Peter the Great's Decree Appointing Leibniz to the Russian Justizrat

(I've retained as many of the features of the manuscript as possible. Two words remain undecipherable to me, though I confess my skills in early modern Slavonic paleography are a bit rusty. Translation to follow. I welcome comments from fellow Slavists.) 

Мы пεтръ пεрвыï Цръ и самѡдεржεцъ всεросиïскиï: Iпротчая ипротчая ипротчая; изобрѣли мы заблго ____ кȣрѳирстского икняжаго браȣнщвигъ люнѣбȣргъ таиного юстицъ рата готѳрида вилгεлма ѳонъ леïбница. Заεто намъ выхвалεнныя иот насъ изѡбрѣтεнныя изрядныя достоинства I искȣства тамождε внаши таиныя юстицъ раты опрεдεлить иȣчрεдить. Что намъ помεжε мы извεстны. Что ѡнъ поȣмножεнию матεматичεскихъ Iиныхъ искȣствъ ипроизыскиванью гисторεи ïкприрашεнию наȣкъ много вс'помоши можεтъ. Его поимεющемȣ нашεмȣ намѣрεнию что наȣки Iискȣства вншεмъ гдрствѣ вящεи цвѣтъ произошли употрεбить. Имы для вышεпомянȣтого εгѡ чина ншεго таиного юстицъ рата годовоε жалованьε потысячи ____ опрεдεлить изволили, которыя εмȣ отнасъ εжεгодно исправно заплачεны быть имѣютъ инчεму мы налεжащи Указы дать изволимъ. Аεто слȣжба начичаεтца снижεписанногѡ числа; воȣвεрѣние того сие заншимъ собствεннымъ рȣкопописаниεмъ игдрствεнною ншεю пεчатью Дано в Карлсьбадε [11 ноября] въ 1712 году. 

--

The manuscript is dated 11 November, 1712. Bodemann [El. Charl. 2, 324] provides a report from Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans from 10 December on Leibniz's meeting with the Russian Tsar a month prior:

"Es muß ein wildt wesen in Moskovien sein, ich finde also, daß herr Leibenitz groß recht hatt, nicht dahin gehen zu wollen.  Ich bin alß charmirt vom Czaar, wenn ich sehe, daß er so viel mühe nimbt, sein landt zu verbessern."

Which is to say:

"Muscovy must be a savage place. Thus I find that Herr Leibniz is right in not wishing to go there. I am as it were charmed by the Tsar, when I see how much care he takes to improve his country."

Comments

[Mikhail Emelianov]

This is fascinating - where is this from? I mean are you working with an actual manuscript? I'm not sure how you're expecting help with undecipherable places without the image of the manuscript - maybe I'm missing something here. In any case, I came across your discussion of Leibniz on 3QD, good stuff :-)

[Justin E. H. Smith]

Hi Mikhail,

I hope you check in again to find this comment. Send me your e-mail next time, if you can.

I suppose I was hoping that readers with a deep familiarity with early 18th-century Russian legal documents could interpolate the missing words just from context, and might also be able to tell me if I've read anything incorrectly, e.g., the use of "rukopopisanie" for what in modern Russian would be "podpis'" seems implausible to me, and I'm very tempted to read it as "rukopodpisanie," but that's just not what the manuscript dictates. There are other things that don't seem linguistically possible to me (knowing modern Russian, and having studied Old Church Slavonic, but being relatively unfamiliar with the centuries in between). But again, with manuscript transcription, I always go with the evidence of the senses, and invoke linguistic considerations only when the senses are of no help.

I have the document only as a photocopy from a facsimile from Kurt Müller and Gisela Krönert's very useful Leben und Werk von G. W. Leibniz: Eine Chronik. I could fax you the copy if you're interested. I think if I tried to scan it it would just degrade beyond readability.

I suspect that it's available also in a facsimile edition of documents relating to the reign of Peter the Great, but these are something I haven't even begun to explore.

Best wishes,
Justin

[Mikhail Emelianov]

Justin,

You're right "рукопоДписание" is the only one that would make sense, Russian Orthodox style still uses expressions like "соборное рукоподписание" - it can be just a spelling mistake or a short hand, I suppose it depends on the level of the manuscript. I don't want to create any illusion here however I am not a specialist, simply an amateur, I do know Russian and Old Slavonic and I have some interest in things like глаголица (but not in a creepy neo-pagan way - do you know much about those types?) I don't know if fax is a good option, are you doing it for a project? I can probably get the book through interlibrary loan and take a look but of course it's not going to be fast. My email is mikhailemelianov-at-yahoo-dot-com.

[Justin E. H. Smith]

Hi Mikhail,

Thanks again for your message. Will be back in touch by private correspondence.

The ms seems to have lots of skipped letters (beyond the usual condensation of the important words, which I suppose has an ecclesiastical origin, as when "METER THEOU" gets condensed into "MR THU" on Orthodox icons). Here, the insight of a native speaker of Russian (as I'm assuming you are from your name), who has more cultural/linguistic resources, in the form of stock phrases from Orthodox church services, etc., packed into his brain than he may even be aware of, is quite helpful.

I'm doing this not for any immediate project, but only because (i) I'm a completist in my approach to Leibniz's life and work, and (ii) I'm trying to get back into the Slavic linguistics stuff that I abandoned after I finished my undergrad degree in order to go into philosophy.

I'm hoping, after I finish my current book on L's phil. of biology, to write something on Leibniz and Russia, and maybe even to organize a conference in Montreal or in St. Petersburg, depending on the state of international relations and possible sources of subvention by the time I get around to it.

I do know those creepy neopagans you mention. I think however that it's a very noble task, and one very much in the spirit of Leibniz, to try to reclaim runes, glagolitsa, etc., for the cause of universal knowledge, as against the special interests of the creative anachronists.

Yours,

Justin

[Justin Bieber Shoes]

Thanks for your good advice. I agree. The more people, the merrier. More weight makes for a

faster ride. Thanks David, good advice. We're actually already starting to work.