Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ЕКАТЕРИНА II И ЕЕ ВРЕМЯ
СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ВЗГЛЯД
St. Petersburg
1999
Санкт-Петербургский Центр истории идей
ФИЛОСОФСКИЙ ВЕК
АЛЬМАНАХ
11
ЕКАТЕРИНА II И ЕЕ ВРЕМЯ
СОВРЕМЕННЫЙ ВЗГЛЯД
Санкт-Петербург
1999
St. Petersburg Center
for the History of Ideas
__________________________________
http://ideashistory.org.ru
Ответственные редакторы альманаха: Т. В. Артемьева, М. И. Микешин
В оформлении использованы:
аллегорическое изображение философии из книги
«Иконология, объясненная лицами,
или полное собрание аллегорий, емблем и пр.»
(Т. 2. М., 1803).
art@hb.ras.spb.su mic@mm1734.spb.edu
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8131
Россия 194358 Санкт-Петербург, а/я 264
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
Содержание ................................................................................ 5
Contents ................................................................................ 6
Артемьева Т.В., Екатерина Великая в зеркале современных ин-
Микешин М.И. терпретаций ......................................................... 7
Анисимов Е.В. Екатерина II и политический сыск .................... 13
Доусон Р. Писания женщины и правительницы: гендер,
семья и власть в четвертой русско-немецкой
пьесе Екатерины II .............................................. 29
Златопольская А.А Проблема общественного договора в зеркале
русской мысли века Екатерины (восприятие
идей Руссо и Монтескье) .................................... 52
Кросс Э. Радищев и путешествия из Петербурга в Мо-
скву в путевых заметках британских путеше-
ственников в конце XVIII — начале XIX вв. .... 66
Лентин Э. «Une âme républicaine»? Екатерина, Монтескье
и природа власти в России: «Наказ» глазами
М.М. Щербатова .................................................. 79
О’Молли Л. Болтуны и дилетанты: язык и доступ к власти
в комедии Екатерины Великой «Передняя
знатного боярина» ............................................... 97
Патерсон М. Ленц и современная субъективность ................. 113
Пчелов Е.В. Генеалогия Екатерины Великой ........................ 125
Стенник Ю.В. Екатерина II — полемист (полемика в литера-
турных занятиях императрицы Екатерины II) .. 142
Эндерлейн Э. Женское образование в России XVIII века ....... 165
Савельева Е.А.,
Щербакова Т.П., Историческая тематика в академической перио-
Матвеева М.Н. дике XVIII века ......................................................... 177
6
CONTENTS
The Almanac Editors: Prof. Dr. Tatiana V. Artemieva, Dr. Michael I. Mikeshin
art@hb.ras.spb.su mic@mm1734.spb.edu
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8131
P. O. Box 264, St. Petersburg 194358 Russia
Fax +1 (603) 297 3581
7
В
аллегорической форме «познание самого себя» выражалось в об-
разе человека, смотрящегося в зеркало. Зеркало позволяет углу-
бить, отстранить собственный образ, придать ему статус объекта.
Собственная персона становится наглядной, а потому более по-
нятной. Вместе с тем, отражение — это всегда «одна из» проек-
ций, демонстрирующая не всю личность целиком, а лишь одно из ее воз-
можных измерений.
«Частичность» отраженного прекрасно проиллюстрирована в повести
«Степной волк» Г. Гессе. Отражаясь в зеркале, измученный противоречи-
востью своего внутреннего мира Гарри Галлер распадается на бесчислен-
ное множество одномерных личностей, каждая из которых начинает жить
своей собственной жизнью, являясь Гарри и не-Гарри одновременно. Гар-
ри, ибо они плоть от плоти его и дух от духа, и не-Гарри, ибо отключен-
ные от противоречий совместного существования они уже не вполне вы-
1
Философическая и политическая переписка Императрицы Екатерина II с Доктором Цим-
мерманом с 1785 по 1792 г. СПб., 1803. С. 146-147.
2
См.: Международная конференция «Екатерина Великая: эпоха российской истории»: Тезисы
докладов. Санкт-Петербург, 26-29 августа 1996 г. / Отв. редакторы Т.В. Артемьева, М.И. Ми-
кешин. СПб: СПбНЦ, 1996.
3
Цит. по: Брикнер А.Г. История Екатерины Второй: В 3-х тт. Т. 3. М., 1996. С. 226.
13
Е.В. Анисимов
(Санкт-Петербург)
1
План романа из жизни Мировича и записка о нем Г.Ф. Квитки-Основьяненка // Русский ар-
хив (далее — РА), 1863. С. 480.
2
Полное собрание законов Российской империи (далее — ПСЗ). Т. 14, СПб., 1839, № 11843.
3
Письма императрицы Екатерины II к князю А.А. Вяземскому // РА. 1865. С. 128-129.
4
Латкин В.Н. Учебник истории русского права периода империи (XVIII и XIX столетия).
СПб., 1909. С. 469-470.
5
См.: Барсуков А. Батюшков и Опочинин (Дело «о говорении важных злодейственных слов»)
// Рассказы из русской истории XVIII века по архивным документам. СПб., 1885; Cборник
Императорского Русского исторического общества (далее — РИО). Т. 10. С. 441 и др.
6
РИО. Т. 7. С. 398-399.
7
Гернет М.Н. История царской тюрьмы. М., 1960. Т. 1. С. 238.
8
Пыпин А.Н. Времена Екатерины II // Вестник Европы, 1895. Т. 4. С. 292.
9
Арсений Мациевич, митрополит Ростовский, в ссылке // Русская старина, 1885. Т. 45. С. 315-
316.
10
Бильбасов В.А. История Екатерины Второй, Берлин, 1900. Т. 2. С. 258.
11
РИО. Т. 7. С. 397-398.
12
Самойлов В. Возникновение Тайной экспедиции при Сенате // Вопросы истории, 1946, № 1.
С. 80-81.
13
РИО. Т. 28. С. 87.
14
История Правительствующего Сената. СПб., 1911. Т. 2. С. 388.
15
Казак Федор Каменщиков // Памятники новой русской истории. Т. 3. СПб., 1873. С. 384.
16
РИО. Т. 7. С. 254-259.
17
См. РИО. Т. 7. С. 90.
18
РИО. Т. 7. С. 294.
19
РИО. Т. 7. С. 334.
20
Панин В.Н. О самозванке, выдававшей себя за дочь императрицы Елизаветы Петровны, по
архивным источникам с документами. М., 1867. С. 78.
21
Лунинский Э. Княжна Тараканова. Исследование по актам государственного архива. М.,
1909. С. 133, 135-136; Самозванка Тараканова // РА, 1905. Кн. 1. С. 428-441 и др.
22
Храповицкий А.В. Дневник. 1782-1793 гг. СПб., 1874. С. 226.
23
РИО. Т. 2. С. 112; РИО. Т. 42. С. 224-227.
24
Н.И. Новиков и его современники. Избранные сочинения. М., 1961. С. 421-476.
25
РИО. Т. 42. С. 298.
26
РИО. Т. 2. С. 162.
27
Секретнейшее наставление князю Вяземскому // Чтения Общества истории и древности
российских, 1858. Кн. 1. С. 102; Сивков К.В. Тайная экспедиция, ее деятельность и документы
// Ученые записки Московского государственного педагогического института им.
В.И. Ленина. 1946. Т. 35. Кафедра истории СССР. Вып. 1. С. 99.
28
См. о нем: РИО. Т. 7. С. 349; Cивков. Ук. соч. С. 99-100.
29
РИО. Т. 7. С. 298.
30
Письма государыни императрицы Екатерины II-й к князю Михаилу Никитичу Волконскому
// Осмнадцатый век. М., 1869. Кн. 1. С. 89.
31
РИО. Т. 7. С. 289, 292.
32
Письма императрицы... С. 397-398.
29
R. Dawson
(Honolulu, USA)
atherine the Great laid claim to both Enlightenment and to power, includ-
C ing cultural power. She was after all not only a woman ruler but also a
woman writer, a playwright who composed altogether twenty five com-
plete plays in Russian and French, including comedies and tragedies, and
ranging from adaptations of Molière and Gellert (O’Malley, «Masks») to
Russified rewrites of Shakespeare and versions of the special Russian genre, the
proverb play (which she persuaded foreigners at her court to compose also, using
French as their shared language; see Hyart). Catherine further extended her cultural
reach to the German-speaking world, as it existed within the Russian empire and
beyond, by orchestrating the translation of four of her plays, along with other of her
writings, into German, performances of at least three of the plays in German in St.
Petersburg, and publication in German of all four both in St. Petersburg and in Ber-
© R. Dawson, 1999.
30
lin. The fourth play, published (apparently immediately after it was written) in
1788, the year before the outbreak of the French Revolution, has a peculiar status.
Although it has been called the best of her plays (Fleischhacker 176), among the
four dual-language ones it is, at least in Western European and American scholar-
ship, the most completely ignored.
In many ways the four translated comedies are similar to each other, trace-
able, like virtually all Russian comedies of the time, in some degree to the influ-
ence of Molière. The Cheat, The Deluded, and The Siberian Shaman (Der
Betrüger, Der Verblendete, Der Sibirische Schaman, all three 1786) and The
Family Quarrel, Through False Warning and Suspicion (Der Familien Zwist,
durch falsche Warnung und Argwohn, 1788) are each set in a family that is in
the process of organizing the marriage of a daughter, who however has already
established a preferred suitor, so that part of the suspense is whether she will get
her choice or not. As usual in eighteenth-century Russian comedy, however, the
marriage issue is quickly pushed off stage by another character, in Catherine’s
plays the father who is being duped by a rogue or trickster character. In the first
three plays, packaged together in one of the early German editions under the
supertitle «Drei Lustspiele wider Schwärmerey und Aberglauben» («Three
Comedies against Enthusiasm and Superstition») and now typically called the
anti-masonic trilogy, the trickster is engaged in spirtualist matters, in two cases
in the form of secret societies.1 The fourth play, Family Quarrel, differs from
these in raising no issues of mysticism or supernatural knowledge and in being
published two years later.
In Family Quarrel the 59-year old empress of the largest empire in the
eighteenth century addresses issues of gender and authority. Much as Cath-
erine’s plays adhere to various well-developed systems of conventions, it is still
possible to explore the distinctive ways that gender and authority are repre-
sented and the different extent to which each is problematized. The play shows
that men without the accoutrements of social, economic, and cultural power can
exert dangerous seductive force over their betters (as the play evaluates them) in
ways that endanger the entire patriarchal family, which in turn functions as a
representation of the enlightened state. Men in recognized positions of authority
are depicted as vulnerable to false suspicions when their patriarchal assumptions
are appealed to. Even for self-rule, the play suggests, men are only eligible
when they have proved themselves sufficiently mature. The play’s arguments
about women are considerably simpler, being chiefly demonstrations of
women’s fitness and importance for good decision-making.
In Family Quarrel, one of Herr Sobrin’s wedding gifts for his daughter, Pre-
leste, is to be a house. Before the day and play are over — the play observes the
31
neo-classical «three unities» of time, place, and action — the happy Sobrin fam-
ily is brought to the brink of collapse by the malicious outsider, a man with a
house to sell whose entry triggers the action and who uses patriarchal values
and assumptions to induce several disputes that compose the family quarrels of
the title. Positioning himself obsequiously as a humble stranger whose place is
the front halls of greater folk, Hauslöffer, as this interloper is called, a name in-
dicating a person who goes from house to house carrying news and gossip,2
penetrates the household. Although seemingly belonging to respectable society
(he is addressed in German with Herr, the same term used for other clearly gen-
try acquaintances of the family), he does not expect or perhaps even desire so-
cial equality with the families he visits. Instead he acts as a saboteur, setting up
misunderstandings, often gender-based, between the daughter and suitor, the maid-
servant and manservant, the wife and her husband, the husband and his friend, the
son and his father. The quarrels are eventually resolved when the intruder’s duplici-
tousness is recognized and his lies are put to the test. When that occurs, happiness is
restored and the symbolic restabilization of society is arranged via two marriages,
one for each level of society shown in the play: gentry and servants.
Twentieth-century readers (and especially those of us who are twentieth-century
feminist readers) are inclined to read domestic comedy as carrying a high political
charge, particularly in respect to three themes: learning to submit to authority, ex-
pecting that authority will reside in the hands of men, and inculcating submission in
such a way that authority will be accepted even when it occurs on a completely dif-
ferent level than that of the family. As Karin Wurst puts it, citing Max Horkheimer,
the family is a vastly important social institution which conditions humans to au-
thority. Whatever political system takes effect, the preparation for the recognition of
authority lends it stability since the authority of the father can be transferred to the
most diverse representatives of paternal power (Wurst 29). Catherine’s Family
Quarrel depicts a family of a specific type: the sentimental family. At the beginning
of the play this family is shown as happy and smoothly functioning, which is to say
as a self-regulating, quasi-autonomous unit of society. It functioned well because of
the high degree to which family members had internalized their roles and the reli-
ance on reasoned dialogue to make decisions or to help inculcate roles. The senti-
mental family thus both prepares for compliance not simply with authority in gen-
eral but with an enlightened monarchy in particular; it also symbolizes such a mon-
archy, which in turn depends both on a populace capable of logic and self-restraint
and on a (male) ruler capable of reasoning. The family as it breaks down in the
middle of the play becomes contentious and chaotic, which is to say that more and
more overt coercion will be required to regulate it, and reasoned argument will be
32
less and less employed. This then is the contrast between enlightened absolutism
and sheer autocratic rule marked by suspicion and based on individual self-interest.
I read Family Quarrel as among other things a discussion by Catherine II
about power and authority and who has the right to use them. Catherine II tries
to make absolutism attractive and less visibly coercive by representing it via the
sentimental family and by showing a benign patriarchy. One of the marks of this
benign patriarchy is that in it women play a crucial part in the decision-making.
So, on the one hand, as I will claim, Catherine represents her interests as a
woman in the figure of Frau Sobrin, and Catherine attacks Herr Sobrin as a
man, which is why it is ultimately his concern about his wife’s faithfulness, the
classic patriarchal obsession, which is the husband’s weak point that Hauslöffer
draws on. On the other hand, Catherine also represents her interests as a ruler
precisely in the figure of Herr Sobrin; thus when he resumes enlightened ways,
she restores him to legitimate authority and respect vis a vis other candidates for
his privileges. Since Catherine was both woman and ruler, the two issues of
gender and power were of direct interest to her. And since she was also both au-
thor and authority, she structures the play so that enlightened authority would be
respected and obeyed. These points can be explored by looking first at the main
male characters, the villain, the father, and the son, and then at the principal fe-
male character, the mother.
Hauslöffer is the villain of the play. He operates by seducing not the wife,
but the husband, when he persuades Herr Sobrin to doubt the faithfulness and
veracity of his wife and best friend. At the same time, Hauslöffer is a version of
the merchant figure sometimes caricatured in Russian comedy of the 1780s
(Welsh 87). But this merchant, because he is a threat to the family and thus
metaphorically to the enlightened state, is more than the target of satire. While
the sale of the house almost instantly becomes little more than a pretext for
Hauslöffer’s entry into the Sobrin home, the house itself takes on a nightmarish
quality representing dissension and breakdown.
Both Catherine’s skill at dialogue and the peculiarity of the man and his
house become evident when the scene in which Hauslöffer first appears is ex-
amined almost in its entirety. Scene 8 of Act 1 begins with a friendly greeting
from Herr Sobrin:
Sobrin: (to Hauslöffer). It is a pleasure to get acquainted with you on this
occasion. I have heard that you want to sell your house.
Hauslöffer. Depending on the time and circumstances, Herr Sobrin; perhaps
I will sell it, or perhaps not.
Sobrin. I was definitely told that you want to sell; otherwise I would not
have bothered you.
33
Hauslöffer. Is it permitted to ask for what sort of purpose you are in need of
my house?
Sobrin. I want to buy it for my daughter who is to marry. (1:8; 20-21)3
Hauslöffer frequently uses indirection in his speech, while absorbing the
benefits of clear and direct answers from the speech of others around him. Hav-
ing learned of the impending marriage, Hauslöffer makes a comment to which
Sobrin responds as if it were a bargaining device or an evasion, whereas he, So-
brin, is only interested in a straightforward sale:
Hauslöffer. My House, Herr Sobrin, is an inheritance from my grandfather.
Sobrin. Selling and buying are free actions … If you don’t want to sell your
house, I will try to find another.
Hauslöffer. As you wish. But a house like mine you will not find in the
whole city.
(Catherine very frequently inserts strings of dots into her play texts; to dis-
tinguish her dot trails from the ellipses that indicate places where I have omitted
some of her text, mine are placed in square brackets.)
After claiming indifference to Sobrin’s proposal of looking elsewhere,
Hauslöffer switches from apparent bargaining to marketing, trying to persuade
his audience of the value and uniqueness of the house.
At this point, when Hauslöffer’s statements have twice threatened to pro-
duce an impasse with Sobrin, Sobrin’s friend Predin enters the conversation an-
swering one question from Sobrin but mostly asking the little working questions
and making the responses that lead Hauslöffer into further talk. He starts by
pursuing the seller’s claim that the house is unique:
Predin. How so then?
Hauslöffer. It has been built with all possible foresight and very strong.
Sobrin. Fireproof?
Predin. Nothing withstands fire. I’ve seen buildings with vaulted ceilings
and without chimneys burning so that in three weeks the fire could
hardly be extinguished.
Hauslöffer. My house is secure … But that’s not all … It has thousands of
different conveniences.
Predin. And of what kind? For example?
Hauslöffer. First, it has many outbuildings and not a few exits. Second it is
equally well built for a unified (looks at Sobrin and his wife) as well as a
disunified family.
Predin. Now that’s what I call a remarkable house design!
Hauslöffer. With all that, mein Herr, I hope you will after all acknowledge
that for a unified family only a few rooms are necessary … one room for
34
husband and wife, one for the children, and a few chambers for the ser-
vants. For a disunified family however all this must be designed double.
In my house all possible events have been considered in advance, such as
quarrels, fights, and complete rupture … Yes, it is even the case that if
the husband or the wife — because of their disunified life or through
some other accident — loses their senses, then a little place is there
where one could shut him or her away.
Predin (laughing). One could hardly ask for more than that … Do you have
a floor plan of your house? I would be quite curious to see it.
Hauslöffer. No, mein Herr, no. I will not show the plan to anyone except
him to whom I sell the house.
Predin. And why would that be?
Hauslöffer. Because, mein Herr … just because! (Softly into Predin’s ear).
There are many secret exits in it that no one except the man of the house
should rightly know.
Predin. If you do not want to sell your house, they why did you come here
with me? I told you after all that my friend, Herr Sobrin, wanted to do
business about it.
Hauslöffer. I am not saying that I don’t wish to sell. What I am saying is that
I will sell or not according to the time and circumstances: everything has
its price, Herr Predin. (1:8; 21-23)
The house slides bizarrely from promising security and flexibility to accommo-
dating suspicion, dissension, fights, and fragmentation, polar opposites to the cohe-
sion of the sentimental Sobrin family. In another sense, the house seems to work as
a secret microcosm within the larger society, unreadable both because of its external
appearance and its internal organization. Protected from the outside by various out-
buildings/pretexts and affording numerous exits/excuses, it has space on the inside
for a divided family/an unstable assortment of dissenters. It even includes a «little
place» for confining family members, male or female, with broken, fragmented
minds. The exits and secret passageways, the secret connections and escapes, how-
ever, are the exclusive privilege of the man of the house. There is, in short, a male
authority in charge even here.
Now the potential buyer, blithely missing the disturbing social and psycho-
logical implications of the house description and concentrating instead on the
possible economics, bluntly reenters the dialog.
Sobrin. And what would be the price of your house then?
Hauslöffer. It has been expensive for me. I remodeled it exactly like new,
and then when everything was ready I had to embark on new expenses
because only then did I become aware that the stair to the second story
35
had been forgotten. In order to have a way up, I found myself forced to
break through some ceiling vaults to be able to build a stair after all. It
has just recently been finished and is very good.
Predin. A main stair or a back stair?
Hauslöffer. It is actually both. The width amounts to a yard … and the steps
are six inches from one to the next.
Predin (laughing). That is to say: your stair is good but also narrow and steep.
Hauslöffer. The space did not allow me to make it any differently. (1:8; 23-24)
The laughter of Predin, the raisonneur in the play (a standard character in
eighteenth-century comedy), which is distinguished textually from the many
later instances of Hauslöffer’s calculated laughter (always designated as «ha, ha,
ha»), emphasizes the incongruity of Hauslöffer’s house and indicates to the au-
dience that Hauslöffer is to be considered laughable. Indeed, the account of the
forgotten stairway belies Hauslöffer’s insistence on his remarkable foresight
and caution and shows his muddling of social distinctions when he is unable to
specify whether this is a main staircase or a back stair.
Sobrin, having again received no clear answer to his question, this time
about the house price, and perhaps also responding to the farce with the stairs,
again indicates he is not interested in the purchase:
Sobrin. It seems to me, Herr Hauslöffer, that it is very unlikely I will need
your house.
Hauslöffer. I only described it this way in order to get acquainted with your
manner of thinking. I want to sell it to you for a cheap price. Come visit
me, if you wish, in order to see it; perhaps it will please you after all.
Sobrin. Fine, Herr Hauslöffer, I will come by as soon as possible.
It is peculiar that Hauslöffer says he only described the house as he did in
order to determine how his interlocutors think. Has he learned anything from
them beyond the news that the Sobrin daughter is to wed? Or is his insinuation
that he wanted to know them better a form of flattery, in which his promise of a
cheap price seems to be attached to presumed admiration for the potential
buyer? Or is this a comic reversal in which Hauslöffer foolishly thinks he has
learned about the others whereas the readers or audience at least have clearly
learned far more about him? (The observers on stage, true to the conventions of
eighteenth-century Russian comedy, do not learn as much about the man from
this first scene as they should.) Some of the other peculiarities of the scene are
more clearly artifacts of theatrical conventions and stage technology of the time.
Thus one may ask why Frau Sobrin is on stage during this scene since she does
not speak and has no stage directions. Evidently she is there only because no
plausible reason had been devised to get her off the stage — and such moves
36
generally required an explicit motivation. Or why, after Sobrin has turned down
the house, does he express willingness to look at it? An answer is suggested by
the concluding lines of the scene:
Hauslöffer. Wouldn’t you like to hear the draft points of a sales contract for
my house? You will be able to judge as you read it through whether the
sale is fitting or not.
Predin (to Sobrin). I would indeed be curious to listen.
Sobrin. If that is the case, then come with me to my room. (1:8; 26)
While Predin seems interested because of the oddity of Hauslöffer’s charac-
ter and curiosity about an all-purpose sale document which Hauslöffer has men-
tioned, Sobrin’s resumption of negotiations — especially given the qualities of
the house — is not so much motivated by curiosity as by staging. Since the
stage had no curtain, the conventional signal that an act was over was the departure
of all characters from the scene. The sales contract provides an excuse for the
characters to leave the foyer depicted by the stage and hence to end the first act.
Catherine seems very determined to prevent the audience from understand-
ing Hauslöffer as a likable rogue; rogue he is, as becomes clear; likable he is
not. In her first two anti-Masonic works she had prevented any misguided audi-
ence sympathy by allowing the rogues on stage only briefly; in The Siberian
Shaman, by contrast, the shaman has extensive and frequent appearances, but
perhaps we are expected to recoil from his exoticism, an expectation not neces-
sarily fulfilled (O’Malley, «Monarch»; Dawson). In Hauslöffer’s case, deceitful
eccentricity is combined with ominous undertones, such as the «little place» in
his house for the confinement of the insane man or woman.
After his menacing introduction in Act 1, the interloper begins his maneu-
vers in Act 2, setting the servants against each other, upsetting the daughter, and
starting to lead the son astray; he proceeds in Act 3 with a psychological attack
on the wife and then the husband. His technique is twofold. Based on his own
always insidious interpretations of what he sees, first, he manufactures highly
disturbing and offensive «warnings» (alluded to in the subtitle of the play)
against members of the family circle, and then he tells his listeners dangerous
charges supposedly circulating in town against them but which the audience can
discern he has fabricated on the spot. The intruder enhances his appearance of
reluctant truth-telling by seeming willing to risk offending his listener. For ex-
ample, after telling Frau Sobrin that the bridegroom has a reputation for unreli-
ability, he tells her distasteful gossip about herself: «People say … that you are
rushing with the marriage of your daughter so that you’ll have more room in the
house here for yourself; ha, ha, ha! … that the father doesn’t want this … that
this time too he is circumventing you as usual … that you think you rule your
37
husband … and that, on the contrary the man has no respect for you … whatso-
ever» (3:6; 64). The wife is thus accused of wanting to exceed her proper place
but also of failing in that desire.
One of the themes of the play is about reading reality, specifically about
whether reality can be taken as transparent or whether it requires interpretation.
Contrasting characters model the two views, with Herr Sobrin wavering be-
tween the notions of transparency and obscurity. Predin and Frau Sobrin predi-
cate their readings and hence also their commentary on transparency. Hauslöffer
predicates his on opaqueness, which thus requires interpretation. He in turn
makes opaque statements and generally talks in ways which require interpreta-
tion. Hauslöffer demonstrates sophisticated use of rumor; he also illustrates the
subordinate’s overreading (as seen by the dominant group) of chance events,
especially among the dominant group. When he encounters Preleste searching
for a piece of paper, he immediately reads the scene as a guilty search for a lost
love letter. When he finds the bridegroom Dobrin and maidservant Mawra chat-
ting together, he assumes they are having a lovers’ tryst. Their denials merely
reinforce his conviction that they are hiding the truth, causing him to redouble
his interpretive and investigative efforts.
In general, the charges that Hauslöffer brings against the various household
members have to do with money, sexuality, and patriarchal control. Thus he
tells Preleste, the bride, as well as Tofrim, the manservant, about Mawra’s and
Dobrin’s presumed affair (Tofrim and Mawra both have conventional names for
servants in eighteenth-century Russian comedies, Welsh 65); he spins this into a
general picture of the bridegroom as an unreliable and lascivious man with large
debts. Hauslöffer persuades Johann that his parents do not give him enough
control over his own affairs or enough money to live as he wishes. Having told
Frau Sobrin that her husband has no respect for her and is manipulating her, he
tells Herr Sobrin that his wife seeks to manipulate him and that she is conduct-
ing an illicit sexual affair with the husband’s best friend, Predin. Then Hauslöf-
fer, who is shown in the play as a gifted improviser, ties all these charges to-
gether for the father by saying that Frau Sobrin’s manipulativeness can be
proved in two ways: by her plot to marry Preleste off so as to get the daughter
out of the house and by her securing Johann’s support via a promise that if he
backs her plan she will see to it that he is allowed to travel abroad and will have
more money for the expenses of his greater independence. Thus in Act 4 when
the various characters against the assorted charges or act on behalf of the inter-
ests that the intruder has awakened in them, they will inadvertently confirm to
Herr Sobrin, the central character in the web of intrigue, that the rumors he has
heard are true. And the person whom he will especially blame for the miscon-
38
duct and challenges to his authority will be his wife, since Hauslöffer traces all
the conspiracies back to her. Hauslöffer relies on traditional patriarchal gender
politics to stoke Herr Sobrin’s suspicions. After his innuendo to the mother elic-
its no interest from her, the villain fans the fears of the father, central character
in the family structure and second male figure to be analyzed here.
Herr Sobrin, as father in a gentry family, is an example of patriarchal author-
ity. In the German texts of Catherine’s four dual-language plays, patriarchal au-
thority is evoked even before the dialog begins. The dramatis personnae and
the designation of setting both point to the father’s moral and social status. This
is so even though he himself is listed only with first and last name and no other
identification, but his name appears at the head of the list (a common though not
invariable ordering method for lists of roles in seventeenth and eighteenth-
century plays). In Family Quarrel all but three of the ten remaining characters
are described in relation to the father («his wife,» «Sobrin’s daughter,» «So-
brin’s son,» «Sobrin’s friend,» «Sobrin’s serving maid,» «Sobrin’s servants» —
the only characters not tied to him are the bridegroom, bridegroom’s relative,
and Hauslöffer), and the setting is identified similarly as «in Sobrin’s house»
(6). This central figure, the father, reacts immediately and thus very anxiously
to insinuations about any breaches of his patriarchal power. Despite the attacks
suffered by every member of the Sobrin household and by the bridegroom, Herr
Sobrin, like the fathers in the other three Russian-German plays, is the primary
dupe of the deceitful rogue. As in the other three plays, the father is vulnerable
to manipulation, which then leads him to exercise his authority badly.
The villain’s assertion that Herr Sobrin’s masculine authority is being
shockingly circumvented is successful because such rumor mongering, or rather
rumor making, requires Sobrin either to accept conventional gender roles (in
fact, as the analysis of Frau Sobrin’s role in the family will show, to proclaim
greater commitment to exclusive male authority than he actually practiced until
then), or, much more difficult, to reject these pervasive social understandings of
how power should be distributed. Not surprisingly, even Sobrin’s initial denial
of the intruder’s claims about Frau Sobrin’s insurrectionary tendencies slides
swiftly from the language of companionate authority to the discourse of exclu-
sively patriarchal/male authority:
Sobrin: I live with my wife on good terms, and our children are obedient to us.
Hauslöffer: Wives always live amicably with their husbands when the men
act according to the wills of the women.
Sobrin: I don’t fit this example; my wife follows my will.
Hauslöffer: The greatest art of the female sex is usually that the woman
knows how to persuade the man that she is obeying him when she, on the
39
contrary, is leading him according to her will. Ha! ha! ha! (3:8; 67, my
emphasis).
Hauslöffer, his excessive laughter again indicating his unreliability, affirms
in his rejoinders the propriety of male rule but raises suspicions about women’s
submissiveness. Of course, the German words here, as in his account to Frau
Sobrin, are exactly the same for woman and man as for wife and husband in or-
dinary speech (and are clearly semantically related in the Russian original). The
problem of men really ruling women is the first step in the father’s submission,
ironically, to the will and rule of the intruder.
Once the insufficiently wary father, infected by Hauslöffer’s false accusa-
tions, becomes anxious about his authority, his behavior changes from open-
ness, sentiment, and discussion to a mixture of dissembling, sarcasm, and uni-
lateral command. Thus in his first scene after the transformation he encounters
the three principal people he thinks are deceiving him, Dobrin, Predin, and Frau
Sobrin, and greets them with the thinnest pretense of courtesy («with dissem-
bling expression») and then with a jibe at his wife: «I am happy that I find you
all here together. (to Frau Sobrin) You are here just like the queen in her hive,
in the midst of your clients» (4:4; 74). The audience, having heard snippets of
the conversations before Sobrin’s arrival, knows that Frau Sobrin has not been
exercising authority over the others but rather expressing her pained bewilderment
about her husband’s behavior; the unjustness of Sobrin’s description of her is thus
evident, as is his obsession with any infringement of his own patriarchal authority.
After these harsh words, his first action under Hauslöffer’s influence is the
highhanded dismissal of Preleste’s suitor. When, following Dobrin’s departure,
Frau Sobrin questions her husband about this decision, he proclaims his patriar-
chal prerogatives and wishes: «I do not want people to say that I am led around
… that I am made to do what someone else wants … or that I am being ruled by
anyone at all» (4:5; 84). Predin’s effort to intervene elicits a more explicit asser-
tion of patriarchal authority couched in formal language: «Mein Herr! I am
speaking with my wife, and no one is allowed to mix in between us. Everyone
is, as I understand it, master in his own house … and anyone who does not like
my company or my house is free to take their leave» (4:5; 84). After additional
hostile comments from Sobrin, Predin, recognizing that he too is being dis-
missed, also departs, whereupon Sobrin’s attacks become even harsher, includ-
ing the accusation that Frau Sobrin is conducting a sexual affair with Predin. He
announces to his wife his plan for dealing with her perceived infidelity: «On
behalf of the children, I do not want to make any noise about this … I am de-
termined to finish off the whole thing completely … And if you do not correct
yourself, you un- … you unfaithful woman! … then I will divorce you … Mark
40
my words! … Now, why are you standing there thinking? Confess to me
quickly — I already know everything» (4:6; 86) The man who does not want to be
ruled by anyone must display his independence by ultimatums, name-calling, and
threats, supposedly moderated by consideration for the children, an indirect version
of his own reputation. This is the new Herr Sobrin. Fortunately he does not last.
Undeceived just in time to avoid irrevocable mistakes, it soon becomes Herr
Sobrin’s task to extricate his son from the intruder’s psychological clutches. At
this point the son, the third crucial male figure in this analysis, has his important
scenes. They show the family as the site for inculcating submissiveness at the
same time that the question is raised of how much and how long submissiveness
must continue. Since daughters marry away, the question about the end of sub-
mission is about sons, and here suddenly Herr Sobrin, who had been misguided
in the previous scenes while under Hauslöffer’s influence, gets the best of the
arguments with his son. In her exploration of the submissiveness of one’s sub-
jects to an authority figure who is — up to a point — reasonable and reasoning,
Catherine identifies herself with Herr Sobrin.4 In Act 5, Scene 4, Johann, en-
couraged and supported by the meddler, asks his father for more independence:
Johann Sobrin. But Papa! … I am not a child any more.
Sobrin. To be sure! … according to your height; you are … you are not little.
Hauslöffer. And according to years, dear Herr Sobrin … He is past the years
of childhood.
Sobrin. There remains however another question to decide … Have his rea-
son and understanding also matured?
Hauslöffer. In this regard … one usually judges … by his behavior … He is
… He is your son, Herr Sobrin.
Sobrin. That is quite so, mein Herr … He is my son … but his reason is his
own. (5:4; 97-98)
In that the readiness of one of the Sobrin children for adult privileges is un-
der discussion, this scene is an on-stage reiteration of an off-stage discussion
reported at the beginning of the play. In Act 5 the discussion is between Herr
Sobrin and Hauslöffer — and Herr Sobrin prevails, whereas in the earlier re-
ported encounter, the discussion was between Herr and Frau Sobrin, and Frau
Sobrin prevailed. Importantly, in the later scene, between father and maturing
son (whose age is left unspecified), Johann gets to represent his own interests,
rather than have his mother do it for him as happened in the earlier scene re-
garding Preleste. The father-son scene continues:
Johann Sobrin. To speak the truth, Papa … to me … time is … very long
<…> I have practically no … no acquaintances at all.
41
Sobrin. Acquaintances! … O, those are easily made … But in this connec-
tion there is one short question: with whom? <…>
Johann Sobrin. I, dear Papa, I have been to Herr Hauslöffer’s and have seen
a party there of all kinds of people. (5:4; 98-99)
The father queries Johann about the men he has met, each the personifica-
tion of a young gentleman’s possible vice, eliciting descriptions that match their
names, Mr. Glad-to-serve, Mr. Spendthrift, Mr. Promiscuous, and so forth.
When Johann concludes by saying he had not been able to join the gambling ta-
ble because his father did not give him enough money, Sobrin explodes: «How
do you dare, scoundrel, to say such a thing to my face!» (5:4; 103). Johann then
doggedly uses his father’s anger to ask if he can travel abroad, whereupon the
father critiques foreign travel by immature young men who do not yet know
what they want to do in life. Johann is sent to his room. The father exercises pa-
triarchal authority over his son. The son, absorbing the message of obedience,
ceases his search for greater independence. Although the answer to the question
about when one can exercise independence ostensibly is tied to an assessment of
maturity, the answer really turns out to be: when the person in power agrees.
If the son’s effort to gain recognition of his maturity and thereby attain in-
dependence is a matter for men, where does this leave women? Can women ex-
ercise authority? Examination of the actions and speech of the main female
character, Frau Sobrin, provides an answer. When Catherine’s play for a con-
siderable stretch emphasizes the submissiveness of the wife, the empress might
appear to be making things difficult for herself as a woman ruler, especially one
who benefited so obviously from the demise of her husband. Yet the version of
family that stresses the submissiveness of the mother, commonplace though the
play treats it as being, is undermined in many ways, most obviously by the role
that Frau Sobrin plays at the beginning of the play when the family is running
smoothly and at the end when reason is restored.
In the opening scene of the play, in a conversation between Mawra and
Trofim (a conventional exposition of the play’s background via dialog between
two servants) we learn that the father and mother have been engaged since early
that morning in discussion together about Preleste’s marriage. Although Herr
Sobrin initially favors waiting, since he thinks the daughter is too young to
marry (her age like Johann’s is unspecified), his wife persuades him otherwise,
whereupon the discussion switches to the property settlement the young woman
will receive. All this is reported by the servants. It is very important that the two
parents have consulted extensively with each other about this major family de-
cision and that the husband has allowed himself to be persuaded by his wife to
change his position on the topic. At this point in the play, before Hauslöffer’s
42
appearance, Herr Sobrin’s patriarchal authority is benign in that he consults se-
riously with his wife (and sometimes others) before making decisions and he
focuses on the welfare of the (family) group.
On stage a few scenes later however, the father represents this process to the
children in a way that partially elides the mother’s role, especially because the
father does so much of the talking. He begins with a rather long preamble in
which he claims to speak to the children as a friend, not as father, and stresses
the themes of education, obedience, mutual love, and concern that he and the
children’s mother feel together for Preleste and Johann:
Listen, Johann! I want to talk now with you and your sister, Preleste, as your
good friend. You both know with what tenderness your mother and I, ever
since you came into the world, have attended to your education; but both of
you have also, through your attentiveness to our teachings, satisfied our
wishes. How much we love you and how much you love us needs no discus-
sion; that goes without saying. We all four know, and so do strangers as too.
