For financial support I am obliged to the International Research and Exchanges Board, Social Science Research Council, Amherst College (Copeland Fellowship) and St. John's College, Oxford. I also wish to thank the members of the Faculty Seminar in Slavic Culture, Columbia University, for their hospitality and contributions in response to a prior version of this paper.

1. The absorption of the Latin influence in western Slavic nations has of course long been recognized and studied. See, for example, Pichio, Ricardo, “Principles of Comparative Slavic-Romance Literary History,” in Terras, Victor, ed., American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists: Zagreb and Liubliana, September 3-9, 1978: Literature, (Columbus: Slavica, 1978), 630–43.Google Scholar

2. Standard surveys of the Renaissance encounter with the classical past are available in Bolgar, Ralph R., The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1954 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiss, Roberto, The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988 Google Scholar; on Greek and Roman civilization as part of the intellectual culture of the French Enlightenment, see Gay, Peter, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation (New York: Knopf, 1966-69), 1: 72–126 Google Scholar; with particular reference to Germany, see the essays in LAntichita nell ‘Ottocento in Italia e Germania, eds. Karl Christ and Arnaldo Momigliano (Bologna, 1986).

3. For an opposing point of view, see Gareth Jones, W., “A Trojan Horse within the Walls of Classicism: Russian Classicism and the National Specific,” in Cross, Anthony G., ed., Russian Literature in the Age of Catherine the Great (Oxford: Meeuws, 1976), 102 Google Scholar; Segal, Harold, “Classicism and Classical Antiquity in Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-Century Russian Literature,” in Garrard, John G., ed., The Eighteenth Century in Russia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 48–74 Google Scholar.

4. For an attempt at an overview of the increasing penetration of classical studies into the world of the Russian Enlightenment, see Okenfuss, Max, “The Jesuit Origin of Petrine Education” in Garrard, , The Eighteenth Century, 106–130 Google Scholar. In addition to the bibliography cited by Okenfuss, see the now indispensable Lappo-Danilevskii, A.S., htoriia russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli i kul'tury XVII-XVIII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1990 Google Scholar; on the interaction between Latin and Russian rhetorical studies two works by Renate Lachmann are of fundamental importance: Prokopovich, Feofan, De Arte Rhetorica Libri X, ed. Lachmann, Renate (Vienna: Bohlau, 1982), esp. xv–cii Google Scholar; “Aspects of the Russian Language Question in the Seventeenth Century,” eds. Picchio, Ricardo and Goldblatt, Harvey, Aspects of the Slavic Language Question (Columbus: Slavica, 1984), 2: 125–85Google Scholar.

5. For a concise description of the problems of periodization and the history of the scholarly terminology, see Neuhauser, Rudolf, Towards the Romantic Age: Essays on Sentimental and Preromantic Literature in Russia, (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1974)Google Scholar; for a brief but incisive characterization of the theoretical aspect of transmission studies, see Gerald Smith's remarks in Cross, Anthony G., ed., Great Britain and Russia in the Eighteenth Century: Contacts and Comparisons, (Newtonville: Oriental Research Partners, 1979), 83 Google Scholar. On the use of the word “klassicheskii” with reference to works that drew on antiquity, see Budagov, R.A., “Iz istorii semantiki prilagatel'nogo ‘klassicheskii',” in RoV i znachenie literatury XVIII-ogo veka v istorii russkoi kul'tury, eds. Likhachev, D.S., Makogonenko, G.P. and Serman, I.Z. (Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka, 1966), 443–48.Google Scholar

6. P.N. Chernaev, “Sledy znakomstva russkogo obshchestva s drevne-klassicheskoi literaturoi v vek Ekateriny II,” serialized in Filologicheskie zapiski (Voronezh): nos. 3-4 (1904): 1-64; nos. 5-6 (1904): 65-128; nos. 1-2 (1905): 129-160; nos. 3-4 (1905): 161-232; Lebedev, V., UkazateV ko vsem uchebnym izdaniiam i perevodam po klassicheskim (grecheskomu i latinskomu) iazykam s nachala knigopechataniia do 1871 goda vkliuchitel'no (Moscow, 1878)Google Scholar. Despite its promising title, de Zuliani, Maria D., (Russia e mondo classico nel secolo xviii [Florence: Licosa, 1980])Google Scholar in essence confines her monograph to a reprint of these earlier bibliographies without uncovering any new material. However, the need for a modern bibliography may soon be redressed: see E.V. Sviiasov, “Antichnaia liricheskaia poeziia v russkikh perevodakh i podrazhaniiakh XVIII-XX vekov: o bibliografii,” Russkaia literatura, no. 2 (1988): 206-15.

