H ana^bH M K C B eT O H O C H blH T pH C B eT JIblH C J I 3B O C J IO B J IK ) (2) npaB O C T iaB H O aie3io T p H C O /T H eH H b X H npeAHacxaB/uiio npecei<aK) C eH H O X IH C aH H b lH npHOceHeHHbifi (6) H eT/ieH H O Heyno6oxepnHMbiH C IIO T J IH C e H H O T K aT H neCHH ( b U epK O BH bJX yM H O (yMHbift, however, not KHHrax, however, not si.) SI.) H 3yMeBaio xaroxeio HefloyMero 6e3yM HbiH H H 3yM eB aK > 6;iaroyxpo6Hbm (see noun SI.!!) Boropa3yMHe (2) Bceuapmta hnaroyxpohne peBHHita 6jiaroxBamo 6e3HananbHbiH BcexHTpep paBHOHHcneHHbih snoxyjiemie (2) xpHHHcneHHbih Bcepapb uyfloxBopro HenaflCTByio H B C X B eH H O nama npO H B H H IO C b ( 1) npoHauepxaBaio 6naroHecTByio horouecxHe 6orO H eC TH BbIH npoflBneHHbm R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 419 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. SJIOHecXHBMH, 3BOHeCXHBIH n o n e c x B y io H peBO H O uiem ie H yA oaetlcxBH e uyflOfleMCXByio (+) H3bIKOBpeflHe H 3biK oorH eo6pa3H e 6aaroH 3biH H e 6aar0H3bIHHbIH MenneHH0H3bIHHblft HpMcwi. 6 7 Ha o 6 o p o T e HpM O/i. m . 8 . A h th 4 > . 2 XpHCHflK) H p M o n . j i h c t 104 HpM On. CTp. 142 HpMOC B e p x o x B o p e n npe6o)K ecxB eH H biH HesnaxcHbiH H p m o c . 1.12. HpMOC B fleH b riflTfleCHTH. BeXHHCXByK) H p M oc 5 Ha yTpeH . Ila c x H . 6ororaaroH H B biH H pM . fle x a d p . 2 4 , n ecH . 8 C xpaH H onpneM jnocH H pM . Ha P oxc. X p u c x . 03eMJieHHK) KaH. A H rea. X paH . 3 a 6 p a n o M HorocaaBHbiH CO JIHpe3p aHHbXH KaHOH. O o rop oflH p e OKOpMHXb KaH. Ila cx H n p e B o a o r y cp a3rora a io cfl CBexOHOCHblH cpa3nnH aiocH co B 03cxaro yxpeHHHH c H H 3 x o * A y [ n o t si.!!, a lth o u g h c le a r ly th e si. fo r m ] x p a c y io c b H apeueH H bilr KOHHHHa HapeueHHbift CMepxb KaH: I la c x . r ie c m , 4 c x a n y ( 5 C K axam e, u n d e r c x a u y neutral) K an F lacx. necH . 5 CBeipeHOCHblft KaH. Ila cx H necH . 6 CHH3XOXCfly KaHOH. B o r o p o flH p e necH . 3 ( 3 ) OKOpMHXH nOKpOB KaH. E o r o p o fl. n e c n . 7 ( 3 ) KpOB Kan. B or. n e c m 9 He3ApaBHe KaHOH B o r o p o fl. B orodnaaceH H biH K an. B or. BceM cxopO : xce3H c x a p o c x H KaH: 6e3 m io T H [b ix cun, x .e .. aHre/iaM]: BeuHyro BCeBHHOBHblH d n a ro o x H u iH b ift OXeMHeHHblH KaH. B o r o p . npH C xaH H ipe (u n d e r n p n cx a H b ) KaH: b BeaHK. n ex B e p x . Ha aayuiarocH R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 420 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. HO Benep. KaH. b BejiHK. c y 6 6 . y r p o Ile cH . V. yTpeHioK) KaH. b seitH K . c y 6 6 . n ecH b 8 BMeHHIOCb Kan. n a BoroHBJi. T peB enepH H il KaH: n a Bejraic. neTBepT. KaH. Ha riflTbflecflTH . | K a n o n B fleHb llflTfleCHTH. BeTyio B e r a iic B y io K an: Ha p oacfl. X p n cT . n ecH . 8 c /n o (u n d e r hijho) KaHOH Ha C b . EEacxy. c n o r p e d a io a j (2 ) K an . Ha y cn eH . p oacp ecT B o KaHOH c b h t. H h k o h . B eH peH oceu, ( b pepK . k h h i\ ) KaH. yT p . b B en. n aT . n ecH . 