As of now I am called in the city and in our whole region a fortunate hus-
band, father, and household head … (He embraces his children) (1:5; 12)
Sobrin specifically acknowledges that the emotions he lists are what he and
Frau Sobrin both feel. Supporting the claim of familial love, the nonverbal rein-
forces the verbal: Sobrin embraces his children. He also documents his claim by
referring to his reputation in town, a dependence on outside opinion that
Hauslöffer would later exploit.
Then Sobrin raises the topic of Preleste’s marriage, saying there are various
suitors of whom Dobrin is the best and telling Preleste that her mother says she,
Preleste, finds Dobrin attractive, a point which Preleste shyly confirms. So the
mother is overtly recognized as having pertinent and accurate knowledge that
has contributed to the decision to let Preleste marry Dobrin if she wishes — and
the daughter has a say in this decision. In the specific granting of permission to
marry, Sobrin’s labeling of Preleste’s desire for the wedding as jointly and mu-
tually shared with the suitor can be considered to suggest that this couple too
will operate in partnership. The father’s words are: «I grant your shared desire»
(1:5; 13). Yet precisely at this moment Sobrin’s language does not include his
wife — he uses first person singular grammatical forms — even though his ear-
lier words and especially the background provided by the eavesdropping ser-
vants show us that the permission grew out of shared discussion between the
mother and father. The play begins then with a model of marriage as a form of
partnership, though not necessarily equal and not consistently acknowledged.
As the scene continues, with a discussion about what wealth and property
Preleste will receive upon her marriage, a version of sharing and joint responsi-
43
bility between husband and wife is again endorsed. From her mother, Preleste
receives an estate that had been Frau Sobrin’s dowry, augmented by lands that
Herr Sobrin had added to the original estate; from her father, Preleste receives
ten thousand rubles in cash and as much again in the value of her trousseau.
And he will buy her a house. Preleste, the daughter, receives substantial prop-
erty from her mother and from her father. In order to reassure Johann about the
impact of these decisions on him, the son’s eventual inheritance when his father
dies is elucidated, namely everything else, all of it free from debt. And Sobrin
asserts that Johann will readily be able to earn back the value of the gifts to his
sister when he enters into court service. This then is the setting at the beginning
of the play: a prosperous, caring, Boyar family, in fact a sentimental family
(with Preleste and her mother both crying about Preleste’s marriage since it will
mean Preleste’s departure from the house). Within a sentimental family of this
kind, women participate in decision making and have rights and claims to
wealth and property. This is so even though the son seems to have larger claims
and more rights. Thus he is treated as though he might have thought that his sis-
ter would receive nothing from their father, but he is persuaded this apparent
loss can be restored through earnings unavailable to his sister. As it is, both
children, son and daughter, receive substantial wealth. Everyone proclaims their sat-
isfaction with the arrangements, and Johann, not yet infected with the desire for
immediate adult (male) rights, wishes that his father’s death will be far in the future.
To some extent Catherine’s depiction of women’s participation is literally
behind the scene, off stage, while the father’s role is consistently front and cen-
ter. In the scene with Johann and Preleste, not only does the father talk the most
but he explicitly addresses two of his important speeches about the children’s
future to Johann. Yet Frau Sobrin’s importance and agency are repeatedly evi-
denced. Thus in addition to her offstage role persuading her husband that Pre-
leste’s marriage to Dobrin would be a good choice, she also is the family’s chief
negotiator with Herr Jamann, the relative of Dobrin who acts as intermediary in
the younger man’s suit for Preleste’s hand. Long discussions between Jamann
and Frau Sobrin had already occurred on the day before the play’s action. When
these talks resume on stage in Act 1, Frau Sobrin is clearly the representative of
the family; Once again however the visibility of this role is undercut, this time
by Herr Jamann, who, having fallen the previous evening and bumped his head,
has become a comic figure whose confusions and memory loss prevent any de-
piction of Frau Sobrin’s conduct of serious business in the scene. But enough is
shown to make it clear that Frau Sobrin is indeed the authoritative discussion
partner of Herr Jamann.
44
From the point of view of the politics of the family and as a possible repre-
sentation of Catherine’s interests at court, the play defends women’s legitimate
access to power by evoking a role which the playwright herself had long
avoided: as wife. This is the one conventional feminine role that Catherine the
Great did not perform to her populace once she came to power. She had arrived
on the throne by ending her wifely role, when her husband was first deposed
and soon after murdered, and she had refused to remarry, believing, it appears,
that any husband would sooner or later want power and titles that were other-
wise hers alone. Yet here she is, the determinedly unmarried woman, represent-
ing the happy family as ruled by the husband with considerable advice from the
wife. My contention is that by showing women’s positive contribution to the
rule of the family and their useful participation in power there, Catherine legiti-
mated women’s authority. In other words, what she is demonstrating is not pri-
marily the success of a relatively egalitarian model of familial or political or-
ganization but rather the capability of women to play a major role in decision-
making. And if women are capable as co-heads of family (or state), then per-
haps as heads too. In this sense, Catherine represents her own interests as a
woman in the figure of Frau Sobrin.5
Thus female submission is not the pattern illustrated in the happy opening
and closing scenes. Indeed, male domination is especially fostered by the obvi-
ous villain in the play and is part of the package of disruption that almost ruins
the family. Throughout the period of Hauslöffer’s ascendancy and Herr So-
brin’s corresponding sarcasm and dissembling, Frau Sobrin acts and speaks
forthrightly. Thus in Act 4, when Dobrin and his uncle, having been insultingly
dismissed, leave the stage, Predin, Sobrin, and Frau Sobrin suddenly fall silent:
Predin. Has such a silence ever fallen among us before?
Sobrin. Everyone is usually silent when he has nothing to say.
Frau Sobrin. Usually the only person likely to be so short of words is the
one who lacks an open heart at the moment.
Sobrin. You are reasoning speciously, woman … Such sophistry is however
not attractive in everyone.
Frau Sobrin [to Sobrin.] I beg you, do not take this ill of me even if I ask
you at an inopportune moment, but why did you dismiss Dobrin?
Sobrin. Because I considered it necessary. (4:5; 79-80)
Frau Sobrin tries to be tactful and yet to pursue her questions, despite her
husband’s efforts to intimidate her and despite his evasiveness. Her courage and
her concern for Herr Sobrin are even more obvious in the response she gives.
When Herr Sobrin evades her request for details and implicitly for an opportu-
nity to discuss his reasons for ending the engagement, she observes:
45
Frau Sobrin. So you do not want to talk with us?
Sobrin. On the contrary, I am only tired of talking.
Rather than push him harder on this point, Frau Sobrin thinks of her daugh-
ter’s disappointment and finds out more of the unilateral decisions her husband
has been making in secret.
Frau Sobrin. I feel sorry for Preleste; she will be beside herself when she
hears what has happened.
Sobrin: You will comfort her all right.
Frau Sobrin. I don’t know how I should tell her.
Sobrin. Do not worry yourself about that, please; she already know my
thoughts.
Frau Sobrin. Have you told her already?
Sobrin. Yes of course!
Frau Sobrin. And why then did you conceal it from me?
Sobrin. To avoid superfluous talk.
Frau Sobrin. I do not recognize you anymore … You were otherwise accus-
tomed to consult with me and other persons about far smaller issues …
and now you act secretively to me and to others … and you will certainly
kill your daughter.
Sobrin. Have no fear, my little sweetheart! … She herself asked me to pro-
ceed this way.
Frau Sobrin. What are you saying? I don’t understand you … If I don’t hear
this from her myself, then, say what you will, I will not believe it …
Something is not right … Is it not possible that you misunderstood her,
my dear?
Sobrin (mockingly). Oh, of course!
Frau Sobrin. I must have her summoned.
Sobrin. So have her summoned if you will not believe me and if things have
already gotten so far that I seem to you to be deaf, blind, and an idiot.
Frau Sobrin. However that may be. Mawra! Mawra! (4:5; 81-82)
The names of the couple for each other are revealing. Herr Sobrin sarcasti-
cally uses diminutive forms, just as Hauslöffer does when he formulates his in-
sinuations of and to Preleste and Mawra, whereas Frau Sobrin uses very similar
terms in a spirit of unsarcastic, transparent endearment. At the same time she
does not let herself be intimidated out of trying to check her husband’s claims
for herself.
Now however she learns that Sobrin is sending Mawra to the countryside
and that he also harbors cruel suspicions about Frau Sobrin’s own truthfulness.
When Predin attempts to defend her and is in turn sent away, Frau Sobrin finds
46
herself in an extremely isolated and vulnerable position, especially because this
is the point when Herr Sobrin suddenly raises his divorce threat and then, notic-
ing her slowness to respond, demands that she confess her thoughts. But her re-
action, in the longest speech of the play, is not what he expects. Frau Sobrin de-
rides her husband for the ridiculousness of his accusations of infidelity but also
offers him an escape:
If I should confess something to you, then it would be approximately this:
that I believe you have completely taken leave of your senses … Are you
not ashamed of thinking such a thing of me? After you have lived with me
for so many years in the best harmony and without the slightest suspicion …
it occurs to you now at your age to be jealous of me? … Am I a young and
pretty child then? Heh! I already have grown children … and you also get
the idea of defaming me and your best, your truest friend. Predin is older
that both of us … and it will not be hard for me to justify myself. But in or-
der to treat your weakness with consideration, and to calm your feelings, I
will propose something to you: Let us leave the city and move to the country
where we can live together again on the same footing as before … You
know that it has always been my wish not to live in the city … I was think-
ing about taking care of my daughter … but you decided the matter other-
wise … but for what reasons I still do not understand. (4:6; 86-87)
Frau Sobrin remarks on the age of her husband, herself, and Predin as all
making Herr Sobrin’s credence in the charges inappropriate. The age of both
men and women matters, as do the looks of the woman, her children, and the
long friendship of the two men. Frau Sobrin’s proposal to move to the country
is made not as an act of penitence or contrition or to prove her innocence but to
give her disturbed husband a less stressful setting and because she herself prefers
living there. For her, the country will not be an exile, although its isolation is a
drawback for Preleste. In her final sentence she does not forebear to mention again
her bewilderment at the rupture in Preleste’s engagement. Altogether, this speech is
not the hysterical, desperate, and perhaps groveling response that Herr Sobrin ex-
pected. His behavior is being treated as a problem in the speech, not hers.
The astute wife, in profound contrast to the unwary — or falsely wary —
husband in the play, is the only character not ensnared by the villain’s wiles.
Gradually recognizing that her husband’s charges against her come from
Hauslöffer, she comments: «I don’t like Hauslöffer at all. He told me a lot of
foolish stuff. Some of it I didn’t understand, I laughed about part of it, and the
third I let go in one ear and out the other» (4:6; 88). To summarize, the wife re-
sists intimidation by the father when he switches from reasoned discussion to
the sudden issuance of ultimatums and when he dismisses his wife’s efforts to
47
talk to him as instances of specious reasoning that are unattractive in her, pre-
sumably because in his misogynist, patriarchal framework women’s use of rea-
son is always dangerous. It is especially indicative of her confidence that she
ignores his threat to divorce her and thereby to eject her from the family.
Thanks instead to her continued insistence on talking with Preleste and conse-
quent discovery of Hauslöffer’s role in tarring Dobrin, Herr Sobrin recognizes
his mistake and drops his many suspicions. The family group that had changed
from a self-regulating (and we would also say self-censoring) unit headed by an
enlightened couple, to an unreliable cluster of individuals whom the father rules
by means of coercion (the divorce threat), rejecting reason (refusing to discuss,
and dismissing women’s use of logic), is restored to good standing by a
woman’s brave intervention.
The woman defends enlightened absolutism against subversion and corrup-
tion, which is to say subversion by the interloper and corruption when the inter-
loper’s system of values begins to have an effect on the family, including the fa-
ther’s new behavior as an unfettered autocrat. When unimpeded by dubious out-
siders, the family makes its decisions in an enlightened, semi-egalitarian manner
that takes into account the best interests of the whole. Once the ultra-patriarchal
representative is ousted, enlightened absolutism — with the co-rule of a reason-
able woman and a reasonable man — is reestablished.6 By the end of the play
when the villain is expelled and harmony restored, two marriages, one on the
level of the gentry (Preleste with Dobrin) and the other of the servants (Mawra
with Trofim), are arranged. In fact, for absolutism to be enlightened it seems in
this play to require the participation of women.
At the end of the play, the situations of the intruder and the son are men-
tioned once again. Hauslöffer’s intention had been to disrupt and destroy the
sentimental family by infecting its members and friends with greed, individual-
ism, sexual suspicion, and patriarchal power games. No motivation is offered
for the parasite’s behavior beyond malice, desire for attention, and a few meals
gained by playing on the weaknesses of his hosts (3:7; 65). The son’s motiva-
tion is however quite evident: a desire to assert himself, feel grown up, and
make his own decisions, for example by traveling abroad.7 Since Johann is
originally shown as acknowledging the love and wisdom of his parents before
almost succumbing to the foolish behavior of the intruder and his cronies, his
availability for complete reintegration is signaled. In the final scenes of the play
Johann, still in his room, is the only character not on stage, aside from the ban-
ished Hauslöffer and a serving maid, Sinka, who made two silent appearances.
But the final words of the play are about Johann.
Preleste. I ask you, dear Papa, do forgive my brother.
48
Sobrin. Forgiveness can happen quickly … but under the condition that he
has no further acquaintance with Hauslöffer. (5:9; 120)
If the family is understood as a metaphor for the state, Johann, or at this
point I prefer to call him by his Russian name, Ivan, might be a pre-
revolutionary social or political group wangling for more authority in Cath-
erine’s government, with Hauslöffer representing any agent of change aspiring
(from Catherine’s perspective) to meddle inappropriately in the conduct of the
rightful rulers or of the rightful aspirants to rule. Johann can thus be seen as a
portion of the citizenry not quite ready for greater participation in governing
while Hauslöffer is an entirely negative agent, insidious and destructive. Re-
membering that it is Catherine’s son Paul I, who eight years later in almost his
first act as tsar, deauthorized women from ascending the Russian throne in the
future, it is striking that the theme of the legitimacy of extensive female author-
ity arises in the one out of Catherine’s four dual-language plays in which there
is a prominent son, and a son so obviously in need of maturing.8
Also on the metaphorical level of domestic comedy as representation of the
state, the possibility of making connections between Catherine’s personal his-
tory and the text raises problems for the empress as woman writer and woman
ruler. I have already argued that Catherine incongruously makes a case for
women’s authority by showing a woman performing the role of wife, a role she
rejected herself. By invoking the wifely role in the comedy, she avoided draw-
ing too close a parallel to the weaknesses in her own claims to legitimate power
as a woman who had dethroned her husband. In fact, the text whispers with
muffled echoes of partial parallels and suppressed connections. Thus the nega-
tively presented image of Frau Sobrin as queenbee surrounded by her clients is
one which fit Catherine well but is treated as misguided. And even though the
play shows that at the time of this accusation Herr Sobrin was behaving as a far
from enlightened or beneficent ruler of his family, Frau Sobrin is not given
permission in the text to assume power even temporarily, much less to shut him
away in some version of Hauslöffer’s sinister «little place.» But since the on-
stage representative of legitimate authority in the play is the patriarchal husband, the
comedy still raises questions that the empress actually wanted to avoid. In a play
which in so many ways is about authority, Catherine’s investment of that authority
finally in the husband draws attention to the blatant absence (via murder) of her
own husband and correspondingly to her own status as usurper.
As for the issue of reading reality, historical truth is of course more complex
than the two alternative positions the play seems to pose of transparency or in-
terpretation. Much though the play endorses transparency, Catherine II as em-
press did not assume that reality matched appearances. When Hauslöffer takes
49
on the posture of well-informed undercover agent toward Herr Sobrin and of
secret police inquisitor toward the serving maid Mawra (especially in Act 3,
Scene 2), he resembles the playwright’s employees and their police powers.
Hauslöffer’s behavior is redolent of eighteenth-century Russian court life —
and not just the parasitic hangers-on. The undertone of coercion and repression
associated with him, metaphorically represented by the private prison in his house
with secret exits known only to the man at the top of the family structure, recalls the
techniques of intimidation, inclusion and exclusion of imperial court politics.
Although Catherine considered theater to be an educational tool, it was not a
tool for deconstructing the mistress’s house. Indeed it was highly appropriate
that so many of her plays are comedies, since comedy is a conservative genre.
Harold Knutson, writing about the comedies of Molière and the English Resto-
ration, mentions their «compelling perspective from on high» and «powerful in-
sider-outsider dialectic» (142-43). These two related notions apply well to Fam-
ily Quarrel (although, compared to the social height of the imperial playwright,
the perspective of the play is modest). Beyond these, comedies typically reach
their happy ends by restoring the status quo, often via the expulsion of change
agents. Catherine restabilizes the model Sobrin family and, with Preleste’s mar-
riage, guarantees the continuation of similar privileged families at the same time
that, with Mawra’s marriage, a less privileged class will also continue willingly
to provide its necessary labor. In Family Quarrel, Herr and Frau Sobrin each
have heirs to their property and their powers. Preleste almost has the final word,
one with which she, like her mother, successfully proposes to the official head
of the house that he change course. He does.
1
Schuchard argues that the name of the trickster in The Cheat, Kalifalksherston, identifies him as a
depiction of two famous eighteenth-century freemasons, Count Cagliostro (Joseph Balsamo) and
Samuel Jacob Hayim Falk (146-147). David Welsh asserts that the audience of The Deluded would
have recognized the trickster there has a portrait of S.I. Mamalej (or Gamalej, as Welsh spells it later
on the same page; 23).
2
Fleischhacker quotes a May 1788 letter from Catherine in which she explains: «Herr Hausloeffer is
a parasite who runs from house to house, haunting the front halls, snapping up meals and bits of
news, trying to make himself indispensable, and choosing whatever means he finds; this is the
scoundrel who believes that by stuffing people’s heads with suspicions, he is reaching his goal,
which is to gain esteem for himself and to draw the attention of everyone he meets to himself; there
is no one who had not met people of this kind, and especially at court. This play was composed in
order to unmask them» (176).
3
To simplify the location of textual passages in various editions and in both Russian and German
versions of the plays, I include both the act and scene numbers as well as the page numbers from the
German original which served as my source.
50
4
It is also possible to argue that in the interactions between Sobrin and his son, the play is a coded
version of Catherine’s relation with her son, who by this time was aged 34, married, and conducting
a court life of his own, but whose incompliant discontent with his mother’s rule was well known.
5
Meehan-Waters has argued the apparent greater acceptability of female rule in Russia than further west.
6
In addition to its work of training individuals for submission, the family, especially the sentimental
family in the specific context of eighteenth-century German literature, had another political function,
a utopian one that, as Karin Wurst explains, is inconsistent with the role of socializing members to
submission. This utopian goal was to educate the court by means of a moral model from the private
sphere, with the most important model of an educational utopia being the middle-class family, espe-
cially the relationship of the middle-class father to his children, a relationship founded in mutual
love and respect (Wurst 11). When the author is herself from the court and is the head of state, what
then? It appears that Catherine attempts to reverse the virtue attribution while using the same story.
Thus the woman/mother at the head of the state does not need to be educated to morality in her
work. Quite the contrary: she instead is educating the family in enlightened virtue. Admittedly, part
of her purpose is to make (male) family members better citizens — but not citizens who in any way
change the state. The fact that the four translated plays were ostensibly anonymous has no impact on this
matter: it would have been quite evident, I think, that these plays were sponsored by the court.
7
Paul and his German wife traveled abroad in 1781 and 1782.
8
Although it is too narrow to see Family Quarrel as primarily a play about the family politics of the
Romanovs, and while it seems unlikely that Catherine would attempt in a play to teach her adult son
something about mature behavior, or about effective rule, or about women as rulers, she may on one
level have been rehearsing these issues for herself and perhaps getting a response to them from the
of course elite public which attended the theater or bought printed plays; or perhaps she was giving a
semi-public explanation of her relations with her son. An alternative biographical reading of the play
could pose the immature Johann as a version of some of Catherine’s young favorites.
Catherine the Great. Der Betrüger, ein Lustspiel. St. Petersburg: Schnoor, 1786.
---------. Der sibirische Schaman, ein Lustspiel. St. Petersburg: Breitkopfsche Buchdruckerey, 1786.
---------. Der Verblendete, ein Lustspiel. St. Petersburg: Breitkopfsche Buchdruckerey, 1786.
---------. Der Familien Zwist, durch falsche Warnung und Argwohn. Ein Lustspiel. St. Petersburg:
Kayserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1788.
Dawson, Ruth P. «Catherine the Great: Playwright of the Anti-Occult.» Thalia’s Daughters: Ger-
man Women Dramatists from the 18th Century to the Present, ed. Susan Cocalis and Ferrel
Rose. Tübingen: Francke, Narr Verlag, 1996, 17-34.
Fleischhacker, Hedwig. Mit Feder und Zepter: Katharina II. als Autorin. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Verlags-Anstalt, 1978.
Hyart, Charles. «Le Théâtre de L’Ermitage et Catherine II,» Revue de Littérature Comparée 1
(1987), 81-103.
Karlinsky, Simon. Russian Drama from its Beginnings to the Age of Pushkin. Berkeley: U of Cali-
fornia P, 1985.
Knutsen, Harold C. The Triumph of Wit: Molière and Restoration Comedy. Columbus: Ohio State U
P, 1988.
Meehan-Waters, Brenda. «Catherine the Great and the Problem of Female Rule.» Russian Review
34, 3 (1975), 293-307.
51
O’Malley, Lurana Donnels. «Masks of the Empress: Polyphony of Personae in Catherine the Great’s
Oh, These Times!» Comparative Drama 31 (1997), 65-85.
---------. «The Monarch and the Mystic: Catherine the Great’s Strategy of Audience Enlightenment
in The Siberian Shaman,» Slavic and East European Journal 41 (1997), 224-42.
Schuchard, Marsha Keith. «Yeats and the ‘Unknown Superiors’: Swedenborg, Falk, and
Cagliostro.» Secret Texts: The Literature of Secret Societies, ed. Marie Mulvey Roberts and
Hugh Ormsby-Lennon. New York: AMS, 1995, 114-68.
Welsh, David J. Russian Comedy 1765-1823. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. (Slavistic Printings and
Reprintings 65).
Wurst, Karin. Familiale Liebe ist die ‘Wahre Gewalt,’ Die Repräsentation der Familie in G.E.
Lessings dramatischem Werk. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988. (Amsterdamer Publikationen zur
Sprache und Literatur 75)
52
А.А. Златопольская
(Санкт-Петербург)
Э
поха Екатерины II — время активного усвоения и переработки
идей французского Просвещения, в частности идей Руссо и Мон-
тескье. Как же воспринимались идеи «женевского гражданина» и
автора «Духа законов» в ином культурном контексте, в иных ис-
торических условиях?
Казалось бы, концепция Руссо должна вызвать неприятие у дворянских
идеологов. И действительно, например, Екатерина II резко отрицательно от-
носилась к теориям «женевского гражданина»1. Однако в целом отношение к
Руссо в среде дворянских мыслителей было положительным. Сложилась
своеобразная интеллектуальная мода на идеи Руссо. В рамках интеллектуаль-
ной моды наиболее радикальные идеи воспринимаются таким образом, что
1
Кобеко Д.Ф. Екатерина II и Жан Жак Руссо. // Исторический вестник, 1883, июнь.
2
Мысли Ж.Ж. Руссо, женевского философа. Пер. М. Прокоповича. М., 1804, с. 183.
3
Дух или избранные мысли Ж.Ж. Руссо. Пер. И. Мартынова, СПб., 1801, с. 33.
4
Кучеров А.Я. Французская революция и русская литература XVIII века. // XVIII век. М.-Л., 1935.
5
Руссо Ж.Ж. Трактаты. М., 1969, с. 160.
6
Там же, с. 161.
7
Потемкин П. Предисловие. // Рассуждение о начале и основании неравенства между людьми,
сочиненное господином Ж.Ж. Руссо. М., 1770.
8
Там же.
9
Фонвизин Д.И. Собрание сочинений, т.2. М.-Л., 1959, с. 266.
10
Там же.
11
Козельский Я.П. Философические предложения. // Избранные произведения русских мыс-
лителей второй половины XVIII века. Т. 1 М., 1952, с. 524.
12
Руссо Ж.Ж. Эмиль. М., 1911, с. 412.
13
Фонвизин Д.И. Собрание сочинений. Т. 2, с. 254-255.
14
Тарановский Ф.В. Судьба «Наказа» имп. Екатерины II во Франции. // Журнал Министерства
юстиции, 1912, № 1. С. 126.
15
См.: Вальденберг В.Е. Екатерина II и Монтескье. // ПФ АРАН (Петербургский филиал ар-
хива Российской Академии наук), Ф. 346, оп. 1, ед. хр. 4.
16
Трактаты, с. 183.
17
Цит. по: Кобеко Д.Н. Екатерина II и Ж.Ж. Руссо. С. 612.
18
Наказ императрицы Екатерины II, СПб., 1907, с. 2-3.
19
Наказ императрицы Екатерины II. С. 8.
20
Сегюр Л. Записки графа Сегюра о пребывании его в России в царствование Екатерины II
(1785-1789). СПб., 1865.
21
Радищев А.Н. Полное собрание сочинений. Т. 2. М.-Л., 1941. С. 412.
22
Словцов П.А. Поучение при случае торжества бракосочетания Его Высочества Великого
князя Александра Павловича с Елизаветою Алексеевною, княжною Баденскою. // Чтения в
императорском обществе истории и древностей Российских при Московском университете.
М., 1873, июль-сентябрь, кн. 3. С. 151.
23
Радищев А.Н. Полн. собр. соч. Т. 3 М.-Л., 1952. С. 47.
24
Радищев А.Н. Полн. собр. соч. Т. 1. М.-Л., 1938. С. 15.
25
Руссо Ж.Ж. Трактаты. С. 184, 193.
26
Там же. С. 96.
27
Там же.
28
Там же. С. 183.
66
A. Cross
(Cambridge, England)
lmost forty years ago in the pages of Russkaia literatura there appeared
© A. Cross, 1999.
67
from French into Russian and published as a small booklet in St Petersburg in
1837. They were in fact from the Travels into Poland, Russia, Sweden and
Denmark by the famous English scholar and traveller, the Rev. William Coxe,
which had first appeared in England in 1784 and went through another five,
constantly revised and expanded editions by 1803. Quoting the memoirs of Ni-
kolai Grech, Alekseev explained the anonymity of the translation by the fact
that in Nicholas’s reign Coxe’s was a book «strogo zapreshchennaia» on ac-
count of the «nemalo ‘vol’nykh’ i ‘opasnykh’ po tomu vremeni myslei».2 In the
same paragraph he also stressed the proliferation of English books about Russia,
predominantly travel accounts, appearing in the second half of the eighteenth
century, and what is most relevant for us, the likelihood that Radishchev knew
and appreciated such works and that they could have influenced both the genre
and structure of his own Puteshestvie iz Peterburga v Moskvu.. Intriguingly, he
added that Novikov in his article ‘Angliiskaia progulka’ from Zhivopisets had
described the famous ‘Otryvok puteshestviia v I*** T***’ as a «puteshestvie, v
angliiskom vkuse napisannoe», but he declined to develop this any further as
not germane to his current task, referring us instead to a work on Radishchev by
V.V. Pugachev which had appeared two years earlier in Gor’kii and in which
the particular topic was «uzhe namechena v obshchikh chertakh».
Pugachev, who, like Alekseev, accepted Radishchev as author of the ‘Otry-
vok’, believed that it marked the beginning of work on the Puteshestvie and in
his turn he emphasized the «vazhnoe nabliudenie akademika M.P. Alekseeva»
about Novikov (which he seems to have heard in conversation, since I can find
no written version before 1962).3 A few pages later, he also re-iterated Alek-
seev’s views about the probable influence of English accounts on the genre and
structure of the Puteshestvie and took «as an example» Coxe’s Travels.4 I will
return in due course to what Pugachev had to say about Coxe, but here I would
note that Alekseev was to include and develop what he himself had written in
his article of 1962 in his great study, Russko-angliiskie literaturnye sviazi, pub-
lished only posthumously in 1982.5
It must be said that the views of Alekseev and Pugachev seem to me inaccu-
rate and misleading and I hope I can be as delicate in demonstrating this as
Alekseev was himself in pointing out the errors of his predecessors over the
translation from Coxe. Both scholars seem to suggest that already by the 1770s
there existed a considerable corpus of travel accounts of Russia by British au-
thors, but this was not so. There had been British tourists in Russia during the
reign of Anna and Elizabeth, but none of them published accounts of their trav-
els. From the days of Peter the Great British residents, including diplomats,
military officers, merchants, doctors, and governesses, had published accounts
68
of their experiences and often of their travels through Russia beyond St Peters-
burg; indeed, arguably the most famous of these works, Travels from St. Peters-
burg in Russia, to Diverse Parts of Asia (1763), by the Scottish doctor John
Bell, had even been selected for translation (via the French version) by Cath-
erine’s Sobranie, staraiushcheesia o perevode inostrannykh knig and published
in St Petersburg in 1776. However, only one of them includes a description of a
journey between the two capitals. In a work published in 1753 the merchant
Jonas Hanway described the still far from completed «great road made by
command of Peter the Great» and commented briefly on Valdai, Tver’ and other
towns along the route.6 It was only in 1776 that there appeared what I have de-
scribed as «the first published account of a British Grand Tourist travelling, pen
in hand», the twenty-three-year old Nathaniel Wraxall’s Cursory Remarks
Made in a Tour through Some of the Northern Parts of Europe, particularly
Copenhagen, Stockholm and Petersburgh, which has undoubted interest and
went through four editions by 1807 but is exclusively concerned with St Peters-
burg.7 British tourists certainly travelled between Petersburg and Moscow in in-
creasing numbers during Catherine’s reign, but what they thought and said was
conveyed through letters and diaries to a close circle of their friends and rela-
tions. The first published British account to carry in its title a reference to the
journey was John Richard’s A Tour from London to Petersburgh and thence to
Moscow (1778), which Jeremy Bentham immediately denounced as «a catch-
penny performance — an imposture» and rightly so, for it was the production of
an armchair traveller.8
The general point to be made is that it is highly unlikely that Novikov or
even Radishchev knew any British travel account of Russia in the first years of
the 1770s and that Radishchev, even by the time he came to publish his Putesh-
estvie, knew probably only Coxe’s travels — and that cannot be proved. One
must therefore treat with caution Alekseev’s reference to «eta obshirnaia litera-
tura angliiskikh puteshestvii po Rossii, s obiazatel’nym dlia kazhdogo iz nikh
epizodom — poezdkoi iz Moskvy v Peterburg ili iz Peterburga v Moskvu»,9 for
there is no evidence to support it. Furthermore, the suggestion that Novikov was
referring in 1772 to English accounts of Russia seems to me improbable. If any-
thing, he was referring either to minor ‘travel’ genres as found in the English sa-
tirical journals with which he was, of course, very familiar or to English litera-
ture of the Grand Tour, describing visits to France and Germany, Switzerland
and Italy, but not to Russia or the Scandinavian countries. There was an abun-
dance of such accounts, good and bad, long and short, written by aristocrats,
gentry, merchants, scholars and men of letters,10 and certainly, given the
strongly developed sense in them of British superiority over all foreigners of
69
whatever station, much support for the view expressed in Zhivopisets that the
«Otryvok’ was «v angliiskom vkuse», because «tam dvoriane kritikuiutsia tak
zhe, kak i prostoliudiny». But this is quite different from Pugachev’s view that
«smysl zamechaniia Novikova sovershenno ocheviden. Esli russkie molchat o
sochineniiakh angliiskikh avtorov [opisyvaiushchikh Rossiiu], to pochemu zhe
ikh tak vozmushchaet ‘Otryvok’?»11
Let us turn now to Coxe’s Travels. and its relationship to Radishchev’s
Puteshestvie. Alekseev suggested that it was a dangerous book and undoubtedly
it was so considered in the Russia of Nicholas I, but there is no evidence to sug-
gest that it was banned or considered dangerous during Catherine’s reign. Nev-
ertheless, Alekseev writes: «V 1778 godu, k kontsu zhizni v Rossii, Koks mog
eshche dovol’no svobodno delit’sia koe-kakimi nabliudeniiami nad kontrastami
russkoi deistvitel’nosti so svoimi peterburgskimi sobesednikami i dazhe
udostoilsia odobritel’noi ulybkoi imperatritsei. Desiatiletie spustia vse rezko
izmenilos’...» and Coxe’s book «dolzhna byla privlech’ k sebe nastorozhennoe
vnimanie pravitel’stvennykh krugov».12 In fact, when Coxe paid his second visit
to Russia as tutor to Samuel Whitbread II in 1784, he was again received by the
empress to whom he presented a copy of his work. A year later, in May 1785,
her correspondent J.G. Zimmermann, having read the German translation, com-
plimented Catherine on having found an historian «qui parle d’Elle et de Son
règne comme on le doit» and in her reply the empress wrote that «Mr. Coxe,
dont vous me parlès, a été deux fois en Russie; il vient de nous quitter tout ré-
cemment, il m’a donné son ouvrage que j’ai feuilleté; il m’a paru dire les choses
telles qu’il les a appris, cependant il se trompe quelques fois, mais c’est de
bonne foi».13
The question of the «dangerous nature» of Coxe’s views on certain aspects
of Russian life, notably on serfdom, is, however, secondary to that of the influ-
ence of his work on the «genre and composition» of Radishchev’s work, which,
originally posited as «veroiatno» in Alekseev’s article, becomes in his final ver-
sion: «‘Puteshestviia’ Koksa byli, po-vidimomu, izvestny A.N. Radishchevu i
mogli okazat’ vozdeistvie na vybor samogo zhanra i kompositsii ego sobstven-
noi znamenitoi knigi». Pugachev, however, has no doubts: «kompositsionnoe
skhodstvo nesomnennoe» and «kompositsionnye priemy Koksa (kak i drugikh
angliiskikh puteshestvennikov) okazali nesomnennoe vliianie na Rad-
ishcheva».14 He finds similarities, but also differences in, for instance, the two
writers’ interest in peasant songs, but this leads him to the very questionable
proposition that «podchas s Koksom soznatel’no vedetsia polemika (khotia on i
ne nazyvaetsia)’, discovering this in the very title («U Koksa puteshestvie iz
Moskvy v Peterburg, u Radishcheva, naoborot, iz Peterburga v Moskvu»).15 His
70
rhetorical question at this point «Vriad li eto sluchaino» can only be answered:
«da, sluchaino».
The wish to find an influence on Radishchev among English writers on Rus-
sia is misguided; the English influence on Radishchev is the one he readily ad-
mitted, not least to his interrogator Sheshkovskii, when he said, referring to
some time after 1785, «a kak mne sluchilos’ chitat’ perevod nemetskoi Iorikova
puteshestviia, to i mne na mysl’ prishlo posledovat’».16 What is particularly in-
teresting here is not that Radishchev was acquainted with Laurence Sterne’s
Sentimental Journey through France and Italy (1768), but how many years had
elapsed from its publication before he read it. Much has been written about the
nature of any Sternian influences on Radishchev’s work and I have no intention
of rehearsing the topic again.17 What I wish to do is not even to seek possible
further English influences on Radishchev’s Puteshestvie — at most one may
speak only of textual and thematic parallels — but to look at what a limited se-
lection of British travellers/tourists actually wrote about their journeys from St
Petersburg to Moscow, or, indeed, from Moscow to St Petersburg, in order to
highlight precisely what they considered worthy of note and record.
II
25
The Life of Reginald Heber, D.D. Lord Bishop of Calcutta by His Widow, ... together with a Jour-
nal of His Tour in Norway, Sweden, Russia, Hungary and Germany and a History of the Cossacks, I
(London, 1830), 137-50.
26
John Parkinson, A Tour of Russia, Siberia and the Crimea 1792-4, edited with an introduction by
William Collier (London, 1971), pp. 96-8.
27
Parkinson, p. 98; Clarke, I, 44.
28
Craven, pp. 220-1; Parkinson, p. 97; Swinton, p. 352.
29
Cf. Radishchev’s words at Tosna: «Poekhavshi iz Peterburga, ia voobrazhal sebe, chto doroga
byla nailuchshaia. Takovoiu ee pochitali vse te, kotorye ezdili po nei vsled gosudaria. Takova ona
byla deistvitel’no, no na maloe vremia. Zemlia, nasypannaia na doroge, sdelav ee gladkoiu v sukhoe
vremia, dozhdiami razzhizhennaia, proizvela velikuiu griaz’ sredi leta i sdelala ee neprokhodimuiu»
(A.N. Radishchev, Puteshestvie iz Petersburga v Moskvu. Vol’nost’ (Spb., 1992), p. 9).
30
Coxe found villages surrounded by a wooden palisade «picturesque» (II, 61).
31
Radishchev, pp. 58-9.
32
Katherine Harris, sister of the British ambassador Sir James Harris, in a manuscript diary covering
a journey she made to Moscow in September 1778 (during which she passed Coxe and his compan-
ions on their way to the capital) described how «we passed through the Town of Waldai & were fol-
low’d by girls who tease you to buy Baranki and the ceremony is to kiss the girls when you make
your purchase» (Public Record Office, Kew, Ms. 30/43/12, f. 11v.). See also Hanway’s paragraph
on the Valdai girls’ «excessive laughter and painted faces» and on «the several amorous songs which
the Russians hold in great esteem, in relation to the scenes of delight which this place affords»
(Hanway, Historical Account, I, 56).
33
P.S. Pallas in his Travels through the Southern Provinces of the Russian Empire, in the Years
1793 and 1794 , I (London, 1802), 6-7, a work to which both Clarke and Heber refer, is very ap-
proving of the great improvements made in Vyshnii Volochok, Tver’ and Torzhok during Cath-
erine’s reign.