7. The standard general work on the development of a Russian readership is now Marker, Gary, Publishing, Printing and the Origins of Intellectual Life in Russia, 1700-1800 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for an attempt to establish the size of the reading public, see Sevast'ianov, A.N., Rost obrazovannoi auditorii kakfaktor razvitiia knizhnogo i zhurnal'nogo dela v Rossii (1762-1800) (Moscow: [n.p.], 1983)Google Scholar.

8. On the significance of the ancient world in the curriculum of Moscow University, see Pozdeeva, I.V., “Izuchenie drevnei istorii i drevnikh iazykov v Moskovskom universitete 50-70-e gg. XVIII v.,” Vestnik drevnei istorii, no. 3 (1962): 3–23 Google Scholar. More generally, see Black, John L., Citizens for the Fatherland: Education, Educators and Pedagogical Ideals in Eighteenth Century Russia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), esp. chapter 1Google Scholar.

9. Rogger, Hans, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), esp. chap. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Pumpianskii, L. V., “K istorii russkogo klassitsizma (Poetika Lomonosova),” Kontekst (1982): 303 Google Scholar.

11. On the popularity of Lomonosov's Rhetoric, see Orishin, A. D., “O znachenii Ritoriki Lomonosova,” in RoV i znachenie, 94–98 Google Scholar; more generally, it is worth consulting the essays in Kurilov, A.S., ed., Lomonosov i russkaia literatura (Moscow: Nauka, 1987 Google Scholar. On the view that Lomonosov's prescriptions for classicism prevailed over those of Trediakovsky, see S.V. Kalacheva, “Stikhovedcheskie traktaty i stanovlenie klassitsizma” in Nikolaev, P.A. and Rudneva, E.G., eds., Literaturnye napravleniia i stili: Sbornik statei, posviashchennyi 75-letiyu professora G.N. Pospelova (Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1976), 190–200 Google Scholar. The most recet attempt to explain the history of Trediakovsky's reputation is Reyfman, Irina, Vasilii Trediakovsky: The Fool of the ‘New’ Russian Literature (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990 Google Scholar.

12. Other aspects of the past—religious ceremonies, festivals, military history— made their way to the Russian public in monographs, translated from the French and German and published by N.I. Novikov, enriching the gentry readership's picture of an alien civilization, but inspiring few critiques and little research until the second decade of the nineteenth century.

13. Lomonosov, M. V., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 10 tt. (Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka, 1959), 7: 592Google Scholar.

14. Ibid., 6: 170.

15. Cave, Terence, The Cornucopian Text: Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 45–46 Google Scholar.

16. Lachmann, “Aspects,” 126.

17. In their youths, both these men studied Roman law in Scotland. On Desnitskii, see Brown, A. H., “S.E. Desnitskii, Adam Smith and the Nakaz of Catherine II,” Oxford Slavonic Papers, new series, vii (1974): 42–59 Google Scholar; Wortman, Richard, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 20–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Lappo-Danilevskii, 205; on Rome as the ideal and norm of secular power in Petrine Russia, see Lotman, Iurii M. and Uspenskii, Boris A., “Echoes of the Notion ‘Moscow as the Third Rome’ in Peter the Great's Ideology,” in The Semiotics of Russian Culture, ed. Shukman, Ann (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984), 53–67 Google Scholar.

19. Libby, Denis, “Italy: Two Opera Centres,” in Zaslaw, Neil, ed., The Classical Era (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1989), 31 Google Scholar.

