Forms and Methods of Structuring Memoir Narratives in Late Eighteenth-Century Russia
p. 169-181
Texte intégral
1Over the current half century, life-writing in general and memoirs in particular have increasingly attracted the attention of European researchers along with other ego-documents or self-testimonials (Selbstzeugnisse)1. A number of research projects in Europe and other countries, including Russia, have been dedicated to creating databases and conducting thematic investigation in the corpus of autobiographical documents2. Numerous attempts to distinguish between different types of autobiographical writings have led to an abundant terminology that threatens to erode the subject of study, which by its very nature resists classification. This article uses the term “memoirs” for two reasons. Firstly, memuary or memuarnaia literatura has been long established as the accepted terminology in modern Russian academic works. Secondly, the specific features of the texts under consideration justify the use of the term. Most Russian memoirs of the eighteenth century are autobiographical – in other words, according to the definition of Philippe Lejeune, they represent the “retrospective prosaic narration of a real person about their existence3”. However, the subject of their narrative is not only the identity of the narrator, but also their daily and historical environment. This blend of material means that it is instructive to consider these eighteenth-century Russian memoirs in the broader context of other contemporary European autobiographies and memoirs.
2The shift of focus from the memoirs of well-known and often leading historical figures to texts produced by marginalised groups, including from the lower echelons of society, has been a fundamental development for the ongoing research on ego-documents. Such projects highlighted a significant number of texts, which have had an important influence on methodology and made possible basic statistical calculations about the number of such texts. The same cannot be said about equivalent scholarship on eighteenth-century Russia: despite ongoing research efforts, very few previously-unknown memoirs from the eighteenth century or earlier periods have been found, especially in private or domestic archives. Many documents were either not preserved or have not survived, whether because of the tragic events of the twentieth century or because they were not deemed significant enough to record. The main breakthrough came with the extensive publication of memoirs and other similar texts in the second half of the nineteenth century, which ensured access to most of the documents that continue to this day to form the basis of academic analysis. While the state archives still contain some memoirs of the eighteenth century that have not yet been published, their total number is very unlikely to exceed the number of texts already published4. Tartakovskii included 96 texts in his summary table of Russian memoirs of the eighteenth century but only a third of them raise no doubts regarding their suitability to be considered part of the genre5. This number appears insignificant when compared with the hundreds of texts included in European databases6. Such a contrast further justifies the analysis of the specifics of the Russian memoirs of the eighteenth century within a wider European context.
3Another feature of the contemporary approach to ego-documents is the shift which led from considering memoirs as historical sources to studying them as a genre of fiction7. The concept of autobiographical pact introduced by Lejeune played an important role in this respect, as it is applicable to most of the Russian memoirs of the eighteenth century. Their introductory part generally features the authorial promise to describe the author’s life as truthfully as possible. For example, Ivan M. Dolgorukov, in the preface to his text, expresses his intention “to give my manuscript all the dignity of historical accounts, which, in my opinion, does not consist in engaging in an eloquent dialogue with the reader but in reporting the strictest factual truth in the simplest possible manner”8. In some cases, the autobiographical pact had a more intricate form of expression9.
4However, it should be emphasised that fictional genres, particularly the novel, had much less influence on the early stage of the development of memoirs in Russia than in Europe because its appearance in Russian culture during the “long” eighteenth century coincided with the emergence of memoirs. Within the framework of their national culture, the first Russian memoirists could not rely on a tradition of literary recollections of one’s life. But they also could not rely on a sufficiently developed system of narrative genres10. An additional issue was the legitimacy of writing about oneself, which had particular relevance for Russian culture at that time. The autobiographical letter was not a common practice in Russia in the eighteenth century, therefore a Russian memoirist of the second half of the century had to be sufficiently educated to read in a foreign language and be able to put him or herself in the context of another culture. In addition, none of the Russian memoirists of the eighteenth century could expect to see their texts published within their lifetime since there were no such examples; and indeed almost all of them did not live to see the moment when their memoirs were printed. Addressed to their immediate relatives and their descendants, the memoirs were distributed in copies as part of the manuscript tradition.