34
See Anthony Cross, ‘«Crazy Paul»: The British and Paul I’, forthcoming in the Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference of the Study Group on Eighteenth-Century Russia, Leiden, July 1999.
35
Cited in A.M. Broadley and Lewis Melville, The Beautiful Lady Craven, I (London, 1914), xxviii-
xxix.
79
A. Lentin
(Milton Keynes, England)
‘...mon âme a toujours été singulièrement républicaine; je conviens que c’est peut-
être un singulier contraste que cette trempe d’âme avec le pouvoir illimité de ma place...’
Catherine II to J.G. Zimmerman, 17891
‘Nous avons causé trois quarts d’heure sur les américains et sur la forme des gouver-
nements; il ne veut admettre que celle des républicains, même pour les grands états.’
Chevalier de Corberon, French chargé d’affaires at St Petersburg,
on a conversation with Shcherbatov, 17762
© A. Lentin, 1999.
80
tures of contemporary political theory. She was inspired above all, as she in-
formed d’Alembert and Frederick the Great, by Montesquieu, whose De l’esprit
des lois she described as her ‘breviary’.5 294 out the 526 articles in the Nakaz,
some three-fifths of the entire document, consist of excerpts from De l’esprit
des lois which Catherine reproduced virtually verbatim. Using Montesquieu’s
terminology throughout the Nakaz, she proclaimed herself the friend of ‘mod-
erate government’. She expatiated on her desire to see the freedom and security
of her subjects (whom she described as ‘citizens’), guaranteed by law. She in-
voked such institutional concepts as the ‘intermediary powers’ and the ‘reposi-
tory of the laws’. Voltaire, greeting the Nakaz as ‘le plus beau monument du
siècle’,6 voiced the general approval of the philosophes, who, with the notable
exception of Diderot, showed more enthusiasm than discernment. The public re-
sponse in Russia was no less sweeping. Catherine’s confidential adviser, Count
Sievers, described it as ‘Russia’s Golden Bull’.7 Catherine herself informed
both d’Alembert and Madame Geoffrin that ‘la voix unanime de tous ceux qui
l’ont vu disent [sic] que c’est le non plus ultra du genre humain’.8
Against such a background, Shcherbatov’s Observations on the Nakaz (written
c. 1772/3) stands out in bold relief as the only formal extant critique of the Nakaz
by a Russian contemporary. As with most of his writings on politics and society in
Catherine’s reign, the Observations were not published in Shcherbatov’s lifetime,
being intended at best for clandestine circulation among a handful of aristocratic
sympathisers or reserved for the eyes of posterity. Ostensibly, Shcherbatov fol-
lowed a successful public career as courtier (kamer-iunker, becoming kamer-ger
in 1773), administrator (gerol’dmeister since 1771), and imperial historiographer,
volume one of his History of Russia appearing in the same year. His Observations
on the Nakaz remained unpublished for over a century and a half, appearing in
print only in 1935. The manuscript consists of a written copy of the Nakaz in Rus-
sian, followed by Shcherbatov’s enumerated observations, the latter forming a
critical commentary of almost fifty printed pages.9 Shcherbatov’s Observations
demonstrate that Catherine’s ‘Political Testament’ evoked, in one quarter at least,
a response somewhat less than rapturous. While he presented himself as a disinte-
rested patriot and ‘true son of the fatherland’ (верный сын отечества),10 Shcher-
batov’s personal and political animosity towards Catherine derived both from fru-
strated ambition and, as is well known, from his uncompromising advocacy of
noble privilege and the maintenance of serfdom. He aired these views publicly at
the Legislative Commission of 1768-9 as deputy for the nobility of the province of
Yaroslavl’, and he continued to advance them throughout his life, both in his His-
tory of Russia and in his unofficial and unpublished critiques of policies and per-
sonalities in Catherine’s reign.11
81
Given Catherine’s acknowledged debt to Montesquieu, it is significant to note
Shcherbatov’s own close familiarity with Montesquieu, and his admiration for сей
именитый писатель and сей мудрый муж,12 to whose великие мысли и об-
ширной разум he refers with obvious admiration and whose reputation he de-
scribes as that of an оракул политики и закономудрствия13 Shcherbatov was
steeped in Montesquieu’s works, particularly De l’esprit des lois.14 Whilst also cit-
ing Hume, d’Holbach and Rousseau in his Observations on the Nakaz, he was
predominantly concerned with De l’esprit des lois. He evidently had a copy of it at
hand (in its Russian version) while writing the Observations, since he refers to it
and quotes from it throughout his critique. His admiration is nevertheless qualified
and discriminating: on a number of points he permits himself to disagree with
Montesquieu, сохраняя все почтение к сему знаменитому писателю, кажется
можно со справедливостию противуречить сей его мысли.15 He did not, for
example, share Montesquieu’s view of the influence of climate on historical de-
velopment. His overall sympathy with and understanding of Montesquieu, howev-
er, make Shcherbatov an unusually valuable commentator on the Nakaz, the com-
pilation of which, according to Catherine, was largely a matter of ‘copying and
appreciating the principles of President Montesquieu.’16
Shcherbatov is by no means uniformly hostile to the Nakaz. Many of Cathe-
rine’s assumptions and suggestions taken from Montesquieu meet with his ap-
proval. He shares her belief in the importance of law and the necessity of codi-
fication as a precondition of social order and welfare. He agrees that ничто бо-
лее не спомоществует спокойствию обще всех граждан и каждого особли-
во, как установленные мудрые законы17 and that благосостояние граждан
зависит от мудрости законов, которыми управляются18. Many humanitarian
principles of the Nakaz taken from Montesquieu and Beccaria and relating to
the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings likewise evoke his emphatic
approval. He agrees that persons charged with capital offences should have the
right to challenge and to reject potential jurymen, insisting that сие есть столь
справедливое правило, что достойно быть ежечасно пред очами у всякого
народа.19 He agrees that trials should be held in public.20 He endorses Cathe-
rine’s strictures against the use of torture. He confirms that capital punishment
should be reserved for the most serious offences.21 He stresses the cardinal im-
portance of the presumption of innocence and holds that sentences should err on
the side of leniency: лутче виновного меньше наказать, нежели безвинного
наказать строго.22
These remarks of approval, however, serve by contrast to underline the
overwhelmingly critical tenor of Shcherbatov’s comments on the Nakaz in gen-
eral. The central targets of his criticism are the basic principles of Catherine’s
82
political philosophy. His method of approach is to go through the Nakaz article
by article, comparing and contrasting particular articles with their sources in De
l’esprit des lois. He regularly identifies the precise references in Montesquieu
(these were not indicated in the Nakaz), and since, as Catherine was the first to
admit, the Nakaz was essentially a reworking of De l’esprit des lois,23 he con-
centrated on demonstrating how far Catherine had in his view deviated from or
even falsified Montesquieu’s principles. His method was to expose discrepan-
cies, inconsistencies and false analogies between the Nakaz and De l’esprit des
lois. Characteristic of his approach is the following observation:
Сии суть слова господина Монтескиу в книге «О разуме законов», кни-
га II, глава 4. Но сей именитый писатель сие говорит о таком правительст-
ве, где единой управляет по основательным законам, а не о таком, где са-
мовластие его пределов не имеет.24
This very objection in fact lies at the heart of Shcherbatov’s Observations on
the Nakaz. His main purpose was to query how far, if at all, Catherine’s absolut-
ism (самодержавное правление, самодержавная власть)25 differed from ‘arbi-
trary rule’ (самовластие) or outright ‘despotism’ (деспотичество).26 He sought to
throw open two basic question: what was the actual form of government and what
form of government was most appropriate to Russia; and in his comments on the
latter he showed himself an enthusiastic advocate of ‘republican government’
(республиканское правление) and ‘republican freedom’ (республиканская
вольность). Catherine herself begged both questions, adducing a variety of argu-
ments in support of absolute rule (самодержавная власть), acceptance of which
was fundamental to her political philosophy. In article 9 she declares the absolute
nature of her government (государь есть самодержавный, ‘le monarque de Rus-
sie est souverain’). She goes on to assert in article 11 that всякое другое правле-
ние не только было бы России вредно, но и в конец разорительно. These are
basic suppositions which Shcherbatov seeks to refute; and for each point which
Catherine puts forward in support of absolute rule, Shcherbatov is ready with a
denial and a counterargument. He rejects her central argument that absolutism is
Russia’s ‘natural’ form of government.
Catherine’s justification of absolutism on the grounds of Russia’s size, Sh-
cherbatov considers highly tendentious, even though, as he admits, it is drawn
from Montesquieu. Article 9 of the Nakaz states: Государь есть самодержав-
ный; ибо никакая другая, как только соединенная в его особе власть не
может действовати сходно со пространством толь великого государства.
This Shcherbatov roundly denies, notwithstanding Montesquieu. The question,
he insists, is an open one: Чтобы великое государство требовало необходи-
мо самодержавной власти, сие есть проблема, еще принадлежащая к ре-
83
шению27. He is still more critical of Catherine’s amplification of her claim, in
article 10, where she argues as follows: Пространное государство предпола-
гает самодержавную власть в той особе, которая оным правит. Надлежит,
чтобы скорость в решении дел из дальних стран присылаемых награждала
медление отдаленностию мест причиняемое. Both claims, as Shcherbatov
points out, are taken from De l’esprit des lois, Book VIII, chapter 19 (‘Proprié-
tés distinctives du gouvernement despotique’), which begins: ‘un grand empire
suppose une autorité despotique [sic] dans celui qui gouverne.’ Nonetheless, on
this fundamental question Shcherbatov permits himself to dissent from Montes-
quieu: не могу я согласиться в справедливости сего мнения.28 Shcherbatov
concedes the theoretical blessings in a vast state of ‘enlightened absolutism’ un-
der that rare paragon, the philosopher-prince, ежели мы себе представим го-
сударя трудолюбивого и презирающего свои удовольствии для пользы
подданных, которого бы все указы и повелении основаны на совершенной
мудрости и правосудии были,29 only to dismiss the possibility as chimerical.
Not only could the absolutism (самодержавие) of such a ruler indeed produce
the advantages claimed by Catherine, но таково бы самовластие приятнее
было, нежель самая республиканская вольность.30
Another obvious objection to absolutism in a hereditary monarchy is the
lack of guarantee of continuity of enlightenment, since, as Shcherbatov points
out, the qualification for rule is не достоинство, но единое право рождения.31
Absolute rule reflects the qualities of the ruler. It will not be enlightened under
an arbitrary ruler: когда такой государь не по уста[но]вленным законам, но
по своим своенравиям управляет, сие именуется деспотичество, что малое
разделение с гнусным тиранством имеет.32 Nor will absolute rule lead to
скорость в решении or be сходственно с истинными пользами государст-
ва,33 as claimed by Catherine and Montesquieu, if a ruler is distracted, for ex-
ample, by любовная страсть; such distractions и более еще республиканско-
го замедления приключат.34 Moreover an absolute ruler, человек, не дающий
никому отчету в своих делах,35 is likely to prove resistant to disinterested ad-
vice, да когда и решение его воспоследует, можно ль надеяться, чтоб оно
было сходственно с истинными пользами государства [...]?36 As for the
form of government best suited to administer a large empire, Shcherbatov ar-
gues that римская республика пример нам ясный представляет. Она, не
взирая на свое пространство, не токмо правила отдаленными странами,
содержала в тишине и спокойстве вновь покоренные народы, но еще еже-
дневно и области свои расширяла.37
In article 12 of the Nakaz Catherine declares: лучше повиноваться законам
под одним господином, нежели угождать многим. Shcherbatov rejects this
84
contention. If, he argues, even under limited monarchy (в таком государстве, в
коем власть манаршая [sic] была законами стеснена) rulers have often vi-
olated the established laws, how much more is this so under absolute rule,
where единая воля государская законом служит и где он отчету в своих по-
ступках никому не отдает;38 and where вся сила правления в едином изво-
лении часто неспроведливом [sic] и переменчивом манаршем [sic]
состоит.39 In a republic, on the other hand, though rule is by the many, the ru-
lers are accountable and obliged to rule по разуму установленных законов,
отчего и происходит, что при сих множестве правителей, однако не им, но
единому закону повинуются.40 In article 13 Catherine asks: Какий предлог
самодержавного правления? and replies: не тот, чтоб у людей отнять есте-
ственную их вольность, но чтобы действия их направити к получению са-
мого большого ото всех добра. Shcherbatov dismisses this as meaningless ca-
suistry, a generalisation to which every accepted form of government can sub-
scribe. Citing Rousseau on the social contract, Shcherbatov stresses that what-
ever other rights the people originally surrendered to the monarch, народ не
мог свою естественную вольность уступить, яко вещь такую, без которой
его благополучие никак соделаться не может.41 In any event, Shcherbatov
doubts whether the social contract applies to absolute monarchy (самодержав-
ная власть). Alluding to Montesquieu’s doctrine of the separation of powers,
the celebrated remedy against despotism, he asks: ибо можно ли тут надеяться
на сохранение естественной вольности, где власть законодательная и ис-
полнительная в единой особе сообщена?42 While Catherine, therefore, in ar-
ticle 14 concludes that the most effective form of government is that which cor-
responds closest to the expectations of reasonable men in instituting civil socie-
ty, Shcherbatov comments pointedly: видно, которое републиканское или
монаршическое [sic] правление к концу сему достигает.43
In article 15 Catherine claims: Самодержавных правлений намерение и
конец есть слава граждан, государства и государя. As Shcherbatov points
out, this is an echo of De l’esprit des lois, book V, chapter 9 (‘Comment les lois
sont relatives à leur principe dans la monarchie’), where Montesquieu, catego-
rising the motive ‘principle’ applicable to each form of government, defines
‘honour’ (честь) rather than ‘glory’ (слава) as the principle of monarchy. Sh-
cherbatov not only points this out but draws a crucial distinction between mo-
narchy (монархия, монаршическое [sic] правление) and absolute monarchy
(самодержавие, самодержавное правление, the expression used by Catherine
throughout the Nakaz as a synonym for monarchy). Shcherbatov stresses that
Montesquieu ascribes the principle of ‘honour’ only to the former (предполага-
ет монаршическому, а не самодержавному правлению).44 Shcherbatov,
85
however, goes further than Montesquieu, finding the principle of honour more ap-
plicable to republican than monarchical rule. He cites the example of republican
Rome, pointing to the reflected glory shared by the citizens in a republic. He de-
nies that ‘glory’ can be the motive-force under absolute monarchy, the true prin-
ciple of which, he defines, quoting Montesquieu, as ‘fear’ (‘la crainte’).45
Shcherbatov delivers a sharp attack on article 16, where Catherine refers to a
‘spirit of freedom’ (разум вольности) as characteristic of monarchical rule (в
народе, единоначалием управляемом). Such a ‘spirit of freedom’, according
to Catherine, может произвести столько же великих дел, и столько споспе-
шествовать благополучию подданных, как и самая вольность. Shcherbatov
dismisses this as rank sophistry. He again emphasises the incompatibility of ab-
solutism and freedom (вольность), которая, повторяю, под единоначальст-
вом не может сохраниться.46 He then pours scorn on Catherine’s vaunted ‘spi-
rit of freedom’. Catherine claims, что сей разум вольности то же может про-
извести, как и самая вольность. Следственно сей разум не есть вольность и
потому он по крайней мере маска вольности.47 The citizens may be deceived
for a time, but eventually they will be disabused.
Shcherbatov next turns a skeptical eye on Catherine’s interpretation of the
institutions of state in Russia. Article 18 of the Nakaz declares: Власти сред-
ние, подчиненные и зависящие от верховной составляют существо прав-
ления. Here, as Shcherbatov points out, Catherine not merely copies Montes-
quieu (De l’esprit des lois, Book II, chapter 4 (‘Des lois dans leur rapport avec
la nature du gouvernement monarchique’), from which she cites verbatim: ‘les
pouvoirs intermédiaires, subordonnés et dépendans constituent la nature du
gouvernement’), but stops short at the operative point, where Montesquieu re-
fers to ‘la nature du gouvernement monarchique’. The rest of the sentence in
Montesquieu, as Shcherbatov underlines, continues: ‘c’est-à-dire de celui où un
seul gouverne par des lois fondamentales.’ As Shcherbatov demonstrates, Ca-
therine’s truncated version utterly perverts the sense of Montesquieu’s original
by applying it to absolute rule: Отложение же сего слова оказует желание к
неограниченной деспотической власти, а где есть деспотичество, тут не
могут быть законы тверды, ни власти средние, подчиненные, более взи-
рающие на изволение деспота, нежель на законы, быть верные хранители
оным.48
Again, in article 19, taking the words from the same passage in Montes-
quieu, Catherine declares: Государь есть источник всякия государственныя
и гражданския власти. Shcherbatov points out that once more the phrase is
taken out of context. Montesquieu (Book II, chapter 4) refers to a monarchy,
где государь обязан править по основательным законам государства, и то-
86
гда, давая иль утверждая с согласия правительства сделанные законы, есть
действительно источник всякия государственныя и гражданския власти; но
и сам обязан становится повиноваться им установленному закону.49 Hence
Catherine’s assertion does not apply to absolute monarchies, в таких державах,
где государь себя почитает быть превыше закону.50 Here, Shcherbatov ar-
gues, while all power certainly derives from a single ruler, the basis of his pow-
er is unjust, since he overrides the limited and conditional authority vested in
him by society, and thereby violates the social contract.51
In articles 22 and 23 Catherine cites Montesquieu on the necessity of a ‘re-
pository of the laws’ (хранилище законов). Again, Shcherbatov points out, her
quotations are taken out of context: in De l’esprit des lois, Book II, chapter 4,
Montesquieu сие говорит о таком правительстве, где единой управляет по
основательным законам, а не о таком, где самовластие его пределов не
имеет.52 Shcherbatov tellingly quotes Montesquieu’s comment on the situation
under the latter form of rule, viz.: ‘Dans les états despotiques, où il n’y a point
de lois fondamentales, il n’y a pas non plus de dépôt de lois.’ In Shcherbatov’s
view, therefore, it is idle to assert, as Catherine does in article 26: В России
Сенат есть хранилище законов. The very name ‘Senate’, with its classical as-
sociations, is inappropriate and misleading in the Russian context, where the
Senate’s scope is closely limited: в самом деле, не имея власти законода-
тельной, а исполнительную весьма стесненную [sc. сенат] мало силы име-
ет.53 In an absolute monarchy, therefore, where the ultimate source of law is the
monarch’s will, to designate the Senate as the ‘repository of the laws’ is a mis-
nomer: тщетно имя хранилища закона ему давать, которого он токмо маску
носит, как то обыкновенно во всех деспотических правительствах бывает,
что судии не суть хранители законов, но исполнители воли деспота.54
In articles 21 and 24 of the Nakaz Catherine refers to the right enjoyed by
the Senate and other organs of state (правительства) to make ‘representations’
against a decree (указ) deemed at variance with existing law or on the grounds
of its obscurity, impracticality or positive harm. Noting that such a right existed
in principle under the General’nyi Reglament of 1720 and had since been con-
firmed by Catherine, Shcherbatov nonetheless claims that it has never been in-
voked by the Senate since Peter’s reign. Отчего же сие происходит? Shcher-
batov asks. Оттого ли, что государи в ошибки не впадают? [...] Или оттого,
что сенаторы или не видят пороков или, и видя их, не смеют противуре-
чить?55 In either case Shcherbatov attributes the fault to the monarch for failing
to appoint senators of sufficient strength of character to resist the ruler: В са-
мом же деле мне кажется, что государи, оставляя пребывать сей закон, не
желают видеть исполнение по нем [...] боясь, чтобы твердые своими пред-
87
ставлениями не нарушили их власть, что они бунтом почитают, хотя бы в
самом деле сие было сохранения пользы государства и умножения славы
монарха.56 This again implicitly brings out for Shcherbatov, as for Montes-
quieu, the ‘fear’ characteristic of a despotic form of government. Conversely the
example of the Roman senate suggests to Shcherbatov the advantage of a robust
‘first organ of state’ (первое правительство государства). Even under the em-
perors, he notes, republican tradition remained strong: пока и при них сенат
остатки власти своей сохранял, римская империя страшна была вселенной;
но с падением власти сенацкой, т.е. тогда, когда власть императоров неог-
раничена стала [...] сия сильная империя слабыми народными разрушена
стала.57
Shcherbatov underlines that security of life, liberty and property under the
law is incompatible with absolute rule. In article 39 Catherine defines ‘civil li-
berty’ (государственная вольность) as спокойство духа происходящее от
мнения, что всяк из них [sc. граждан] собственною наслаждается безопас-
ностию. Shcherbatov again points out not only that this statement is taken from
De l’esprit des lois, Book XI, chapter 6 (‘De la constitution d’Angleterre’), but,
quoting the passage in full, that once more it is taken out of context, Montes-
quieu’s point being to stress the necessity of the separation of powers: ‘Lorsque
dans la même personne ou dans le même corps de magistrature, la puissance lé-
gislative est réunie à la puissance exécutrice, il n’y a point de liberté.’ Shcherba-
tov emphasises the point: соединение законодательной со исполнительной
властию и следственно деспотичество.58 Where, therefore, Catherine declares
in article 39: и чтобы люди имели сию вольность, надлежит быть закону
такову, чтоб один гражданин не мог бояться другого, Shcherbatov pointedly
remarks on the precariousness of individual security under absolute rule: Над-
лежит сему прибавить, чтобы подданной и от монаршей власти неспра-
ведливости не претерпел; ибо тщетно будет наслаждаться безопасностью
от ровных себе, когда кто могущея всех и может сию его безопасность на-
рушить.59
In his Observations on the Nakaz Shcherbatov continually juxtaposes Cathe-
rine’s claims in support of absolutism with arguments overtly supporting repub-
lican government. There is no evidence in the Nakaz, however, of a correspond-
ing republican sympathy on Catherine’s part. The Nakaz provides a blueprint
for progress, but only within the existing political structure, the true nature of
which, in Shcherbatov’s view, as in Montesquieu’s, represents the negation of
political freedom. While approving many individual provisions of the Nakaz,60
Shcherbatov rejects the political ideology on which it is founded. If we seek for
the reality of freedom, legality and constitutionalism in the Nakaz, he argues, we
88
do so in vain. Catherine’s version of legality is not the rule of law, but rule
‘above the law’ (превыше закону). The Senate ‘wears only the mask’ (токмо
маску носит) of ‘the repository of the laws’. The rule of law exists in ‘name
alone’ (там законы токмо имя носют [sic]). The separation of powers exists
not even in name. Finally, it is idle to speak of legality when there is no inten-
tion of laying down those ‘fundamental laws’ which in Montesquieu’s scheme
of things should underpin the whole structure of a ‘moderate government’. As
Shcherbatov notes: Однако ни в наказе, ни в обряде уложенной комиссии
нигде не сказано, чтобы основательные законы государства сделать; что
бы однако, казалось, долженствовало быть началом всего учреждения;
следственно и Наказ сей к деспотическому правлению ведет.61
In the light of Shcherbatov’s Observations on the Nakaz, some broad points
may be made as to Catherine’s political philosophy. First, that her arguments in
favour of absolute monarchy struck at least one contemporary Russian reader as
questionable; and insofar as they purported to derive from Montesquieu, as fun-
damentally flawed; this, well over a century before the question of Catherine’s
borrowings from Montesquieu became the object of scholarly research, when a
twentieth-century scholar, F.V. Taranovskii, applied Shcherbatov’s own me-
thodology with a close comparison of the Nakaz and De l’esprit des lois.62 Sh-
cherbatov’s bitterness at what he felt to be his own lack of advancement, and his
general disenchantment with Catherine which found its ultimate expression in
his memoir On the corruption of morals in Russia,63 in no way detract from the
accuracy of his exposé of the Nakaz, based as it is on close and accurate analy-
sis. Indeed, given his well-known and life-long struggle for wider entrenched
privileges for the nobility, Shcherbatov lays less stress in the Observations than
might be expected on Catherine’s relegation of the nobility in the Nakaz to little
more than the service-element in the state rather than to the independent estate
and control on absolutism envisaged by Montesquieu. Shcherbatov contents
himself with observing that во утверждение того, что я обще о дворянстве
сказал, можно видеть [в] Монтескиу, колико сей мудрый муж почитал
дворянство нужно для монархии.64
Shcherbatov’s examination of Catherine’s treatment of De l’esprit des lois
underlines the fundamental incongruity of principle between the empress and
Montesquieu and the inherent paradox in her use of his work. In a word, Sh-
cherbatov’s analysis was correct. To Montesquieu, Russia was manifestly a
‘despotism’,65 without ‘fundamental laws’ to circumscribe absolute power,
without ‘intermediate’ constituted bodies, such as estates and parlements, to in-
terpose between sovereign and people, without a separate ‘repository of the
laws’ and the other constituents of ‘moderate government’ which he described
89
in De l’esprit des lois. As Shcherbatov clearly demonstrates, only by taking
Montesquieu’s words out of context and by deliberately perverting his theory
could De l’esprit des lois be applied in defence of absolute monarchy.
Beneath Catherine’s borrowings from Montesquieu stood a traditional Rus-
sian political structure — in Shcherbatov’s words, самодержавная и неогра-
ниченная власть российских государей.66 Russia’s basic governmental form
remained unchanged. Catherine’s ‘enlightenment’, however much it moderated
the exercise of her power, did not affect its essential character; and allowing for
the many important shifts of emphasis in the Nakaz, her political theory was ul-
timately but an updated version of that of Peter the Great. He too had sought to
harness absolute power to ends considered enlightened by the standards of his
time, and his political apologia, Pravda Voli Monarshei, also borrowed from the
natural law philosophy current in his day.67 Just as the authority of Grotius and
the spirit of Pufendorf are invoked in Pravda Voli Monarshei to buttress Peter’s
absolutism, so forty years on Catherine incorporated in her Nakaz the language
of Beccaria, Bielfeld, Justi and Quesnay, as well as of Montesquieu. Pravda Vo-
li Monarshei, indeed, contained a discussion of the social contract and even of
alternative forms of government, which, however tendentious, finds no counter-
part in the Nakaz.68
One of Catherine’s principal aims in publishing the Nakaz (as of Peter in
Pravda Voli Monarshei) was to dissociate Russia from the associations of ‘oriental
despotism’ which attached to it in the west and to prove that Russia was different
from Turkey, Persia or Japan. This of course was the significance of her insistence
in article 6: Россия есть европейская держава.69 Among the writers who did
most in the eighteenth century to confirm Russia’s reputation as a depotism, how-
ever, Montesquieu was foremost. Paradoxically, boldly and ingeniously, Catherine
drew heavily on the language of Montesquieu in order to redress this unfavourable
image. But, as Shcherbatov shows, both her quotations and her misquotations
from De l’esprit des lois, with their telling omissions, disguised, and were in-
tended to disguise, the underlying reality of Russian absolutism. There is a double
irony in Catherine’s quip to Frederick the Great that in borrowing from Montes-
quieu, she had dressed in borrowed plumage.70
What, then, of Catherine’s vaunted ‘âme républicaine’? Catherine prided
herself on her ‘classical taste for honour and virtue’.71 She described Count Gri-
gorii Orlov as ‘that hero so like the ancient Romans in the good old days of the
Republic.’72 She herself, she told Grimm, was ‘l’âme la plus républicaine que
vous connaissez,’ a sentiment which she reproduced in the epitaph which she
composed for herself.73 Such expressions of republican sympathy are not to be
taken literally. They should be seen in the broad context of the classical and aes-
90
thetic tastes of her age. Catherine shared with those other practitioners of ‘en-
lightened absolutism’, Frederick the Great and Gustav III of Sweden, an admi-
ration for Tacitus, Plutarch and Roman republican values, sincere no doubt, but,
as she admitted, standing in obvious contrast to their absolute power. Under the
influence of Montesquieu (both in his Considérations sur les causes de la gran-
deur des romains et de leur décadence and of De l’esprit des lois), of the En-
cyclopédie, and later of events in the American colonies, absolute monarchs
with a claim to enlightenment values became conscious of the need to distin-
guish their rule from the opprobrium both of ‘oriental’ and also of classical
‘despotism’. Thus, while Shcherbatov argued that слава более действует над
республиканцами, нежели над теми, которые под монаршическим [sic]
правлением живут,74 Frederick the Great in his Lettres sur l’amour de la patrie
(1779) set out to rebut this very ‘opinion that one might expect to find true citi-
zens in republics, but that there were none in monarchies.’ Against the objec-
tions raised by those who thought like Shcherbatov, Frederick maintained that
‘the ruler is not a despot, ruling merely according to his own whim’, because
‘the sovereign authority’ (‘l’autorité souveraine’) was shared by the institutions
of state, including the administrative bureaucracy and the judiciary. Moreover
‘it is the laws alone that rule.’75
Amongst other devices employed to enhance the prestige of absolutism
without renouncing its reality, was the cult of the enlightened emperors of the
Antonine age, whose example offered an attractive precedent and a plausible re-
sponse to the challenge of republican values. In his article ‘puissance’ in the
Encyclopédie, Diderot argued that absolute monarchs were ‘trustees of power’
on their subjects’ behalf, and hailed the Antonines as rulers who ‘used their
power to make men happy.’ Frederick too cited the Antonines as rulers who
combined absolute power with republican virtue and examples in the early em-
pire drawn from Tacitus, including the republican stoic martyrs Thrasea Paetus
and Helvidius Priscus.76 Both names attracted Catherine’s attention in contrast
to what she described as ‘the uninterrupted sequence of ruling monsters from
Tiberius to Nero and from Commodus to Constantine.’77 By implication, for Ca-
therine too the Antonines were honourable exceptions; and indeed she added a
marginal note of emphatic approval of Montesquieu’s observation that ‘sous les
bons empereurs l’état reprenait ses principes et le trésor de l’honneur suppléait
aux autres trésors.’78 Marmontel’s Bélisaire (1767) which also invoked republi-
can virtue in absolute rulers and was, moreover, dedicated to Catherine, offered
her a public opportunity to display her republican credentials. She authorised its
translation into Russian, herself took part in translating it, and wrote to Mar-
montel, two months before publishing the Nakaz, agreeing ‘qu’il n’y a de vraie
91
gloire que celle qui résulte des principes que Bélisaire soutient.’79 Gibbon went
to the heart of the matter in his analysis of the ‘happy age’ of the Antonines. In
a passage of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire highly relevant to the
contemporary debate and particularly to Russia, he wrote (1776): ‘the vast ex-
tent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance
of virtue and wisdom.’ The Antonines, he states in a pregnant phrase, ‘delighted
in the image of liberty.’80
Catherine’s classicism, while part of the common culture of the age, also
provided a useful backcloth to the presentation in the Nakaz of her political
principles and her authorial persona as empress of Russia. in the Nakaz. One as-
pect of that classicism was mythological: her own symbolic personification as
the Russian Minerva.81 It was also reflected in the Roman themes featuring in
the designs which she commissioned from architects such as Cameron and
Clérisseau and sculptors such as Falconnet and Marie-Anne Collot.82 All this
formed part of her particular style of government, which combined firmness and
decisiveness with mildness, benevolence and maternal concern.83 It coloured her
absolute power with the attractive qualities which she professed, encouraged
and to a large extent evinced: ‘ be gentle, humane, accessible, sympathetic and
liberal,’ she wrote in a copy of Fénelon’s Télémaque intended for the eyes of
her successor.’84 Even Shcherbatov admitted that she was умна, обходительна,
великодушна и сострадательна по системе.85 Nonetheless, as he makes clear
in the Observations, a ‘republican soul’ was fundamentally incompatible with a
‘spirit of despotic power’ (дух деспотической власти).86 Nor, he suggests in
the Observations, could Catherine’s court be considered an exemplar of conven-
tional republican austerity, естли сам государь пример добродетели не по-
даст.87 Insisting that не могут хорошие законы быть, естли оне [sic] не на
нравах основаны и нравственными добродетелями не подкрепляются,88 he
queried the sincerity of Catherine’s professed aim in article 83 of the Nakaz,
чтобы вселить узаконениями добрые нравы в граждан.
In the sentence from her letter to Zimmermann which prefaces this essay,
while conceding the ‘contrast’ between her republican sympathies and her ‘un-
limited power’, Catherine claimed, like Gibbon’s Antonines, that she could not
be said to have abused that power.89 Be that as it may — and Shcherbatov else-
where challenges that claim head on90 — his point in the Observations was that
she made no real provision in the Nakaz for the kind of checks and balances
contemplated by Montesquieu and which lay at the heart of his political philos-
ophy. Republican attributes were decorative rather than germane to Catherine’s
political philosophy. However genuine her admiration for ‘the principles of
President Montesquieu’, if Montesquieu was to be taken seriously and on his
92
terms, admiration was no substitute for a political structure which provided for
institutional checks against abuse of power, entrenched guarantees and the sepa-
ration of powers. The French parlements, ‘consisting’, in Shcherbatov’s view,
of ‘the best men in the state’ (парламентские собрании, сочиненные из лут-
чих людей государства),91 could through the exercise of the ‘droit de remon-
trance’ delay a royal edict, in contrast to the limited (and in Shcherbatov’s view
underused) right of representation of the Russian Senate. The English, in Sh-
cherbatov’s words, ‘zealous for their freedom’ (агличане [sic], ревнивые к
своей вольности),92 enjoyed a real separation of powers through an indepen-
dent judiciary; while the American revolutionaries in the founding of the Re-
public were to show that Montesquieu’s doctrines could be applied, as Shcher-
batov significantly noted, ‘même pour les grands états.’93 Little of Montesquieu
applied in Russia, and that little in name only. Appearance and image were im-
portant to Catherine, and the well projected publicity of her court included ele-
ments that were classical, Roman and republican. Falconet’s statue, ‘la gloire de
Catherine II’, like the golden shield (aureus clupeus) bestowed on Augustus,
might certainly be taken to suggest republican traditions under an imperial re-
gime. But such suggestions were misleading. The ‘mask of freedom’, as Sh-
cherbatov pointed out, like Gibbon’s ‘image of liberty’ under the Antonines,
was not the same as freedom itself.94
1
Sochineniia Imperatritsy Ekateriny II, (ed.) A. Pypin, xii, (St Petersburg, 1907), pp. 595-6.
2
Un diplomate français à la cour de Catherine II. Journal intime du chevalier de Corberon, ii, (Pa-
ris, 1901), p. 49.
3
See O.A. Omel’chenko, «Zakonnaia monarkhiia» Ekateriny Vtoroi. Prosveshchennyi absoliutizm v
Rossii, (Moscow, 1993); F.V. Taranovskii, ‘Politicheskaiia doktrina v Nakaze imperatritsy Ekateriny
II’ in Sbornik statei po istorii prava, posviashchennyi M.F. Vladimirskomu-Budanovu (Kiev, 1904),
pp. 44-86. Quotations from the Nakaz are from N.D. Chechulin, (ed.), Nakaz Imperatritsy Ekateriny
II, dannyi kommissii o sochinenii proekta novogo ulozheniia, (St Petersburg, 1907).
4
William E. Butler, ‘The Nakaz of Catherine the Great’, American Book Collector, xvi, No. 5, 1966,
pp. 19-21.
5
Catherine to d’Alembert, 27 June 1765, Oeuvres et correspondances inédites de d’Alembert, (Paris,
1887), p. 239; Catherine to Frederick II, 17 October 1767, Sbornik imperatorskogo russkogo istori-
cheskogo obshchestva, xx, (St Petersburg, 1877), p. 236.
6
Voltaire to Catherine, 19 June 1771, The Complete Works of Voltaire, cxxi, (Banbury, 1975),
p. 442.
7
Des Grafen J.J. Sievers Denkwürdigkeiten, (ed.) K. Blum, (Leipzig, 1857), part 1, p. 256.
8
d’Alembert, Oeuvres et correspondance inédites, p. 245; Sbornik, i, (St Petersburg, 1867), pp. 276.
9
‘Zamechaniia Shcherbatova na Bolshoi Nakaz Ekateriny’ (hereafter ‘Zamechaniia’), Kniaz’
M.M. Shcherbatov. Neizdannye sochineniia. Pod redaktisei P.G. Liubomirov, (Moscow, 1935),
pp. 16-63. Published from an eighteenth-century copy, with corrections in Shcherbatov’s hand, in
the National Library, St Petersburg (Hermitage Collection, No. 40). The manuscript consists of a
93
31
ibid. In O povrezhdenii nravov v Rossii, arguing in favour of an hereditary constitutional mo-
narchy, Shcherbatov attacked Catherine from a different angle, complaining that while не можно
сказать, чтобы она не была качествами достойна править толь великой империей, she lacked
any legal title to the throne. Prince M.M. Shcherbatov, On the Corruption of Morals in Russia, (ed.)
A. Lentin, Cambridge, 1969, p. 234.
32
Zamechaniia, p. 21. In O povezhdenii nravov v Rossii Shcherbatov instances Catherine’s ‘arbitra-
riness’ (самовластие). On the Corruption of Morals in Russia, p. 246.
33
Zamechaniia, pp. 21, 22.
34
Zamechania, p. 21. See On the Corruption of morals in Russia, pp. 234, 240, 244, for Shcherbatov
on Catherine’s любострастие.
35
Zamechaniia, p. 22.
36
Zamechaniia, pp. 21-22.
37
Zamechaniia, p. 22.
38
ibid.
39
ibid.
40
Zamechaniia, p. 23.
41
ibid.
42
ibid.
43
ibid.
44
Zamechaniia, p. 24.
45
ibid.
46
ibid.
