• 1 Peter Burke, “Introduction,” in Peter Burke & Roy Potter, eds., The Social History of Language (Cam (...)

3The precursors of this movement include linguists such as Ramón Menéndez Pidal and Ferdinand Brunot in the first half of the twentieth century, as well as sociolinguists such as William Labov and Peter Trudgill in the second half of the century. Their research has facilitated the reconstruction of the social dimension of linguistic practices. In the 1980s, in a book titled Social History of Language, Peter Burke called on historians to pay closer attention to the role of language in the history of society, emphasizing that language is closely linked to processes of social change. Burke coined the following phrase: “Language is too important historically to leave it to the linguists.”1 Emphasizing the innovative nature of Burke’s approach, José Del Valle writes that the main objective of social history of language is not the identification of linguistic variations and their social correlates. Language must be considered

• 3 The project is supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation (Rossiiskii nauchnyi fond) and the Ge (...)
• 4 For language practices in other professions significant for eighteenth-century Russia, which are no (...)

6Most of the articles are devoted to diplomacy because this special issue was prepared in connection with an international research project on the use of languages in Russian diplomacy of the eighteenth century.3 We present them in chronological order of the periods studied. These include the studies by Yana Larina, who examines the use of languages at the Åland Peace Congress (1718-1719); by Sophie Holm and Vladislav Rjéoutski, who explore language practices in internal diplomatic communication between Swedish and Russian diplomacies from the 1720s to the 1740s; by Maksim Šikulo, who studies language learning among Russian “students of the embassy” and “gentlemen of the embassy” in the 1720s-1740s; and finally by Maria A. Petrova, who examines the role of language proficiency as a factor in the personnel policy of the Russian College of Foreign Affairs in the 1740s-1780s. Three other articles concern the linguistic practices of military personnel, artists, and physicians. Denis Sdvizhkov explores military language in eighteenth-century Russia, while Hugo Tardy considers language practices in the studies and professional activity of artists in the same period. Wladimir Berelowitch and Rodolphe Baudin examine the curriculum and the languages in which Russian students studied various subjects in Strasbourg in the 1770s-1780s, distinguishing between two groups: aristocrats, on the one hand, and the lesser nobility and students from less privileged backgrounds, on the other.4

• 5 I am not aware of studies specifically dedicated to the origin of professions and the genesis of th (...)
• 6 See: https://ruscorpora.ru/; https://krp.dhi-moskau.org (accessed 4.03.2024).
• 7 AVPRI (Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi imperii - Archives of the Foreign Policy of the Russian (...)

8A fundamental question that underpins all these studies is that of the concept of “profession” itself.5 Can we speak of “professions” in the modern sense of the term for eighteenth-century Russia? The terms used in Russian to describe occupations that we would now qualify as “professional” offer an insight into the challenge of applying this concept to the realities of the time. Indeed, several terms were used in Russian to translate the words “profession” or “Beruf”: in the first half of the eighteenth century, Russian equivalents such as sostoianie, zvanie, nauka, promysel, and remeslo referred rather to status, science, or craftsmanship and were thus very distant from the modern sense of the word professiia. However, the term “professiia” began to be used in Russian from around the middle of the century, but in the writings of Russians during this period, the term sometimes carried a specific meaning. For example, Mikhail Lomonosov consistently used it to mean “science.”6 Among Russian diplomats, the term was practically never used at the time. When, in 1753, the future Russian diplomat Pavel Levashev addressed his petition to Empress Elizabeth, he used this word in the sense of “career path in civil or military service.”7 It is in translations from Western languages into Russian that the meaning of the word comes closest to its modern meaning. Given that these are translations, it is plausible that what was called a “profession” in some European countries did not correspond to any observable phenomena in Russian society at that time.

• 8 Abbott, The System of Professions; Freidson, Professionalism.

9These reservations are confirmed when comparing the eighteenth-century professions of Russia with the criteria associated with modern professions, such as a clear hierarchy, well-defined career paths, expertise acquired through formal education, and so forth.8 Furthermore, in its current meaning, the term “profession” does not imply a close link between the type of activity and social origin. This link indeed existed in Russian society at the time, although the studies published in this issue demonstrate that the boundaries between different social groups (sosloviia) and professions were not impenetrable.