20. Momigliano, Arnaldo, “Classical Scholarship for a Classical Country: the Case of Italy in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” in Ottavo Contributo alia Storia degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1987), 73–89 Google Scholar; on the Renaissance reception of Tacitus, see Schellhase, Kenneth, Tacitus in Renaissance Political Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976 Google Scholar.

21. Burke, Peter, “A Survey of the Popularity of Ancient Historians, 1450-1700,” History and Theory, no. 5 (1966): 135–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Turner, Frank M., The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 2 Google Scholar. On the Roman theme in English neo-classicism, see Johnson, James W., The Formation of English Neo-Classical Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some of his conclusions on augustanism have been challenged, most cogently by Weinbrot, Howard D., Augustus Caesar in ‘Augustan’ England: The Decline of a Classical Norm (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978 Google Scholar).

23. Honour, Hugh, Neo-classicism (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968), 62 Google Scholar.

24. On the attempts at a Russian version of Homer's epic, see the excellent monograph by Egunov, A. N., Gomer v russkikh perevodakh xviii-xix vekov (Moscow: Nauka, 1964 Google Scholar.

25. See Huttl-Worth, Gerta, “Thoughts on the Turning Point in the History of Literary Russian: the Eighteenth Century,” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, xiii (1970): 129ff Google Scholar.

26. See Shliapkin, I. A., “Vasilii Petrovich Petrov, ‘karmannyi’ stikhotvorets Ekateriny II,” Istoricheskii vestnik, no. 11 (1885)Google Scholar. On Petrov's duties and performance as librarian, see the remarks in Alekseev, Mikhail P., “Biblioteka Vol'tera v Rossii,” in his Russkaia kul'tura i Romanskii mir (Leningrad: Nauka, 1985), 299 Google Scholar.

27. However, one notes that the editors of the most recent anthology of eighteenth century verse praise his “novatorskii kharakter” and “nesomnennoe masterstvo ”: see Zapadov, V.A., et al., Russkaia lirika XVIII veka (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1990), 670 Google Scholar. For a brief treatment, see Takiullina, I. F., “Literaturnye napravleniia vtoroi poloviny 18-ogo veka i tvorchestvo V.P. Petrova,” in Problemy izucheniia russkoi literatury XVIII-ogo veka (Leningrad: Nauka, 1984), 20–26 Google Scholar. On Petrov's stay in England, see Cross, Anthony G., “By the Banks of the Thames”: Russians in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Newtonville: Oriental Research Partners, 1980), 224–28Google Scholar.

28. Gukovskii, G., Russkaia poeziia XVIII veka (Leningrad: Academia, 1927), 45–46 Google Scholar.

29. See Titunik, Irwin R., “Apollos Baibakov's Pravila Piiticheskiia and Vasilii Trediakovskii: Toward an Understanding of Russian Humanism in the Eighteenth Century,” in Bartlett, Roger P, Cross, Anthony G. and Rasmussen, Karen, eds., Russia and the World of the Eighteenth Century (Columbus: Slavica, 1988), 371–87Google Scholar.

30. Vergilius, Maro Publius, Enei: geroicheksaia poema. Perevedena s latinskago g-nom Petrovym (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Akademii nauk, 1772-1786)Google Scholar.

31. For instance, see “Pravosud,” Smes', list 24 (St. Petersburg, 1769), 188-89. The early date of the article suggests that Petrov's translation had already been circulated in a manuscript version. Most prominent among later critics was the publisher Nikolai Novikov. See N.I. Novikov, “Opyty istoricheskogo slovaria o rossiiskikh pisateliakh” (1772), in Izbrannye sochineniia (Moscow-Leningrad: Izd-vo khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1951), 334-35. For a review of the controversy, see Poety XVIII veka, eds. I. Serman and N. Kochetkova (Leningrad: Biblioteka poeta, 1973), 1: 325. By contrast, for words of appreciation by a contemporary, see Dmitriev, Ivan I., Vzgliad na moiu zhizn1 (Cambridge: Oriental Research Partners, 1974), 40 Google Scholar.