47
Zamechaniia, p. 25. .Shcherbatov does not indicate that article 16 is taken from Montesquieu, De
l’esprit des lois, Book XI, chapter 7.
48
Zamechaniia, p. 25.
49
ibid.
50
ibid. For Shcherbatov on Catherine’s claim to be above the law, see On the Corruption of Morals
in Russia, p. 246.
51
Zamechaniia, pp. 25-26.
52
Zamechaniia, p. 27.
53
Zamechaniia, p. 28.
54
ibid.
55
Zamechaniia, p. 26.
56
Zamechaniia, p. 27.
57
Zamechaniia, p. 22. Shcherbatov himself was made a senator in 1779 after a decade in which his
hopes of appointment were bitterly disappointed.
58
Zamechaniia, p. 40.
59
Zamechaniia, pp. 30-31.
60
In his essay ‘O sposobakh prepodavaniia raznye nauki’, (Sochineniia Kniazia M.M. Shcherbatova,
ii, (St Petersburg, 1898) pp. 590-91), Shcherbatov recommends the Nakaz for the education of the
young noble.
61
Zamechaniia, p. 27.
62
F.V. Taranovskii, loc. cit.
63
On the Corruption of Morals in Russia, pp. 234-58.
64
Zamechaniia, p. 59.
65
F.V. Taranovskii, loc. cit.; Isabel de Madariaga, ‘Catherine II and Montesquieu between Prince
M.M. Shcherbatov and Denis Diderot’, in L’età dei Lumi. Studi storici sul settecento europeo in
95
onore di Franco Venturi, vol. ii (Naples, 1985), pp. 611-50;. Albert Lortholary, Le mirage russe en
France au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1952, pp. 33-38.
66
Zamechaniia, p. 20.
67
See A. Lentin, introduction to his edition of Peter the Great: His Law on the Imperial Succession
in Russia, 1722. Pravda Voli Monarshei vo opredelenii naslednika derzhavy svoei (The Justice of
the Monarch’s Right to Appoint the Heir to His Throne), (Oxford, 1996), pp. 1-117.
68
ibid., pp. 44-6, and for the book’s comparison of hereditary and elective monarchy, see section 16
of the text, pp. 226-45.
69
Shcherbatov comments on article 6: Не можно всю Россию европейскою державою назвать,
ибо многие ее области в границах Азии вмещены, как например Астраханская и Оренбург-
ская губерния и вся Сибирь (p. 18). The observation, pedantic but true, may be thought to miss the
symbolic dimension of Catherine’s claim. It may, however, imply an ‘oriental’ element in the con-
temporary ‘despotism’ exposed by Shcherbatov. Shcherbatov notes (p.47) that in Mongolia деспо-
тичество до вышней степени достигло.
70
Catherine to Frederick II, 17 October 1767, Sbornik, xx, (St Petersburg, 1877), p.236. In his Let-
tres russiennes (St Petersburg, 1760), a defence of Russian absolutism against Montesquieu’s charge
of despotism, F.G. Strube de Piermont, professor of jurisprudence and politics at the St Petersburg
Academy of Sciences, wrote:’le gouvernement de Russie n’est pas un gouvernement despotique
proprement dit.’ Catherine had appended in the margin of her copy: ‘Monsieur dispute pour le nom,
non pour [la] chose.’ Prefiguring articles 9 and 10 of the Nakaz (except for the substitution of ‘une
autorité souveraine’ for Montesquieu’s ‘une autorité despotique’), she also wrote in relation to
Lettres russiennes: ‘Un grand empire comme celui de Russie se destruiroit s’il y étoit etablie une
forme de gouvernement autre que despotique, parce que c’est le seul qui peut remédier avec promp-
titude nécessaire aux besoins des provinces éloignées.’ A. Pypin, ‘Ekaterina II i Montesk’e’, Vestnik
Evropy, 1903, iii, pp. 296, 299. These comments were written by her at most five years before she
began the Nakaz.
71
Sochineniia Imperatritsy Ekateriny II, (ed.) A. Pypin, xx, (St Petersburg, 1907), p. 646.
72
Catherine to Voltaire, December 1768, Voltaire and Catherine the Great. Selected Correspon-
dence, (ed.) A. Lentin, (Cambridge, 1974), p. 53.
73
Catherine to Grimm, 18 April 1776, Sbornik, xxiii, (St Petersburg, 1878), p. 48. Dominique Ma-
roger, (ed.), The Memoirs of Catherine the Great, (London, 1955), p. 377. See also D.M. Griffiths,
‘Catherine II: the Republican Empress’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, xxi, 1973, pp. 323-
44 and ‘To Live Forever: Catherine II, Voltaire and the Pursuit of Immortality’, in R.P. Bartlett,
A.G. Cross, Karen Rasmussen, (eds.), Russia and the World of the Eighteenth Century. Proceedings
of the Third International Conference organised by the Study Group on Eighteenth-Century Russia,
(Columbus, Ohio, 1988), pp. 446-68.
74
Zamechaniia, p. 24.
75
G.B. Volz, (ed.), Die Politischen Testamente Friedrichs des Grossen, (Berlin, 1920), pp. 37-39;
‘Essai sur les formes du gouvernement et sur les devoirs des souverains’, Oeuvres de Frédéric le
Grand, ix, (Berlin, 1848), pp. 198-210.
76
‘Lettres sur l’amour de la patrie’, Oeuvres de Frédéric le Grand, ix, pp. 216-17.
77
Dominique Maroger, (ed), The Memoirs of Catherine the Great, (London, 1955), p. 387.
78
A. Pypin, ‘Ekaterina II i Montesk’e’, Vestnik Evropy, 1903, iii, p. 295.
79
Catherine to Marmontel, 7 May 1767, in Marmontel, Correspondance, i, (ed.) John Renwick,
(Clermond Ferrand, 1976), p. 121. The Sobranie, staraiushcheesia o perevode inostrannykh knig na
rossiiskiii iazyk, founded by Catherine in 1768, translated many of the ancient classics into Russian,
as well as Bélisaire. N.A. Sidorova, ‘Antichnaia kult’tura v kontekste russkoi kul’tury epokhi Ekate-
96
riny Velikoi’, in Mezhdunarodnaia konferentsiia. Ekaterina Velikaia: Epokha Rossiiskoi Istorii. Tezi-
su dokladov, (hereafter ‘Ekaterina Velikaia’), (St Petersburg, 1996), pp. 269-71.
80
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (Everyman, London, 1954), p. 78.
81
T.V. Artem’eva, ‘Ekaterininskoe vremia kak «filosofskii vek»‘ in Ekaterina Velikaia, p. 64.
82
See N.A. Sidorova, ‘Antichnaia kul’tura v kontekste russkoi kul’tury epokhi Ekateriny Velikoi’, in
Ekaterina Velikaia, pp. 269-71; E.V. Karpova, ‘Skul’pturnye izobrazheniia Ekateriny II (k evoliutsii
allegorischeskogo obraza)’, ibid., pp. 239-42.
83
Catherine’s acceptance of the title Mat’ Otechestva in 1767 (following the precedent of Peter the
Great’s assumption of the title Otets Otechestva in 1721) looked back to Augustus’ title Pater Pa-
triae. In sanctioning the execution of Pugachov and his accomplices in 1774, Catherine enjoined P.I.
Panin ‘to treat the miscreants at their execution in accordance with my habitual love of humanity and
mercy, and always rememberi that [...] I am like a mother shedding tears at the necessary punishment
of her disobedient children.’ (Sbornik, vi (St Petersburg, 1871), p. 121).
84
Sochineniia Imperatritsy Ekateriny II, (ed.) A. Pypin, xii, (St Petersburg, 1907), p. 645.
85
On the Corruption of Morals in Russia, p. 234.
86
Zamechaniia, p. 28.
87
Zamechaniia, p. 38.
88
Zamechaniia, pp. 33-34.
89
Sochineniia Imperatritsy Ekateriny II, (ed.) A. Pypin, xii, (St Petersburg, 1907), pp. 595-6.
90
See A. Lentin, ‘A la recherche du Prince méconnu: M.M. Shcherbatov (1733-1790) and his criti-
cal reception across two centuries’, Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 28, No. 4 (Winter 1994), pp.
371-5; and A. Lentin, ‘Shcherbatov, Constitutionalism and the «Despotism» of Sweden’s Gustav
III’, in R.P. Bartlett, A.G. Cross, Karen Rasmussen, (eds.), Russia and the World of the Eighteenth
Century. Proceedings of the Third Intermational Conference organised by the Study Group on Eigh-
teenth-century Russia, (Columbus, Ohio, 1988), pp. 36-44.
91
Zamechaniia, p. 46.
92
ibid.
93
Un diplomate français à la cour de Catherine II. Journal intime du chevalier de Corberon, ii, (Pa-
ris, 1901), p. 49.
94
For Shcherbatov’s enthusiasm for republican values, cf. A. Lentin, ‘Shcherbatov’s Italian connec-
tions’, in A Window on Russia. Papers from the V International Conference of the Study Group on
Eighteenth-Century Russia, Gargano, 1994, (ed.) Maria Di Salvo and Lindsey Hughes, (Rome,
1996), pp. 182-3.
97
L. O’Malley
(Honolulu, USA)
«In any society, language, culture, and the nation make up a three-
legged stool, ready to topple if just one leg is removed».
(Schütz 339)
© L. O’Malley, 1999.
98
(1767-68), began war with Turkey, battled the plague in Moscow, and sup-
pressed opposition to her seizure of the throne. Still, in 1772, she took time out
to write five plays, including a one-act comedy called A Prominent Nobleman’s
Entrance Hall (Peredniaia znatnago boiarina). In the short play, nine men and
women descend upon the foyer of the nobleman Khrisanf’s house, but only en-
counter his servants and assistants. Most of the characters are Russians, but
three of the «locusts» (as the servant Mikhaila calls the petitioners) are foreign:
a German, a Frenchman, and a Turk. In Prominent Nobleman’s, language is
equated primarily with nationalism, which is in turn equated with power. Cathe-
rine, who had herself grown up speaking German and French, wrote a play in
which command of Russian is key to the access of power. The foreigners, who
comically use and abuse Russian, are the least able to plead their cases to Khri-
sanf. These three foreigners are presented as dabblers: hacks with no real con-
tributions to make, only greedy favors to ask of the powerful but invisible
Prominent Nobleman (who may be read as a Catherine figure). The three men
are also babblers: possessing varying skills at speaking the dominant language
of the play, they nevertheless chatter incessantly at Khrisanf’s representative,
Faktotov. Their towering babel creates a cacophonous nonsense that under-
mines their status and points to the emptiness of their quests.
Catherine the Great’s one-act comedy was first presented in her court theatre
on September 18, 1772, but was not published until 1786 (in Princess Dashko-
va’s serial collection, Russian Theatre).1 Most critics have paid little attention to
this short play, focusing instead of the major comedies Catherine wrote in the
same year: Oh, These Times! (O vremia!); Mrs. Grumbler’s Nameday (Imianiny
gospozhi Vorchalkinoi); Mrs. Tattler and her Family (Gospozha Vestnikova s
sem’eiu); The Questioner (Voprositel’).
The nine babblers and dabblers of Prominent Nobleman’s have various needs.
The Russian women Pretantena, Meremida, and Vypivaikova want, respectively, a
widow’s compensation, entry into a nunnery, and permission to live in an alm-
shouse (despite her fortune). As for the Russian men, Urtelov is a gossip who
wants to ingratiate himself with the Nobleman; Perilov is in love with a married
woman; Tefkin wants to discuss his court cases. As a result, the play has no cha-
racter to fulfill the typical neoclassical role of the confidant or reasonable man; the
only normative Russian characters are the servants and Faktotov, yet they are mere
middlemen, not wise voices of enlightened sentiment.
The play’s structure is also quite unique in that the titular nobleman never
appears. As David Welsh points out in his study of Russian comedy, Khrisanf
the boyar is perhaps absent because his presence as a high-ranking character
would have violated the neoclassical ideal for comedy as a middle-class genre
99
(88). His disinterest in the petitioners comically reinforces their powerlessness,
but his ultimate and total absence also creates an aura of both power and mys-
tery — nearly two hundred years before Godot.
In this play, Catherine’s portrays three distinctly non-Russian characters,
whose nationalities are significant to the context of the Russo-Turkish or Otto-
man war, which had begun in late 1768 and did not end until mid-1774. There
is no doubt therefore that the war would have been pressing on the minds of the
author and her audience when the play was performed in 1772. How does the
babble of these three foreign characters reinforce the Empress’ goal of a proud
Russian nationalism?
The Germans
During the earlier Seven Years’ War (1756-63), Russia had fought against
Prussia, with France and Austria as Russian allies. But when Peter III acceded
to the throne in 1762, he made peace with Prussia, and Catherine signed a Prus-
sian alliance in 1764. This cooperation was in part due to the countries’ joint in-
terest in the partition of Poland. Prussia had also consented to the «Turkish
clause,» meaning it agreed to provide support on the occasion of an Ottoman at-
tack. Although Prussia did not actively participate in the Turkish war, Frederick
II did in fact pay annual subsidies to Russia over the course of the Turkish con-
flict. Thus in the play, the German character is appropriately hostile to the Fren-
chman, and aggressive toward the Turk.
The French
«Все свет несмысли … я один все знай» (The whole world is stupid … I
alone know everything) (175). Several scholars agree that Catherine’s characte-
rization of the Frenchman is based on her encounter with a real-life Frenchman,
the French legal advisor Mercier de La Rivière (Gukovskii 79; Berkov 1977
150; Shchelbal’skii 149). De La Rivière arrived in St. Petersburg in 1768 to ad-
vise Catherine on her work with the Legislative Commission. Her letters express
her disdain for what John Alexander calls his «arrogant loquacity» (114).
The real-life Frenchman had much to recommend him to Catherine, who
looked often to French thought for guidance. In June of 1767, he had published
De l’ordre naturel et essential des sociétés politiques, a natural law theory of
economics. On July 30, 1767, Catherine convened the Legislative Commission,
and by September she had invited de La Rivière to Russia, on the advice of Di-
derot. He was nicknamed «Solon la Rivière,» ironically alluding to the great
Athenian lawgiver. According to Catherine, he was an unbearable snob. She
met him in Petersburg in January 1768, and he left for France within a few
weeks, at her request. The memoirs of Count Ségur, the French ambassador to
Russia from 1785-1789, tell a comical anecdote about de La Rivière’s arrival in
St. Petersburg. According to Catherine herself (as reported by the Count), the
economist immediately set about arranging his rooms into various departments
and offices: «Upon the doors of the numerous apartments he had written in
large characters: department of the interior, department of commerce, depart-
ment of justice, department of finance, tax-office, etc.» (Ségur 3:32). In a 28
103
January 1768 letter to Count Nikita Panin, Catherine writes disparagingly of de
La Rivière and his manner:
Ivan Fedorovich Glebov says that de-la-Rivier has hardly reduced his ar-
rogance: he is only a chatterer, thinks much of himself, and he resembles a
doctor. (Sbornik 10: 279)
Although Catherine has summoned him as an advisor, it soon became clear that
he felt he was in Russia «to govern the Empire of the Tsars» (Larivière 100). She
dismissed him, and had her revenge five years later in the form of a one-act play.
There are many general traits about Oranbar which are reminiscent of the
pompous de La Rivière. Meremida lambasts Oranbar for being too wordy and
pedantic: «так уши вянут! говорит как книга» (how my ears droop! He speaks
like a book) (165). Beyond this overall characterization, which might have only
hinted at de La Rivière, Catherine deliberately includes two specific references
to her real-life model. One definite allusion to de La Rivière comes straight
from Oranbar’s mouth. The Frenchman enters with most of the other petitioners
in scene 2. In scene 2, and in most of scene 3, Oranbar is timid in his speech;
most of his lines are short and fragmented and many of them end in ellipses, in-
dicating either that he has been interrupted or that his voice trails off uncertain-
ly. Suddenly, in the middle of the third scene, after enduring curses, threats, and
a blow from the German, Oranbar finds his voice, and speaks the following:
ОРАНБАР. Нет, Monsieur; ви тот час узнай изволит. Я пришол сюда за
тем: я буль в свой земля, и думал тамо, что здесь все ходит едаки…
(он показывает, как ходят на четвереньках). Я добро человек, сер-
ца хорошо, много знай, много читай; я и пошоль сюда, дабы под-
нять всех вам на два нога, и для того сочиниль l’evidence и принес
сюда: ето сильно demonstratio, что лутче ходи на две ноги, а не как
на четыре, так буди прогожа, лица видна: а едак на четыре ходить
шей вытянать, горло и борода болел будит… Ето evidence, Mes-
sieurs, evidence!
ТЕФКИН. Великую он нам, приехав сюда, честь зделал. Конечно с ума
етот мужик сошол!
УРТЕЛОВ. И я так думаю. Хот он и говорит, что много знает, только
ето видно, что неправда. Как можно вздумать, что люди на четве-
реньках ходят! по моему он сам в наставлении нужду имеет.
(ORANBAR. No, Monsieur, if you wish, you can find out right away. I
came here for this reason: I was in my country, and thought that every-
body here walked like this … (he demonstrates walking on all fours) I’m
a kind man, with a good heart, I know a lot, I read a lot; so I came here,
in order to put all of you on two legs, and for this purpose I wrote
104
l’evidence and brought it here: it is strongly demonstratio that it’s better
to walk on two legs, not on four. Then it’s more beautiful, the face is vis-
ible: but if one walks on four legs, he has to pull his neck, his throat and
chin will hurt … This is evidence, Messieurs, evidence! […]
TEFKIN. How great he is to us, coming here, and doing us this honor. Of
course this man has gone out of his mind!
URTELOV. I think so too. Although he says he knows a lot, it’s clear that
this is not true. How can one get it into one’s head that people walk on
all fours! I think he’s the one who needs to be admonished.) (167)
This image, of the Frenchman come to enlighten the Russian people by
teaching them how not to walk on all fours, is a deliberately provocative meta-
phor. But Catherine seems to have felt provoked enough by de La Rivière to ask
him to leave Russia. In a scathing letter to Voltaire many years later, she com-
mented on «M. La Rivière, who six years ago supposed that we walk on four
paws, and who very politely took the trouble to come from Martinique to set us
on our hind feet» (Reddaway 203).12 This letter makes it clear that Oranbar and
de La Rivière are one and the same, and that Oranbar is, in Catherine’s mind,
not merely a hyperbolic hypothetical character.
The dialogue mentioned above still would only have identified de La Rivière
to a select group of court insiders. To broaden the possible audience for her sa-
tirical commentary, Catherine includes in the play a pointed reference to de La
Rivière’s published legal theory. A key aspect of de La Rivière’s 1767 treatise
was its reference to the Physiocrats and their theory of évidence, which can be
defined as «a certitude so clear and so manifest by itself that spirit cannot reject
it» (qtd. in Mitchell 108n, from Quesnay entry in Encyclopédie vol. 13). Over
the course of Catherine’s short play, Oranbar says the word «evidence» (in
French) ten times, as when he tells the others «L’evidence, l’evidence, Mes-
sieurs, est une belle chose; cela est convainquant « (165).13 By constantly inter-
jecting the same word, often twice in a sentence as above, Oranbar reveals an
obsessive, excessive personality; by harping on the word évidence, Oranbar also
reveals his ties to de La Rivière, in an explicit reference which many in her au-
dience would have recognized.
Na Litso
The Turks
If the German visitor is essentially an aggressive military man, and the Fren-
chman a pedantic intellectual, the Turk Durfedzhibasov is much less clearly de-
fined. In contrast to the other two foreigners, Durfedzhibasov is silent for much
of the play. The majority of his dialogue occurs in scene 2, when he is ques-
tioned by the Russian characters. His speech in this section is difficult to under-
stand. He speaks with many grammatical errors and his own Turkish versions of
Russian words; for instance, he uses the word «bach’ka» throughout as the
word «bat’ka» (colloquial Russian for father).
ДУРФЕДЖИБАСОВ. Я Турецк дворянин. Мой бачькам велик челове-
кам. Он там… он сам… (размахивает на право и на лево рукою) и
так и сяком… и всо велит все поклоняем ему…
ПЕРИЛОВ. Чтож это значит? он там… он сам… и так и сяком… и ве-
лит: разве он везде и все тамо повелевает?
ДУРФЕДЖИБАСОВ. Да, да. Султан некуши без бачкам. У бачька мно-
го, очень много маленких… вот такем… (показывает величину
больших и малых баранов, и как они ходят) велик… четырем ногам
ходил — и такем мало, мало… и великом…
107
ПЕРИЛОВ. Что бы это такое?
ДУРФЕДЖИБАСОВ. Бело, как зимам земля… а говори такем… беэ-э!
беэ… беэ…
МЕРЕМИДА. Неушта это бараны?
ДУРФЕДЖИБАСОВ. Да, да, мачька, баранам… бачька баран… мно-
го… Султан некуши без бачька… велик бачька…
МИХАЙЛО. Конечно, бачька ваш ставит баранину султану?
ДУРФЕДЖИБАСОВ. Бачька дворянин знатно… и я сын бачкам…
ТЕФКИН. Незадорное же доказательство Турецкаго его дворянства.
(DURFEDZHIBASOV. I am a Turkish nobleman. My father is a great man.
He here… he himself… (gesticulates with his hand to the right and to
the left) this and that… and he demands that everybody worship him…
PERILOV. What does that mean? He here… and there… and this way and
that… and commands: does he really command everywhere and every-
thing there?
DURFEDZHIBASOV. Yes, yes. The Sultan doesn’t eat without my father.
My father has many small… like this… (shows the size of the biggest
and smallest sheep, and how they walk) big… it walks on four legs —
and small like this, small… and big…
PERILOV. What is that?
DURFEDZHIBASOV. White, like the earth in winter… and they speak like
this: eeh-eh! beh!.. beeh!..
MEREMIDA. Perhaps these are sheep?
DURFEDZHIBASOV. Yes, yes, mother, sheep… my father has many…
sheep… the Sultan doesn’t eat without my father… my father is a great
man…
MIKHAILO. So, does your father supply lamb for the Sultan?
DURFEDZHIBASOV. My father is a famous nobleman and I’m his son.
TEFKIN. Unimpassioned evidence of his Turkish prominence.) (163-4)
Besides hearing the Turk’s broken and simplistic speech, we learn that he
(like the German) is asserting his connections to nobility in order to improve his
chances of seeing the prominent nobleman of the play’s title. A cultural clash is
apparent — the Russians in the play are measuring wealth in terms of dowries
or property, while Durfedzhibasov counts affluence and prestige by the quantity
of sheep.
As many foreign visitors at a loss for words might do, Durfedzhibasov em-
ploys gestural language to compensate for his lack of speech. First, he empha-
sizes the power of his father by gesturing «with his hand to the right and to the
left» in explaining how he commands everyone to bow to him. Then, the Turk
108
«shows the size of the biggest and smallest sheep, and how they walk» (163).
This image, of Durfedzhibasov demonstrating the gait of the many big and
small sheep, is potentially quite comical. Note that he describes them as walking
on four legs. If the actor playing Durfedzhibasov were to imitate the sheep to
make his listeners understand his meaning, then Catherine would have had a li-
teralization onstage of the image from de La Rivière. Whereas the French econ-
omist saw the Russians as running about on all fours, Catherine herself depicts
the Turks this way.
Durfedzhibasov never speaks again until scene 4, when he repeats phrases
he has already said: «Бачька мой великам человека! я сын бачькам…» (My
father is a great man! I’m my father’s son) (169); «Я Турецк дворянин… Сул-
тан без бачька не кушай… у бачька много беэ! беэ!» (I am a Turkish noble-
man… The Sultan doesn’t eat without my father… My father has a lot of beeh!
beh!) (170). In the Turk’s final line during a cacophony when all the characters
speak at once, he again repeats «Я Турецк дворянин… У бачька много беэ!
беэ! мне дай земель… дай деньга… дай люда, чина, баран, кони, карова,
птичька… и всяко живот…» (I am a Turkish nobleman. My father has many
be-eh! be-eh! Give me lands… give me some people, a rank, sheep, horses,
cows, poultry… and every kind of animal) (175). Catherine portrays each of the
three foreigners in the play in his own uniquely negative light. The Turk’s asso-
ciation with animals, combined with his sub-verbal bleating, creates a character
who is inferior and conquerable.
1
Rossiiskii featr, vol. XI, St. Petersburg, 1786 (pp. 221-262). All quotations in this article are my
translations of the Russian text in Pypin 159-178. Special thanks to Liudmila Finney for her transla-
tion advice.
2
This is the Russian spelling of the German name von DonnersChlag.
3
Berkov offers the possibility that Donnershlag is based on Prince Henry of Prussia, a visitor to St.
Petersburg in 1770 and 1772 to negotiate an end to the Turkish war (151). See Soloviev on the
Prince’s lack of «diplomatic finesse» and stiffness (161).
4
Translations from German courtesy of my colleague Kirstin Pauka.
5
What the devil.
6
The cuckold gets me ( = Oh, hell).
7
I swear to you.
8
Thou be caught by misery!
9
The thousand devils shalt get thou!
10
God punish me, it is wretched!
11
Scott, however, asserts that the war «owed less to French promptings than is sometimes supposed»
(21).
12
Letter is from 22 octobre/2 november 1774. French original: «M. La Rivière même, qui nous sup-
posait, il y a six ans, marcher à quatre pattes, et qui très poliment s’était donné la peine de venir de la
Martinique pour nous dresser sur nos pieds de derrière.»
13
Evidence, Messieurs, is a beautiful thing; that is convincing.
14
For English excerpts of this debate, see Harold B. Segel’s The Literature of Eighteenth-Century
Russia, 2 vols. (New York: Dutton, 1967) vol. 1: 260-200.
15
Translated from The Drone, number XXV, October 13, 1769.
16
Translated from All Sorts, May 1, 1769.
17
Another example would be Catherine’s play The Deceiver (Obmanshchik), whose title character is
clearly connected to the Italian alchemist Cagliostro.
18
I am a Turkish nobleman. My father is a great man. He here… he himself… this and that…
19
To raze the countryside.
20
Source is Zapiski imperatritsy Ekateriny Vtoroi (St. Petersburg, 1907): 376-77.
112
Works Cited
Alexander, John T. Catherine the Great: Life and Legend. New York: Oxford University Press,
1989.
Berkov, P. N. Istoriia russkoi komedii XVIII v. Leningrad: Nauka, 1977.
Cronin, Vincent. Catherine: Empress of All the Russias. NY: William Morrow, 1978.
Dawson, Ruth. E-mail posting to EKATERINA-L discussion group. 6 Feb 1996.
Franklin, Mitchell. “Influence of Abbé de Mably and of Le Mercier de la Rivière on American Con-
stitutional Ideas Concerning the Republic and Judicial Review.” Perspectives of Law: Essays
for Austin Wakeman Scott. Ed. Roscoe Pound, Erwin N. Griswold and Arthur E. Sutherland.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964. 96-130.
Gukovskii, Grigorii A. “The Empress as Writer.” Trans. Mary Mackler. Catherine the Great: A Pro-
file. Ed. Marc Raeff. World Profiles. New York: Hill and Wang, 1972. 64-89.
Kamenskii, Aleksandr. “Catherine the Great.” Soviet Studies in History 30.2 (1991): 30-65.
Larivière, Charles de. La France et la Russie au XVIIIe siècle. Études d’histoire et de Litterature
Franco-Russe. Paris: 1909. Genève: Slatkin Reprints 1970.
Pypin, A. N., ed. Sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskoi Aka-
demii Nauk, 1901.
Reddaway, W.F., ed. Documents of Catherine the Great: The Correspondence with Voltaire and the
Instruction of 1767 in the English Text of 1768. Cambridge: CUP, 1931.
Rogger, Hans. National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard UP, 1960.
Sbornik imperatorskago russkago istoricheskago obshchestva. 148 vols. St. Petersburg: Tip. Imp.
Akademii Nauk, 1867-1916.
Schütz, Albert J. The Voices of Eden: A History of Hawaiian Language Studies. Honolulu: Universi-
ty of Hawai’i Press, 1994.
Scott, H.M. “Russia as a European Great Power.” Russia in the Age of the Enlightenment: Essays for
Isabel de Madariaga. Eds. Roger Bartlett and Janet Hartley. New York: St. Martin’s Press,
1990. 7-39.
Segel, Harold B. The Literature of Eighteenth-Century Russia. 2 vols. New York: Dutton, 1967.
Ségur, Count. Russia Observed: Memoirs and Recollections of Count Ségur. 3 vols. London: Henry
Colburn, 1825. New York: Arno Press, 1970.
Shchebal’skii, P.[K.]. “Dramaticheskiia i nravoopisatel’nyia sochineniia Ekateriny II.” Russkii viest-
nik 93.5 (1871): 105-168.
Soloviev, Sergei M. History of Russia: The Rule of Catherine the Great. Vol. 46. Trans. Daniel L.
Schlafly. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press, 1994.
Welsh, David J. Russian Comedy, 1765-1823. The Hague and Paris: Mouton & Co., 1966.
113
M. Paterson
(Norwich, England)
he dramatist and poet Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz was born into the
© M. Paterson, 1999.
114
Kheraskov’s Russiad, wrote articles in French, kept a diary in English, and ex-
pressed ideas on philosophy and on the theory of drama in a number of beauti-
fully styled essays. He studied under Kant in Königsberg where he would be-
come familiar with the works of the English philosophers Shaftesbury and
Hume. The Earl of Shaftesbury (d. 1713) had been the first philosopher to coin
the term moral sense, arguing for freedom of thought, and more important still,
for a light-hearted view of religion. Shaftesbury advanced two principles, firstly
that morality exists independently of religion, and secondly that man is virtuous
by nature. Both principles were to find expression in Lenz’s work. Hume pro-
fessed to be following in the footsteps of Shaftesbury, and Lenz, it seems, fol-
lowed in the footsteps of Hume’s scepticism towards religion, a decisive step
towards modern subjectivity. His Russian biographer, M.N. Rosanov rightly
recognised in Lenz one of the most subjective artist known to (in) literature-
‘den die Literaturgeschichte kennt’.1
Coriolan (1776) is Lenz’s last (complete) drama and centres on the legen-
dary Roman Caius Martius. Plutarch first recorded the events that surrounded
his rise to high office, his fall from grace and his mother’s plea for mercy two
thousand years earlier remained comparatively little known until the sixteenth
century, when Amyot’s (1559) translations into French created a fashion for
him. Thus the enigmatic Roman warrior entered the main stream of European
consciousness, and came to inspire not only Jakob Lenz, but painters like Titian,
composers like Beethoven, and dramatists of the calibre of Shakespeare and Brecht.
By coincidence, the last tragedy that Shakespeare wrote happened also to be
about Coriolan. T.S. Eliot considered it to be his finest artistic achievement,
whereas G. Bernard Shaw went to the other extreme and thought it was his best
comedy. Admittedly, on the English stage Caius Martius is not regarded a favour-
ite among dramatic characters, with criticism ranging from him being unsympa-
thetic, to the play being ‘rather dull, harsh and politically extreme’.2 The death of
his mother in September 1608 has been cited as a reason for Shakespeare’s preoc-
cupation with the mother figure of Volumnia, although he gave her a fierceness
which she does not have in Plutarch’s original account. The play begins with a
clash of interests and prejudices between members of the nobility and the common
people, resulting in the imagery which dominates the theme: the diseased body
politic. Coriolanus takes up a central position in the political and military life of
the city of Rome. But when General Cominius finally reports his menacing pres-
ence outside the gates of a besieged Rome, he is shocked and dismayed to find one
of his soldiers has turned butcher, a dehumanised ‘thing’, generating nothing but
malice and dissent between the patricians and the common people. Aufidius is cast
115
as a political opponent, to nurse his own grievances, and to diminish Coriolan’s
humanity when scorning his tears.
Shakespeare’s play calls for eleven main characters, contains eighty-eight
speeches and when performed, extends over some two and a half hours until
Aufidius’s contemptuous line ‘thou boy of tears!’ (V. vi. 100) brings the plot to its
climax. The action is set against the impersonal, political background of an emerging
city state with all its aggressive ramifications and its destructive battles. It starts with
incessant motion, excitement, battles, public speeches, until the final scene with its
barbaric screams, ‘Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill him’, (V. vi. 132) which leaves the audience
stunned in their seats, at the sight of the hero being slaughtered like a pig.
Bertold Brecht’s twentieth century Coriolan is about a third shorter than
Shakespeare’s play. But he retains, if not exaggerates, the struggle for political
supremacy and the hero’s traumatic end. Only Lenz spares his audience the
spectacle of a defenceless individual being lynched by an angry mob, a laudable
exercise in dramatic self-restraint, especially as many hold the view today that
portraying violence, whether on stage or on the screen, is socially irresponsible.
Death itself seems less important in Lenz’s artistic concept than the social
and moral pressures imposed upon the individual during his or her life time,
constraints from which each of his plays derives its immense depth. It has often
been said that only artist can portray what is more ‘real’ than reality itself. Lenz
did not adhere to the classical ideal of tragedy, as it no longer bore any relation
to the struggles of real life. To be a faithful realist he could only depict dishar-
monious lives, lives in which the beautiful and the noble in Man (and Woman)
is inexorably crushed. He did not dramatise the death of the hero as it would
have cancelled out his artistic quest for some kind of inner harmony. Instead, he
replaced the traditional deadly climax with an image of hope, however short
lived that may turn out to have been. Great artists are those who change estab-
lished patterns, metaphors and symbols, not slavishly copy them. Shakespeare
cast his protagonist in the role of Mars, and so did Brecht. The Royal Shake-
speare Company’s poster for the 1995 production of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus
featured a blood-soaked face of teenage heart throb Toby Stephens in the title
role, and underneath the caption read ‘A Natural Born Killer Too’, imitating the
graphically violent movie. The poster had its desired effect because the produc-
tion was a sell out.3 Lenz, by contrast, recognised in the worship of violence a
dangerous misconception, a historical anomaly in urgent need of revision.
A decisive turning point in his dramatic career came with his arrival in Stras-
bourg in 1771, at the age of twenty-one, where he took an active part in the discus-
sions of the various literary and philosophical societies. One of his first contribu-
tions was the essay Anmerkungen übers Theater (Comments about the theatre) and
116
one of his last, an essay entitled Über die Veränderung des Theaters im Shakespear
(Differences in Shakespearean theatre). During the five years that lay between these
two works his dramatic theories had undergone considerable modification, espe-
cially in his shift away from an initial boundless enthusiasm and adulation for
Shakespeare, towards a genuine insight into new dramatic forms and style.
In the Spring of 1776, at the very peak of his creativity, he left Strasbourg.
‘How cross I am to have to depart at this moment in time’, he grumbled in pro-
phetic anticipation.4 Goethe had invited him to Weimar and one of the few items he
took with him was the manuscript of Coriolan. A few months later he was banished
from Weimar on Goethe’s request. Nobody knows, why. His name was hardly
mentioned again. It seems all the more ironic that the Coriolan manuscript he dedi-
cated to Duke Carl August should still be in the archives in Weimar today.
It has been argued that what Lenz wrote is no more than an unfinished transla-
tion of Shakespeare’s last tragedy.5 But did he keep to Shakespeare’s form and
style? No, he did not. Nor was he under any obligation to do so. Six productive
years lay between his acclaimed Königsberg translation of Shakespeare’s Love’s
Labour Lost and the writing of Coriolan, years in which he was continuously
searching for a different, more radical, more modern form of drama. Hailed as ‘the
artist strong and original enough to throw off the constraints of all inherited tradi-
tions, to reject all models and to manipulate the accepted conventions of theatre’,
his artistic interpretation of the Coriolanus story was bound to be different.
The play is set down in prose; its style, its diction, the shortened scenes and
loose form reveal a modern dramatist, one who came to inspire Büchner, Wede-
kind, Hauptmann and Brecht. Three characters, Caius Martius Coriolanus,
Volumnia, his mother and his alter ego, Tullus Aufidius, prove sufficient for
Lenz to dramatise the infinitely symbolic relationship of mother and son. And
that at a time when enlightened rationalists would go out of their way to deny
any such bond. In a proto-expressionistic fashion Coriolan works towards the
climax of an idea, and no longer out of a dramatic action. Tumult in Rome be-
cause of the bread shortage reads the first line. This is followed by a short ex-
position culminating in the hero’s arrival on stage. Volumnia and Virgilia at
home make up the second scene and the battle for the city of Corioles, culminat-
ing in Aufidius’s defeat, completes the first act. The opening scene of the sec-
ond act finds Sicinius, Brutus and Menenius in conversation. They are joined by
Volumnia and Virgilia, as they are waiting for the return of Coriolan to Rome.
A mixture of dialogue and epic narrative moves the action into the senate in
which the hero is proclaimed consul. The soliloquy ‘Good good voices’, comes
at the pivotal point of the play. A foreboding of treason brings the second act to
a close. The third act does in a few sentences summarise events leading up to
117
the hero’s banishment from Rome. By now dramatic and epic narrative run into
each other in such a way that they can hardly be distinguished, one from the
other. A brief scene opens the fourth act, explaining Coriolan’s presence in An-
tium, followed by the erotic encounter with Aufidius. A similar brief scene, in
which the representatives of Rome deliberate how best to appease Coriolan, opens
the final act, the remainder of which is entirely devoted to the show down between
son and mother. In a closing sentence, as if only in passing, it is hinted at that, like
all living creatures, Coriolan is doomed to die. No more, that is the end.