5However, the hagiographic tradition played a vital role in the development of Russian memoirs11. In general, the relevance of hagiographies to this discussion is a direct consequence of their significance within the basic Russian educational context. While novels and classical biographies of great people were not compulsory reading for educated Russians, hagiographies undoubtedly were, not to mention their availability as part of the oral tradition in contemporary education.
6Thus, the peculiarity of Russian memoirs at this relatively early stage was their marginality, which was a consequence of the absence of a national generic tradition and reading environment. Therefore, Gusdorf’s concept of the genre seems relevant for the Russian context. In a 1956 article, he did not focus on the external orientation of autobiography – that is its correlation with the reader – but on the internal need of its author to seek self-knowledge through a recollection of his life12. Thus the appeal of the memoirs genre to their authors can be examined through philological methods, in particular by analysing the specifics of their external textual structure or of the elements that Genette designated as “auto-peritext” – that is, the internal paratextual elements introduced by the author of the text13.
7The title of any text is its most important peritextual element as it should give the reader an idea of what awaits him. It is also a significant component of the autobiographical pact; it is not by chance that most memoir titles use the word "life", in order to emphasise the setting for authenticity. Biographical accounts, often named “Life and Adventures [...]”, probably played their part too. Another feature of the titles of Russian memoirs of the eighteenth century is the designation of the self-authenticity of the memoir narrative. Well-known examples include: “The story about my birth, origin and whole life, written by myself […]” by Dolgorukov; “The Life and Adventures of Andrei Bolotov, written by himself […]”; “Memoirs of some of the circumstances of the life and service of the Active Privy Councillor and Senator I. V. Lopukhin, compiled by himself”; “The True Narrative, or Life of Gabriel Dobrynin, written by himself”; “Authentic notes of Princess Natal’ia Borisovna Dolgorukaia, the daughter of Field Marshal Count Boris Petrovich Sheremetev14”, etc.
8Despite the fact that the Russian practice of having personal notes written by another person was used only for travel journals (as with those of Peter I, Paul I and his wife or the Demidov brothers) or for diaries focusing on the daily life of rulers or members of the imperial family (such as the diaries of Aleksandr V. Khrapovitskii, Adrian M. Gribovskii or Semën P. Poroshin), describing one’s own life probably needed to be emphasised as something exceptional.
9Even more important for confirming the self-cognitive function of memoirs are the techniques used to organise the internal structure of the texts. The most convenient is the chronological order and yearly structure used by most memoirists. Dolgorukov’s memoirs are structured by years. He seeks to mark every year, even if nothing significant happened in it15. In the memoirs of Catherine II, Ivan V. Lopukhin, Gavriil R. Derzhavin, and Gavriil I. Dobrynin, the mention of the years is included in the text itself; in the memoirs of Bolotov, both methods are used. The arranging of information by year provides the memoirist with a clear structure, which makes it possible to refer to previously written fragments, if necessary. When original manuscripts have been preserved, one can see that the years are often placed in the margins (as sometimes in Derzhavin’s memoirs) or in footers (as in Bolotov’s text). In this regard, the brief “Chronological Note” provided by the memoirs of Catherine II deserves special mention16. None of the versions of the memoirs that have reached us follow the chronology of this “Note”; it was clearly compiled for memory, as a basis for further work.
10The division into chapters, parts and sections correlates with the structure of the content by year. Usually, the boundary between such parts or sections is marked by events significant for the life of the memoirist or the history of his/her country. For example, Lopukhin does not give headings to the individual parts, but instead divides his memoirs into two books, the first of which ends with a description of the investigation into the Martinists, that divided the life of Lopukhin himself into before and after this event17. The manuscript of Derzhavin’s memoirs makes it possible to trace how he worked on its various versions, naming his sections either chapters or parts, confusing and skipping their numbering18. The headings of the parts consistently cited at the beginning of the manuscript and gradually disappearing to its end mark the boundaries of the described period; for example, “From his birth and education until his entry into service19”. Similarly, Dobrynin and, sometimes, Dolgorukov mark the parts of their texts with a division by year. Bolotov is inclined to designate not the borders of the period but its main content; for example, “The Story of My Infancy”. This structuring of the text complements the division by year and makes it possible to observe the previously described stages of the author’s life. Memoirists often put headlines in the margins (as with Derzhavin and Catherine II) or in the footers (Bolotov). This segmentation of the text reveals both their acquaintance with some literary conventions and their method of processing them. Derzhavin, Dolgorukov, Bolotov, and Catherine II experimented by changing the designations of sections (chapter, letter, part, paragraph); they were not consistent in naming them and therefore were looking for the form that best suited their task.