32. Sochineniia imperatritsy Ekateriny II (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1901), 7: 256.Google Scholar

33. On the sacralization of the image of the ruler in Russia, see Zhivov, V. M. and Uspenskii, B. A., “Tsar’ i Bog: Semioticheskie aspekty sakralizatsii monarkha v Rossii,” in Iazyki kul'tury i problemy perevodimosti (Moscow: Nauka, 1987), 47–154 Google Scholar.

34. I owe the number to Alexander, John T., Catherine the Great: Life and Legend (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 341 Google Scholar.

35. According to the Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, no. 82, the model for the statue was exhibited in 1788. See Karpova, E. V., “Pamiatnik P.A. Rumiantsevu-Zadunaiskomu (materialy k izucheniiu tvorchestva Zh.-D. Rachetta),” Pamiatniki kul'tury. Novye otkrytiia. Pis'mennosV, iskusstvo, arkheologiia (Leningrad: Nauka, 1984), 184 Google Scholar.

36. Stephen L. Baehr, “Fortuna Redux: The Iconography of Happiness in Eighteenth-Century Russian Courtly Spectacles,” in Cross, Great Britain, 116. For further instances of imperial symbolism, see the same author's “From History to National Myth: Translation of Empire in Eighteenth-Century Russia,” Russian Review 37, no. 1 (1978): 1-13. Also worthy of note is the brief article by Osorgin, Mikhail A., “Knizhki, privodimye za poleznost',” reprinted in Zametki starogo knigoeda (Moscow: Kniga, 1989), 79–84 Google Scholar.

37. Vozvrashchenie zolotogo veka (Moscow, 1763). See Stephen L. Baehr, “In the Rebeginning: Rebirth, Renewal and Renovatio in Eighteenth-Century Russia,” in Anthony Cross, G., ed., Russia and the West in the Eighteenth Century (Newtonville: Oriental Research Partners, 1983), 153ff Google Scholar.

38. Lotman, Iurii M., “Arkhaisty—prosvetiteli,” in Tynianovskii sbornik: vtorye tynianovskie chteniia (Riga, 1986), 200 Google Scholar.

39. On the Nakaz, see Madariaga, Isabel de, Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 151–64Google Scholar; for a discussion of the literary and cultural profile of the benevolent Russian ruler, see Whittaker, Cynthia H., “The Reforming Tsar,” Slavic Review 51, no.1 (Spring 1992): 77–98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. See Bowra, Maurice, “Aeneas and the Stoic Ideal,” Greece & Rome 3 (1936): 8–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; a recent argument against a stoic interpretation is Cairns, Francis, Virgil's Augustan Epic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41. Weinbrot, idem.

42. Petrov, , Enei, Book I, vv. 780ffGoogle Scholar.

43. See MacConnell, Allan, “Radishchev and Classical Antiquity,” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 16 (1982): 469–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of Radischev's transitional place in the use of the moral exemplum, see Andrew Kahn, “The Classical Roman Tradition in Russia c. 1750-1840: Studies in Its Sources and Character” (D. Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, 1992), chapter 5.

44. For a preliminary discussion of the ancient component in Russian education in the early nineteenth century, see Kazoknieks, Mara, Studien zur Rezeption der Antike bei russischen Dichtern zu Beginn des XIX Jahrhunderts (Munich: O. Sagner, 1968 Google Scholar).

45. Among versions of Nepos were the following: Korneliia Nepota Zhitiia slavnykh generalov vpol'zu iunoshestva s latinskago iazyka perevedeny Vasil'em Lehedevym Akademii nauk perevodchikom (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1748) [reprinted numerous times]; Nepot Kornelii. Latinskii podlinnik s primechaniiami Semena Ivashkovskogo (Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1808); Nepot Kornelii. O zhizni slavneishikh polkovodtsev s zamechaniiami, khronologicheskoi tablitseiu i dvumia slovariami (Moscow: N. Koshanskii, 1816).