Until such time as the hero is welcomed home in triumph, Lenz adhered to
the framework of classical tragedy, maintaining in the opening scenes the tone
of mutiny, and suspense of impending war, if only in the briefest of lines. Do-
mestic trepidation and ominous preparations for battle are followed by a scene
in which anxious relatives wait for news. The hero being appointed to the high-
est office in the land, even this event, which Lenz condensed into a few lines,
meets the expectations one has of conventional tragedy. But soon after the play
takes on a modern tone. Gone too, are the tragic flaw, hubris, pride, and self-
righteousness, essence of classical tragedy. The Lenzian hero is a ‘stranger’ at dis-
cord with the reality of this world. His confusion is marked by erratic and dis-
jointed action, a diction left deliberately ambiguous, moments of silence, and not
least the typical Lenzian open end with which he, rather than Heinrich Kleist, es-
tablished for the modern stage the complex terrain of uncertain seriousness.
In his book Death of Tragedy, George Steiner argues that ‘verse and tragedy
belong together in the domain of aristocratic life’, that prose as a formal re-
source of drama went largely unobserved during the eighteenth and nineteenth
Century.6 However, here we have an eighteenth century play in which the aris-
tocratic hero speaks in prose, in dramatic language well able to convey complex
emotions, reality and ‘poetic’ truth. A mixture of comedy and tragedy was the
only dramatic form that could confront the realities of existence in all its diverse
and seemingly chaotic complexity. Classical tragedy Lenz regarded a form no
longer compatible with the predicament of modern man. He mixed the comic
with the tragic and not only in one and the same scene, but in one and the same
character. Coriolan’s curses are comic and tragic because, on the one hand, they
are childishly ridiculous, on the other they signal a deep frustration about his in-
ability to communicate effectively. His own theory of drama rests on the con-
viction that ‘truth’ lies within the self. It could be argued that his character is a
Narcissus in pursuit and affirmation of his unique identity, one, to whom the
surrounding world is only a mirror of his own presence. In many ways Coriolan
is more akin to Kleist’s nineteenth century dreamy Prinz von Homburg than the
‘thing of blood’ in Shakespeare’s last tragedy.
118
Steiner goes on to argue that a tradition of literature, which proceeds from
Goethe and Schiller to Kleist, Büchner, Grillparzer and Hebbel, and which con-
tains within it elements that led to Wedekind and Brecht, has come ‘fairly to oc-
cupy much of the modern consciousness’.7 Regrettably, he fails to mention Lenz
and his deliberate unseating of tragic form and tragic inevitability. The classical
hero’s downfall is related to the presence in his character of a moral weakness.
Lenz departed from this tradition. In his own work there is instead a resignation,
a lessening of assertive demands, a turning towards the unemancipated individ-
ual searching for something, confused and restricted by circumstances which he
does not understand, or control. In his poetry no less than in his dramas he de-
picts internal landscapes in social and emotional upheaval, in isolation. Nor is
there a central mythology in his work. Instead, his characters flee into subjectiv-
ity. Of course, today radical subjectivity has come to be acknowledged as form
of social protest. But two hundred years ago this was certainly not the case. Yet
Lenz’s poetry and plays are strewn with dream-like situations, with wishful
thinking and introspective contemplation, moments of complete silence, even
unconsciousness to express subliminal longings, anxiety, forbidden passions. In
one of his essays Lenz argued that modern psychic, moral and political struc-
tures are detrimental to love. And as a result man is left to nurture dreams. Thus
it is easy to recognise in his dramatic characters archetypes of modern subjectivity.
From its very start Coriolan unfolds on different levels of reality, and it is
this contrast that drives the dramatic action. The short scenes, so typical of
Lenz, even give the play a sense of the ‘absurd’. Indeed, a sense of disbelief, of
puzzlement about the ‘real’ role each character is meant to adopt overshadows
the entire plot. In the opening scene we are confronted with a proud Roman
warrior. But this image is soon destroyed when he appears, not unlike a mad-
man, dressed in a white gown. Soon after he is seen hiding in the most unex-
pected place, in his enemy’s house. Finally, with Rome at his mercy, as the gen-
eral of the most mighty military force, his is seen kneeling in front of his
mother. The frequent scene changes enhance the feeling of falsity and are cru-
cial to the overall dream-like effect. And when finally he wonders ‘where am I’,
he gives dramatic expression to the duality of human consciousness.
But he begins with a question. ‘What do they want?’ Wrapped within his
own subjective self, oblivious the present, of the social turmoil in Rome, it is
left to others to explain to him why there is rioting in the streets. His abusive
language is directed only against those who inhabit the ‘outer’, the alien, world.
In moments in which his ‘true’ self is revealed, he remains silent. The emotional
turmoil that rages within him could not have been expressed better than by total
silence. The brief exposition contains a declaration of war. And no sooner has
119
Coriolan heard the news than his whole being turns inwards. Weary of yet another
military conflict he escapes into a world of his own, a world of dreams more real to
him than reality itself. Until the final act when he faces a rude awakening. Con-
fronted by two real women, his mother and his wife, his dream world falls apart.
They have come to challenge his ‘true’ nature which lies buried under a heap of
self-deception. His initial reaction is one of flight, of turning away from the women.
But he knows that his mother knows that beneath his merciless public appearance
he preserved his human qualities, his capacity for feeling empathy and pain.
Cruelty in war is termed normal and the negative aspects of soldiering, the ac-
companying aggressiveness, the promiscuity, the lack of compassion are explained
in functional, rational terms of ‘defending society’. Killing is indeed inhuman but
necessary all the same. It is, of course, typical of Lenz that he should set out to
make problematic what had come to be accepted as a norm. Here it is the notion
that war is glorious. Worse still, aggression becomes as a sign of bravery, becomes
synonymous with masculinity. When in reality, that is, in Lenz’s poetic reality,
men like Menenius, the tribunes, even General Comenius, live in constant fear of
yet another bloody military conflict, of having to prove their masculinity again and
again by way of injuries inflicted upon their very bodies. Radical subjectivity
seems the only escape, and in the case of Menenius, gluttony.
In the final moments of the play the hero, epitome of maleness and bravery,
is overcome by what is on all accounts a feminine emotion. On the surface his
masculinity appears deceptively normal, a normality that is grotesquely symbol-
ised in his manifold ‘wounds’. But underneath subjective forces are at work
constantly undermining his outer, masculine persona. Celebrated and decorated
he returned from war, not permitted, of course, to show his true inner feelings.
Feelings which are, however, expressed in his response to Virgilia’s tears. Her
tears move him profoundly for they are a true sign of pity and stand in stark
contrast to the superficial weeping that Menenius goes in for at the drop of a
hat, especially, as he has nothing to weep about. His tears are meaningless and
downright absurd and are thus met by Coriolan with sharp rebuke and exposes
as hollow in the face of his own deafening silence.
‘Word language is only one of many possible kinds of language’, wrote Witt-
genstein this century.8 However, it seems Lenz was well aware of this two hun-
dred years ago. In a letter to Herder he lamented. ‘Why do I remain silent? Be-
cause joy as no language, because love has no language; therefore be silent, too’.9
There are explicit moments of silence, even unconsciousness, in each of his plays,
and Coriolan’s reluctance to communicate is thus of singular importance. Trum-
pets and jubilation welcomes him to Rome, a noisy celebration from which he re-
coils with the plea ‘no more, I beg of you, no more’. Only with the greatest of dif-
120
ficulties can Menenius persuade him to speak to the people. And the result is a
most extraordinarily ‘absurd’ conversation between him and the citizens. In si-
lence he faces the Senate, silently he enters Aufidius’s house, in silence he meets
his mother. Why? Because language has been contaminated in an attempt to ‘ex-
plain’ everything, even that which needs no explanation. Like, for example, where
and how he got his injuries. Existential isolation, the inability to communicate, is
immensely tragic. But in a typically Lenzian fashion the most tragic moments do
appear deceptively comic. And the deeply ironic dialogue between citizens and
consul illustrates just that. Empty words, fits of anger, his indignant curses, unflat-
tering they may be, but true all the same, are contrasted by his momentous deci-
sion to spare Rome, a decision which he makes in total silence. Submission to his
mother’s wish and thus to his own death is uttered in a few stumbling words, the
enormity of his feelings marked only by his failing syntax.
As Lenz illustrates ‘subjective’ mental functions obey inner laws, irrespec-
tive of the world and the language by which that world is governed. Thus mute,
isolated, unknown even to themselves, the characters in his plays struggle to
carve out an existence for themselves within the outer framework set by society.
Volumnia and Menenius embody what could be termed ‘civilised’ society.
Their lives revolve around Coriolan. They talk about him incessantly. He, on
the other hand, prefers to be silent. And why can be gathered from a conversa-
tion that is taking place between his mother and his ‘foster’ father. Volumnia
and Menenius are waiting for news from the battle front. But are they keen to
find out if their ‘son’ is alive and unharmed? No, quite the opposite. They are
arguing and speculating, hoping and praying that he has been wounded, seri-
ously and manifold. ‘Has he been hurt?’ Menenius asked. The mother’s reply is
in the affirmative and is given added meaning by Lenz’s exclamation mark. De-
lighted! Volumnia proclaims herself to be the happiest mother on earth because
her wildest dreams have come true; the city of Coriolie lies in ashes! Yet what
she is really elated about could not be more horrendous, more grotesque. And
demonstrates only too clearly how word language has separated her from inner
self, her maternal roots, her feminine emotion of pity and compassion, from the
indignation she should voice at the injuries and pain inflicted upon her own
flesh and blood. In the light of this, it is not in the least surprising that her son
should prefer silence to conversation as language has evidently contaminated even
his own mother’s mind. The first act begins with Coriolan’s monologue about
Aufidius and closes with Aufidius’s monologue about Coriolan. This defines the
power behind their physical infatuation. Pulling against that power requires a force
more potent than that generated by Aufidius’s eroticism, a force embodied in the
figure of the mother. In the last act mother and son, two mighty individuals, clash.
121
A time of hardship has re-awakened in Volumnia the natural feeling of pity and
empathy and finally she has found a ‘true’ language in her great plea for mercy,
appealing to her son, not with hollow words, but with powerful images of silence.
Coriolan was written at a time when bourgeois idealism was polarising the
role of the man and the woman in society, a time when masculinity was equated
with power over women. Sharing that power, or negating it, would be regarded as
synonymous with losing that masculinity. The ethos of ‘bourgeois’ manliness re-
quired rejection of the feminine in all its different manifestations, required separa-
tion from women, especially from mothers and their maternal influences. At the
height of the European battle for reason, the creative psyche, which mythologi-
cally is connected with the Mother Goddess, was played down. And to such an ex-
tent that Schiller’s, Lessings, Goethe’s dramas appear like Oedipal plays from
which the chief object, the mother, has been removed. Assuming masculinity
meant the son would take on the qualities of the father, certainly not those of the
mother. Bourgeois ideology was seeking to integrate the individual into a new so-
cial order, a male social order, in which the mother figure simply had no place.
This concept of harmonious integration was, of course, completely divorced from
real life, an idealism bringing with it a rigid opposition between aesthetic activi-
ties, as an exclusive male preoccupation, and the ordinary working day of a
housewife and mother. Thus on German stage the mother figure can be seen as an
object of ridicule, devoid of sexual magnetism, of property and so, it seems, of in-
tellectual ability. The intricacy, the influence that a mother poses in the psyche of
her children had yet to be discovered, confronted, and acknowledged.
Unlike Schiller, Lessing, and Goethe, Lenz did not go in for staging the
death of an innocent maiden, or her equally innocent mother. He created fallible
women characters, full of moral blemishes, of sentiment, sensuality, and of in-
tuitive wisdom. Married and unmarried women, mothers, even grandmothers,
appear in his plays at the most unexpected moment, giving them a sense of real-
ity, which takes them far beyond the horizon of bourgeois tragedy. That the
‘most noble of mothers’ of classical antiquity should be among them is not at all
surprising. After all, he was the product of two worlds, of Russian village cul-
ture and peasant mythology on the one hand, and of the Enlightenment, of
Königsberg and Kant, on the other. His artistic imagination was coloured by his
childhood in Livonia under Imperial Russian rule, by folk customs, by popular
religion, literature, indeed the entire social structure. Russian art expresses a
constant longing for a great benign female power and rural life in Russia
evolved around feminine fertility rites. In Slav mythology, unlike the German,
the mother figure stands in high regard, is seen as the vehicle for man’s salva-
tion, for his moral and spiritual rebirth.10 As a result the mother figure is vividly
122
celebrated in the poetry and prose of the Russian intelligentsia, whose sense of
alienation, the conflict between the patriarch-tsar and the mother-land takes the
shape of a struggle between ‘male’ reason and ‘female’ passion. The idea of a
woman who would lead anguished Man to salvation is an idea that has obsessed
the Slav literary imagination for centuries. An idea perpetuated by Boris Pasternak
sending his wandering Dr. Zhivago in quest of a woman saviour. At a time when
his contemporaries were equating power with masculinity, Lenz set out to demon-
strate that this firmly held notion was by no means a foregone conclusion.
Next to Jocasta, Clytamnestra and Gertrude, Volumnia is one of the great
mother figure in European drama. But whereas Clytamnestra and Gertrude have
powerful husbands to cope with, Volumnia does not. Her relationship with her
son is thus unique and continues the ancient theme of Oedipus. At the beginning
she briefly reminds the audience of this mythical union. ‘If my son were my
husband’. But almost immediately returns to the real world and to society’s gru-
elling demand that her son be sent to war at an age when she should not allow
him out of her protective care. Coriolan has no father, and his mother is thus
caught in an ideological trap. Whichever way she turns, her hands are tied. If
she raises him in her own maternal image, she stands accused of ‘weakening’
his masculinity. If, on the other hand, she brings him up as a ‘warrior’, sends
him off to battle at a tender age, she stands accused of imposing her subliminal
quest for power upon him. Blinded by idealism she too, subscribes to warrior
worship, adopts masculine values, even metaphors by declaring blood to be
more beautiful than a mother’s milk, slaughter to be more glorious than peace-
ful feeding, while all along her ‘subjective’ world within her remains intact.
Weaklings like Brutus and Sicinius, the vacillating Menenius and thoroughly
beaten Comenius avoid her because they sense her to be strong enough to say
no to the claims and military pressures of Rome, and hence to the principles of
men. Her son knowns all along that the real threat to his masculinity will come
from her. She commands a primacy in his imagination, a primacy that he tried to
blot out in the arms of Aufidius. Yet Aufidius pales into nothingness at the very
sight of her. And why? Because sexual appetite can somehow be satisfied,
while the essence of emotional life cannot. The truth of this confronts the hero
at the height of his worldly power, as the mighty General Coriolanus. With
Rome at his mercy, he nevertheless finds himself emotionally more alone than
ever. And suddenly to be confronted by his mother proves too much for him.
His plea, ‘you gods, forgive me’, provokes the question, for what exactly does
he wish to be forgiven? Is it for neglecting his deepest emotion reserved for his
mother? In Antium, in the arms of Aufidius, he tried to forget her. Her unex-
pected appearance in an exclusively male environment, puts him in a powerful
123
position over her. Her dramatic gesture, her kneeling before him, could not make
the role reversal of mother and child more explicit. It is a sight which disturbs him
immensely as he can hardly take in the enactment of his most forbidden wish — to
have power over, to possess, his mother. Man’s fascination with ‘Death’ cannot be
separated from his ‘Birth’, and thus from his mother. Yet it is this physical and
emotional dependency which Lenz’s contemporaries refused to accept.
Sexuality and death in the shape of his mother confront Coriolan in the final
scene. His rage at and disgust with the ‘real’ world are balanced by his desire
for a maternal presence in his search for some kind of immortality, for some
kind of ‘spiritual’ rebirth in the mythological sense. ‘For I see my self van-
quished by you alone’, wrote Plutarch two thousand years ago.11 The symbol-
ism inherent in the nature of their meeting — the clash between his powerful
masculinity, and her persuasive femininity — the emotional grandeur of the
scene is precisely the moment at which Lenz’s drama draws to a close. Volum-
nia holding his hand gives Coriolan the calmness to meet his own death. She no
longer acts like a ‘puppet-on-a-string’ seeking public office and military glory.
Realising that society cares little for her own flesh and blood, her maternal fury is
aroused and her true ‘subjective’ nature comes to the fore. It is she who stops
Coriolan from acting out the role society has forced upon him. She becomes the
champion of his existential crisis, she provides the energy for his momentous deci-
sion to make peace and he, unashamedly, gives her the credit. She approaches in
submission, in humiliation, she starts by kneeling and she ends by getting peace.
Jakob Lenz’s Coriolan dramatises the psychological problem rooted in the
tension between the abstract ideal of the feminine and the masculine, the exis-
tential anxieties arising out of a modern, secular age, and of the complexity of
personal relationships which go far beyond religion, far beyond class and poli-
tics. The ancient legend of a Roman hero and his mother enabled him to express
his idea of subjectivity, the dialectic nature of reality, the ongoing conflict be-
tween man’s outer and inner world, between society and the individual, between
male and female forces, and not least between rational Enlightenment and an-
cient mythology. He picked up the threat running back two thousand years to
Plutarch benign ending when he first recalling with wonder the salvation of that
mighty male symbol, the City of Rome, by the peaceful persuasion of a mother.
1
M.N. Rozanow, Jakob M.R. Lenz, (Leipzig: Schulze & Co., 1909) p. 455. (in German)
2
J.C. Maxwell, ‘Coriolanus’, Modern Language Review, (1947).
3
Independent, 9. September 1995, p. 7.
4
J.M.R. Lenz, Werke und Briefe, ed. by S. Damm, 3 vols., (Leipzig: Insel, 1992), III., p. 406.
124
5
Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, p. 85 ft. J.M.R. Lenz, Anmerkungen übers Theater, (Stuttgart: Reclam,
1976), p. 139.
6
G. Steiner, Death of Tragedy, (London: Faber & Faber, 1961), p. 247.
7
Steiner, p. 166
8
H.L. Finch, Wittgenstein, (Brisbane: Element Books, 1995), p. 90.
9
Lenz, III., p. 345.
10
J. Hubbs, The Worship of Mother Earth in Russian Culture in ‘Mother Worship’ Themes and Var-
iations, ed. J. J. Preston, (Uni N. Carolina Press: 1992 ), pp. 132-143.
11
Plutarch quote in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, Appendix, p. 363.
Bibliography
Primary literature
Lenz J.M.R. Werke und Briefe, ed. by Sigrid Damm, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Insel, 1992).
Lenz J.M.R. Anmerkungen übers Theater, ed. by H.G.Schwarz, (Stuttgart: Reclam Jun., 1976).
Secondary literature
Е.В. Пчелов
(Москва)
В
историческом сознании общества достаточно прочно бытует миф
о Золушке XVIII века — бедной принцессе Фике, из захудалого
немецкого рода, управлявшего крохотным княжеством где-то на
задворках Европы, настолько ничтожным, что даже ее отец слу-
жил в прусской армии в чине генерал-майора. И вдруг эта прин-
цесса из «немецкого захолустья», «запоздалого феодального муравейника,
суетливого и в большинстве бедного» по словам В.О. Ключевского1, ока-
залась в огромной России и стала потом самодержавной властительницей
этого колоссального государства. Судьба поистине поразительная! Прав-
да, ее принц, в отличие от сказочного персонажа, оказался маленьким,
взбалмошным немчиком с психологией мелкого германского князька.
Этот грубиян и невежа, поклонник Фридриха Великого, абсолютно неспо-
собный к управлению государством стал пародией на российского импе-
ратора, почему и пал справедливой жертвой заговора Фике. Да и вообще в
Россию в то время так и нахлынули всевозможные немецкие принцы и
1
Ключевский В.О. Сочинения в девяти томах. Т. 5. М., 1989. С. 6-7. Попыткой преодолеть
этот взгляд стали страницы, посвященные генеалогии Екатерины, в книге А.Б. Каменского
«Жизнь и судьба императрицы Екатерины Великой» (М., 1997. С. 9-14), но автор не ставил себе
задачей ее специальное изучение, ограничившись лишь ближайшими родственными связями.
2
Isenburg W.K. Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europaischen Staaten. Bd. 1. Marburg, 1956. T.
135, 130, 129, 59, 39, 22.
3
Isenburg W.K. Op. cit. Bd. 1. T. 72, 73.
4
Он намеревался жениться на Анне Леопольдовне, но по настоянию отца женился на Елиза-
вете-Кристине (Кони Ф.А. История Фридриха Великого. М., 1997. С. 77, 80.
5
См.: Корф М.А. Брауншвейгское семейство. М., 1993. С. 385-389 и сл.
6
Устрялов Н.Г. История царствования Петра Великого. Т. 6. СПб, 1859. С. 23-24 и родослов-
ная таблица в конце книги.
7
Isenburg W.K. Op. cit. Bd. 1. T. 122.
8
Сванидзе А.А. «Хроника Эрика» и исторические реалии средневековой Швеции.// Хроника
Эрика. Выборг, 1994. С. 141-142, 228-229.
9
«Великая хроника» о Польше, Руси и их соседях XI-XIII вв. М., 1987. С. 62-63.
10
Пчелов Е.В. Первый русско-польский династический союз.// Головинский генеалогический
альманах. № 1. М., 1996. С. 18-20.
11
Пчелов Е.В. Польская княгиня — Мария-Добронега Владимировна.// Восточная Европа в
древности и средневековье. Древняя Русь в системе этнополитических и культурных связей.
М., 1994. С. 31-33.
12
Назаренко А.В. Немецкие латиноязычные источники IX-XI вв. М., 1994. С. 142.
13
Isenburg W.K. Op. cit. Bd. 1. T.10; Bd.2. T. 104.
14
Все варианты саги об Олаве Святом опубликованы в кн.: Джаксон Т.Н. Исландские коро-
левские саги о Восточной Европе. Т. 2. М., 1994.
15
Генеалогия изложена в «Хеймскрингла»: Снорри Стурлусон. Круг Земной. М., 1995. Генеа-
логическая таблица — С. 686.
141
16
Баумгартен Н.А. Родословные отрывки: Кунигунда Орламюндская, княгиня Русская и ее
потомство.// Летопись Историко-Родословного Общества в Москве. Вып. 3. М., 1909. С. 33-
36; Донской Д.В. Справочник по генеалогии Рюриковичей. Ч. 1. М.-Ренн, 1991. С. 31-32.
17
Isenburg W.K. Op. cit. Bd. 1. T.2; Bd.2. T. 12.
18
Isenburg W.K. Op. cit. Bd. 1. T. 88, 89, 95.
19
Isenburg W.K. Op. cit. Bd. 1. T. 45, 54; Bd. 2. T. 60.
20
Isenburg W.K. Op. cit. Bd. 1. T. 82, 85.
21
Isenburg W.K. Op. cit. Bd. 2. T. 83, 84.
22
Донской Д.В. Указ. соч. С. 133-134.
23
Там же. С. 107.
24
Об этом см.: Пчелов Е.В. Легендарная и начальная генеалогия Рюриковичей.// Летопись
Историко-Родословного общества в Москве. Вып. 2. М., 1994. С. 27-39.
25
Красюков Р.Г. Переиздание основополагающего труда о потомстве Карла Великого.// Из-
вестия Русского Генеалогического Общества. Вып. 2. СПб, 1997. С. 93.
26
Кольцов Н.К. Генеалогия Ч. Дарвина и Ф. Гальтона.// Русский Евгенический журнал. Т. 1.
Вып. 1. М., 1922. С. 64-73.
27
О русском потомстве Карла см.: Пчелов Е.В. Генеалогия графини Оды, жены киевского
князя Святослава Ярославича.// Славяне и немцы. Средние века — раннее Новое время. М.,
1997. С. 134-137.
142
ЕКАТЕРИНА II — ПОЛЕМИСТ
Полемика в литературных занятиях
императрицы Екатерины II
Ю.В. Стенник
(Санкт-Петербург)
С
реди многочисленных акций Екатерины II, служивших цели ук-
репить собственный авторитет ее в роли просвещенной госуда-
рыни, особое место принадлежало занятиям литературой. Этим
занятиям она отдавала много сил и времени и след, оставленный
ею в литературе века был весьма значителен. Она выступала и как
переводчик, и как журналист, и как драматург, и как прозаик — автор са-
тирических очерков, аллегорических сказок, публицистических эссе, на-
конец, как едкий не лишенный остроумия, пародист. Нередко ее участие в
литературной жизни своего времени имело важные последствия для обще-
го направления умственных исканий эпохи.
1
См.: История русской литературы XVIII века. Библиографический указатель. Л.,1968. С.
265-268. Из последних работ по теме сошлюсь на свою статью «Роль Екатерины II в развитии
русской литературы XVIII века» // Русская литература, 1966, № 4. С. 3-20.
2
См. соответствующие разделы обобщающего труда П.Н. Беркова «История русской журна-
листики XVIII века» (М.; Л., 1952); монографию Г.П. Макогоненко «Николай Новиков и Рус-
ское Просвещение XVIII века» (М.; Л., 1951), а также главу «Сатирическая журнальная про-
за» из моей монографии «Русская сатира XVIII века» (Л., 1985).
3
Подробно этот вопрос освещен П.Н. Берковым в монографии «История русской журнали-
стики XVIII века» (с. 166-173).
4
Всякая Всячина. СПб., 1769. С. 101.
5
Там же. С. 140.
6
Там же. С. 142.
7
Там же. С. 143.
8
Сатирические журналы Н.И. Новикова. М.; Л., 1951. С. 58.
9
Всякая всячина. С. 174.
10
Сатирические журналы Н.И. Новикова. С. 68.
11
Там же. С. 69.
12
Данный вопрос подробно освещен П.Н. Берковым в сопроводительной статье к изданию
«Сатирические журналы Н.И. Новикова» (с. 20-22.)
164
13
См.: Пекарский П.П. Материалы для истории журнальной и литературной деятельности
Екатерины II. СПб., 1863. С. 14.
14
Всякая всячина. С. 211. (Курсив мой. — Ю.С.)
15
Фонвизин Д.И. Собр. соч. в двух томах. Т. 2. М.; Л.,1959. С. 275. Далее ссылки на полемику
в «Собеседнике...» следуют по этому изданию с указанием стр. в тексте статьи.
16
Всякая всячина. С. 213.
17
Там же. С. 254.
18
Там же. С. 212.
19
Там же. С. 254.
20
Там же. С. 255.
21
Там же. С. 213.
22
Там же. С. 255-256.
23
Бабкин Д.С. Процесс А.Н. Радищева. М.; Л.,1952. С. 188-189. Там же. С. 155.
24
Там же. С. 196.
25
Там же. С. 163-164.
26
Там же.
27
Там же.
28
Там же. С. 158.
29
Там же. С. 159.
30
Там же. С. 160.
31
Там же. С. 159.
32
Радищев А.Н. Полн. собр. соч. T. I. М.; Л. АН СССР, 1938. С. 254.
33
Там же.
34
Бабкин Д.С. Процесс А.Н. Радищева. С. 157.
35
Радищев А.Н. Полн. собр. соч. T. I. С. 255.
36
См. об этом: Скрынников Р.Г. Иван Грозный. М., 1975. С. 145-160.
37
Бабкин Д.С. Процесс А.Н. Радищева. С. 158.
38
Там же. С. 159.
39
Там же. С. 160.
40
Там же. С. 164.
41
Там же. С. 160.
42
Концентрированное изложение взглядов М.М. Щербатова на роль религии в обществе см. в
книге Т.В. Артемьевой «Михаил Щербатов» (СПб., 1994. С. 49-54).
43
Бабкин Д.С. Процесс А.Н. Радищева. С. 158.
44
Там же.
45
Записки императрицы Екатерины второй. М., 1989. С. 674, 675, 679. Репринтное воспроиз-
ведение издания 1907 г.
46
Там же. С. 681.
47
Там же. С. 686.
48
Подробнее о полемике Екатерины с книгой Шаппа д’Отроша см. в соответствующем месте
статьи «Идея “древней” и “новой” России в литературной и общественно-исторической мыс-
ли 2-й половины XVIII века» // Литература и история. Вып. 2. СПб., 1997. С. 18-21.
49
Данный вопрос рассмотрен мною в статье «Тема Великой Французской революции в кон-
сервативной литературе и публицистике 1790-х годов» // Великая Французская революция и
русская литература. Сб. статей. Л.,1990. С. 69-90.
165
ЖЕНСКОЕ ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ
В РОССИИ XVIII ВЕКА
Э. Эндерлейн
(Страсбург, Франция)
В
XVIII веке начинается поворот в российской истории, который
также отметил новый этап в положении женщин. Петр Великий с
начала своего восшествия на престол (1700 г.) решает прикрепить
свою империю к Западу; своими указами он ставит российское
общество в условия иностранной системы: так женщины высшего
общества неожиданно оказываются вовлечены в участие в общественной и
светской жизни. И век увенчается тем, что будет называться «Веком Жен-
щин», так как на его протяжении верховная власть попадает в их руки не-
сколько раз. Перед нами проходят чередой царицы: Екатерина I (1725-
1727 гг.) — вдова Петра, Анна Иоановна (1730-1740 гг.) — дочь царя Ива-
на V, супруга герцога Курляндского, Елизавета (1741-1762 гг.) — дочь
Петра и, наконец, Екатерина Великая (1762-1796 гг.). В ее царствование
главой Академии наук была княгиня Воронцова-Дашкова — писательни-
ца, педагог, естествоиспытательница, музыкантша и хирург! Сама Екате-
© Э. Эндерлейн, 1999.
166
рина II взяла под свою опеку первое женское учебное заведение, доступ-
ное широким слоям дворянства и буржуазии. Был ли XVIII век действи-
тельно прекрасной страницей в летописи русских женщин?
Если в Киевской Руси женщинам был предоставлен почетный статус,
татаро-монгольское иго заставляет их покинуть общественную жизнь с
XIII века. Они были заперты в теремах и подчинены жесткому патриарха-
ту. Привилегированный статус вдовы был, тем не менее, сохранен — та-
ким образом, присутствие русской женщины никогда не было полностью
исключено из делового мира, что отличает ее от западной женщины1. Так
или иначе, на кануне века Просвещения русской женщине не знакомы ни
мужские рыцарство и галантность, ни словесные дуэли Отеля де Рамбуйе.
Замечание, сделанное в 1688 г. австрийским послом бароном Мейербер-
гом, демонстрирует нам их положение:
«По правде сказать, женский пол ни сколько не в чести у москвичей, в от-
личие от привычек большинства европейских наций. Ни один мужчина в этой
стране не решится снизойти до коленопреклонения перед женщиной... Они в
этой стране являются рабынями мужчин, которые их не сильно жалуют»2.
В первую очередь это касается самих цариц, ставших невидимыми да-
же для иностранных дипломатов... И только в конце XVII века постепен-
ный переход российского уклада к форме существования, более прибли-
женной к европейскому, позволил женщинам выйти из тени.
Заслугу в этом нововведении обычно приписывают Петру Великому,
который с 1718 года ввел женское присутствие в общественную жизнь. По
мнению Лотмана3, было бы ошибочным утверждать, что до восхождения
Петра на трон женщины в целом оставались без образования. До того мо-
мента мужчины и женщины имели доступ к образованию благодаря цер-
ковнослужителям, которые обучали чтению и письму по религиозным тек-
стам. Отныне задача состояла в распространении по России западной нау-
ки и техники. C этой целью в 1721 году по царскому указу во всех городах
были созданы школы, в которых не было исключено присутствие девочек.
К сожалению, эта мера принесла слишком мало практических последст-
вий, и проблема образования, как мужского, так и женского, все еще оста-
ется в России камнем преткновения в течении почти полувека4. Молодых
людей отправляли за границу учиться в школах у европейских преподава-
телей. В 1724 году Петр основал Академию наук, позволявшую пригла-
шать иностранных преподавателей с целью на месте образовывать рус-
скую элиту. Верный своему прагматизму, Петр решил использовать мона-
стыри, и в особенности женские, в образовательных целях. В указе 1724
года он вменяет в обязанность женским монастырям попечительство об
167
образовании сирот и детей обедневших дворян. И вплоть до царствия Ека-
терины Великой женские монастыри и несколько школ староверов остава-
лись, таким образом, единственными постоянными учебными заведения-
ми, доступными всем, а также малолетним дочерям бедных семей5.
Дочери семей высшей аристократии пользуются услугами частных
преподавателей, нанятых для образования их братьев. Здесь также тон за-
дал Петр: во время своего путешествия по Франции он проявил интерес к
женскому образованию, нанеся визит заведению мадам де Ментенон —
знаменитый Сен-Сир, к тому времени опустившийся до уровня настояще-
го монастыря, что вовсе не привлекло Петра и не повлекло последствий в
его образовательной политике6. Но он вносит личный вклад в образование
своих дочерей Анны и Елизаветы, получивших такое же образование, как
и его сын Алексей. В своих воспоминаниях Елизавета, будущая царица,
упоминает с волнением и благодарностью немца Остерманна и француза
Рамбура, которые кроме своих родных языков обучали хорошим манерам
и танцам, и добавляла, что сам их отец завидовал такому обучению7. Хотя
Петр и не любил французов, но дочери его говорили по-французски, а
также по-немецки и по-шведски. В общем, по рассказам послов того вре-
мени знание иностранных языков было распространено среди русских
дам: они владели в основном немецким и французским, но так же англий-
ским и итальянским, который очень ценился для уроков пения.
Некоторые из них, по-видимому, имели доступ к другим наукам, таким
как арифметика, история, но документы того времени не дают точных све-
дений на этот счет8. Однако подданные царя-реформатора все еще не пе-
рестают удивлять иностранных гостей своею грубостью. В таких условиях
обучение хорошим манерам, правилам элементарной гигиены должны бы-
ли составлять приоритет любого образования, в особенности женского. В
этих целях был переведен с немецкого учебник, в котором излагалось, как
надо следить за чистотой рук, лица, объяснялась неуместность чихания,
сморкания и плевания в обществе. В этой же книге молодым людям реко-
мендуется всегда между собой говорить на иностранных языках, дабы
достичь в том автоматизма и отличаться от невежд. Книга была издана
дважды в царствование Петра и еще два раза после его смерти9.
Именно это намерение привлекает в Россию множество иностранных
учителей и учительниц. При Петре их численность оставалась еще ограни-
ченной, но после его смерти их стало бесчисленное множество. Они чаще
всего были французами или немцами, но предпочтение в образовании де-
вушек дается первым, так как русские послы были покорены значительно-
стью женского присутствия при дворе Людовика XIV, грацией, утончен-
168
ностью и вежливостью французских дам. Первые французские учителя, по
большей части, приглашались с «французской улицы», где Меншиков по-
селил сотни французских семей, нанятых Петром в Париже. Это были
ювелиры, граверы, рисовальщики10. Все, что от них требовалось, — это
вести себя достойно и воспитывать благопристойность у детей. Но их ус-
лугами долгое время пренебрегают высокопоставленные семьи, а оплата
была слишком низкой, чтобы привлечь необходимое количество компе-
тентных преподавателей. Так, в 1733 г. историк Татищев сетует на недос-
таток иностранных профессоров11.
Настоящие сдвиги произошли только в царствование Елизаветы Пет-
ровны. В этот раз, наконец, основано несколько государственных школ,
предназначенных для девочек (1754). И количество частных пансионов
умножается. С этой целью поощряется приезд иностранцев с настоящей
квалификацией. Что касается частных преподавателей, их уровень остает-
ся неравным и зависит от требований хозяйки дома, роль и ответствен-
ность которой, таким образом, становятся все более значительными. В по-
следующие годы, и особенно с 1756 г., количество французских препода-
вателей растет; в семьях, заботящихся о будущем, они занимают место
немцев, но в большинстве случаев они не лучше...
В основе своей Россия довольствуется малым и больше по незнанию о
том, что должно представлять из себя образование, чем из скупости. Об-
щество со времен Петра Великого поделено по военной модели: мелкий и
средний дворянин живет с целью получить свой чин, в то время как двор
живет на французский лад, и всякий молодой человек, хоть малость често-
любивый, должен суметь ответить сановнику, обратившемуся к нему на
языке придворного этикета. То же касалось и женщин, которые, будучи
исключены из участия в государственной службе и Табели о рангах, сле-
довали моде и вели себя в соответствии со званием отца или мужа.
Рядом с этим частным образованием государственные школы пред-
ставляются скорее посредственными: они редки и готовят девушек лишь к
роли супруги и хозяйки дома. Что же касается великого детища Елизаветы
в плане образования — Московского университета, основанного в 1755 г.,
то он остается недоступным для женщин. В сущности, несколько факторов
препятствуют государственному образованию: православная церковь, мо-
нополизировавшая образование до данного момента, отсутствие государ-
ственного учреждения, несущего ответственность за основание государст-
венного образования (первое министерство образования было создано
лишь в 1802 г.), недостаток согласованности в политике, ведущейся раз-
личными правительствами под воздействием противостоящих сил.
169
Положение реально улучшается лишь в царствие другой женщины —
Екатерины II, бывшей принцессы фон Ангальт-Цербст, которая сама по-
лучила отличное частное образование в Германии, дополненное обильным
чтением. На протяжении своего царствования она переписывается с фило-
софами-просветителями Вольтером, Монтескье, Дидро, стремясь к одоб-
рению с их стороны. Она сама станет писательницей, автором мемуаров,
комедий и многих других произведений, в том числе педагогических. Ее
ум и деятельность сделают из 34-х лет ее царствия один из великих перио-
дов в истории России. В области женского образования ее деятельность
явилась истинно новаторской.
Конечно, условия благоприятствовали и почва была благотворной.