• 9 For a recent update on the recruitment of foreign specialists (particularly French speakers) by Rus (...)

12One overarching characteristic that immediately emerges from reading these articles is the connection between language practices in the professional context and mobility, especially geographical mobility. This dimension is evident in diplomacy, where diplomats often spent extended periods of time abroad, providing them with opportunities for contact with foreign cultures. However, Maria A. Petrova illustrates another facet of professional mobility, as the recruitment of foreigners was a constant feature for Russian diplomacy throughout the eighteenth century. This phenomenon reflects a broader trend in Russian society of that time, which predates the reign of Peter the Great but became particularly pronounced during and after his rule: the recruiting of foreign specialists to serve in Russia.9

• 10 A.V. Beliakov, Sluzhashchie Posol´skogo prikaza 1645-1682 g. [The personnel of the Ambassadorial Ch (...)
• 11 Vladislav Rjéoutski, “Les écoles étrangères dans la société russe au siècle des Lumières,” Cahiers (...)
• 12 Anna Joukovskaïa, Le service diplomatique russe au xviii^e siècle. Genèse et fonctionnement du collè (...)

15Historians have demonstrated the reliance of Russian diplomacy, particularly in diplomatic translation, on foreigners during the seventeenth century.10 They have also highlighted how, for decades, foreign teaching staff influenced the forms and content of education in educational institutions for the Russian nobility.11 In her article, Petrova reveals the challenges that could arise when Russia employed a foreign diplomat who lacked proficiency in Russian, as well as strategies used to overcome such difficulties. The role of foreigners in training Russian diplomatic personnel during the eighteenth century deserves close examination, especially given that Russian foreign affairs continued to rely on these individuals for translation services during Peter the Great’s reign.12

• 13 See for example: Dan Altbauer, “The diplomats of Peter the Great,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteur (...)

16The mobility of Russian subjects sent to various European countries, or those who went there on their own initiative to study or work, was equally significant. These subjects acquired expertise in various professional fields and, naturally, in languages. Shikulo demonstrates that the Petrine practice of sending young men to study abroad, well known to historians,13 persisted after the monarch’s death and became the cornerstone of diplomatic personnel training.

• 14 This study builds upon those that have already become classics: Jürgen Voss, “Les étudiants de l’Em (...)

17This phenomenon, affecting both the nobility and commoners, and sometimes even the sons of priests, extended far beyond the realm of diplomacy. It touched several other sectors, some of which are examined by Berelowitch and Baudin in their investigation of the stay of Russian subjects in Strasbourg, one of the most important centres hosting students from the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century.14

• 15 But there are also some examples of nobles who traveled abroad of their own initiative: Vladislav R (...)
• 16 However, all translation in particular professional fields was by no means initiated by the state. (...)
• 17 See Offord, Rjéoutski, Argent, The French Language in Russia, ch. 2.

18This mobility, whether in one direction or the other, was instigated by the state, which emerges as a central actor in the history of linguistic practices in the professional domain in Russia.15 The state’s initiatives in this field are a continuation of its policies at various levels: the recruitment of European specialists and the dispatch of numerous Russians for study and extensive stays abroad, as previously mentioned, but also many other programs, either unexplored or only briefly mentioned in the articles published here. These include the translation of “professional” works from Western languages into Russian16 and institutional support for German, Russian, or Latin within domestic educational establishments.17

• 18 S.V. Pol´skoi, V.S. Rzheutskii, “Perevod i razvitie politicheskogo iazyka v Rossii XVIII veka” [Tra (...)

20Furthermore, it is important to examine the origins of ideas concerning the language requirements of various professional circles, whether in diplomacy; the military; or academic spheres. This aspect has attracted relatively little attention, despite its significant potential for developing an understanding of how these ideas permeated Russia and were debated, assimilated, and practiced. It is plausible that mobility played a pivotal role in this process, perhaps in conjunction with translation, which constituted a significant part of the Russian book market during that era.18 Nonetheless, more comprehensive and precise studies could help scholars better understand the mechanisms at play.

• 19 Ingrid Cáceres Würsig, Historia de la traducción en la administración y en las relaciones internaci (...)
• 20 On the Académie politique, see: H. Keens-Soper, “The French Political Academy: A School for Ambassa (...)