11The inclusion in such memoirs of previously written fragments having a name that underlines their isolation are worth particular mentioning. With Derzhavin, one such example is his “Records of the Commission of the Preobrazhenskii Life Guards Regiment by First Lieutenant Derzhavin concerning the search of the rebel Pugachëv and his accomplices20”. With Dolgorukov, it is a fragment in the second volume that has no subheadings of parts except for one referred to as “The second half of 1812 in Moscow21”; with Bolotov, it is the fragment “My secondary ride to Shadsk22”. In the first two cases, the selection of these fragments is determined by the events described that were considered historically significant. As for Bolotov, he thought it necessary to describe in detail to his heirs the process of land surveying in a village.
12Another essential element of the texts’ structure are the footnotes and comments. In Derzhavin’s manuscript, the main text is written in the right column while the left is reserved for this kind of note. The margin runs diagonally: the first line is filled in completely, and then the indentation gradually increases. All notes, including those made later, are placed in the margins. Bolotov puts his footnotes right at the bottom of the page or, in cases where remarks have been added later, at the end of the manuscript. Notes of this kind often have the character of generalisations or moral maxims. They express the memoirist’s desire to trace the internal logic of his own life, to see certain omens, to connect events far from each other, and thus to comprehend or even rethink his own existence. A prominent example of such a method is the famous first note of Derzhavin to the description of his own sickliness in childhood and to the first word he uttered: “These two incidents were perfect truth and Providence may have foreseen in them, first, my difficult path in life, second, God’s will for me to write the ode praised by everyone”. In the manuscript, it is placed in the margins under the asterisk with the note “remark to the book”23.
13Another circumstance is significant in this respect. Many Russian memoirists began to write their texts several times, sometimes starting them anew, without taking into account the earlier versions. For example, according to Grot, Derzhavin’s intention to write memoirs first appeared in 1803, immediately after his resignation. In 1805, he wrote an autobiography for the dictionary of Metropolitan Evgenii and then, between 1811 and 1813, he wrote the bulk of the text. However, he did not collate it with his earlier notes and instead wrote it mostly from memory.24 In other words, Derzhavin felt the need to describe his life several times, and each time he started the work anew. Probably, his intention was not to complete his text but to understand, while describing his own life, the reasons for his current situation. Mel’tsin, after analysing the publications of the memoirs of Natal’ia B. Dolgorukaia, whose original manuscript has not survived, concluded that the publishers combined two separate texts written at different times and with a noticeable interruption25. Bolotov began to write his memoirs several times. The first version of his notes was written in the 1770s but was lost during a fire. In 1789, he again began to compose memoirs, restoring and continuing the burned fragments from memory. From that time on, he continued his notes more or less consistently; meanwhile, he made more detailed descriptions of individual events or years and corrected versions of the initial chapters26. Despite all the textual difficulties that arise when analysing the manuscripts of Catherine II, most researchers agree that the first basic version was written in the early 1770s, and the second in the early 1790s27. Gusdorf notes that people often start writing memoirs in a situation of internal mental crisis. It should be added that a certain moment perceived as a symbolic turn can also provide such a motivation. For instance, Dolgorukov writes that he was 25 years old when he started writing his memoirs. He had had a son and felt that he had entered “the age of man”, which prompted him to write notes28.
14Thus, the history of the Russian memoirs of the eighteenth century known to us, as well as the analysis of their peritextual elements, suggest that the memoirs were largely self-mnemonic, i.e. they were written by their authors for themselves, so that they could relive their life, analyse it, highlight key moments and thereby comprehend their patterns.