Просвещение распространяется, а с ним и многочисленные переводы пе-
дагогических трудов: «Об образовании девочек» Фенелона, «О совершен-
ном образовании детей» Беллегарда, «Эмиль» Руссо и т.д. Дворянские се-
мьи выказывают себя более искушенными и согласны теперь повысить
плату преподавателям, которые прибывают на этот раз из французской
Швейцарии, из Эльзаса, Лотарингии и Монбельяра — после женитьбы ве-
ликого князя Павла на принцессе Виртембергской, выросшей в этом горо-
де.
Екатерина восходит на трон с крупными амбициями. Она желает обно-
вить, облагородить русскую расу путем образования, и западные модели
вдохновляют ее на это. Убежденная в том, что образование подтолкнет за-
рождение среднего слоя общества, которого так не хватало в России, а
также вернет силу духа дворянству и укрепит таким образом все государ-
ство, Екатерина, как и Петр, верила в податливость человеческой натуры.
Увлеченная психологией и педагогикой, она знакома со всеми теориями —
от Камения до Локка, Юма и Руссо, систематизирует свои взгляды в пись-
менной форме, адресует их воспитателю своих внуков — Салтыкову, пи-
шет поучительные басни. При помощи своего вдохновителя Бецкого, Ека-
терина задумывает проект, цель которого ни больше ни меньше как созда-
ние новой расы путем передачи от одного поколения другому «единых
верных и фундаментальных правил» 12. Впервые заговорили о новом чело-
веке, употребляя термины «производство» и «выращивание». Эта идея бу-
дет возрождена и развита с избытком в течение XX века...
А пока, ознакомившись с педагогическими планами Екатерины, Дидро
пишет ей: «Как ранее путешествия лежали в Спарту, в Египет и в Грецию,
так впредь они будут лежать в Россию, но с лучше обоснованным любо-
пытством <…> Ликург вооружил монахов, его законодательство было ве-
личественной системой злодеяния. Основой вашего служит гуманность»13.
170
Оригинальный факт эпохи — Екатерина ввела единую педагогическую
систему для мальчиков и девочек и передавала образование детей из рук
семьи в ведение государства. Она мечтала по всей стране рассеять школы
для мальчиков и девочек, где бы воспитывались новые граждане, привер-
женцы добродетели и истины, способные принести пользу отечеству. Кон-
кретные меры последовали одна за другой. В 1763 г. в Москве был осно-
ван первый сиротский приют, включивший также школу для девочек. В
1764 г. последовал указ, направленный в провинции, по которому должны
были открыться школы, обучающие девочек чтению, письму и ведению
домашнего хозяйства. Тогда и было официально признано, что девочки
должны так же получать образование, как и мальчики14. Эти инициативы
не увенчались особым успехом, так как Екатерина наталкивалась на окру-
жающие ее непонимание и инертность.
Таким образом ее великий проект ограничился одним большим проявле-
нием, положившим начало эпохе. 5 мая 1764 г. она создала знаменитый «Ин-
ститут благородных девиц», позднее названный Смольным Институтом по
имени монастыря, в помещении которого находилось заведение. Это было
первое среднее учебное заведение для девушек в России. Оно было предна-
значено для юных дворянок; на ряду с ним существовало заведение для де-
вушек недворянского происхождения, которым лично покровительствовала
императрица. Их готовили на роль учительниц и гувернанток.
Учебную программу установил Бецкой. Девочки были разделены на
четыре возрастные группы и должны были учиться 12 лет (от 6 до 18 лет).
В первом классе преподавались Закон Божий, русский язык и иностранные
(французский, немецкий и итальянский языки), арифметика, рисование,
танцы и рукоделие. Позже к ним прибавили историю, географию, домаш-
нее хозяйство, экспериментальную физику, архитектуру и геральдику, за-
мененную в дальнейшем естествознанием.
В заключительном классе программа составляла повторение всего
пройденного курса. В последние годы старшие также преподавали млад-
шим, выполняя с ними практические работы, что таким образом подготав-
ливало их к их будущей роли воспитательниц. Бецкой обращал особое
внимание на физическое на физическое и нравственное воспитание: он
был против резкого отношения к развивающейся личности, но желал чтоб
она раскрывалась постепенно, следуя своему биологическому развитию,
отсюда и разделение на четыре класса по возрастам. Он также настаивал
на необходимости гигиены, движений на свежем воздухе и простой и здо-
ровой пище, ратовал за игровой подход в обучении и запрещал всякое те-
171
лесное наказание, наставляя учителей служить примером ученикам, стара-
ясь обойтись без наказания15.
Фактически Екатерина II и Бецкой были вдохновлены примером Сен-
Сира, школы мадам де Ментенон, подчеркивая, в то же время различия:
«Мы далеки, — пишет Екатерина Вольтеру, — от мысли превратить на-
ших воспитанниц в монахинь чахлых от еженочных стенаний в церкви как
в Сен-Сире. Мы хотим вырастить их не недотрогами и не кокетками, а
любезными и способными воспитывать детей молодыми женщинами»16.
И Вольтер соглашался, утверждая, что Смольный, на самом деле,
больше чем Сен-Сир (Письмо к Екатерине II от 12.12.1772). Лихачева
подчеркивает, что Екатерина II применяет большинство правил Сен-Сира
«не путем подражания, но в следствии некоторой близости идей и общно-
сти источников»17 и она упоминает сходства и различия: девушки подчи-
нены такой же системе интерната, и в обоих заведениях врагом является
семья, визиты которой должны быть редки и строго регламентированы;
они выполняют одни и те же работы, одеваются, причесываются и шьют
свое платье сами. Единственная большая разница, не считая религиозных
отправлений, в том, что в Смольном воспитанницы, по крайней мере знат-
ные, носят более богатые платья, не подметают комнат и не исполняют
других грязных работ. В общем, Смольный носит дух более аристократи-
ческий и открывающийся на высший свет, что объясняет наличие празд-
ников, балов, театральных представлений18. Программа обучения шире,
чем в Сен-Сире, она перестроена по идее, заимствованной у Руссо: не сле-
дует ни принуждать, ни перегружать умы, но прививать вкус к чтению и
словесности, а также делать упор на науки. В Смольном занимались физи-
кой — это представляло большую новизну! На чем же остановится импе-
ратрица? В этом заключался предмет дискуссий между Екатериной II и
Дидро. Последний хотел включить в программу анатомию с изучением
самых интимных деталей, но это предложение Екатерине понравилось не
больше идеи начать преподавание истории с современных событий. Поя-
вилась также идея дополнить программу воспитания учениц театральной
игрой, пагубного влияния которой уже больше не боялись, отныне при-
знавалось, что дети, становясь комедиантами, учатся манере держать себя,
а также лучше усваивают уклад жизни и мораль, которая для Екатерины и
Бецкого представляла самую большую важность. «Эти мужи, — сказал
Вольтер о Корнеле и Расине, — учат свою нацию думать, чувствовать и
выражать свои чувства». И так как русские нуждаются в этом еще больше,
чем французы, он настоятельно рекомендует Екатерине провести их через
172
ту же школу19. С тех пор театральные «ассамблеи» института стали круп-
ными столичными событиями.
Таким образом в Смольном Екатерина воплотила и развила француз-
скую модель. Стараясь уменьшить иностранное влияние, она в начале на-
значила русскую директрису — княгиню Анну Долгорукову. Но выбор не
оправдал надежд, и царице пришлось заменить ее француженкой. Екате-
рина не хотела, чтоб таковая была католичкой, и выбрала некую Софи
Лаффон из семьи гугенотов, она сохранила свой пост в течении тридцати
лет и разделяла свои полномочия с комиссией, в которую входили Бецкой
и несколько императорских сенаторов, принимавших решение о допуске в
ряды воспитанниц20. Но последних в начале оказалось меньше, чем ожи-
дали. И только в 1773 г. появились представительницы высшей знати из
провинции. 90-е гг. означились завоеванием аристократии, и несколько
знатных воспитанниц заняли места разночинок21. Однако, несмотря на ви-
димый успех, Контрольная комиссия решила в 1783 г. проверить получен-
ные результаты. Они были признаны неудовлетворительными и Бецкой
был обвинен в уделении большего внимания воспитанию нежели образо-
ванию, он был смещен и заменен педагогом Теодором Янковичем де
Миньеро, членом комиссии, поверенным по делам государственных школ.
Его отчет сетовал на слабую компетенцию в науках и языках, особенно в
русском; он заменил некомпетентных учителей русскоговорящими колле-
гами мужского пола. Широкие программы были сокращены до содержа-
ний, более приспособленных к целям, а также вновь было уточнено, что
заведение готовило «хороших хозяек, верных супруг и внимательных ма-
терей»22. Вместе с тем вводилось обязательное прочтение труда, созданно-
го Комиссией — «Обязанности человека и гражданина», который защи-
щал ценности патриархального общества и исключал всякий прогресс23. В
остальном последние годы царствия были отмечены некоторым состояни-
ем упадка института и отсутствием интереса со стороны царицы к своему
детищу24.
Тем не менее итоги далеко не негативны. Личный вклад Екатерины,
многочисленные визиты, наносимые своим подопечным, трогательная пе-
реписка, поддерживаемая ею с некоторыми из них, блеск приемов, давае-
мых институтом сделали из Смольного настоящую легенду, в которую ве-
рили все больше и больше семей высокой знати. С 80-х гг. Быть его выпу-
скницей считалось престижным, и это гарантировало хорошее место при
дворе. К моменту смерти Екатерины в 1796 г., институт насчитывал 503
воспитанницы, из них 318 знатных, 50 «прочих», принятых в числе разно-
чинок, составлявших 135 воспитанниц. Во время ее царствия через него
173
прошли 1316 девушек, 850 стали выпускницами, из которых 440 — знат-
ных и 410 разночинок25.
Конечно, эти цифры незначительны по сравнению с общей численно-
стью населения страны, но психологическое воздействие на элиту было
очень сильным, как о том свидетельствуют многочисленные отклики, вы-
званные деятельностью Института. Они были чрезвычайно разнообразны,
как того следовало ожидать от общества, «где помимо императрицы и
Бецкого не было и десяти человек, способных постичь его полезность»26.
Воспоминания, оставленные некоторыми воспитанницами, очень по-
ложительны, как, например, воспоминания (1759-1826 гг.) Глафиры Ива-
новны Ржевской, вышедшей из среднепоместого дворянства: «Чудесные
воспоминания! Счастливое время! Обитель невинности и мира! <…> Си-
роты, бедные и богатые девушки — все в равной степени получали пре-
красное образование, основанное на полном равенстве. Это была община
сестер, в которой все подчинялись одним и тем же правилам»27.
Такое же восхваляющее мнение было выражено другими современни-
ками, среди которых князь Долгорукий, дважды женатый, и оба раза на
выпускницах Смольного. Но критические мнения преобладали. Суждение
Лотмана резюмирует основные упреки: «Особенно бросалась в глаза изо-
лированность институток от внешнего мира и искусственность среды, в
которой они проводили долгие годы. Девушки выходили из института со-
вершенно не имея представления о реальной жизни. Им казалось, что за
стенами института их ждет праздник, придворный бал».
Однако, веком раньше, подчеркивает Лихачева, что институт отвечал
одной определенной идее, по которой воспитательные цели были шире
образовательных28. Екатерина с 60-х гг., отказавшись от своего намерения
создать «новую расу», не отвергла идею о распространении этой педаго-
гической системы по всей России, обращаясь в этот раз к прусским и авст-
рийским моделям29. С другой стороны, такое образование соответствовало
женскому идеалу, распространенному сентиментализмом и соответство-
вавшему духу времени. Важность, как точно подчеркивал Милюков, в дру-
гом: с первыми выпускницами Института в России появился новый тип
женщины — образованной, утонченной, способной поколебать старые пат-
риархальные предрассудки и вырастить своих детей в духе гуманизма30.
К концу века женщины уже не довольствовались лишь чтением ино-
странных произведений — Ричардсона, аббата Прево и Руссо. Они читали
также Карамзина и Сумарокова, прославлявших женское образование в
России. И важным фактом явилось в конце XVIII века появление первых
писательниц. Они были восхваляемы мужчинами — филологами своей
174
эпохи. Однако их имена не дошли до более поздних времен, так как они
еще оставались исключенными из организованного мира мысли, универ-
ситета, литературных и философских кружков.
Общим итогом положения к концу царствия Екатерины II является
следующая картина: согласно первоначальным планам царицы в Москве
(1764 г.) и в Санкт- Петербурге (1770 г.) были основаны приюты, воспи-
тывающие сирот и незаконнорожденных детей; девочки там обучались ру-
коделию. Повсюду, в особенности в обеих столицах, возрастает количест-
во частных пансионов, почти без исключения иностранных: в 1784 г. в
Санкт-Петербурге их насчитывалось 26 и 10 в Москве; 30% из них состав-
ляли подопечные женского пола. В 80-х гг. вследствие школьной реформы
государственного размаха в провинции открываются начальные школы, к
моменту смерти Екатерины их 288, принявших 22 тыс. учеников, из кото-
рых 2 тыс. девочек, т.е. 9%. За полвека процент грамотности возрос с 5,2%
до 18,7% в городах и с 3,2% до 8,5% в деревнях31. Прогресс ощутим, но в
этих цифрах нет упоминания о процентах в отношении женщин: перепись
населения (которое в 1790 г. составило 26 млн. душ32) не учитывала женщин!
К концу своего царствия Екатерина II обнаружила огромное несоответ-
ствие ее проектов и реальности. Она желала видеть общество более обра-
зованным, чтобы пол не служил в нем различительным фактором, она на-
деялась утончить нравы посредством женщин и ей это удалось в узком
кругу, но она натолкнулась на средневековое мировоззрение российской
глуши пассивной и консервативной. Вся проблематика XVIII века исходит
из того, что народ не принимал тех реформ, которые представляли ему
каждый из правителей...
Избранным же век предоставил реальный доступ к образованию, и, ес-
ли верить некоторым иностранным дипломатам, русские женщины не
только шли вровень, но и обходили в этом мужчин. Вот что говорил граф
де Сегюр: «Встречаются дамы и барышни, говорящие на пяти — четырех
языках, играющие на различных музыкальных инструментах и знакомые с
произведениями самых знаменитых писателей Франции, Италии и Англии
<…> Мужчины, за исключением нескольких сотен бывающих при дворе
<…> в большинстве своем малообщительные домоседы, высокомерные и
холодно вежливые, и кажутся плохо осведомленными о том, что происхо-
дит за границами их родины33. Десять лет спустя, около 1800 года, англий-
ский путешественник Эдуард Кларк заметит: «Женщины будто превосхо-
дят мужчин: они мягки, чувствительны, часто очень образованы, красивы,
уравновешены». Лихачева продолжит: «Здесь уместно добавить, что на
протяжении всего царствования Екатерины, две самые образованные лич-
175
ности во всей России были женщинами — сама императрица и княгиня
Дашкова. Однако ни одна , ни другая не имели систематического образо-
вания в молодости и, несмотря на то, что обе они для того времени были
не только хорошо образованны, но еще и эрудированны, они не выставля-
ли на показ свою ученость и не были педантичны».
Эти исключительные личности, светочи, озарившие путь более и более
многочисленным им подобным, отметили всю политическую, обществен-
ную и культурную историю страны. И, несмотря на это, в XIX веке, как в
России, так и в западной Европе, женщина остается в подчиненном поло-
жении до тех пор, пока эта непозволительная ситуация не приведет к ак-
там восстания, требования доступа к образованию, права на добровольный
брак, затем к бунтам и террористическим актам. Семя, зароненное в XVIII
веке, оказалось очень плодоносным.
Но пусть нас это не введет в заблуждение: в 1920 г., в европейской час-
ти России 68% неграмотных, 3/4 женского населения не умеют ни читать,
ни писать. Крупная акция по ликвидации безграмотности была осуществ-
лена в советское время и была тесно связана с идеологической пропагандой,
которая в свою очередь стремилась к воплощению в жизнь новой утопии…
1
Goerhke, Carsten. Die Witwe im Alten Rußland. // Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte,
Osteuropainstitut, Historische Veröffentlichungen. Bd. 38. Berlin, 1986. S. 64-96.
2
Mayerberg, Baron de. Voyage en Moscovie d’un ambassadeur envoyé par l’empereur Leopold au
Czar. Traduction française. Leide, 1688. P. 144; фрагмент процитировал Жюль Легра в своей
книге «Русская душа» (L’âme russe. Flammarion, Paris, 1934. P. 18).
3
Лотман, Юрий. Беседы о русской культуре. СПб: Искусство, 1994. С. 33.
4
Лихачева, Елена. Материалы для истории женского образования 1086-1796 гг. СПб: Типо-
графия М.М. Стасюлевича, 1890. С. 43 (далее — Лихачева).
5
Лихачева. С. 66.
6
Лихачева. С. 45.
7
Соловьев, Сергей. История России. М., 1866-1877. Т. XIV. С. 133.
8
Пекарский, Петр. Наука и литература при Петре. СПб, 1855. Т. I. С. 90.
9
Там же. 1889. Т. II. С. 383.
10
Русская старина. СПб, 1870. XXV. С. 268-269.
11
Demkof, Michail. Histoire de la pédagogie russe. Revel, 1895. II. P. 264.
12
Майков, Павел. Иван Иванович Бецкой, опыт его биографии. Материалы. СПб, 1904. С. 8.
13
Grot, Jakov. Diderot, Sept lettres à l’Impératrice Catherine II. SPb, 1881. P. 16.
14
Black, Joseph L. Citizens for the Fatherland: Education, Educators, and Pedagogical Ideals in
Eighteenth-Century Russia. New-York, 1979. P. 156.
15
Милюков, Павел. Очерки по истории русской культуры. Современные записки. Париж,
1937. С. 289.
16
Rambaud, Alfred. L’Éducation des filles en Russie. // Revue des deux mondes, 1873. Mars. P. 18.
17
Лихачева. С. 193.
176
18
Лихачева. С. 143-144.
19
Письмо Вольтера к Екатерине II от 12.03.1772.
20
Black, Joseph L. Educating Women in Eighteenth-Century: Myths and Realities. // Canadian Sla-
vonic papers 20, № 1. March, 1978. P. 31-36.
21
Ibid. P. 69.
22
Лихачева. С. 219.
23
Black, Joseph L. Educating Women in Eighteenth-Century… P. 69.
24
Лихачева. С. 219-220.
25
Лихачева. С. 170.
26
Tourneux, Michel. Diderot et Catherine II. Paris, 1899. P. 385.
27
Ржевская, Глафира. Памятные записки. // Русский архив, 1871. Т. I. С. 4.
28
Лихачева. С. 245.
29
Милюков, Павел. Очерки по истории русской культуры. Современные записки. С. 755.
30
Там же. С. 754.
31
Смагина, Галина. Российские женщины и европейская культура. СПб, 1993. С. 18.
32
См.: Лихачева. С. 289.
33
Лихачева. С. 262.
177
ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ТЕМАТИКА
В АКАДЕМИЧЕСКОЙ ПЕРИОДИКЕ XVIII В.
Е.А. Савельева,
Т.П. Щербакова, М.Н. Матвеева
(Санкт-Петербург)
Н
астоящий библиографический список составлен на основе под-
готовленного в Библиотеке Российской Академии наук четвер-
того тома «Сводного каталога книг на иностранных языках, из-
данных в России в XVIII в.» (Периодика), для издания которого
в полном объеме нет возможностей. Поскольку в составлении этого ката-
лога приняли участие 14 крупнейших библиотек Советского Союза, вклю-
чая ныне суверенные Прибалтийские государства, список идет без имени
составителей из-за невозможности указать все имена. В подготовке чет-
вертого тома к печати (он имеется в БАН в компьютерном варианте) были
заняты сотрудники БАН Е.А. Савельева и Т.П. Щербакова и сотрудница
Российской национальной библиотеки М.Н. Матвеева.
В настоящем списке, который является извлечением из каталога, со-
хранена полностью его структура и нумерация, поскольку составители на-
ГАЗЕТЫ
189. Anmerckungen über die Zeitungen auf das Jahr 1729-[1742]. – St. Petersburg,
gedruckt bey der Kayserl. Academie der Wissenschafften, [1729]-1742. – 4o.
Журнал основан по инициативе Г.-Ф.Миллера и был первоначально задуман
249
им как комментарий к отдельным терминам, встречающимся в русском издании
Санктпетербургских ведомостей, и к событиям, в них описанных. Интерес к жур-
налу побудил Г.-Ф.Миллера с 1729 г. печатать такой же журнал на немецком языке
под заглавием: Historische, genealogische und geographische Anmerckungen über die
Zeitungen, использовав для него немецкие оригиналы статей, написанных для рус-
ского издания. С 1732 по 1738 г. журнал выходил под заглавием: Anmerckungen ü
ber die Zeitungen; с 1739 по 1739 г. заглавие журнала: Anmerckungen bey den
Zeitungen.
Первые годы Г.-Ф.Миллер был почти единственным автором статей. Им напи-
сано в N 1 1729 г. обращение «Благосклонному читателю» с информацией об изда-
нии и задачах журнала, а также с очерком по истории газетного дела.
Постепенно к работе начали привлекаться и другие академики; статьи переста-
ли быть просто комментариями к Ведомостям; начали печататься научно-
популярные работы, главным образом, по естественным наукам, помещались сти-
хи, описания придворных праздников, перепечатывались распоряжения правитель-
ства, указы, манифесты, тексты мирных договоров, описания посольских приемов
и т.п. В первые годы печатались переводы из английского журнала The Spectator и
других иностранных изданий.
Все статьи публиковались анонимно, только с 1738 г. они начали подписывать-
ся одной буквой – инициалом имени автора.
1729. Stück 1-104. (4. Januarii-30. Decembr.) [2], 506 [=412], [6] c.
В пагинации многочисленные опечатки. Последняя колонцифpа – 506.
St. 1. Müller G.-F. [Пpедисловие от составителя] С. 1-4.
St. 2. Brüssel. Als darin von der Ostendlichen Compagnie gedacht wird, dass man
sich noch immer mit der angenehmen Hoffnung schmeichele, die projectirte Suspension
auf 14 Jahr werde kainen Bestand haben. C. 5-8.
St. 3. Aus Holland. Daselbst sollen eine grosse Menge Personen aus der Pflatz
angekommen seyn, welche nach Pensylvanien übergehen wollen. C. 9-12.
St. 4. Lissabon. Von Auswechselung der hiesigen ältesten Infantin mit der
Spanischen, wird ietzo wieder sehr starck gesprochen. C. 13-14. – Paris. Von der Abreise
des Infanten Don Carlos nach Italien redet man in Madrit nicht mehr so starck wie vor
dem p. 6. C. 14-16.
St. 5. Neapolis. Der neue Vice-König, Graf von Harrach ist mit der Frau Gräfin
seiner Gemahlin allhier angekommen. N 4. p. 13. C. 17-20.
St. 6. Neapolis. Bey denen vorigen Blatte gegebenen Nachrichten, von den
bissherigen Vice-Königen in Neapolis ist noch nachzuhohlen... C. 21-22. – Londen. Man
träget sich hier noch sehr starck mit derjenigen Erzehlung herum, welche der
Tripolitanische Abgesandte von einer zu Stein gewordenen Stadt gegeben hat,der jedoch
die wenigsten Glauben beymessen. N 4, p. 12. C. 22-24.
St. 7. Londen. Die im vorigen erzehlte Begebenheiten von Versteinerung gantzer Stä
dte, Menschen Thiere und dergl. streiten so sehr wider die Natur und derselben uns
bissher bekandt gewesene Gesetzte... C. 25-28.
St. 8. Londen. Über die Tämes soll eine neue Brücke gebauet werden. N 6, p. 21. C.
29-30. – Londen. Der Printz von Wallis fähret fort die vornehmste Merckwürdigkeiten
250
der Stadt zu besehen, und hat ins besondere den Towr in Augenschein genommen. N 6,
p. 22. C. 30-32.
St. 9, 10. St. Petersburg. [Weitbrecht J.] In dem hiesigen Hospital der Land-Militz
ist ein Soldate gestorben, welcher von einem tollen Hunde gebissen worden und
Wasserschen gewesen. N 6, p. 34. C. 37-40.
St. 11. Von der Vermählung des Printzen von Carbognano mit der Printzessin
Barberini. N 10, p. 38 Siehe auch N 5, p. 19. C. 41-44. – Zu dem Articul von Londen. N
11, p. C. 44.
St. 12. An die Gesellschaft der Verfasser von den Anmerkungen in St. Petersburg. C.
45-48.
St. 13, 15. Lissabon. I. K. M. haben beschlossen das hiesige Inquisitions-Gerichte
auf den Fuss zu setzen, wie solches in der Republic Venedig eingerichtet ist. N 11, p. 41.
Siehe auch p. 42. C. 49-50, 57-60.
St. 14. Mayntz. Der Ertz-Bischof und Churfürst des hiesigen Stifts hat dieses
Zeitliche gesegnet. N 12, p. 46. C. 51-56.
St. 16. Londen. Ein Peruquenmachers-Geselle allhier hat die so lange von den
Gelehrten gesuchte Länge der Oerter zur See durch eigenes Nachdencken erfunden. N
12, p. 46. C. 61-64.
St. 17. Lissabon. Es wird von einem neuen Commercien-Tractat gesprochen, welcher
wegen der Ost Indischen Handlung mit Spanien soll geschlossen werden, und vor die
Nation sehr vortheilhaft seyn soll. N 14, p. 53. C. 65-68.
St. 18. Badajotz, Cadix, Madrit. N 16, p. 62, 63 und N 17 p. 65, 66. C. 69-72.
St. 19. Badajotz, Madrit. N 17, p. 65, 66. C. 73-76.
St. 20. Londen. Daselbst ist ein Tractätgen herausgekommen unter dem Titul:
Anmerckungen über den Reichthum und die Handlung von Gross-Brittanien, nebst einer
Antwort auf dieselbe. N 19, p. 76. C. 77-80.
St. 21. Vom Asbest. Siehe N 20, p. 80. C. 81-84.
St. 22. Von dem Rechtum und Handel von Gross-Brittannien. C. 85-87. – Rom. I. M.
der Kayser haben den Päbstl. Nepoten Hertzogen Ferdinand Philipp von Gravina Orsini,
welche sie bereitz Anno 1724. in den Reichs-Fürsten-Stand erheben, für sich und seine
Nachkömmlinge Souverain erkläret, etz. N 21, p. 81. C. 87-88.
St. 23-25. Londen. Ein hiesiger Kaufmann hat von Alexandria aus Aegypten eine sch
öne Aegyptische Mumie geschickt bekommen, welche nach dem Ausspruch der Societät
der Wissenschaften bey 3000 Jahr alt, und der Leib einer Königin seyn sol. N 20, p. 78.
C. 89-100.
St. 26, 27. Venedig. Siehe N 23, p. 99. Verfolg vom Carneval zu Venedig. C. 101-108.
St. 28-31. Cadix. Die Gallionen sind den 22 dieses 16 Segel starck, die Kriegs- und
Queck-Silber-Schiffe mit eingerechnet, in hiesigen Haven eingelauffen. N 25, p. 98. C.
109-124.
St. 32, 33. Venedig. Am Montage starb allhier der berühmte Herr Johann Law in
einem Alter von 61 Jahren. N 29, p. 113. C.125-132.
St. 34. Paris. Über die Erzehlung von der Kupfer-Manufactur. N 29, p. 114. C. 133-136.
St. 35, 36. [Gordon A.] Histoire des Päbstes Alexandri VI und Cäsar Borgias. C.
251
137-144.
St. 37-38, 40-42. Von einigen neulich auf der Elbe gestrandeten Schiffen und dem
dabey exercirten Strand-Recht. N 28, p. 111; N 29, p. 115; N 31, p. 124; N 32, p. 128. C.
145-152; 157-168.
St. 39. St. Petersburg. Von Grundlegung des Steins zu einer neuen Bastion an der
hiesigen St. Petersburgischen Festung. N 37, p. 148. C. 153-156.
St. 43. Rom. Freytags vormittage (den 22 April wurde bey dem Cardinal etc.) N 42,
p. 165. C. 169-172.
St. 44. Rom. Der Printz von Carbognano ist mit seiner Gemahlin nunmehro völlig
wieder ausgesöhnet, und in Begleitung derselben zu ihrem Oncle dem Cardinal Barberini
nach Velletri gereiset. N 42, p. 165. C. 173-180.
St. 46. Paris. Der gelehrte Spanische Knabe, welcher vor ungefehr 18 Monathen dem
Könige und der Königin als ein Wunder der Wissenschafften presentiret worden, hat von
selbiger Zeit an noch immer grössere Progresse gemacht, und ietzo verschiedene nachdrü
ckliche Zeugnüsse seiner Studien von etlichen berühmten Männern allhier etc. N 45, p.
18. C. 181-184.
St. 47, 48. Man siehet hier seith einiger Zeit eine öffentlich gedruckte Schrift, welche
den Titul führet: Frage, ob es mit der Ehre und dem Nutzen der Gross-Britannischen
Nation übereinkomme, Gibraltar und Porto Mahon der Crone Spanien wieder einzurä
umen. N 47, p. 187. C. 185-192.
St. 49, 50. Anmerckungen über diejenige Schrift darin, untersuchet wird, ob es mit
der Ehre und dem Nutzen der Gross-Britannischen Nation übereinkomme Gibraltar und
Porto Mahon der Crone Spanien wieder einzuräumen. N 47, p. 187. C. 193-200.
St. 51. Lissabon. Die Städte Patta, Mombaz auf der Küste von Zanguebar in Africa,
sind durch den Portugiesischen General in Ost-Indien Don Ludwig von Melo de San
Peyo wieder erobert worden. N 47, p. 185. C. 297-300.
St. 52, 53. Bologna. Den 24 May kam die Durchl. verwittwete Hertzogin von Parma
von dem Gottes-Hause zu Loretto in hiesige Stadt zurücke, nachdem sie daselbst alles
Merckwürdige besehen, und bey dem wunderthätigen Gnaden-Bilde der Hl. Jungfrau
Maria in brünstige Andacht gehabt. N 49, p. 194. C. 301-308.
St. 54, 55. Turiner Briefe melden, dass nachdem der Cardinal von Althan daselbst
angekommen sey, S. K. M. von Sardinien sich aus der Venezia erhoben hätten. Se.
Eminentz zu empfangen, und deroselben das Schweizseuch Christi sehen zu lassen,
welche Ehre sonst nur gekrönten Häuptern wiederfähret. Weil aber wegen des
Ceremoniels einige Schwierigkeiten dazwischen gekommen, indem Se. Eminentz dem
Printzen von Piemont die rechte Hand nicht habe zustehen wollen, wären selbige ohne
solche Ehre zu genüssen, von dorten alsobald wieder abgereiser. N 50, p. 201. C. 309-316.
St. 56. Paris. [Krafft G. W.] Der P. Romuald le Muet hat endlich die Auflösung von
den dreyen berühmten Aufgaben de Quadratura circuli, de trisectione anguli et de
duplicatione cubi erfunden... N 53, p. 306. C. 317-320.
St. 57, 58. Paris. [Krafft G. W.] Zu dem vorigen. Das im letzen Blatte versprochene
Urtheil des Herrn Hofraths und Professor Wolfs über des Orffyreische Perpetuum mobile
ist mit folgenden Worten abgefasset; Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken wegen das
Orffyreischen Perpetui mobilis. C. 321-328.
252
St. 59. Lissabon. Der König hat den Arrest wieder aufgehoben, welchen er neulich
auf das Engl. Krieges-Schif Leostaf legen lassen etc. Allein der Capitaine Norris, als
Commendant desselben will nicht eher von der Stelle fahren, biss er über die bey seinem
Hofe angebrachte Klage, über das, was zwischen seinem Schiffe und einem Unsrigen
nach der Bay Aller-Heiligen beladenem Fahrzeuge vorgefallen, wird Antwort erhalten
haben. N 58, p. 326. C. 329-332.
St. 60. Venedig. Am Sonntage den 26. Junii erhob sich der Doge in Begleitung des
Adels und der Ausländischen Minister in die Kirche der Hl. Apostel Johannis und Pauli
und wohnere daselbst dem Gottesdienste bey, welcher alle Jahr zum Angedencken des
gegen die Türcken 1656 bey den Dardanellen erfochtenen Sieges pfleget gehalten zu
werden. N 58, p. 327. C. 333-356.
N 61, 65. Paris. [Krafft G.W.] Verfolg von der Quadratura circuli. C. 337-340, 353-356.
St. 62-64. Rom. Ihre Päbstl. Heiligkeit empfiengen verwichenen Dienstag
Nachmittag unter den bedeckten Gängen der Vaticanischen Haupt-Kirche von dem
Connestable Colonna den gewönlichen Tribut des weissen Zelters und die 12000 Scudi
wegen des Königreichs Neapolis, welche dieser als Kayserl. Extraordinair-Ambassadeur
nach einer dahin gehaltenen ansehnlichen Cavalcade dem Päbste im Nahmen des
Kaysers presentirete. N 59, p. 330. C. 341-352.
St. 66. Aus der Schweitz. Die zu Baden zu halten gewesene General-Tag-Satzung
hat etc. N 65, p. 355. C. 357-360.
St. 67. Paris. Von der Trisectione Anguli. Siehe Zeitung N 53, p. 306. [Krafft G. W.]
C. 361-364.
St. 68. Reggio. Zu Guastalla ist von Wien an die dasige Fürstin Eleonora, Schwester
des annoch sehr kranck darnieder liegenden regierenden Hertzogs von Guastalla, endlich
die vollkommene Kayserl. Genemhaltung, und die Regierung führen zu können,
angelanger. N 67, p. 362. C. 365-368.
St. 69. Paris. [Krafft G. W.] Von der letzen vorgegebenen Erfindung des P.
Romualds de duplicatione cubi. N 53, p. 306. C. 369-372.
St. 70. Schaffhausen. Nachdem wegen der Bischofs-Wahl zu Chur in Granbündten
die drey Gemeinen einmahl in die grosseste Uneinigkeit unter einander gerathen so hat
bissher die Erbitterung zwischen denen verschiedenen Partheyen von Tage zu Tage
dergestalt zugenommen, dass etc. N 68, p. 366. C. 373-376.
St. 71-73. Constantinopel. Die lährlich nach Mecha gehende Caravane ist durch die
rebellischen Araber geplündert worden. N 69, p. 369. C. 377-388.
St. 74, 75. Aus Italien. Zu Rom geht ein Gerüchte, als wolte der Cardinal Martini
den geistlichen Stand verlassen, um durch eine Heyrath seinem Hause Erben zu
erwecken. N 69, p. 371. C. 389-396.
St. 76, 77. Paris. Die Nachricht von der heulichen Geburth eines Dauphins oder
Cron-Printzens in Franckreich ist dem gantzen Europa so interessant, und die darüber
geschöpfte Freude bey denen Frantzösischen Unterthanen so rechtmässig, dass auch ein
jeder aufrichtiger Ausländer, der nur in Ansehung des Aufnehmens von Franckreich
nicht gantz und gar gleichgültig ist, billich daran theil nimmet. C. 397-404.
St. 78. St. Petersburg. [Krafft G. W.] Über die neuliche Conjunctionem Veneris und
Lunae. C. 405-408.
253
St. 79-85. [Mandat von Metz wegen der Legende Pabstes Gregorii VII] C. 409-436.
St. 86, 88-91. St. Petersburg. [Leutmann J. G.; L. Euler] Ein Heftiger Sturm aus der
See, welcher sich (den 12 October) um 10 Uhr Morgens anhub, und die Insuln dieser
Stadt mehrentheils unter Wasser aetzte. C. 437-440, 445-460.
St. 87. St. Petersburg. Стихи Ганке (Hanke) и Пуассона (Poisson). С. 441-444.
St. 92-93. Hamburg. Zu Nevesene in Grönland sind einige Ueberbleigsel gefunden
worden, daraus man schliessen kan daselbst müsse vor dem der alten Norweger
Wohnplatz gewesen seyn. N 86, p. 440. C. 461-468.
St. 94-101. Paris. Von denen Almosenierern des Königl. Frantzösischen Hofes. N 88,
p. 446; N 92, p. 462. C. 467-498.
St. 102, 103. Rom. Dieser Tagen hatte der Gouverneur von Civita Vechia bey dem P
äbste Audientz welcher denselben als einen alten Freund mit offenen Armen empfieng,
und nicht gestatten wolte, dass er ihm die Füsse küssen solte, sondern ihm dagegen die H
ände reichete. N 101, p. 496. C. 499-506.
St. 104. Register. C. [1-6].
БАН, РГБ (N 1, 3-103), РНБ, РГАДА.
1730. Stück 1-105. Den 1 Januarius-31 Decembr. 372, 369-410, 413-424 [=420] c.
St. 59 ошибочно помечена: 63; 98 – 99; 92 – 112; 105 – 194.
St. 1. [G. F. Müller] [Обращение к читателю] C. 1-4.
St. 2. [Sanguerin du Perrone] [Стихи] C. 5-8.
St. 3-11. Coppenhagen. Von Entzüdung des Schwefel-Berges Hecle. N 1, p. 3. C. 9-44.
St. 12-13. London. Von nun an will man die Einführung der Besetzungen zu Livorno,
Porto Ferraro, Parma und Piacenza an der Zahl 6000 Mann spanischer Völcker zur
Versicherung etc. Nro 9, p. 34. C. 45-76.
St. 20. London. Bey dem Herrn Samuel Buckley sind Anmerckungen über den
Sevilischen Tractat heraus gekommen. N 12, p. 47. C. 77-80.
St. 21, 25, 32, 35, 77, 78. [Krafft G. W.] Verfolg von Nord-Lichte. C. 81-84, 97-100,
125-128, 137-140, 305-309.