21Indeed, Shikulo’s study underlines the potential significance of research on the circulation and reception of these ideas. Was the system of “students” and “gentlemen of the embassy” established by the Russian Foreign Affairs original, or did it emulate existing models, notably that of the giovani di lingua instituted by the Venetians or the secretaries of embassy introduced by the Swedes?19 Similarly, one might question whether Russian diplomatic schools, especially those of Schwimmer and Glück predating the famous Académie politique in France, were original undertakings or followed known models.20 Naturally, historians are often dependent on archives, which may, as in the case of the Russian system described by Shikulo, remain silent regarding possible influences from foreign models.

• 21 Kozlova, Rossiiskii absoliutizm i kupechestvo, 215, 336, 343, 345, etc.; Joukovskaïa, Le service di (...)

22The measures undertaken by the Russian authorities suggest that throughout the eighteenth century, there was recognition within Russian bureaucratic structures of the necessity for specialized training not only for future diplomatic personnel but for college clerks, merchants, and others. Such training initiatives consistently included the learning of foreign languages. However, these government initiatives also reveal a lack of understanding of the needs and culture of certain social and professional groups. This deficiency is evident, for example, in the repeated yet unsuccessful attempts to send sons of merchants abroad for studies or to enrol nobles in colleges to prepare them for civil careers.21 Consequently, problems arose that the government sought to overlook or circumvent rather than resolve, as demonstrated by Shikulo.

• 22 See some examples: Joukovskaïa, Le service diplomatique russe au xviii^e siècle; Diana Carrió-Invern (...)
• 23 Among the studies that address this question, we should mention: Didier Ozanam, Les diplomates espa (...)

23Should we speak of “professionalization” when studying training for diplomatic personnel? The term is often used when speaking about both Russian diplomacy (including by M.A. Petrova and M. Shikulo in their articles published in this issue) and Western diplomacy.22 Discussing the possibility of applying this concept to diplomacy in the early modern period helps to better understand the evolutions observed in Russia.23

• 24 Kugeler, ‘Le Parfait Ambassadeur’, 160, 164-165; on the “uniform” image of a diplomat among diploma (...)
• 25 Joukovskaïa, Le service diplomatique russe au xviii^e siècle, 208-209. However, these reflections re (...)

24Historians have presented various arguments supporting the idea of the gradual “professionalization” of diplomacy during this period. These include, for example, the emergence of resident diplomacy and the establishment of diplomatic career paths, and efforts to implement training programs for diplomatic personnel. Early modern theorists provided an idealized description of the diplomat, emphasizing the importance of expertise and career progression and proposing concrete measures to improve diplomat preparation. The practice of preferring aristocrats for the first diplomatic positions was criticised, given their often limited understanding of diplomatic work.24 In Russia, a similar awareness of the challenges faced by diplomats due to inadequate training, and of the necessity for targeted training programs for future Foreign Affairs personnel, is observed.25

• 26 Tracey A. Sowerby, “Early Modern Diplomatic History,” History Compass 14/9 (2016): 441-456, here 44 (...)
• 27 Kugeler, ‘Le Parfait Ambassadeur’, 163.
• 28 Jan Hennings, Tracey A. Sowerby, “Introduction. Practices of diplomacy,” in Tracey A. Sowerby, Jan (...)
• 29 See on this question and on the cultural turn in recent diplomatic history in general: Hennings, So (...)

25However, as Tracey A. Sowerby notes, determining “professional” characteristics in the diplomacy of the early modern era does not make much sense. Doing so seeks to measure them against the yardstick of today’s international politics, applying anachronistic concepts to a historical phenomenon in the context of the “society of princes.”26 Heidrun Kugeler also emphasizes the risk of anachronism and teleological focus.27 The difficulty of discussing diplomacy as a “profession” at that time is highlighted by the idea that the contours of diplomacy are not clear given the multiplicity of actors and practices.28 This position is linked to the conceptualization of socio-cultural practices in diplomacy as the basis of foreign policy, rather than its consequence.29

• 30 Kugeler, ‘Le Parfait Ambassadeur’, 167.