15Gusdorf has noted the eschatological intention of memoirs, which becomes more significant when addressing Russian material because of the above-mentioned marginality of the genre and its relationship with the hagiological tradition. This can be linked to Danilevskii’s work on the structural function of eschatological motifs in Russian chronicles29 and the connection of Russian memoir genres with the chronicle tradition, as discussed by Tartakovskii30. It is significant that many memoirists sought to bring the narrative up to their very death. Thus, in the chapter about 1814, Dolgorukov writes that he intends to continue the story “even to the minute when all physical strengths will betray me and the pen will fall out of my hands”31. Bolotov permanently sought to reduce the gap between current events and their description and complained in 1825 that “almost as many as 25 years have not been described”32.
16That memoirs were not written for readers, and not even so much for their own authors but in the context of another, future life can be illustrated by a quotation from Dobrynin’s preface to his work: “I doubt that there is a single man able to think who would not come to asking himself: who am I? where am I? where did I come from? what do I see? where will I go? and other such questions. But all those who think so, and those who wish to comprehend and resolve this secret hidden from mortals, remain, as before, in deep ignorance about it. After this, is there a place left for me to write for others to read? My intention is to write the very truth for my own comprehension, present and future, of my past years and adventures…”33.
Notes de bas de page
1 The term “egodocument” was introduced in the 1950s by Jacques Presser and was later conceptualised by Rudolf Dekker. See, for instance: Dekker R. M., “Jacques Presser’s Heritage. Ego-documents in the Study of History”, Memoria y Civilización. Anuario de Historia, no 5, 2002, p. 13-37. The term Selbstzeugnis was suggested as a possible alternative: von Krusenstern B., “Was sind Selbstzeugnisse? Begriffskritische und quellenkundliche Überlegungen anhand von Beispielen aus dem 17. Jahrhundert”, Historische Anthropologie. Kultur. Gesellschaft. Alltag, vol. 2, 1994, p. 462-471.
2 For reviews of some European projects, see: Zareckij Ju. P., “Novye podxody k izučeniju svidetel’stv o sebe v evropejskix issledovanijax poslednix let” [“New Approaches in the Study of egodocuments in Recent European Scholarship”], in Zareckij Ju. P., Lixačëv V. P., Zareckaja A. Ju. (ed.), Avtor i biografija, pis’mo i čtenie. Sbornik dokladov [Author and Biography, Letter and Reading. A Collection of Essays], Moscow, Vysšaja škola èkonomiki, 2013, p. 24-41; Tosato-Rigo D. (ed.), Appel à témoins. Écrits personnels et pratiques socioculturelles (xvie-xxe s.), Études de lettres, vol. 300, no 1-2, 2016, p. xvi-xx.
3 Lejeune P., Le Pacte autobiographique, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1975, p. 14.
4 One example of a newly discovered source is the recently published biography of Ensign Klimov, discovered in the archive of Gavriil R. Deržavin: Kukuškina E. D. (ed.), Poxoždenie praporščika Klimova. Memuary xviii veka [The Adventures of Lieutenant Klimov, Memoirs from the xviii Century], Saint Petersburg, Puškinskij Dom, 2017.
5 Tartakovskij A. G., Russkaja memuaristika xviii – pervoj polovine xix veka. Ot rukopisi k knige [Russian Memoir-writing in the Eighteenth and the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. From Manuscripts to Published Books], Moscow, Nauka, 1991, p. 20-75; the table is on p. 244-261.
6 For example, the Dutch corpus of such texts contains around 500 entries for the eighteenth century alone: http://www.egodocument.net (accessed on 14 April 2023).
7 On the prevalence of such an approach in Soviet scholarship, see: Veselova A. Ju., “Sovetskie izdanija russkix memuarov xviii veka: osnovnye tendencii” [“Main Tendances in Soviet Editions of Eighteenth-Century Memoirs”], in Kostin A. A. (ed.), Čtenija otdela russkoj literatury XVIII veka. Vypusk 8: Russkaja literature xviii stoletija v nauke xx veka. Neolatinskaja gumanitičeskaja tradija i russkaja literatura konca xviii – načala xix vekov [Readings of the Department of Eighteenth-Century Russian Literature. Volume 8: Eighteenth-Century Russian Literature in Twentieth-Century Scholarship. The Neo-Latin Humanistic Tradition in Russian Literature from the Late Eighteenth Century and Early Nineteenth Century], Moscow-Saint Petersburg, Al’jans-Arxeo, 2018, p. 129-142.