St. 22, 23. Wien. Eben jetzo läuft allhier Nachricht ein dass Se. Päbstl. Heiligkeit
Benedictus XIII den 21 Februar im 81 Jahre dero Alters das Zeitliche gesegnet habe. N
21, p. 82. C. 85-92.
St. 24, 26-31, 33, 34. Zu dem Vorigen von des Spanischen Infanten Don Carlos
bestimmter Succession in den Toscanischen und Parmischen Staaten. C. 93-96, 101-124,
129-136.
St. 36. Zusatz zu dem Leben letzt verstorbenen Päbstes Benedictus XIII. Siehe An-
merck. 23. St. p. 92. C. 141-144.
St. 37. Über die bevorstehende neue Päbstes Wahl. C. 145-148.
St. 38-44. Paris. Der Herr Professor Bernoulli in Basel hat den von der Academie der
Wissenschaften im Jahr 1728 auf das jetzt-lauffende Jahr ausgebothenen Preiss erhalten,
und gedachte Academie hat auf das künftige 1732 Jahr wiederum einen Preiss
ausgebothen, über die Frage etc. Siehe Zeitungen Num. 36, p. 141. C. 149-176.
St. 45-46. Rheinstrom. Im Fall Kayserl. Maj. beherren werden sich der Trans-
portirung des Don Carlos nach Italien mit 6000 Spaniern zu wiedersetzen soll eine
254
Landung auf Sicilien vorgenommen werden. N 42, p. 167. C. 177-184.
St. 47. Londen. Den 14 April ist die Gräfin von Waldgrave so eine natürliche
Tochter Königes Jacobi des II. von der Arabelle Churchel, und Mutter des jetziger Zeit
am Wienerischen Hofe subsistirenden Gross-Brittannischen Ambassadeurs gewesen
schleunigen Todes verblichen. Zeitungen N 38, p. 150. – Londen. Den 5 May gieng die
Arabelle Godrey, so eine Schwester des verstorbenen Hertzogs von Marlborough
gewesen, in einem Alter von 90 Jahren mit Tode ab Zeitungen. N 44, p. 174. C. 180-188.
St. 48, 50, 51. Rom. Von Pasquino und denen Pasquillanten. N 45, p. 176 und N 46,
p. 181. C. 189-192, 197-204.
St. 49. Moscau. Über den vor einiger Zeit in denen Zeitungen N 44, p. 175
gemeldeten Todes-Fall des Hn. Generals Mamonows Excell. sind und von desselben
Lebens-Lauffe folgende Nachrichten communiciret worde. C. 193-195. – Moscau. Aus
Sibirien hat man, dass die Chinesische Gesandschafft zwar sehr langsam auf ihrer Reise
avanciret, doch mit bevorstehendem Winter zu Moscau gewiss eintreffen würde. N 48, p.
191. C. 195-196.
St. 52. Regenspurg. Das Kays. Commissions-Decret wegen des Sevillischen Tractats
ist noch nicht zur Deliberation vorgenommen worden. N 51, p. 203. В конце подпись:
Frobeni Ferdinandi Fürst zu Fürstenberg. C. 205-208.
St. 53, 54. Anmerckungen des Frantzösischen Ministers Hn. de Chavigni über des im
vorigen mitgetheilte Kayserl. Commissions-Decret. C. 209-216.
St. 55, 60, 61. Italien. In dem Modenischen hat durchgehende der Hertzog verbieten
lassen, dass niemand anders als die Podesta, Obrigkeit. Personen und Doctores den Titul
Excellentz führen sollen. N 52, p. 205. C. 217-220; 237-244.
St. 56, 57. Regenspurg. Anmerckungen des Frantzösischen Ministers Hn. Chavigni ü
ber das Kayserl. Commissions-Decret. C. 221-228.
St. 58, 62, 63. London. Gestern gieng die Installation der 3 neuen Ordens-Ritter vom
blauen Hofenbande zu Windsor mit der grössesten und nur ersinnlichsten Magnificentz
vor sich. N 56, p. 222. C. 229-232, 245-252.
St. 64, 65. Aus dem Haag. Zu Algier sind zwo Holländische Prisen aufgebracht, über
deren von Seiten der Republique Holland gesuchte Wieder-Herausgebung es daselbst
bey nahe zum Auffstand des Pöbels und zum Friedensbruch mit dieser Republique
gekommen Wäre. N 61, p. 242. C. 253-260.
St. 66. Über die der geschehenen Päbstl. Wahl halber aus Italien eingelauffene
Nachrichten. C. 261-264.
St. 67, 75, 76. Moscau. Der Infant Don Emanuel von Portugall ist allhier
angekommen und hat bey I. K. M. allbereits Audientz gehabt. N 64, p. 254. C. 265-268,
297-304.
St. 68-70. Aus dem Haag. Man verspricht sich allhier allen glücklichen Success von
der en Faveur des Don Carlos zu unternehmenden Italiänischen Expedition, und das um
so vielmehr, weil auch Nostradamus diesem Printzen in seinen Prophezeyungen
favorisiret. N 68, p. 254. C. 269-280.
St. 71, 72, 74. Wien. Es ist allhier die confirmirte Nachricht eingelauffen, dass die
Spanische Flotte würcklich unter Segel gegangen, um die projectirte Introduction des
Don Carlos in Italien zu bewerckstelligen. N 70, p. 279. C. 281-288, 293-296.
255
St. 73. Stockholm. Es hat allhier starck gedonnert und geblitzet, dabey an vielen
Orten eingeschlagen, weil es aber fast lauter kalte Streiche gewesen, so ist es noch ohne
sonderlichen Schaden abgegangen. N 72, p. 287. C. 289-292.
St. 78, 79. Turin. Der König Victor Amadeus der II. von Sardinien hat die Regierung
niedergeleget. N 77, p. 306. C. 310-316.
St. 80-83, 88-91, 93. [Tatiščev V. N.; Gmelin J. G.] Von Knochen, so aus der Erde
gegraben werden und besonders von den so genannten Mamonts-Knochen. C. 317-322,
349-356, 369-372.
Окончание см. 1732, St. 99-101.
St. 84-85. Ob die Abdanckung grosser Potentaten von der Regierung nach der
Morale erlaubt oder nicht. C. 333-340.
St. 86, 87. Aus dem Haag. In dem Dorffe Schmallenhausen in Preussen sollen zwo
schon 40-jährige Bauerweiber eine mit 4, die andere mit 2 Kindern niedergekommen
seyn. N 68, p. 342. C. 341-348.
St. 92. Beschluss der Materie der Superfoetation. C. 365-372.
St. 94. London. Nach Gibraltar ist an die Regimenter Newton und Hayes Ordre
gesandt, daselbst sich nach Jamaica zu embarquiren um die allda entstandene Revolte der
Negers dämpffen zu helffen. N 92, p. 366. C. 369-372.
St. 95-97, 102-104. Aus dem Haag. Der Graf von Sintzendorf ist aber mahl mit
einigen Deputirten der Herrn General-Staaten über die Ost-Friessländische Streitig-
keiten in Unterredung gewesen. N 94, p. 375. C. 373-384, 403-416.
St. 98, 99. Wien. Der Türckische Consul hat in einer bey des Printzen Eugenii
Durchl. gehabten Audientz die zu Constantinopel gewesene Rebellion notificiret. N 96,
p. 383. C. 385-392.
St. 100, 101. Von einigen in denen Zeitungen bisshero vorgekommenen Türcki-
schen Tituln. C. 393-402.
St. 104. Rom. Der wichenen Sonntag haben Se. Päbstl. Heil. von der Laterani-schen
Haupt-Kirche Besitz genommen. N 103, p. 409. C. 417-420.
St. 105. Von der Succession und Crönung derer Türckischen Kayser. C. 421-424.
1731. Stück 1-104. 4 Januarii-30 Decembr. 144, [4], 145-216, 215-380, [1], 381-408,
[2] c.
St. 59 ошибочно помечена: 58, 67 – 66.
St. 1. [Müller G. F.] Geneigter Leser! C. 1-4.
St. 2. [Рассуждение о времени] C. 5-8.
St. 3. [Рассуждение о двух светилах Солнце и Луне] C. 9-12.
St. 4. [Рассуждение о годах] C. 13-16.
St. 5. [Рассуждение о годе, днях и часах] C. 17-20.
St. 6. [Рассуждение о математических инструментах] C. 21-24.
St. 7. [Рассуждение об измерении времени и часах] C. 25-28.
St. 8. [Рассуждение о солнечных часах] C. 29-32.
St. 9. [Рассуждение об английских перпендикуляpных часах] C. 33-36.
St. 10. [Рассуждения о календарях] C. 37-40.
St. 11. Von gutem Gebrauch der Zeit, übersetzt auf dem Englischen Spectator, Tom
256
II, Disc. 4. C. 41-44.
St. 12. Von der Rose von Jericho. Siehe Zeitungen 10 Stück. C. 45-48.
St. 13-18. Die Chinesische Gesandten sind zur Audientz gewesen. Nro. X, p. 39. C. 49-72.
St. 19, 20. Hamburg. Die zu Hildesheim gewesene subdelegirte Commissarien haben
ihre Commission mit einer ruhmwürdigen Unpartheylichkeit vollführet. Nro. 17, p. 67.
C. 73-80.
St. 21. Von das Herrn Renti neu erfundenem Metall, das dem Golde ähnlich ist.
Siehe Zeitungen 20 Stück. C. 81-84.
St. 22-27, 32-40, 53-56. [Gmelin J. G.] Von der Alchimie. C. 85-108, 125-160, 209-222.
St. 28-30. Aus dem Haag. Es continuiret die Nachricht von dem Verlust des Kö
nigreichs Chili. Nro 25, p. 99. C. 109-120.
St. 31. Von Lächerlichem Aberglauben einfältiger Leute. Übersetzt aus dem
Englischen Spectator VII. Discours. C. 121-124.
St. 36. 6 May. Ceremoniale der zu Moscau den 8. Mai gehabten Abschieds-Audientz
des Türckischen Gesandten Said Effendi, Tefterdar vom 3. Range. C. [1-4] Имеет
шмуцтитул.
St. 41. Paris. Der Duc de Valentinois will seiner Gemahlin nach Monaco folgen, und
von dem dasigen Fürstenthum Belitz nehmen. Nro. 38, p. 151. C. 161-164.
St. 42-44, 47. [Weitbrecht J.] Von der Sympathie und Antipathie, bey Gelegenheit
der nach Rom gesandten Sympathetischen Troppen des General de la Motte. Nro XLII,
p. 166. C. 165-176, 185-188.
St. 45, 46. Venedig. Man hat hier Nachricht von einer dritten Rebellion zu
Constantinopel. Nro. 44, p. 174. C. 177-184.
St. 48. Hannover. Der Leichnam des verstorbenen Hertzogs von Braunschweig-
Wolfenbüttel, August Wilhelm ist mit grossem Pomp beygesetzet worden. Nro 45, p.
179. C. 189-192.
St. 49-52. Vom Ursprung des Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttelschen Hauses. C. 193-208.
St. 57. Übersetzung des XLII Discours aus dem II Theil des Englischen Spectateurs.
C. 223-226.
St. 58-60. Ein Courier aus China hat hier die Zeitungen von einem daselbst vorgewesenen
Erdbeben überbracht. (Erklärung über das Erdbeben). No. 56, p. 252. C. 227-238.
St. 61-64, 66, 67. Aus der Lombardey. Es soll der Grossmeister von Malta nach
immer wegen eines Türckischen Angriffs in sorgen stehen. [Anmerckungen von Malta]
N 60, p. 236. C. 239-254, 259-266.
St. 65. Von der neu bekannt gewordenen Secte der Libertiner. Zeitung No. 59. C.
255-258.
St. 68. Wir theilen vor diesesmahl einen Brief mit, welcher uns vor einigen Wochen
über die Anmerckungen vom Braunschweigischen Hause zugeschrieben worden. C. 267-270.
St. 69. Übersetzung des XLVIII Discours aus dem II Theil des Englischen
Spectateur. C. 271-274.
St. 70-73. Eingesandter Brief über die Anmerckungen von der Sympathie. No. 42,
43, 44, 47. C. 275-290.
St. 74, 75, 88. Schaffhausen. [Krafft G. W.] Vom Donner-Wetter Zeitung. N 74, p.
257
293. C. 291-298, 347-350.
St. 76, 77, 79, 80. [Gmelin J. G.] Anmerckungen über das Porcellain-Machen in
Franckreich. Zeitungen N 67, p. 300. C. 299-306, 311-318.
St. 78. Übersetzung des LXI Discours auss dem 1 Theil des Spectateurs. C. 307-310.
St. 81. Paris. Am 7. dieses Septembr. ist der Duc de Mazarin Todes verblichen.
Zeitung N 78, p. 309. C. 319-322.
St. 82-86. Übersetzung aus dem Englischen Guardion bey Gelegenheit des von der
Hertzogin von Maintenon gestifftenen Closters St. Syr. Zeitungen N 79, p. 312. C. 323-342.
St. 87. Von denen Streitigkeiten über Pfalatz-Zweybrücken. C. 343-346.
St. 89. [Krafft G. W.] Von denen Donner-Keilen oder Strahl-Steinen als zur Zugabe
zu denen Anmerckungen vom Donner. C. 351-354. (См. N 74).
St. 90, 91. Vom Balotiren. Zeitungen Num. 85, p. 338. C. 355-362.
St. 92-94. Ein gesandter Brief von den Temperamenten. C. 363-374.
St. 95, 96. Paris. Über den Todt des Hertzogs von Montmorency-Luxembourg.
Zeitungen N 92, p. 3. C. 375-380.
St. 96. Über die in Albanien grassirende Pest-Seuche. C. 381-382.
St. 97. Über das in Franckreich gefundene wilde Mägdlein. Zeitungen N 93, p. 364.
C. 383-386.
St. 98. Fortsetzung von Wolden oder verwilderten Menschen. Zeitung. C. 387-390.
St. 99. Von dem Kayserl. Cammer-Gericht bey Gelegenheit des darinnen
introducirten Dänischen Assessoris wegen der Königl. Hollsteinischen Länder. N 95, p.
369. C. 391-394.
St. 100. Fernere Nachrichten. Von dem Käyserl. Cammer-Gericht zu Wetzlär. C.
395-398.
St. 101, 102. [Gmelin J. G. ] Von dem Porcellan-Machen. C. 399-406.
St. 103. Ueber den Tod des Erb-Printzens vom Würtemberg. Zeitungen N 98, p. 378.
C. 407-408.
St. 104. Von der Kurtze des Menschlichen Lebens übersetzt aus dem Englischen
Spectator. II Theil 36 Disc. C. 409-412.
После с. 380 на с. [1]: Tabelle von der Familie Montmorency-Luxembourg; после
с. 408 на 2-х ненум. с.: Genealogische Tabelle des Hauses Würtemberg-Stutgard.
1732. Stück 1-96, 98-104. (3 Jan. – 28 December). 88, 83-86, 89-176, [1], 177-426
c.; 1 л. ил.
В пагинации многочисленные опечатки.
St. 98-100 помечены ошибочно: 97-99.
Стихи Авсония на лат. и нем. яз. С. [1].
St. 1. Ode. C. 1-4.
St. 2-5, 44-46. [Krafft G. W.] Von denen Ferngläsern. C. 5-20, 201-212.
St. 6-12, 49-50. Von der Erde. C. 21-48, 221-228.
St. 7. Erste Fortsetzung von der Erde; von denen Gegenfüssern. C. 25-28.
St. 8. Zweyte Fortsetzung von der Erde, oder von denen Reisen um die gantze Erd-
Kugel. C. 29-32.
St. 9. Fernere Fortsetzung von denen Reisen um die gantze Erd-Kugel oder dritte
258
Fortsetzung von der Erden. C. 33-36.
St. 10. Vierdte Fortsetzung von der Erde: von der Grösse derselben. C. 37-40.
St. 11. Fünffte Fortsetzung von der Erde: von derselben Bewegung. C. 41-44.
St. 12. Sechste Fortsetzung von der Erde: oder weitere Erklärung von derselben
Bewegung. C. 45-48.
St. 49. Siebende Fortsetzung von der Erden: von derselben Mathema-tischen
Eintheilung. C. 221-224.
St. 50. Achte Fortsetzung von der Erden. Zum Beschluss des vorigen. C. 225-228.
St. 13, 14. London. I. M. König haben gestern des Parlament. [Vom Parlament in
Engelland] C. 49-56.
St. 15. Übersetzung aus dem Englischen Tatler. T. IV, N 242, p. 226, sqq. Von der Ü
bermässigkeit in Trunck. C. 57-60.
St. 16-18. Von Basilisken. C. 61-72.
St. 19. Beschreibung derjenigen Solennitäten welche wegen hoher Ankunft I. K. M.
in St. Petersburg veranstaltet worden. C. 73-80.
St. 20. Beschreibung derer Ehren-Pforten, welche wegen hoher Ankunft I.K.M.
allhier in St. Petersburg auffgerichtet worden. C. 81-98, 83-86.
St. 21-25. [Juncker G. F. W.] Beschreibung der Illuminationen, so wegen höch-begl
ückter Ankunfft I. K. M. allhier in St. Petersburg veranstaltet worden. C. 89-130.
St. 26. Übersetzung des LX Discourses aus dem 5ten Theile des Englischen
Spectateurs. C. 131-134.
St. 27. Über die an I. K. M. von Dännemarck ratione der Grafschafft Oldenburg von
dem Braunschweig und Luneburgischen Hause ertheilte Belohnung der Stadt und des
gantzen Budtjadinger Landes. Zeitungen N 28, p. 125. C. 135-137. – Über den Todesfall
Hertzogs Friedrichs des II von Sachsen-Gotha. C. 137-138.
St. 28-31. [G. F. Müller] Von dem Samoieden. St. 1-4. C. 139-154.
St. 32-33. [Witsen N.] Zugabe zu denen Anmerckungen von den Samojeden. Von
dem raren Wercke des Bürgermeisters Witsen: Nord- en Oost Tartarye. C. 155-162.
St. 34. Über das heutige Gedächtnüss-Fest der Krönung I. K. M. von Russland. C.
163-166.
St. 35-38. Vom Thee. St. 1-4. Zeitungen N 28, p. 24. [Weitbrecht J.] C. 167-180.
St. 37. Пpиложение: Стихи Авсония.
St. 39. Bresslau. Die Leiche des Ertz-Bischofs und Churfürstens von Mayntz ist in
hiesiger Cathedral-Kirche beygesetzet worden. N 38, p. 173. C. 181-184.
St. 40-42. Von denen Prätensionen der Crone Spanien auf fremde Länder. C. 185-196.
St. 43. Von dem Berge Atlas in Africa. Zeitungen N 39, p. 175. C. 197-200.
St. 47-48. Vom Inoculiren oder Einpfropfen der Kinderpocken. Zeitungen N 37, p.
175. C. 213-220.
St. 51-53. Aloisio Mocenigo bisshero regierender Doge zu Venedig ist mit Tode
abgegangen. Zeit. N 47, p. 210. C. 229-236. – Von der Gewalt eines jetziger Zeiten
regierenden Doge zu Venedig. C. 237-240.
St. 54-58. [Krafft G.W.] Anmerckungen über den St. Petersburgischen Calender
dieses 1732 Jahrs. C. 241-250.
259
St. 59-65. Von den Winden. C. 251-280.
St. 66. Aus Haag. Bey Gelegenheit der Prophezeyung des berühmten Nostra-dami
von der gegenwärtigen Eroberung der Vestung Oran. N 65, p. 285. C. 281-284.
St. 67-75. Von denen Saltzburgischen Emigrations-Angelegenheiten. Bey Gele-
genheit der von neuem emigrirenden Saltzburger. Zeit. N 65, p. 285. C. 285-320.
St. 76. Übersetzung aus dem Spectateur. T. V, Disc. 10. C. 317-320.
St. 77-80. [Weitbrecht J.] Vom Caffée. C. 321-336.
St. 81. London. Gedächtnüss-Fest der Feuersbrunst von 1666 gefeyert. Zeit. N 79, p.
341. C. 337-340.
St. 82, 85-87. London. [Müller G. F.] Von dem Wallfisch-Fange bey Groenland. C.
341-344, 353-364.
St. 83, 84. Berlin. Die Schlacht bey Malplaquet wird bey Hofe celebriret. No 78, p.
336. C. 345-352.
St. 88. Von der Erziehung der Jugend Schreiben an die Verfasser der Anmer-
ckungen über die St. Petersburgische Zeitungen. Подпись: Kinder-Freund. C. 365-367. –
Wohlmeyenende Erinnerungen eines Vaters an seine Söhne. C. 367-368.
St. 89, 91-93. Von den Ausdünstungen. C. 369-372, 377-388.
St. 90. Von der Martins-Ganss. C. 373-376.
St. 94-96. [Von Erziehung der Kinder] C. 389-400.
St. 97, 98. Von der durch die Trouppen des Königes von Marocco belagerten
Spanischen Festung Ceuta. C. 401-410.
St. 99-101. [Tatiščev V. N.; Gmelin J. G. ] Von Mamonts-Knochen. C. 411-418.
Начало см. 1730 г. N 80-83, 88-91, 93.
St. 102, 103. Von dem Ritter-Orden des güldenen Vliesses. Zeitung N 101, p. 429.
C. 419-422.
St. 104. Übersetzung des CXI Discourses des Englischen Spectators. Von der
Unsterblichkeit der Seele. C. 423-426.
1733. Stück 1-99. (1 Januarii-10 Decembr.) 357 c. с ил.; 2 л. ил.
St. 52 ошибочно помечена: 53.
St. 1. [Müller G. F.] Vorbericht. C. 1-4.
St. 2. [Weitbrecht J.] Vom Chocolate. C. 5-8.
St. 3-9, 47-52. Von dem Königreich Persien. Bey Gelegenheit der darinnen
vorgegangenen neuen grossen Veränderung. Zeit. No. 1, p. 5. C. 9-36, 185-172.
St. 10. Von den Taüchern. C. 37-40.
St. 11-16. [Gmelin J. G. ] Von denen Stellen unserer Erde, welche Teuer
auswerffen. Zeitungen Nro. 3, pag. 4. C. 41-64.
St. 17-24, 26, 27, 65-69. Warschau. I. M. der König Augutus von Pohlen sind den 1
dieses allhier mit Tode abgegangen. Zeitungen Nro. 13, p. 54. C. 65-96, 101-108, 217-236.
St. 25. Uebersetzung aus dem Spectateur. Tom V. XI Disc. C. 97-100.
St. 28-33. Von den See-Würmen. S. Zeitungen Nro. 3, p. 14 und No. 5, p. 22. C.
109-132 с ил.
St. 34-35. Von dem Ursprung der Flusse. C. 133-140; 1 л. ил.
St. 36-38. [Weitbrecht J.] Von denen so genannten Stuffen-Jahren. C. 141-152.
260
St. 39. Paris. Der mit der Capitaine Stelle von der Scharwache bishero verknüpfte
Stern-Orden ist nunmehro völlig supprimiret worden. Zeitungen Nro. 37, p. 149. C. 153-
155. – Extract eines Schreibens aus London von einem Partisan des Chevaliers Robert
Walpole bey Gelegenheit der von dem Unter-Parlament verworffenen Bill wegen
Errichtung der Tobacs- und Wein-Accise. Aus dem Glaneur Nro. XXXVI. C. 155-156.
St. 40. Aus Spanien. Die Flotte aus dem Flusse Janeiro ist zu Lisbon angekommen.
Zeitungen Nro. 39, p. 156. C. 157-160.
St. 41. Dritter Brief von der Aufferziehung der Jugend. C. 161-164.
St. 42. Vierter Brief von der Aufferziehung der Jugend. C. 165-168.
St. 43. Von dem Regen und Thau. C. 169-172.
St. 44-46. Von den Schau-Spielen oder Comödien und Tragödien. C. 173-184.
St. 53-59, 77-81. [Krafft G. W.] Anmerckungen von dem Magneten. C. 183-198;
265-284.
St. 60. Aus der Insul Corsica ist die neue Regierungs-Form publiciret worden. C.
199-203, 206-207.
St. 61. [Potocki Theodor] Eine kurtze Nachricht von Polnischen Sachen, Grossmä
chtiger Kayser etc. C. 204-206. – Beschluss von der unter Kaiserl. Garantie auf der Insul
Corsica eingeführten neuen Regierungs-Form. C. 208-218.
St. 62-64. Octroy. Von der ohnlängst zu Cadix errichteten Handels Gesell-schafft
nach den Philippinischen Insuln. C. 208-218.
St. 70-76. Genealogische Nachrichten von den Hause Nassau. Bey Gelegenheit des
Printzen von Nassau-Oranien, so nach Engelland gehet. C. 237-264.
St. 82-84. Von denen Festungen Brisach, Freyburg, Kehl und Philippsburg. C. 285-296.
St. 85-87. [Krafft G. W.] Von dem neulichen ungewöhnlichen Nordlicht. C. 297-
309, 1 л. ил.
St. 88. Dem Marggräfen zu Brandenburg Culmbach Friedrich Christian, ist eine
Printzessin gebohren worden. Zeit. Nro. 88, p. 355. C. 310-313.
St. 89-91. Das Hertzogthum Lothringen ist von einigen Frantzösischen Regi-mentern
occupiret worden. Zeitungen Nro. 88, p. 354. C. 314-329.
St. 93-98. Von der Warme und Kälte. C. 330-353.
St. 99. Von dem Hertzogthum Würtemberg... Hertzog Carl Alexander ist in Stuttgard
angekommen. C. 354-357.
1734. Stück 1-102. (3 Januarii- 19 December). [8], 404 c.; 3 л. ил.
St. 32 ошибочно помечена 31.
На с. [1-8]: Register über die vornehmte Materien welche in denen hiesigen St.
Petersburgischen Anmerckungen im Jahr 1729, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 abgehandelt worden.
Имеет шмуцтитул.
St. 1. [Müller G. F.] Vorrede. Подпись: Die Verfasser der Anmerckungen über die
Zeitungen. C. 1-4.
St. 2-3. In dem Sund sind 2 nach Tranquebar destinirte Schiffe ausgekommen.
Zeitungen Nro. 2, p. 19. C. 5-12.
St. 4-5. [Krafft G. W.] Von dem Hof um die Sonne und den Mond. C. 13-20, 1 л. ил.
St. 6. Von dem Eisse. C. 21-24.
261
St. 7, 19, 20. Von dem Glücke. C. 25-28, 73-80.
St. 8, 9, 12-14. Von dem ehmaligen Longobardischen Königreiche und dem gegenwä
rtigen Zustande des Hertzogthums Mayland in Italien. C. 29-36, 44-56.
St. 10, 11. Kurtze Beschreibung desjenigen Feuer-Wercks, welches den 28. Jan.
1734 als an dem hohen Geburths-Feste der... I. K. M. ...Frauen Anna Ioannowna... bey
einer Illumination in St. Petersburg abgebrannt werden. C. 37-43.
Рус. текст см. СК, N 3263.
St. 15. Beschreibung des Ceremoniels, womit der Persische Gesandte Achmet Chan
den 27 Jan. 1734 zu St. Petersburg eingehohlet und des folgenden Tages zur Audientz
geführet worden. C. 57-60.
St. 16. [Winsheim Ch.-N. ] Von denen Veränderungen der Sterne. C. 61-64.
St. 17. Von denen Städten und befestigten Plätze Como, dem Fort Fuentes, Novara,
Vigevano und Tortona. C. 65-68.
St. 18. Von denen Städten und Festen Plätze, Bobbio, Lodi, Pizzighetone und
Cremona. C. 69-72.
St. 21-27, 37-41. Von dem Ertzhertzogl. Hause Oesterreich und der darinnen wegen
der Erbfolge errichteten Sectione pragmatica. C. 81-108, 145-164.
St. 28-31. St. Petersburg. Die Russische Kaysacken und Baschkiren haben die Kä
yserl. Kunst-Kammer besehen. Nro. 27. p. 114. C. 109-124.
St. 32. [Krafft G. W.] Von denen Wetter-Glässern. C. 125-128.
St. 33-34. [Krafft G. W.] Von dem Barometer oder Wettersager. C. 129-136; 1 л. ил.
St. 35-36. [Juncker G. F. W.] Kurtze Nachricht von dem Feuer-Wercke, welches den
28. April 1734, als dem hohen Krönung-Feste der I. K. M. ... Frauen Anna Ioannowna...
bey einer grossen Illumination in dero Residentz-Stadt St. Petersburg vorgestellet
worden. Zeit. Nro. 34, p. 142. C. 137-144.
St. 42. Die König von Gross-Brittannien hat die Sessiones des Parlaments
aufgehoben. Zeit. Nro. 37, p. 152. C. 165-168.
St. 43, 44. I. K. M. und des Reichs Kriegs-Verkündigung wieder Franckreich und
Sardinien, auch Hertzogen von Savoyen, ihrer Anhänger, Helfer und Hilfers-Helfer. C.
169-176.
St. 45, 48. [Krafft G. W.].Von dem Thermometer oder Wetterglasse. C. 177-180,
189-192.
St. 46, 47, 49, 50. Von dem in der Königl. Dänischen Kunst-Cammer befindlichen g
üldenen Horn. C. 181-188, 193-200.
St. 51. Über den Todt des Hertzogs von Berwick. C. 201-202.
St. 52. St. Petersburg. I. K. M. haben dem Pollnischen Abgesandten und Cron-
Schwedträgern Grafen Zawisza öffentliche Audientz gegeben. C. 201-208.
St. 53-55, 57-59. Von Erfindung der Länge eines jedlichen Orst auf dem Erdboden.
C. 209-220, 225-236.
St. 56. Relation von denen so glücklich als gloriösen Progressen I. K. M. Waffen in
Pohlen, imgleichen von der Eroberung und Demüthigung der Stadt Dantzig. C. 221-224.
St. 60. Declaration, welche aus Ihro Russisch-Käyserl. Majest. hohen Cabinet denen
Staabs-Officiers von den Trouppen, so Franckreich der Stadt Dantzig zu Hülffe
262
geschickt, zu St. Petersburg gegeben worden. C. 237-240.
St. 61. Schreiben, welches der Rath der Stadt Dantzig zu Beförderung der
Capitulation an das Russisch-Kayserl. General-Feldmarschals Grafen von Münnich
Excellentz abgehen lassen. C. 241-243.
St. 62-64. Leben des Mareschals Duc de Villars bey Gelegenheit desselben Todes.
Zeit. No. 55, pag. 226. C. 244-254.
St. 65-66. Liste aller Mareschals de France, welche von 1185 bis jetzo zu gelebet
haben. C. 255-262.
St. 67-75. Nachricht von der Stadt Dantzig. C. 263-298.
St. 76. Der zu St. Petersburg kürtzl. angekommene Bucharische Gesandte ist zur
Audientz gewesen. Zeit. Nro. 70, p. 288. C. 299-302.
St. 77, 78. [Krafft G. W.] Von dem Hygrometer. C. 303-310; 1 л. ил.
St. 79-81, 84-89. Geographische und historische Beschreibung des Königreichs
Neapolis. C. 311-322; 331-354.
St. 82/83. Ceremoniel der Audientz, welche die Deputation der Stadt Dantzig an dem
Kayserl. Russischem Hofe gehabt haben. C. 323-330.
St. 90. [Krafft G. W.] Von dem Manometer. C. 355-358.
St. 91. [Krafft G. W.] Von der Wind-Waage und dem Wind Zeiger. C. 359-362; 1 л. ил.
St. 92. [Krafft G. W.] Von der Hygrometer, oder Reegen-Maass. С. 363-366.
St. 93, 94. Kurtze Erleuterung der Frage, was es mit den Domainen und Einkünfften
eines Römischen Kaysers und den gemeinen Anlagen in dem Heil. Röm. Reiche
Teutscher Nation und sonderlich denen so genannten Römer-Monathen für eine
Bewandniss habe? C. 367-374.
St. 95. Von rechtlicher Beschaffenheit der Kriegs-Anstalten im Heil. Röm. Reiche
Teutscher Nation. C. 375-378.
St. 96. Übersetzung des LVI Discourses der VI Buches des Englischen Zuschauers.
Sendschreiben an denselben von der Unsterblichkeit der Seele. C. 379-382.
St. 97/98. Manifest. [den 16 Nov. 1734] [О мерах, употребленных Россиею к за-
щищению прав и вольности Речи Посполитой польской и о выводе российских
войск из Польши и Литвы] C. 383-390.
ПСЗ, 6646.
St. 99. [Korff J.-A.] Rede, welche der Herr Cammer-Herr von Korff den 11 Nov.
1734 das erstenmahl in der Versammlung der Käyserl. Academie der Wissenschafften
gehalten. C. 391-394.
St. 100. [Krafft G. W.] Beschluss von denen Wetter-Instrumenten. C. 391-398.
St. 101/102. Von den See Räuberischen Republiquen an den Africanischen Küsten
und sonerlich in Algier. C. 399-404.
1735. Stück 1-103. (2 Januarii-25 December). [4], 446 c.; 2 л. ил.
С. 49-84 пpопущены в пагинации.
На с. [1-4]: Register über die vornehmte Materien welche in denen hiesigen St.
Petersburgischen Anmerkungen im Jahr 1729, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 abgehandelt worden.
Имеет шмуцтитул.
St. 1. Ode an I. K. M. von gantzen Russland unsere allergnädigste Beherr-scherin. C. 1-4.
263
St. 2. Kurtze Erklärung des Kupfer-Stiches, welcher das Lust-Feuer vorge-stellet, so
zu Ehren I. K. M. von gantz Russland an ersten Abend des 1735 Jahres vor dem Kayserl.
Pallast zu St. Petersburg abgebrandt worden. C. 5-8.
Рус. текст см. СК N 3248.
St. 3/4. Beschreibung des Ceremoniels, womit der Persische Hussein Kuli-Chan den
5 Dec. 1734 zu St. Petersburg eingeholet und den 8 darauf zur Audientz geführet
worden. C. 9-15.
Рус. текст см. СК N 4965.
St. 5-8, 13-18. Ein kurtzer und in historischem Zusammenhange abgefasseter Auszug
derer im abgewichenen 1734. Jahre vorgefallenen wichtigsten und merckwür-digsten
Begebenheiten. C. 16-31, 85-108.
St. 9. Kurtze Erklärung des Kupfer-Stiches, welcher das Lust-Feuer vorge-stellet, so
zu Ehren I. K. M. von gantz Russland an allerhöchst-deroselben Geburths-Feste den 28
Jan. 1735 vor dem Kayserl. Pallast zu St. Petersburg abgebrannt worden. C. 32-36.
Рус. текст см. СК N 3247.
St. 10/11. Ukase... [den 16. Jan. 1735.] [О продаже и браковании пеньки] C. 37-44.
ПСЗ, 6669.
St. 12. I. K. M. in Pohlen und Churfürstl. Durchl. zu Sachsen Augusti III Universal-
Ausschreiben zur Versammlung auf das nach Warschau angesetzte grosse Consilium aus
dem Pohlnischen in das Teutsche übersetzet. C. 45-48.
St. 19, 20. [Leutmann J. G.] Von Wachsthum der Pflantzen. C. 109-116.
St. 21/22. Beschreibung des Ceremoniels, womit der Pohlnische ausser-ordentl.
Abgesandte, Graf Zawisza den 11 Febr. 1735 bey I. K. M. zur Abschieds-Audientz gefü
hret worden. C. 117-124.
St. 23-27. [Krafft G. W. ? Winsheim Ch.-N. ?] Von den Sonnen-Fleckten. C. 125-144.
St. 28/29. Levius sit patentia Quid quid corrigere est nefas. Horat. C. 145-152.
St. 30/31. Friedens-Project welches nach Annehmung der angebotenen bonorum
officiorum I. M. der König von Grossbrittannien und die Herren General-Staaten, denen
in Krieg verwickelten Hofen vorgeschlagen. C. 153-160.
St. 32. Beschreibung des Ceremoniels, womit der Persische Hussein Kuli Chan Chatemi den
25 Febr. 1735 bey I. K. M. zur Abschieds-Audientz geführet worden. C. 161-164.
St. 33, 37-39. [Winsheim Ch.-N. ] Von den Einflüssen der Sterne. C. 165-168, 181-192.
St. 34. Beschreibung des Ceremoniels, womit der Bucharische Gesandte, Vezir Bec,
den 17 April 1735 bey I. K. M. zur Abschieds-Auduentz geführet worden. C. 169-172.
St. 35. Kurtze Erklärung des Kupfer-Stiches, welcher das Lust-Feuers vorstellet, so
zu Ehren I. K. M. von gantz Russland an allerhöchst-deroselben Crönungs-Feste den 28
April 1735 vor dem Kayserl. Pallast zu St. Petersburg abgebrannt worden. C. 173-176.
St. 36. [Krafft G. W.] Von dem Blitz und Donner aus Gelegenheit der hiesigen
Zeitungen No 33, den 24 April. C. 177-180.
St. 40, 43-47. Von der Entdeckung von America, und wie verschiedene Völker aus
Europa darin sich nach und nach festgesetzet haben. C. 193-196, 205-224.
St. 41/42. Ceremoniel der Abschieds-Audientz, welche die Deputirten der Stadt
Dantzig an dem Kayserl. Russischen Hofe, den 16 Maj 1735 gehabt haben. C. 197-204.
264
Рус. текст см. СК N 8100a.
St. 48-51. Brief an die Verfasser der St. Petersburgischen Anmerckungen über die
Frage was von Gaspenstern, Hexen etc. zu halten sey? C. 225-240.
St. 52-54, 58-60. [Krafft G. W.] Von denen Brenn-Spiegeln und Brenn-Gläsern. C.
241-248, 243-246, 251-254, 259-270; 1 л. ил.