8 m aT arocb K e n e t a . npaBHJi. c b. IlaxoM H H nojieB H e Kh c b c k. n aT ep . jihct 51 c y n m o c b K o h h . FeH Bapa HK)6o6e3MOB:BHbIH 3JIOCJiaBHe AeJiaTejibHbift m o6o6e3M O /[BH biH KoHfl. O eB p: npH C H O H eC T H blH BcenbHHK K o h h . M apT . HyflopeHcTBHe noflB H raiocb H H ip eo6p a3H o nacTbipeHanaHbHHK HHHl,eo6pa3HO nacTbipeHanaBbHHK CBeTOBopcTByio (u n d e r CBeTOBoacpy G i.) K o h u . A n p e n . CaM03BaHHbIH CBeTOBoacpycH HpyacHHa CaM03BaHHbIH M yneHHnecKH KoHfl. Mann npopoKOM yneHHHHHK p e n . pepK O BH oe [n o si.] pod p opacneH H b iH CBeTOHHTHe CBeTOflBneHHbiii npopoK O M yneH H K peueH H e pepK O BH oe K ohji. H ig h. OnaroBpeMeHCTBo nOflBH3aiOCH dnaronecH H B H H sn ep flK ) KoHfl. H yn . nyp oH O cep K ohb;. A b f. BeHeHHHK H snenenH T b KoHflaK CeHT. npHCHoneBaeM biH BCenpaSflHCTBeHHHH p o d p o p e B a fflOCTOBOHDKHO R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 421 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. AeBCTBeHHHK KoHflaK b .. .nem> OKTabpa BoroBemaTeab nocaymaTeab K03H0«eHCTB0 Kohh: Hoa6p: | KonaaK B H TH ftC K H H 6ororaaroabHHK B03flBHrHyTH A H K C O BC eA bH H K C O H peC T O A BH H K HecTHAcaHHe XBpaTHBIH B03ABHrHyTH flyiny KoHfl. JfeKabp. necHonncen Ho6ponecHeHHHH nepBOCTpaflaaep fleTeabHbifi CBameHHOflefiCTBHTeAb 6aaronecHHBbiH 6 o ro 3 H a M e H n e CTpaaaabaecTBO KoHfl. 2 HeaeaH nocra. AeaaTeabHMH KOHfl. BeflHK. K aH . B3npaAbiBaio (under neutr.) KoHflaK b Heaeaio MbiTap: h Oapnc: BbicoKoraaroaaHHe Koha. b HeaeAio Oomh >KH3HOnOAaTeAbHblfl Kon/rax Ha BBefleHHe CoBBoacay KoHflaK na poacfl. Xpnc. npeBeuHbifl Koha. Ha crpereHHe [?] FocnoflH. yrpoda [includes also examples from the Bible not marked SI. However, under different # example from the Bible marked *S1., meaning miloserdie..] -> proves that SI. is not text/genre dependent Koha. na yceKHOBeHHe raaBbi HoaH. HpeflT. npHBpeMeHHMH Koh. Beamc. naTK. yTpa. 3aymeHne Koha. b aeHb IleTpa h IlaB A a BoroBemaHHbiii KpaTK: H 3A .H C H : X C H 3H H C B . FpHrop: 2 5 FeHBapa. b caen. FtcaAT. coapyacedHHK Jlrnypr. Bac. Ben. AHrea xpamrrenb JlH T y p r. HoaH. 3aax. Beio /iHMOHap: cocea H H K cyxofloa Kofieab KOinyra nepecTpea crpexa Kobea win ko6a crapHH. npoTaeTHca R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 2 2 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. [Mepmio npaneflHoe h/ih codpaHHe flpeBHHX 3aKOHOs]2 [3a«HHHa] Mecfln. CeHT. caModpar MHoroneT. nocne Moned. neHHH nocneuienHe MonHTBa I Ha EneocBameHHe Bpacxa crapHH. Mon. Anreny odijflneHHe MonHTBa Anreny XpaHHTenio dpaTOHenaBHAeHHe 3nonoMHeHHe CMepnaiHHH HMH-peK B HepKOBH. K H H T aX H B npHKa3HbIX penax Mojihtb. Ben. noBenep. Be3codna3HCTBO Mohhtb. Borop. b Man. noBeu. Hedna3Hbra MonHT. rocnoflH. | focnoflHH MonHTBa nyKaBoe cymHbift, HacymHBiH CBnmycb cyipHbift Mon. flyxy Cbjit. | MonHT Cb. flyxy yTeniHTenb Besne MonHTB[a] ko npHHain; [ eHHio ] | M ohhtb. k o cb. ripHnameHHio | 4 M ohhtb. k o npH'iam. HenpoipeHHO niodocTHacaHHe CHHTHe CK O K TaH H e MonHTB. MaHac. BenHKonenHe Mohhtb. Ha boaoocbhih- padral MonHTBa Ha