8 “[…] čtob dat’ rukopisi moej vse istoričeskoe dostoinstvo, kotoroe, po mneniju moemu, sostoit ne v krasnom razglagol’stvii s čitatelem, no v strogoj istine sobytij i prostom ix rasskaze”: Dolgorukov I. M., Povest’ o roždenii moëm, proisxoždenii i vsej žizni, pisannaja mnoj samim i načataja v Moskve 1788-go goda v avguste mesjace, na 25-om godu ot roždenija moego [The History of my Birth, Origins and Entire Life, Written by Myself and Begun in Moscow in 1788, in August, in my 25th Year], ed. Kuznecova N. B., Mel’cin M. O., 2 vols, Saint Petersburg, Nauka, “Literaturnye pamjatniki”, 2004, vol. 1, p. 7.
9 Vačeva wittily offered to consider as such the syllogism about happiness in the memoirs of Catherine II, that opens a version of the notes: Vačeva A., Potomstvu Ekaterina II. Idei i narrativnye strategii v avtobiografii imperatricy [From Catherine II to Posterity. Ideas and Narrative Strategies in the Empress’ Autobiography], Sofia, Izd. “Sv. Kliment Oxridski”, 2015, p. 69-89.
10 An exception is Dolgorukov who writes that he read the notes of his grandmother, Natal’ja B. Dolgorukaja, later called Nektarija after she entered a convent: Dolgorukov I. M., Povest’ o roždenii moëm, proisxoždenii i vsej žizni, pisannaja mnoj samim i načataja v Moskve 1788-go goda v avguste mesjace, na 25-om godu ot roždenija moego [The History of my Birth, Origins and Entire Life, Written by Myself and Begun in Moscow in 1788, in August, in my 25th Year], op. cit., vol. 1, p. 7.
11 It is not by chance that Avvakum’s autobiography and the Svitok of Eleazar Anzersky are considered by some researchers as proto-memoirs: Borovikova M. V., Guzajrov T. T., Lejbov R. G., Morževskix-Smirnova M. A., Frajman I. D., Frajman T. N. (ed.), Russkie memuary v istoriko-tipologičeskom osveščenii. K postanovke problem. Cep’ nepreryvnogo predanija. Sbornik pamjati A. G. Tatarkovskogo [Russian Memoirs in a Historical and Typological Perpective. A First Approach. The Unbreakable Chain of Transmission], Moscow, RGGU, 2004, p. 346-361.
12 Gusdorf G., “Conditions et limites de l’autobiographie”, in Reichenkron G., Hasse E. (ed.), Formen der Selbstdarstellung. Analekten zu einer Geschichte des literarischen Selbstportraits, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1956, p. 105-123. See also the further development of this idea in contention with Lejeune: Gusdorf G., Lignes de vie, 2 vol., Paris, Odile Jacob, 1991.
13 Genette G., Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, “Literature, Culture, Theory”, no 20, 1997, p. 5-9.
14 The title, apparently, was provided by the great-grandson of Natal’ja B. Dolgorukaja, Prince D. I. Dolgorukov, for the first academic publication of her “Notes” but it is obviously stylised to the tradition of the eighteenth century: Dolgorukaja N. B., Svoeručnye zapiski knjagini Natal’ji Borisovny Dolgorukoj dočeri g. fel’dmaršala grafa Borisa Petroviča Šeremeteva [Autographical Memoirs of Princess Natalia Borisovna Dolgoruka, Daughter of Fieldmarshal Boris Petrovič Šeremetev], Saint Petersburg, Sirius, 1913. Regarding this, see: Mel’cin M. O., “Istorija teksta memuarov sximonaxini Nektarii (kn. N. B. Dolgorukoj)” [“A History of the Text of the Memoirs of the Ascetic Nun Nektaria (Princess N. B. Dolgoruka)”], in Šustova Ju. È. et al. (ed.), Problemy diplomatiki, kodikologii i aktovoj arxeografii. Materialy XXIV Meždunarodnoj naučnoj konferencii [Questions of Diplomatic Studies, Codicology and Document Archeography. Materials from the 24th International Conference], Moskva, 2-3 fevralja 2021 g., Moscow, RGGU, 2012, p. 403-405.