St. 55. Beschreibung des Ceremoniels, womit der Sengorische Abgeordnete Sundui
Samso und dessen Gefährte den 1 Jul. 1735 bey I. K. M. zur Abschieds-Audientz gefü
hret worden. C. 247-250.
St. 57. Kayserliche Commissions-Decret, an den hochlöblichen Reichs-Convent zu
Regenspurg, die von Ihro Russisch-Kayserl. Majest. übernommene Hüllfs-Völcker
betreffend. Dictatum Ratisbonae d. 17 Junii 1735. В конце текста: Frobeni Ferdinandi F
ürst zu Fürstenberg. C. 255-258.
St. 61-63. Schreiben eines Pohlen von Adel an einem seiner Freunde in Holland,
darinn er ihm seine Gedancken über den von dem König von Grossbrittan-nien und den
General-Staaten an die in Krieg verwichelte Machten gethanen Friedens-Vorschlag erö
ffnet. C. 271-284.
St. 64-73. Schreiben [von der Madame von Lambert] an ihren Sohn von der
wahrhafften Ehre. C. 285-324.
St. 74-79, 82. [Krafft G. W.] Von einer sonderbaren und sehr nützlichen Machine
bey Feuers-Brünsten zu gebrauchen. C. 325-350, 357-362.
St. 80/81, 83/84, 94-101. Schreiben der Madame von Lambert an ihre Tochter. C.
351-356, 363-370, 407-438.
St. 85-93. Historische Nachricht von der Festung Mirandola und dem jenigen Italiä
nischen Stadt, darin dieser Ort die Haupt Stadt ist. C. 371-406.
St. 102/103. Übersetzung aus dem Spectateur. Tom V, Disc. 16. Von denen
Wirckungen der Hofnung überhaupt. Ins besondere aber von derjenigen, die Gottes-Fü
rcht zum Grunde hat. C. 439-444. – [Geliebte Leser] Стихи. C. 444-446.
1736. Stück 1-31, 36. (1 Januarii – 3 Maj). 124, 141-144, 12 c.
На с. 1-12 втоpой паг.: Beschreibung derjenigen Ceremonie mit welcher der am 15
April 1736 in St. Petersburg angekommene Persianische gevollmächtigte Gesandte
Chulefa Mirsa Cafi angenommen und hernach den 18 ejusdem bey I. K. M. zur ö
ffentlichen Audientz gelassen worden. Имеет шмуцтитул.
St. 1. [Juncker G. F. W.; Stählin J.J.?] Allerunterthänigster Glück-Wunsch in einer
Ode an I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna Kaiserin und Selbstherscherin von gantz Russland etc.
zum Eintritt des 1736 Jahres, aus aufrichtigstem Eifer und Treue dargelegt von der
Academie der Wissenschafften. C. 1-4.
В экз. БАН автоp Штелин указан от pуки. У Пекаpского в «Истоpии АН» (т. 1,
с. 485) автоpом оды назван Юнкеp.
СК ин., N 2735.
Рус. текст см. СК, N 8727.
St. 2. [Goldbach Ch.] Abriss des Lust-Feuers, so zu Ehren I. K. M. von gantz
Russland an dem Neu-Jahrs-Tage 1736 vor dem Kayserl. Pallast zu St. Petersburg
abgebrannt worden. C. 5-8.
В экз. БАН pукоп. подпись: «Goldbach».
265
Рус. текст см. СК, N 2464.
St. 3, 13-16, 20-25. Historische Nachricht von dem Herzogthum und der Festung
Mantua. C. 9-28, 49-64, 77-100.
St. 8-10. [Stählin J. J.] Bilder Deutung, welche das, am hohen und erfreulichsten
Geburths-Feste I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna, den 28 Jenner 1736 in dero Residentz-Stadt
St. Petersburg, auf dem Eiss des Neva-Strohms angesteckte Feuer-Werck erklähret. C. 29-40.
В экз. БАН pукоп. подпись: «Stählin».
Рус. текст см. СК, N 2469.
St. 11, 12. [Hermann] [Письмо о международном положении в 1736 г. из запад-
ноевропейских источников] C. 41-48.
В экз. БАН pукоп. подпись: «Hermann».
St. 17-19. Übersetzung des XXVIII Disc. aus dem 1 Theil des Monitor moderne. C. 65-
76.
St. 26-31. Historische Nachricht von der Stadt Aachen. C. 101-124.
St. 36. [Goldbach Ch.] Devisen welche bey dem Feuerwercke am Krönungs-Feste I.
K. M. von gantz Russland den 28 April 1736 vorgestellet worden. C. 141-144.
В экз. БАН pукоп. подпись: «Goldbach».
Экз. РНБ из б-ки Эpмитажа.
1738. Stück 1-104. [2 Januarii-25 December] 416 c.; 2 л. чеpт.
St. 65 ошибочно помечена: 63.
Имеются опечатки в пагинации.
St. 1. [Stählin J. J.] Vorbericht. В конце подпись: Die Verfasser S. C. 1-4.
St. 2-4. [Stählin J. J.] Erklärung des Lust-Feuers und der Illumination welche zu
Ehren I.K.M. von gantz Russland am ersten Abend des 1738sten Jahres vor dem Kayserl.
Pallast zu St. Petersburg vorgestellt worden. В конце подпись: S. C. 5-16.
Рус. текст см. СК, доп., N 263.
St. 5/6. [Stählin J. J.] Bey dem Antritt des Neuen Jahres 1738 leget zu den Füssen I.
K. M. Anna Ioannowna Kayserin und Selbsttherscherin von gantz Russland etc. den
allerunterthänigsten und getreuesten Glückwunsch nieder die Academie der
Wissenschafften. Ode. В конце подпись: S. C. 17-23.
См. также СК ин., N 2741.
St. 7-9, 12-16. [Heinsius G.] Von der Scheinbahren Gestalt der Sterne. В конце
подпись: H. C. 25-36, 45-64 c чеpт.
St. 10/11. [Stählin J. J.] Beschreibung dreyer Feuerwercks-Plane welche am hohen
Geburths-Feste I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna Selbstherrscherin von gantz Russland den 28
Jenner, 1738 zu St. Petersburg in einem ansehnlichen Feuerwerck vorgestellt worden. В
конце подпись: S. C. 37-44.
Рус. текст см. СК, N 8485.
St. 17-21, 33, 34, 39-49. [Stählin J. J.] Versuch einer historischen Abhandlung von
der Opera. В конце подпись: S. C. 65-84, 129-136, 153-196.
St. 22-26. [Winsheim Ch.-N. ] Von der Schiffahrt um Norden. В конце подпись: W.
C. 85-104.
St. 27-32, 103, 104. [Euler L.] Von der Gestalt der Erden. В конце подпись: E. C.
105-128.
266
St. 35. [Stählin J. J.] Erklärte Vorstellung einer Illumination und dreyer
Feuerwercks-Plane welche am hohen Krönungs-Feste I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna
Selbstherrscherin von gantz Russland etc. den 28 April 1738 in der Kayserl. Residentz
St. Petersburg auf dem Newa-Ströhm angezündet worden. В конце подпись: S. C. 137-140.
Рус. текст см. СК. доп. N 261.
St. 36-38. [Stählin J. J.] Das wahre Bildnüss der allerdurchlauchtigsten grossmä
chtigsten und unüberwindlichsten Käyserin Anna Ioannowna Selbstherscherin von gantz
Russland etc. an I. K. M. hohen Krönungs-Festes den 28 April 1738 mit allerunterthä
nigster Ehrfurcht glückwünschend betrachtet von der Käyserlichen Academie der
Wissenschafften. В конце подпись: S. C. 141-152.
СК, ин. N 2762. Рус. текст см, СК, N 8470.
St. 50, 51. Befehl I. K. M. Selbstherrscherin aller Reussen etc. Aus der Cantzeley des
General-Policey-Meisters. [О постройке вновь на погорелых местах домов] В конце
текста: Gedruckt bey der Kayserlichen Academie der Wissenschaften, den 26 May
1738. C. 197-208.
St. 52-57. [Krafft G.W.] Von der Welt-Wesheit, oder: der Philosophie. В конце
подпись: K. C. 205-228.
St. 58-59. [Brehme J. F.] Historische, genealogische, geographische und politische
Beschreibung der Republique Genft, bey Gelegenheit der in vorigen Jahr entstandenen
Unruhen, und des nunmehro durch die Vermittelung einiger Bunds-Verwandten, allda gl
ückl. hergestellten Friedens. В конце подпись: B. C. 229-276.
St. 70-75. [Krafft G. W.] Kurtze Beschreibung der merckwürdigsten Witterungs-
Geschichten allhier in St. Petersburg, von dem Anfange des Jahres 1726 bis zu Ende des
Jahre 1736. В конце подпись: K. C. 277-300.
St. 76-86. [Richmann G. W.] Von dem Phosphoro. В конце подпись: R. C. 301-344.
St. 87-91. [Richmann G. W.] Von der Metallurgia, oder Berg-Wissenschafft. В кон-
це подпись: R. C. 345-364.
St. 92-94, 97-100. [Strube de Pyrmont F. H.] Von dem Nutzen der Welt-Weisheit in
der Recht-Gelahrheit. В конце подпись: S. d. P. C. 365-376, 385-400.
St. 95/96. Beschreibung der Ceremonie, mit welcher die neulich allhier
angekommene zwey Persische Gesandten Mahomet Risa Chan von Cadschar, und Teip
Chan von Awschar den 6. Nov. 1738. in dem Alexander-Newski Kloster emp-fangen,
und von dort in die Stadt eingeholtet worden. C. 377-383.
St. 101/102. Beschreibung der Ceremonie, mit welcher die zwey Persischen
Gesandten Mahomet Risa Chan von Cadschar und Teip Chan von Awschar den 28
November 1738 bey I. K. M. zur öffentlichen Audientz geführet worden. C. 401-
408.
St. 103/104. [Goldbach Ch.] Fernere Nachrichten von der wahren Gestalt der Erde.
В конце подпись: G. C. 409-416.
Экз. РНБ из б-ки Эpмитажа.
БАН, РНБ, РГАДА.
1739. Anmerckungen bey den Zeitungen. Stück 1-104. [2 Januarii-25 December] 416 c.
St. 1. [Stählin J. J.] Geneigster Leser! В конце подпись: S. C. 1-4.
St. 2. [Goldbach Ch.] Abriss des Lust-Feuers so am 1 Januarii 1739 vor dem
267
Kayserl. Pallast in St. Petersburg abgebrannt worden. В конце подпись: G. C. 5-9.
Рус. текст см. СК, N 1530.
St. 3-5. [Heinsius G.?] Von den Wappen. В конце подпись: H. C. 9-20.
St. 6-8, 12. [Winsheim Ch.-N. ] Von der Milch-Strasse, und den ihr ähnlichen
Himmels-Erscheinungen. В конце подпись: W. C. 21-32, 45-48.
St. 9. [Goldbach Ch.] Dem Abrisse des Lust-Feuers welche an dem höchster
freulichen Geburths-Tage de allerdurchlauchtigsten, und grossmächtigsten Fürstin und
Frauen Anna Ioannowna Kayserin und Souverainen Beherrscherin des gantzen Reiches
den 28 Januarii 1739 in St. Petersburg abgebrannt worden, war folgendes beygefüget... C.
33-36.
Рус. текст см. СК, IV, N 34.
St. 10, 11. [Stählin J. J.] Minervens Ebenbild an I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna
Selbstherrscherin aller Reussen etc. bey Gelegenheit deroselben höchsterfreulichen
Geburths Feyer den 28 Jan. 1739 demüthigst erwogen von der Kayserlichen Academie
der Wissenschaften. В конце подпись: S. C. 37-44.
Рус. текст см. СК, N 8496.
CК, ин. N 2755.
St. 13/14. Ukase... [den 11 und 13 Dec. 1738] [О правилах содержания военных
постоев в Санктпетербурге] В конце текста: Gegeben St. Petersburg den 11 und beym
Senat gedruckt den 13 Dec. 1738. C. 49-56.
ПСЗ, 7686.
St. 15-20. [Richmann G. W.] Physicalische Nachricht von den Gesund-Brummen ü
berhaupt. В конце подпись: R. C. 57-80.
St. 21-26. [Stählin J. J.] Von der Türckey und Türcken. В конце подпись: S. C. 81-104.
St. 27-33. [Gellert H.] Von den Vampyren. В конце подпись: G. C. 105-132.
St. 34-37. [Stählin J. J.] Von Leben und Lehre des ersten so genanten Philosophen
Pythagoras. В конце подпись: S. C. 134-148.
St. 38-41. [Richmann G. W.] Vom Bern-Stein. В конце подпись: R. C. 149-164.
St. 42-44. [Brehme J. F.] Von der Julich-Clev- und Bergischen Successions
Streitigkeit. В конце подпись: B. C. 165-176.
St. 45-48. [Heinsius G.] Von dem Zodiacalischen Licht und der Atmosphaera der
Sonnen. В конце подпись: H. C. 177-192.
St. 49-59, 77-84. [Weitbrecht J.] Von der Naphtha. В конце подпись: W. C. 193-
236, 305-336.
St. 60. [Goldbach Ch.] Beschreibung des Lust-Feuers welches nach glücklich
vollzogener Vermählung I. M. der Kayserin und Souverainen Monarchin von allen
Reussen Printzessin Niece, der durchlauchtigsten Fürstin und Frauen, Annen Hoheit mit
dem durchlauchtigsten Fürsten und Herrn, Anton Ulrich Hertzogen zu Braunschweig und
Lüneburg den 9 July 1739 vorgestellet worden. C. 237-240.
Рус. текст см. СК, IV, N 33.
St. 61/62. Stählin J. J. Das hohe Beylager I. H. der durchlauchtigsten Printzessin
Anna und S. H. D. Anton Ulrich Hertzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg Rittern des
Heil. Andreas-Ordens I. K. M. hochbestalten General-Majors und Major des Semenow-
skischen Garde Regiments etc.in einer Ode allerunterthänigst besungen von J. Stählin P.
268
P. C. 241-248.
St. 63/66. [Berg-Reglement. 3/III 1739] C. 249-264.
St.67-71. [Krafft G. W.] Kurtze Beschreibung mancherley Maschinen ausge-zogen
aus einem Frantzösischen Buche, dessen Titul: Machines approuvées par l'Académie
Roiale des Sciences а Paris 1735. В конце подпись: K. C. 265-284.
St. 72-76. [Winsheim Ch.-N. ] Schreiben an die Verfasser der Petersburgischen
Anmerckungen, die Schiffarth um Norden betreffend. В конце подпись: W. C. 285-304.
St. 85, 86. [Strube de Pyrmont F. H.] Von dem Nutzen der Schau-Spiele zu Mä
ssigung der Menschlichen Neigungen. В конце подпись: S. d. P. C. 337-344.
St. 87. [Strube de Pyrmont F. H.] Von den Stummen Schau-Spielern bey dem Alten.
В конце подпись: S. v. P. C. 345-348.
St. 88. [Strube de Pyrmont F. H.] Von dem Unterscheid zwischen Wiss und Urtheil.
В конце подпись: S. v. P. C. 349-352.
St. 89-96. [Richmann G. W.] Von merckwürdigen Veränderung denen nach und
nach die Oberfläche unserer Erden unterworffen. В конце подпись: R. C. 363-384.
St. 97-104. [Stählin J. J.] Von den Heirathen und Hochzeit-Gebräuchen der alten
Ebräuer, Griechen, Römer, und Teutschen. В конце подпись: S. C. 385-416.
Экз. РНБ из б-ки Эpмитажа.
БАН, РГБ, РНБ, РГАДА (деф.)
1740. Stück 1-99, 103-105. [1 Januar-30 December] 420 c.; 2 л. табл.
На с. 215 гpавюpа с изобpажением медалей на заключение миpа с Туpцией.
Подпись: «Резал Иван Соколов».
St. 1/2. [Stählin J. J.] Von den Barden, oder ersten Poeten der alten Deutschen. В
конце подпись: S. C. 3-8.
St. 3. [Goldbach Ch.; Stählin J. J.] Beschreibung des Lust-Feuers welches am 1
Januarii 1740. vor dem Winter Pallast I. K. M. von Russland in St. Petersburg
abgebrannt worden. C. 9-12.
Рус. текст см. СК, доп., N 35.
St. 4/5. Beschreibung des Ceremoniels mit welchem die Persischen Gesandten,
Mahomet Risa Chan von Cadschar und Teip Chan von Amschar den 14. Dec. 1739 bey
I. K. M. zur Abschieds-Audientz geführet worden. C. 13-19.
St. 6. [Stählin J. J.] Beschluss von den Hochzeit-Gebräuchen alten Griechen. В
конце подпись: S. C. 21-24.
St. 7/8. [Ein Brief nebst einem Gedichte] C. 25-27. – Auf das Gedächtniss-Fest der
Ankunfft zur Regierung I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna etc. 1740. den 19 Januarii. C. 28-31.
St. 9/10. Von Beobachtung der Ebbe und Fluth des Meers. C. 33-40 с ил.
St. 11. [Goldbach Ch.; Stählin J. J.] Beschreibung des Feuerwercks welches an dem
höchsterfreulichen Geburths-Feste I. K. M. von Russland, Anna Ioannowna als dieselbe
A. 1740 den 28 Januarii das 48ste Jahr Ihres Alters antraten, und in St. Petersburg
vorgestellt worden. C. 41-44.
St. 12-15, 58/59. Umständliche Nachrichten von den Piecen, welchen die Kö-
nigliche Academie der Wissenschafften zu Paris den den gewöhnlichen Preiss
zugeeignet hat. В конце подпись: O. C. 45-60, 229-236.
269
St. 16-32, 37-57. [Stählin J. J.] Kurtze Beschreibung der Festivitäten mit welchen
das solenne Friedens-Fest in St. Petersburg begangen worden. Beschreibung der
Ceremonie, mit welcher den 17/28 Dec. 1739 die Auswechselung der Ratificationen des
ewigen Friedens-Tractats, so zwischen Russland und der Ottomannischen Pforte der 7/18
Sept. 1739 vor Belgrad geschlossen worden, in Constantinopel geschehen. В конце под-
пись: S. C. 61-128, 145-228.
На с. 73-88: Beschreibung der Ceremonie, mit welcher den 17/28 Dec. 1739. die
Auswechselung der Ratificationen des ewigen Friedens-Tractats, so zwischen Russ-land
und der Ottomannischen Pforte den 7/18 Sept. 1739. vor Belgrad geschlossen werden, in
Constantinopel geschehen.
St. 33/36. [Stählin J. J.] Ode auf das Friedens-Fest welche I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna
Kayserin und Selbst-Herrscherin aller Reussen etc. wegen des von Höchst-Denenselben
mit der Ottomannischen Pforte den 7. Sept. 1739. glücklich geschlossenen Friendens prä
chtigst feyeren liess, zum allerunterthänigsten Glüc-kwunsch einrichtet von Kayserlichen
Academie der Wissenschafften. В конце подпись: S. C. 129-143.
Рус. текст см. СК, N 8489.
St. 60, 61. Von dem Gebrauch der Sand Uhren zur See. В конце подпись: O. C.
237-244.
St. 62-65. [Richmann G. W.] Von denen aus der Erden gegrabenen Meer-Muschel-
Meer-Schnecken-Aussterschalen, Gräten von See-Fischen. В конце подпись: R. C. 245-260.
St. 66-76. [Richmann G. W.] Vom groben Geschütz der Alten. В конце подпись: R.
C. 261-304.
St. 77-79. [Krafft G. W.] Von genauer Beobachtung der Winde. В конце подпись:
K. C. 305-316.
St. 80-86. [Heinsius G.] Vom Nordschein. В конце подпись: H. C. 317-344.
St. 87/88. Manifest. [О кончине Анны Иоанновны и восшествии на престол Ио-
анна Антоновича] – Eydes-Formular. C. 345-352.
St. 89/90. [Манифест о восшествии на престол Иоанна Антоновича [от 23 окт.
1740 г.] C. 353-360.
N 87-90 конфисковывались и уничтожались.
St. 91, 92. [Krafft G. W.] Von der ungewöhnlichen Kälte des Nachst vergan-genen
Winters in gantz Europa. В конце подпись: K. C. 361-368.
St. 93-98. [Krafft G. W.] Von der Festigkeit verschiedener Cörper. В конце под-
пись: K. C. 369-392.
St. 99. [Krafft G. W.] Beschreibung des aus Eiss gemachten Hauses. В конце под-
пись: K. C. 393-396.
St. 100-102. Beschreibung des Ceremoniels, nach welchem die Auswechselung des
vom Russisch-Kayserl. Hofe an die Ottomannische Pforte abgefertigten
ausserordentlichen und gevollmächtigten Gesandten, Herrn General Rumäntzows, gegen
den anhero abgeschickten ausserordentlichen und gevollmächtigsten Türckischen
Gesandten Emeni Mehmed Pascha, den 17sten Octobr. 1740. an beyderseitiger Gräntze,
ohnweit dem Bug geschehen. C. 397-408.
Рус. текст см. СК, N 4496.
CК, ин. N 386.
270
St. 103/104. Poetische Gedancken auf das Gedächtniss-Fest des beglückten
Geburths-Tages I. K. H. der Durchlauchtigsten Fürstin und Frauen Anna Gross Fürstin
und Regentin aller Reussen Ao. 1740 den 7. Decembr. В конце подпись: X. C. 409-416.
St. 105. Freudiger Zuruff an S. K. M. Johann III und allerhöchst deroselben durchlä
uchtigste Frau Mutter, I. K. H. Anna Gross-Fürstin und würdigste Regentin aller
Reussen, zum Antritt höchst-deroselben, erwünschten Regierung. C. 417-420.
N 103-105 конфисковывались и уничтожались.
Экз. РНБ из б-ки Эpмитажа.
БАН, РГБ (N 1-86, 91-99), РНБ, РГАДА (без посл. с.)
1741. Stück 1-104. [2 Jenner-25 Decembr.] 416 c.; 1 л. ил.
St. 1/2. [Stählin J. J.] [Поздравление с Новым годом. Стихи] В конце подпись:
S. C. 3-8.
St. 3-5. [Richmann G. W.] Von der Orffyreischen Schiffahrt unter dem Wasser. В
конце подпись: R. C. 9-20.
St. 6-11. [Richmann G. W.] Von denen Corallen. В конце подпись: R. [Richmann
G. W.] C. 21-44.
St. 12-17. [Weitbrecht J.] Von dem Bart und Haaren. В конце подпись: W. C. 45-68.
St. 18-23. [Stählin J. J.] Kurtze Beschreibung des Trauer- und Parade-Saales
darinnen der verblichne Leichnam I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna höchstseel und glor-wü
rdigsten Andenckens im offnen Sarge biss auf den Tag der prächtigen Beysetzung ö
ffentlich aussgeleget war. C. 69-80. – [Stählin J. J.] Kurtze Beschreibung des zur
Beysetzung der Leiche I. K. M. Anna Ioannowna etc. in der Festungs-Kirche zu St. Peter
und Paul erbauten Catafalco oder Trauer- und Ehren-Gerüstes nebst beygefüg-ter Erklä
rung der an demselben angebrachten Allegorien. В конце подпись: S. C. 81-91.
CК. ин. N 2753.
St. 24-34. [Winsheim Ch.-N. ] Nachrichten von Californien. В конце подпись: W.
C. 93-136.
St. 35-40. [Brehme J. F.] Von denen Reichs-Vicariis während einem Interregno in
dem Römischen Teutschen Reich, und der wahl desselben Oberhaupts. В конце под-
пись: B. C. 137-160.
St. 41/46. Auszug aus dem Berichten des an die Ottomannische Pforte abge-
schickten Russisch-Kayserl. ausferordentl. und gevollmächtigten Gesandten Hrn.
General Rumänzows, enthaltend eine Beschreibung von seiner fernern Reise durch das T
ürckische Gebieth, nach geschehener Auswechselung an der Grentze gegen den an I. K.
M. Hof anhero abgefertigten gleichfals ausferordentl. und gevollmächtigen Türckischen
Gesandten (wovon die Beschreibung bereits im vorigen Jahr durch den Druck bekannt
gemacht worden) wie auch von dessen solennen Einzuge in Constan-tinopel und so wohl
bey dem Gross-Visir abgelegten ersten Besuch als nachmahls bey dem Gross-Sultan
gehabten öffentl. Audienz. C. 161-184.
St. 47/48. [Gellert H.] Vom Steigen und Fallen des Neva-Ströhms. В конце под-
пись: G. C. 185-192.
St. 49-58. [Richmann G. W.] Betrachtung über die Verrichtungen der Bienen. В
конце подпись: R. C. 193-232.
St. 59-65, 75/76. [Stählin J. J.] Abhandlung vom Unterschied der Beynahmen Gross
271
und Hochberühmt: oder, wer eigentlich Gross und war Hochberühmt oder Be-rühmt
genannt werden soll. В конце подпись: S. C. 233-260, 289-304.
St. 66/68. [Stählin J. J.] Abriss und Erklärung des Feuerwerckes und der
Illumination, welche an dem höchsterfreulichen Geburths-Feste des allerdurchlauch-
tigsten und grossmächtigsten Fürsten und Herrn Herrn Johannis III Kaysers und
Selbsthalters von allen Reussen etc. Ao. 1741 den 12 Aug. in St. Petersburg vorgestellt
worden. C. 261-267. – Stählin J. J. Ode auf das erste Gedächtniss-Fest der hochen
Geburth S. K. M. Johann des Dritten, Selbsthalters aller Reussen etc. abgefasset von J. St
ählin. P. P. C. 267-272.
Номеp конфисковывался и уничтожался.
St. 69/72. Beschreibung auf was Art der Türckische auserordentlichen Gesandte
Emini Mahmet Pascha seinen solennen Einzug in St. Petersburg gehalten und bey I. K.
H. der Gross-Fürstin und Reichs-Verwalterin von gantz Russland, nach zuvor gehabten
besondern Audientz bey S. K. H. dem Hertzog Generalissimo und abgelegtem Besuch
bey Sr. Excell. dem Herrn General-Admiral Grafen von Ostermann, den 1 Jul. 1741 zur
öffentlichen Audientz gelassen worden. C. 273-288.
St. 73/74. [Stählin J. J.] Ode auf den herrlichen Sieg der Russisch Kayserli-chen
Waffen und die Eroberung der Schwedischen Festung Willmansstrand in Carelien, am
hohen Nahmens-Fest S. K. M. Johann III Selbstherrschers aller Reussen etc. zum
allerunterthänigsten Glückwunsch dargeleget von J. Stählin. C. 289-304.
Номеp конфисковывался и уничтожался.
St. 77/79. Umständliche Relation des General-Feld-Marschalls Grafen von Lacy, von
demjenigen, was seit dessen Abreise aus St. Petersburg und währender Anwesenheit bey
dem an den Schwedischen Gräntzen agierenden Corps vorgegan-gen. C. 305-316.
St. 80/83. [Krafft G. W.] Von Erhaltung der Gesundheit. В конце подпись: K. C.
317-332.
St. 84-88. [Krafft G. W.] Fortsetzung von der Frisigkeit verschiedener Cörper. Vid.
Anmerckungen Ao. 1740, 93-98 Stück. В конце подпись: K. C. 333-352; 1 л. чеpт.
St. 89/90. Von dem Salpeter-Sieden. В конце подпись: U. C. 353-360.
St. 91/95. [Krafft G. W.] Kurtzer Inhalt des unlängst bey der hiesigen Academie der
Wissenschafften herausgegebenen kostbahren Werckes dessen Titul ist: Gebäude der
Kaiserl. Academie der Wissenschafften, nebst der Bibliothec und Kunst-Kammer in St.
Petersburg. C. 361-380.
В pецензии пеpепечатано посвящение книги Анне Леопольдовне, Поэтому
номеp кофисковывался и уничтожался.
St. 96/97. Manifest. [О вступлении на престол государыни императрицы Елиза-
веты Петровны с обстоятельным изъяснением ближайшего и преимущественного
права е. в. на императорскую корону] В конце текста: Das Original ist von I. K. M.
eigenhändig unterschrieben worden den 28. Nov. 1741. C. 381-386. – Eides-Formular.
C. 387. – Verzeichniss, derjenigen Land-Carten, welche seit kurtzem bey der Kayserl.
Academie der Wissenschafften verfertiget worden, und im Acade-mischen Buchladen
zum Verkaufft vohanden sind. C. 388.
ПСЗ, 8476.
St. 98/102. [Stählin J. J.] Erklärung über die Feuerwercke und Illuminations-
272
Vorstellung welche bey feyerlichster Begehung des hohen Geburths-Festes I. M. der
allerdurchlauchtigsten grossmächtigsten Kayserin Elisabeth Petrowna Selbsther-scherin
aller Reussen etc. den 18 December 1741 vor dem Kayserl. Winter-Pallast in St.
Petersburg aufgeführet worden. C. 389-402. – [Stählin J. J.] Allerunterthänigster Glü
ckwunsch zum Antritt der erwünschten Regierung I. M. der allerdurchlauchtig-sten und
grossmächtigsten Kayserin Elisabeth Petrowna Beherrscherin aller Reussen etc. am
frohen Gedächtniss-Fest der hohen Geburth I. K. M. den 18 December 1741 demüthigst
abgestattet von der Kayserl. Academie der Wissenschafften. Ode. C. 403-408.
St. 103/104. Von Gottes Gnaden Wir Elisabeth die Erste, Kayserin und Selbst-
herrscherin von aller Reussen etc. [Указ о всeмилостивейшем прощении преступ-
ников и о сложении штрафов, недоборов и начетов с 1719 по 1730 г.] В конце тек-
ста: Das Original ist von I. K. M. eigenhändig unterschrieben, und in Dero aller-höchsten
Gegenwart den 15. Dec. 1741 im Dirigirenden Senat approbiret worden. C. 409-416.
ПСЗ, 8481.
БАН, РГБ, РНБ, РГАДА.
1742. Stück 1-89. [1 Januarii-21 October] 356 c.; 1 л. чеpт.
St. 83/84 ошибочно помечена 82/83.
St. 1/2. [Goldbach Ch.; Stählin J. J.] Erklärung der allegorischen Vorstellungen in
dem Feuerwerck und der Illumination, so zu Ehren I. K. M. der allerdurch-lauchtigsten
und grossmächtigsten Frauen, Frauen Elisabeth Petrowna, Kayserin und Beherrscherin
aller Reussen etc. aufgeführet worden am Neu-Jahrs Abend 1742 zu St. Petersburg. C. 1-8.
Рус. текст. см. СК, N 1532.
St. 3-10. [Stählin J. J.] Abhandlung von der Philosophischen Secte der Pythagoräer.
В конце подпись: S. C. 9-40.
St. 11/12. Von den verschiedenen Arten Feuer aus Cörpern herzubringen. В конце
подпись: U. C. 41-48.
St. 13/14. [Stählin J. J.] Beschreibung der Illumination und des Feuerwerckes,
womit auf allergnädigsten Befehl I. K. M. Elisabeth Petrowna Kayserin und
Selbstherscherin aller Reussen etc. der feyerliche Geburths-Tag des durchlauchtigsten Fü
rsten und Herrn Herrn Peters Regierenden Hertzogs zu Hollstein-Gottorp, Königl. Hoheit
beschlossen worden. Zu St. Petersburg den 10 Febr. 1742. C. 49-56.
Рус. текст. см. СК, N 8484.
St. 15-16, 41-46. [Krafft G. W.] Fortsetzung des Beschreibung mancherley Maschinen.
Vid. Anmerckungen 1739 67 Stück. В конце подпись: K. C. 57-64, 161-184.
St. 17-29. Beschreibung des prächtigen Einzuges Ihro Römischen Königl. Maj. zu
Franckfurt. C. 65-78. – Ausführliche Beschreibung der am 12ten Febr. zu Franckfurt,
vollzogenen Kayserl. Krönung. C. 78-116.
St. 30/32. Journal von den Kriegs-Operationen I. K. M. siegreichen Waffen wider
den Eidbrüchtigen Feind, die Schweden. C. 117-128.
St. 33-40. [Heinsius G.] Von dem jüngst sichtbar gewesenen Cometen. В конце
подпись: H. C. 129-160; 1 л. ил.
St. 47/48. [Stählin J. J.] Abriss und Erklärung der Feuerwercks- und Illuminations-
Vorstellung, welche nach der den 25ten April 1742 glücklich vollbrachten hohen
Salbung und Krönung I. M. der allerdurchlauchtigsten, grossmächtigsten und unü-
273
berwindlichsten Fraun, Fraun Elisabeth Petrowna Kayserin und Selbstherrscherin aller
Reussen etc. unter andern öffentlichen Lustbarkeiten vor I. K. M. Hof in Moscau
angesteckt worden. C. 185-192.
Рус. текст см. СК. N 8469.
СК, ин., III, с. 68.
St. 49. Denen zärtlichsten Wünschen aller getreuen russischen Unterthanen bey der
feyerlichsten Salbung und Einkrönung der allerdurchlauchtigsten grossmäch-tigsten Fü
rstin Elisabeth Petrowna natürlichen Reichs-Erbin Kayserin und Selbst-halterin aller
Reussen, wolte in tiefster Unterthänigkeit beypflichten Johann Ludwig L'Estocq Kö
niglicher Preussischer Hof-Fiscal, Advocat bey denen Ober-Instantzen und dem
Magistrat der Städte zu Königsberg in Preussen. 1742 im Monath April. C. 193-196.
Рус. текст см. СК. N 3666.
СК, ин., N 1720.
St. 50-60. [Winsheim Ch.-N. ] Nachrichten von der Norder-Fahrt der Flüsse, zu
Entdeckung der Oestlichen Gegenden. В конце подпись: W. C. 197-240.
St. 61-64, 66-67. Extract aus des Herrn General-Feldmarschalls Reichs-Grafen von
Lacy, fernern Relation von denen glücklichen Progression I. K. M. siegreichen Waffen
in Finnland, aus dem Feld-Lager bey Sumy vom 1ten Julii. C. 241-256, 261-266. –
Extract aus des Herrn General-Feld-Marschalls Reichs-Grafen von Lacy eingesandten
Bericht aus dem Feld-Lager am Kimis-Ströhm vom 4ten Julii. C. 266-308.
St. 65. Präliminar-Friedens-Articul, zwischen S. K. M. in Preussen, und der Königin
von Ungarn und Böhmen Majest. C. 257-260.
St. 78/79. Relation des Herrn General-Feld-Marschalls, Reichs-Grafen von Lacy,
von den glücklichen Operationen I. K. M. Armee in Finland. vom 12 Aug. C. 309-314. –
Relation des General-Feldmarschalls, Reichs-Grafen von Lacy, aus dem Lager bey
Galmetul. C. 314-316.
St. 80/81. Relation des Herrn General-Feld-Marschalls, Reichs-Grafen von Lacy,
von den glücklichen Operationen I. K. M. Armee in Finnland vom 22 Aug. C. 317-318. –
Submissions-Schreiben des Commandanten und der übrigen Officiere von der Garnison
zu Tawasthus. C. 318-320. – Liste von der zu Tawasthus befindl. Artillerie und
Garnison. C. 320-321. – Verzeichniss dessen, was in der Festung Neu-schloss in denen
Magazins und Kellern, an Fahnen, Mundirungs-Sachen, Gewehr, Pulver, Artillerie-Gerä
thschafft, Fortifications-Materialien und andern Sachen ge-fünden worden. C. 321-324.
St. 82. Moscau vom 4. Sept. Gestern ist von dem General-Feldmarschall, Reichs-
Grafen von Lacy, aus dem Lager bey Helsingfors der Oberste Stuart mit fol-gender
erfreulichen Relation von 25 Aug. allhier angelanget. C. 325-327. – Capi-tulation,
welche Russischer und Schwedischer Seite vorabredet und, so wohl von den
Schwedischen Gevollmächtigsten als auch dem General-Major Bosquet selbst
unterzeichnet worden. C. 327-328.
St. 83/84. Moscau vom 11 Sept. Den 8ten dieses sind von dem General-
Feldmarschall, Reichs-Grafen von Lacy, mit dessen Flügel-Adjutanten, Lestocq, aus dem
Lager vor Helsingfors, zwey Relationes vom 31 Aug. eingelauffen. C. 329-336.
St. 85/89. [Heinsius G.] Von Verfertigung der Land-Charten. C. 337-356.
Рус. текст см. СК. IV, N 212.
274
Изд. вpем. Е.П., N 18; Кубасов, I, с. 58; Пекаpский, Ист. АН, I, с. 233, 254, 465,
472, 479, 485, 555, 562, 563, 564, 568, 580, 586, 698, 699; Russica, A-758.
БАН (1729-1736, 1738-1742), РГБ (1729 вып. 1, 3-103; 1730, вып. 1, 3-103; 1731;
1733 вып. 25, 28-38, 41-43, 53-59, 83, 84, 89-98; 1739; 1741; 1742 вып. 1-45, 47-82,
85-89); РНБ (1729; 1730, вып. 1-25, 27-105; 1731; 1732; 1733 вып. 1-78, 85-87: 1734
вып. 1-102; 1735; 1736 вып. 1-31, 36; 1738; 1739; 1740 вып. 1-86, 91-102; 1741;
1742); РГАДА (1729; 1730; 1731 вып. 1-16, 18-26, 28-34, 36-58, 60-62, 64-66, 68-71,
73-81, 83-96, 99-101, 103, 104; 1733-1735; 1738; 1739; 1740 вып. 1-86, 91-98, 100-
102; 1741 вып. 1-40, 47-65, 75-76, 80-90, 96-101, 103, 104; 1742).
ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЕ ЖУРНАЛЫ