neHb KopoH. npHHTHe CTpaHHbIX MoHHTBa Ha IlHTneCHTHHHy odaaacatocB MonHTBa b pern nflTnecuTH. j MonHTBa Ha Hem. IlflTHecflTH. BpecHoxy (!!! pecHOTa allone S I.) npHHTHblil BOCnpHHTHe Mon. Ha coh rpHnyru,. odtanaiocb (under odHeflaiocb, should clearly be in the other column) Mohht. npecBHT. Boropon. HanpacHHH Mohhtb. o poncne. cyxocTb Mohht. ponnnbH. b 40 fleHb. BOH epK O BH H IOCb BopepKOBneHHe MonHTBa Cb. E <J>peM a modoHauam ie npa3flHocnoBHe MonHTBa Cb. flyxy: M ohhtb. yrpeH. donpeHHMH Mohhtb. 3 k npHuaureH. CH H TH e MonHTBa 7. npen npHuacTHeM acHBOflaTenbHbift Ha npennpa3AH. Poac. XpHCT. coBeTyio Ha cthx. b cpen. Benep. Ka3axenb 2 Musin-Pushkin read the text in search for words and lists “zadnitsa” (Sukhomlinov, vyp. 7, p. 158), However, the dictionary gives another source under “zadnitsa.” R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 2 3 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. H a ,® in ch Ha K pecTe CnacHTena HpoHHH r p e n . [npH M ep: H y c y c M asopH H H H n a p b H yfleftcKHft] H a n n n c b . EIcanM. n o c n e fl. EflHHo6opCTByK> H a3: h h c t: H oMOK. HOMOKan I HoMOKaHOH HBoe6paHHbifi yCTpa6aeHHe se p B H n a 0 6 m . a r f x . 6 . c b h t. IIpO H 36paH H bril O k t o h x | O k t o . yflo6oBOflHTeflBHbIH npaneflO B 2. Ilep eM H a cbhthtctho panH T eab Flee. 5 b Bem iK. Cy66. 6oroH BH eH eH ( 1 ) rtecH . 7 . K p ecT y pOCOHOCHblfi Ile cH b BMecTO X e p . b Bert. n o c r . CHHbl He6eCHbIH IlecH b B M ecro XepyBH M . b BeTiHKyio c y 6 6 o x y CepacjniM FlecH b cb. A m b p o c h h BepiocH Ile c H . K aH ona n acxH HCTblH Ilo a ieA O B . KO CBHT. npHHaiH- COB03paCTaK) CBeTHK) n o c n e f l. n o y c o n m . BHHHHK) n o c n e s o B a m ie norpe6eH H H Ee3AbixaHHWH n o c n e f l. cBHTaro en ea n o M a 3 y io n o c n e f l. c b . K pem eH H H CHbimaHHe Ilo T p e6 H . O n /ia p eT h h c t. 1 6 7 M 0H03HB0 CTap. FlpaB. H c n o B e fl. B ep h i. | npaB im : n c n o B e . h . 1 6naroyM H e MOHHTBOHeaeH HHH MOHHTBOMaCHHe ripaBOCH. HCTOH. pyKOBOHUIBeHHe O p a rn n n : h hct 2 Ha o 6 o p . CTapHKOBHJHHa Ilp H n eB n a 9 necH H , b C b c t h . h c a . acepTBa b n e p x . k h . [n o t m a r k e d SI, h o w e v e r ] n p n n e B Ha BaefleH H e npH B eneH H bift r tp u n e B Ha 9 necH H , 1 IeH B . H e p a p x r p e n . <E>eo<J>aH ripoK onoB H H (3 ) 6aaro3aKOHHe irpo3HaMeHyK) 3pro HHne3peHHe 3 e p n a n o npe3opcT B O ( 3 ) 3 a 6 o 6 o H b i r ip o n o r IeH . 6o>KHHn;a M en xa cTapHH. r ip o a o r <J>eBp. KaHbHblft r ip o n o r M apT a H H ip eT H b lH n p o s o p y io CTapHH. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 424 C H U R C H BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. 