15 For example, a record for 1766 takes only a few lines: Dolgorukov I. M., Povest’ o roždenii moëm, proisxoždenii i vsej žizni, pisannaja mnoj samim i načataja v Moskve 1788-go goda v avguste mesjace, na 25-om godu ot roždenija moego [The History of my Birth, Origins and Entire Life, Written by Myself and Begun in Moscow in 1788, in August, in my 25th Year], op. cit., vol. 1, p. 20.
16 See the preface by Ja. L. Barskov in: Sočinenija imperatricy Ekateriny II na osnovanii podlinnyx rukopisej s ob”jasnitel’nymi primečanijami akademika A. N. Pypina. Tom 12. Avtobiografičeskie zametki [The Works of Empress Catherine II, Published After her Original Manuscripts, with the Explanations of Academician A. N. Pypin. Volume 12. Autobiographic Notes], Saint Petersburg, Izd. Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1907, p. viii.
17 On Lopuxin and the investigation of the Martinists, see: Faggionata R., A Rosicrucian Utopia in Eighteenth-Century Russia: The Masonic Circle of N.I. Novikov, Springer, Dordrecht, “International Archives of the History of Ideas”, vol. 190, 2005.
18 “Zapiska iz izvestnyx vsem proisšestviev i podlinnyx del, zaključajuščaja v sebe žizn’ Gavrila Romanoviča Deržavina” [“Note on Events Widely Known and on Real Events, Containing an Account of the Life of Gavriil Romanovič Deržavin”], Rukopisnyj otdel Rossijskoj nacional’noj biblioteki [Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library] (hereafter OR RNB), f. 247, op. 2, edinic xranenija 48, 288 listy.
19 Ibid., l. 2.
20 Ibid., l. 50-63.
21 Dolgorukov I. M., Povest’ o roždenii moëm, proisxoždenii i vsej žizni, pisannaja mnoj samim i načataja v Moskve 1788-go goda v avguste mesjace, na 25-om godu ot roždenija moego [The History of my Birth, Origins and Entire Life, Written by Myself and Begun in Moscow in 1788, in August, in my 25th Year], op. cit., vol. 2, p. 257-306.
22 The description of this trip has been preserved in a single manuscript: OR RNB, f. 608 (Sobranie Pomjalovskogo [The Pomjalovskij Collection]), op. 2, ed. xr. 88-VII, 44 ll.
23 OR RNB, f. 247, op. 2, ed. xr. 48, l. 2ob.
24 Grot Ja. K., “Ot izdatelja. Zapiski Deržavina (1743-1812)” [“From the Editor. Deržavin’s Autobiography”], in Sočinenija Deržavina s iz”jasnitel’nymi primečanijami Ja. Grota in 9 vols [The Works of Derzžavin with Notes by Ya. Grot in 9 volumes], Saint Petersburg, 1864-1883, vol. 6, 1871, p. 407, 409-410. See also the preface in: Bartenev P. I., Zapiski Gavriila Romanoviča Deržavina, 1743-1812. S literaturnymi i istoričeskimi primečanijami P. I. Barteneva [The Autobiography of Gavriil Romanovič Deržavin. With Literary and Historical Notes by P. I. Bartenev, 1743-1812], Moscow, Tipografija Aleksandra Semëna, 1860, p. v.
25 Mel’cin M. O., “Istorija teksta memuarov sximomonaxini Nektarii (kn. N. B. Dolgorukoj)” [“A History of the Text of the Memoirs of the Ascetic Nun Nektaria (Princess N. B. Dolgoruka)”], op. cit.