46. Once a staple of seminary education, Plutarch was read for his collection of essays on ethics, the Moralia; in the early part of the nineteenth century, with the politicization of the ancients, interest shifted to his parallel lives. Widely available were the following translations: Luchi mudrosti, Hi Nravouchitel'nye i polezneishie razsuzhdeniia Seneki i Plutarkha, i prochikh slavneishikh drexmosti muzhei (Moscow: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1785); Plutarkha Kheroneiskago Nravstvennykh i filosoficheskikh sochinenii chast’ I. Prelozhennaia s grecheskago iazyka Ivanom Alekseevym, (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1789); Plutarkhovy sravnitel'nye zhizneopisaniia slavnykh muzhei, trans. S. Destunis (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1810). For a discussion of the decembrists and Plutarch, see A. Kahn, “Marginalii i pomety N.M. Murav'eva na ‘Plutarkovykh sravnitel'nykh zhizneopisaniiakh slavnykh muzhei’ v perevode S. Destunisa,” in Iz kollektsii redkikh knig i rukopisei Nauchnoi biblioteki Moskovskogo Universiteta (forthcoming).

47. Wortman, 97, cited in Marker, 201.

48. See Iurii M. Lotman, “The Decembrist in Daily Life (Everyday Behavior in a Historical-Psychological Category),” in The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History, ed. Alice S. Nakhimovsky (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 95-149; much useful material is collected in Volk, S., Istoricheskie vzgliady dekabristov (Moscow: Akademiia nauk, 1958 Google Scholar), esp. chapter 3.

49. Zapiski Imperatritsy Ekateriny vtoroi (Moscow: A.S. Suvorov, 1907)Google Scholar, from the entries in 1755.

50. See Eidel'man, N. la., Pushkin: Istoriia i sovremennost’ v khudozhestvennom soznanii poeta (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1984), 65, n. 2Google Scholar.

51. For a number of aborted translation projects, see Semennikov, V., Sobranie staraiushcheesia 0 perevode inostrannykh knig, uchrezhdennoe Ekaterinoi II, 1768-1793 (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Sirius, 1913), 85–89 Google Scholar.

52. Originally published in “Aonidy,” iii (1798-1799), 260. I give the text from Karamzin, N. M., Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii, ed. Lotman, Iu. (Moscow-Leningrad: Biblioteka poeta, 1966), 229Google Scholar.

53. Karamzin, N. M., Pis'ma russkogo puteshestvennika, eds. Lotman, Iu. M., Marchenko, N.A. and Uspenskii, B.A. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1984), 252 Google Scholar.

54. On Karamzin's attitude to the French Revolution, see Lotman, Iurii M., Sotvorenie Karamzina (Moscow: Kniga, 1987), 100–75Google Scholar. On page 263, Lotman links the Tacitus epigram to frustration that Karamzin was feeling in the face of obstacles to his ventures as a publisher, but he does not discuss why Tacitus rather than another ancient figure came to Karamzin's mind. Tacitus enjoyed high regard in England, promoted and widely diffused through Thomas Gordon's translations and vociferous championing. Perhaps it was during the English part of his voyage that Karamzin formed his positive view of the historian. Otherwise Karamzin might have known the French-language edition, Gordon, Thomas, Discours historiques, critiques et politiques sur Tacite (Amsterdam: Frangois Chavignion, 1742 Google Scholar).

55. On Desmoulins and Tacitus in paticular, and the preference for Romans in general, see Parker, Harold T., The Cult of Antiquity and the French Revolutionaries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), esp. 148–49Google Scholar. On the role of the classics in the political culture of the French Revolution, see Hunt, Lynn A., Politics, Culture and Class in the French Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 20-30, 60–61 Google Scholar.

56. Momigliano, Arnaldo, “The First Political Commentary on Tacitus,” in Contribute alia storia degli studi classici (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1955), 48 Google Scholar.

57. Kisliagina, L. G., “Formirovanie obshchestvenno-politicheskikh vzgliadov N.M. Karamzina,” in Karamzin, N.M., Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo (Moscow: Kniga, 1989), 1: 498 Google Scholar.

58. Ibid, 19.

59. On the reaction of one decembrist, see Medvedeva, I. N., “Zapiska Nikity Murav'eva ‘Mysli ob Istorii gosudarstva Rossiiskogo’ N.M. Karamzina,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo: Dekabristy-literatory (Moscow: Nauka, 1954), 569–98Google Scholar.