6e3paROCTHBIH d e s n e n a n n e o d c n p e x n ( u n d e r n o s o p y io cx ap H H . OCHpOTeTb) M e tH b iii 3ejreHHHK M H o ro M y sp u e OKpecTHe o d liflJIH B H ii K p y a o w o ( u n d e r K p y sc e so 6 e 3 n e n a n H e h 6 e 3 n e n a /ib c x B o (1 e x a m p le y f o r e a c h o f th e n e u tr .) w o r d s , o n e e n tr y ) MaHOBeHHe ( u n d e r m a a n ie c o n p a r a i o all SI.) c p a jjy to c H MC3HHHK peH eBH X bift MOJIHTByK) CBHpenbHHK B o ro M y a p b iH COXpyAHHK HHIUeTHblH B03HOBJMIOCH B0306H>KAaK) o n e p a x a it h o p a x a ft cn n a n e c T B y io n n eB b i n n eB H H u a npOCTblHfl n y c T o n iH b ifi ( u n d e r n e u tr .) H3IIbITHHK MHOrOH311bITHe 6 e3 p an o cT H b iH p e x to c a n p e p e K o p e u H B b ifi co p b iA aro o d c u p e x n ( u n d e r o c n p o x e x h n e u tr .) cnoB O H 3X H 3axenb y c /ry ry ro c x p y io XMHHHblii yuH xeribcxB O senH K O xeneceH r ip o ji [ o r ] A n p e /w n o M ^cap e H H b itt CMOKaK) H H iitem o d H e B03M e3«HXH 3 an H H ax e n b H b ift n e x a p H H n ecH O cnoB H e n e n a jiy io noM acapeH H biH M enHHK M ecHUHoe CM excaio H H iitem o d H e 6e3M e3flH bIH o ra e B a H 6 o n e 3 H b B03Me3flHXH 3 anH H axenbH biH 6e3MOBBHMH c n o u a MOXblKa n jim n y io neK anbH H n o cxapnH H O M y iu n m te B a H H e ( u n d e r p e k a r n ia R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 425 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. npHiraoafcaio neutr.) necHOMOBHe neuaayio cxap. npocrbiHa uepHopH3ep nycroraHwfi (under neutr.) py6 cxapHH. (5) padmnim CKHXHHK H3pacTaio CKyflo«a (under cieyfla, npoHapeKOBaHHe C K yflO C T b) cejiHTBa 3BOCM pajtHHfi ycKaadaaiocb C X O B b H H K cxapHH. nepBonpecroOTie nocxaB nepBonpecToabHHK cxpaacay (under neutr.) cxpaaa C T paacH H K (under cxpaac) cocxpeaaxn TpacHBHpa TMcauteHauaaHe npejyiocxaBJiHio Ilpoa: Maa K H H ra CM epTHaa meabira(l) MexaXb O H H 6oraxHUHbiH HedonapHMH Kpeueab cxapHH. M H BO X apb neicapHH 6e3MoaBCTByro ayaa cxapHH. MHoroMHTeaoie M H 3rH X b cxapHH. npnodmHe yMHpnxeab odmemie C M yapC X BeH H H K H C M yflpeH H H K 6e30'icxByK) eaH H O O K H ft (!) O X eH H H K neicapHH HedonapHbiH nnxoMen, nepy naax poTa 6eaopH3en, pyKonpocxepxne pyraxeab C K IB H H K C aH O B H X blH CTapeiiniHHCTByio (under C aH O B H H K C T ap niHHCTByio) cxoMpax npocxo ace CKOMopox cxoa (!!!, can be interpreted as SI.) H 3Q C T aB H T H Maao ynoTp. cKyaeabHHK O C TeH eH H H H coKaabHHU,a cxapHH. cyexne C X pblH T paBH H K xpane3HbiH XpyflH H K jnodoywreneH npoceaaio IIpo/i: High: | Flpoa: Hkjhh TlrodonecxByiocfl K O C X O aO M H blH | Flpon. Hyn. cyexcxByio cnHpoHanaabHHK xoHpe ycnyTH xMopmjeio ycxpadaaro xnaca xaeB apeM OHOCHblH Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 426 C H U R C H BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. f l p o j i t o r ] : H y n : [ n o y n e r o iH H W W M H pflH ] n o h n p H H H 6 p e r o B a T b if i M a H 3 e p C T apH H . T H M eH H biH [ t i m e n i e , h o w e v e r , SL] r i p o / i . C e H x n h p n 6 p eflO K B a p a 3 H 0 6 b IT H e n e B K a c n o in ,H H H e n e B K a c r i p o n . o k t. I lo n 6 p e n c H e c n o c n e n H H K ( 3 ) K o n n 6 a c x a p H H . X pH C T O H eH anaB H C TH H K CH H eir C K B ap a C T ap . f l p o n . H o n 6 p n 6 p a T a H m a n c x B e H H H K c x a p H H . m a n c x B y io h m aB C T B y io o 6 B n a a c n ;a io c n o cn e A H H K 3 a3 H fla ro ( 3 ) K o n o p y n n ( 4 ) M a T e p o n e n H e M VpOBOHHe 6 b ic x p o T a n e K n o n n o T o m o 6 e H , n y r a p b C T apH H . M H T y m a io c x a p H H . n e K n o C T apH H . n n o T o n i o 6 e u p e ’IH C TU H I l p o n . J f e K a 6 p . n e n a n b H H K C T ap. I l p o n . r n n n a i o f l p o n . 