26 See, for example: Bolotov A. T., “Nekotorye zamečanija i dopolnenija k istorii moej žizni v tečenie 90-go goda ot roždenija, 1827” [“A Few Comments and Additions to the History of my Life during the 1790s”], Rukopisnyj otdel’ Instituta Russkoj literatury [Department of Manuscripts of the Institute of Russian Literature] (hereafter RO IRLI), f. 537, ed. xr. 26, 16 ll.; Bolotov A. T., “Kratkoe opisanie žizni” [“A Short Depiction of my Life”], RO IRLI, f. 537, ed. xr. 27, 8 ll.; and others.
27 Vačeva A., Potomstvu Ekaterina II. Idei i narrativnye strategii v avtobiografii imperatricy [From Catherine II to Posterity. Ideas and Narrative Strategies in the Empress’ Autobiography], op. cit., p. 33-47.
28 Dolgorukov I. M., Povest’ o roždenii moëm, proisxoždenii i vsej žizni, pisannaja mnoj samim i načataja v Moskve 1788-go goda v avguste mesjace, na 25-om godu ot roždenija moego [The History of my Birth, Origins and Entire Life, Written by Myself and Begun in Moscow in 1788, in August, in my 25th Year], op. cit., vol. 1, p. 7.
29 Danilevskij I. N., “Zamysel i nazvanie ‘Povesti vremennyx let’” [“Origin and Title of the Primary Chronicle’”], Otečestvennaja istorija [National History], no 5, 1995, p. 101-110; Danilevskij I. N., Povesti vremennyx let. Germenevtičeskie osnovy izučenija letopisnyx tekstov [The Primary Chronicles. The Hermeneutical Foundations of the Chronicle Texts], Moscow, Aspekt Press, 2004.
30 Tartakovskij A. G., Russkaja memuaristika xviii – pervoj polovine xix veka. Ot rukopisi k knige [Russian Memoir-writing in the Eighteenth and the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. From Manuscripts to Published Books], op. cit., p. 42-57.
31 Dolgorukov I. M., Povest’ o roždenii moëm, proisxoždenii i vsej žizni, pisannaja mnoj samim i načataja v Moskve 1788-go goda v avguste mesjace, na 25-om godu ot roždenija moego [The History of my Birth, Origins and Entire Life, Written by Myself and Begun in Moscow in 1788, in August, in my 25th Year], op. cit., vol. 2, p. 348.
32 “Prodolženie opisanija žizni Andreja Bolotova, sočinennoe samim im dlja svoix potomkov” [“A Continuation of the Depiction of the Life of Andrej Bolotov, Written by Himself”], čast’ 6 (36), 1825, OR RGB, f. 89, ed. xr. 30, l. 3.
33 Dobrynin G. I., Istinnoe povestvovanie, ili žizn’ Gavriila Dobrynina (poživshago 72 g. 2 m. 20 dnej), im samim pisannaja v Mogilëve i v Vitebske, 1752-1823, v trex častjax [An Honest Account, or The Life of Gavriil Dobrynin (Who lived 72 Years, 2 Months and 20 Days], Saint Petersburg, Pečatnja V. I. Golovina, 1872, p. 42.
Auteur
-
Alexandra Veselova
Institute of Russian Literature, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Nikolaï Karamzine à Strasbourg
Un écrivain-voyageur russe dans l’Alsace révolutionnaire (1789)
Rodolphe Baudin
2011
Du sabre à la plume
Mémoires de journalistes engagés de l’époque Meiji
Fukuchi Ôchi, Suehiro Tetchô et Tokutomi Sohô Christiane Séguy (éd.) Christiane Séguy (trad.)
2014
Geographies of Contact
Britain, the Middle East and the Circulation of Knowledge
Caroline Lehni, Fanny Moghaddassi, Hélène Ibata et al. (dir.)
2017
Texte et contexte
Méthodes et outils de l’édition critique de quelques manuscrits arabes, grecs, italiens et latins
Irini Tsamadou-Jacoberger et Isavella Stamatiadou (dir.)
2019
Combattre, survivre, témoigner
Expériences soviétiques de la Seconde Guerre mondiale
Emilia Koustova (dir.)
2020
Politique et sociétés au miroir de l’alimentation
Études de cas
David Lemler et Thomas Boutonnet (dir.)
2023