60. See Mason, Sheila, “Livy and Montesquieu,” in Dorey, T.A., ed., Livy (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1971), 118–58.Google Scholar

61. Zhukovskii, V. A., Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh (Moscow: Izd-vo khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1957-60) 4: 563 Google Scholar.

62. Cited in Volk, 179.

63. Emerson, Caryl, Boris Godunov: Transpositions of a Russian Theme (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), esp. 61–87 Google Scholar; L.N. Luzianina, ‘Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo’ N.M. Karamzina i tragediia Pushkina ‘Boris Godunov’ (k probleme kharaktera letopistsa),” Russkaia literatura, no. 1 (1971), 48-55, in conjunction with Emerson's discussion of a Karamzinian chronotope, idem, 41-45.

64. Karamzin, N. M., Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo (Moscow: Nauka, 1991), book iii, x: 6 Google Scholar. Note the striking reference to Tacitus in the eleventh volume where Karamzin records Boris's psychological breakdown, “Vse v uzhase—i Vel'mozhi userdnye podobno Rimskim senatoram Tiberieva ili Neronova vremeni s voplem kidaiutsia na mnimykh zlodeev, kak dikie zveri na agntsev, grozno trebuiut otveta i ne slushaiut ego v shume. ”

65. Ryleev, K. F., Sochineniia (Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1987), 293 Google Scholar.

66. Griboedev, A. S., Sochineniia (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1988), 537 Google Scholar.

67. Semevskii, V. I., Politicheskie i obshchestvennye idei dekabristov (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Trudovoi Arteli, 1909), esp. 227–28Google Scholar.

68. Pushkin mentions the Zamechaniia na Annaly Tatsita in a letter to Baron Del'vig, dated 23 April 1825. While this provides a useful terminus ante quern, attempts to date the fragments remains inconclusive.

69. See Amusin, I. D., “Pushkin i Tatsit,” Vremennik Pushkinskoi komissii 6 (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiia nauk, 1941), 161–80Google Scholar. The most recent article on the fragments is Knabe, G.S., “Tatsit i Pushkin,” Vremennik Pushkinskoi komissii 20 (Leningrad: Akademiia nauk, 1986), 48–64 Google Scholar. The discussion is to be treated with caution owing to the stilted interpretation of the Latin political vocabulary.

70. For a masterful analysis of Tacitus's style, see Syme, Ronald, Tacitus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 2 Google Scholar: Appendix F, 711-45.

71. Modzalevsky, Boris L., Biblioteka AS. Pushkina (St. Petersburg, 1910; reprint edition, Moscow: Kniga, 1988), 232, no. 915Google Scholar.

72. Ferlet, Edmund, Observations Litteraires, Critiques, Politiques, Militaires, Geographiques, etc. sur les Histoires de Tacite (Paris: An IX, 1801 Google Scholar).

73. Pushkin, A. S., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v desiati tomakh (Leningrad: Nauka, 1978), 8: 95Google Scholar.

74. Ferlet, ad loc.

75. Eidel'man, 55-93.

76. Emerson, 61-87.

77. V. Gippius, “Aleksandr I v pushkinskikh ‘Zamechaniiakh na Annaly Tatsita'” , Vremennik Pushkinskoi kommissii 6, 8: 181-82.

78. Stepan Rumovskii encountered imperial resistance to his translation of Tacitus's Annals in 1807; it is not impossible that Pushkin was aware of the controversy. For a discussion of the affair, see Sukhomlinov, M. I., Istoriia Rossiskoi Akademii (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk, 1895), 2: 103–22Google Scholar. Closer to home and more irritating to Alexander would have been the widespread equation drawn between him and Tiberius. Many such instances are given in Volk, as cited above.

79. Pushkin, A. S., Perepiska A.S. Pushkina v dvukh tomakh (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1982), 2: 112 Google Scholar.

80. Bakhtin, Mikhail, “Response to a Question from the Novyi Mir Editorial Staff,” in Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, eds. Emerson, Caryl and Holquist, Michael (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986), 7 Google Scholar.