17 H 3PO H H T H C T ap. B cn eflO B . f l e a m . 1 6 n e H , A f ir y c T a . n p n x n y i o f l e a m : O k t : X pH C T O H eH aB H C T H blH f l e a m . c jie n . K o h h . A B ry c T . 18 6 o r o M y n p b ili f lp H n e B H a 9 n e c H H , b C h c t h . Hep,. n c e p x B a f l e a m . G i e n . c T p . 3 9 5 6 n a ro n o n ,p a > K a T e n b H O C n e f l. f l e a m . b h c t . 4 1 4 G i e n . f l e a m . m c r . 4 1 5 H a o 6 o p . B c e n e n a H H e P e r n . fly x o B H . | n y x o B H . p e r;ia M . K n H p r p e n . CBHTeHHieCTBO Pern. fly x o B H . C T a T b n o n p o n o B e n H H K a x C K n an w B aK ) P e r n . J fy x o B H . C T a x b H o n p o n o B e f lH H K a x C K n a n w B a io Pen. q e p K . Helena B aH H . IfB eX H H K P y K o n . K H H r. 3 a p y K o io H h k o h f l a x p . 3 a flH H ira ( 2 ) I I le c T o n . B a c H n . B en . eo B e T o n aT en b C T B O C n M B o n B e p b i | n n e H . c h m b . B e p b i H c riO B e n y io B e p y io n a i o B o n e n o B e n H B a io c b c o d o p n a n n e p K O B b T B o p e n Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 427 CHURCH BOOKS SLAVONIC NOT MARKED, ET AL. [ C h m c J jo h u h H a BeTxoft, H a h o b o h 3aseT] * this is a s a m p l e phrase, not a reference! C h m cJi o h h j i r p e n . C n H a ic c . [?] H a n a c x y C H H o n c . [ ( 1 6 7 4 ) by Innokentii Gizel’/Inokentij Hizel’, 5 th ed. Petersburg 1 7 6 2 , s. Okenfuss, p .3 4 - 3 5 ] n O H H H anbH H K C TapH H . o T c e i b C H H o n c . r/i. 3 H n o n . 4 8 K o n b ic K a C T ap. C tiH o n . Acjjanac. Ben. B T 0 p 0 3 a K 0 H H e C K a 3 a H H e o H ep y K O T B o p . o 6 p a 3 e b c n e n I l c a n . a s r y c T 1 6 . 3 a c r e H f lio OTCTeHBK) C K p H n c a n n ? | H 3 K p n a c a n : | 6 e 3 B e p B anH O T p H c s e n tH e ( u n d e r flB y c B e rp H e ) O C B H T H T enbH blft T pH C H H T eJIbH blH M O A H T B O H eneii h a h M O H H T B O M aam e C n e f l. I lc a r iT . 2 6 <t>eBp. C n e n o B a H . T lca n . 1 7 M a p x a c o o 6 m H T H 6 p a K y C n e « . r t c a n r . H o n h p . 2 9 x c H T o n p o fla B e p C n e f l. r i c a n T . 4 9 8 6 n a ro M o m ,H b iH C n e n o B . P Ic a n T . h h c t 4 4 6 6 e 3 R e n H b iH C j i o b o H o a H . 3 n a T o y c T . H a f le H t I l a c x H A a p io C n o B O n a 2 5 fleKahpa CBHpHK) C n o B O o H c x o a e fly riiH | c/ io b o Ha H c x o fl. n y u iH o r n a r o n b H H K rn a A O T B o p ro ( 3 ) H M e H o n ro h n e H eyM blT H B IH paflO CTO CQ TBO pHTH (4 )H e y M b iT H b ih 6e3M eC T H bIH (5)paA O C TO C O TB O pH TH C n . f lp e o c B . IT n a x . n a J Ia 3 a p