26While it is important to avoid applying present-day criteria to early modern diplomacy, it is worth questioning whether certain diplomatic systems of that era were more specialized and closer to current standards of diplomacy than others. In the case of eighteenth-century Russia, the profile of a diplomat appears relatively clear. Unlike some Western diplomacies, informal diplomatic actors were less prevalent in Russian diplomacy. Moreover, there was a fairly clear distinction between various categories of diplomatic personnel and, from the time of Peter the Great, numerous career diplomats appeared. Additionally, significant efforts were made to establish training programs for diplomatic personnel. This last aspect is underlined by Kugeler, who emphasizes the growing recognition among bureaucratic elites across different countries of the importance of diplomat training.30

• 31 Hillard von Thiessen, “Diplomatie vom type ancien: Überlegungen zu einem Idealtypus des frühneuzeit (...)
• 32 However, some countries had different practices in this field, such as the Netherlands, Great Brita (...)

27The differentiation between those destined for high-level diplomatic positions and the personnel of embassies at mid and lower levels is important for understanding what qualities were sought for these two personnel categories, particularly regarding language proficiency. By introducing the concept of the diplomate de type ancien31 which emphasizes the ability of diplomats to socialize at court, Hillard von Thiessen highlights the specificity of diplomacy during that time. In this context, heads of diplomatic missions, typically aristocrats, reached these high positions largely due to their social status and connections.32

• 33 This is also noted by A. Joukovskaïa, Le service diplomatique russe au xviii^esiècle, 205.

28Analysing the requirements and characteristics cited during the appointment of heads of posts in Russian diplomacy from 1740 to 1780, Petrova notes that language proficiency is hardly ever mentioned. On the other hand, she emphasizes that at the lower level, requirements, including linguistic skills, did exist.33

• 34 Vladislav Rzheutskii [Rjéoutski], “Meždu Rossiei i Zapadnoi Evropoi; diplomaticheskie iazyki rossii (...)

29This system, though seemingly flawed at first glance, appears to have worked quite well. It is true that in the first half of the eighteenth century, the lack of proficiency in certain languages among high-ranking diplomats could hinder their effectiveness, as evidenced by the case of a Russian diplomat assigned to gather information at the Spanish court in the 1720s, where his lack of Spanish apparently placed him at a disadvantage.34

• 35 Joukovskaïa, Le service diplomatique russe au xviii^esiècle, 208.

31Should one conclude, then, that for senior diplomatic personnel, sought-after qualities were mainly those traditionally associated with aristocrats: a prestigious name, a noble title, a refined communication style, and the ability to navigate social circles at court, not to mention excellent proficiency in French, which was so natural in this milieu that there was no need to mention it? It is probably not a coincidence that, in the second half of the century, when high-level Russian diplomats addressed the issue of their skills, they generally did not mention languages but rather spoke of knowledge of international affairs. For example, the advice given by former ambassador Count Ivan Chernyshev to his young colleague Count Andrei Razumovskii, embarking on a diplomatic career in a high position, was to read Wicquefort and Grotius rather than learn languages.35

• 36 AVPRI, f. 2/6, d. 1676.

34This distinction is illustrated by documents related to the exams taken by a group of “gentlemen of the embassy” at the Noble Cadets Corps in Saint Petersburg in 1746 upon their return from abroad.36 While the number of languages presented in this exam varied from one student to another, they all learned French, the language of the nobility, which was the only common base. The content of the texts they wrote or translated during these tests, as well as the subjects in which they wanted to be examined (which were not imposed on them), demonstrate their adherence to the aristocratic model of education rather than targeted preparation for diplomatic careers. The subjects learned in the 1770s-1780s by young Russian aristocrats in Strasbourg, particularly the “historical and political aspects,” were closer to the diplomatic domain, as demonstrated by W. Berelowitch and R. Baudin. The obligations of the “students of the embassy,” as highlighted by Shikulo, remain relatively undocumented, but it seems that their training was focused on practical embassy tasks, including translations and correspondence.

• 37 On the noble orientation of the school, see: Vladislav Rjéoutski, “Die französische Sprache in der (...)
• 38 It is also pertinent to note that very few students trained at Glück’s school later worked for Fore (...)

36This school was funded by the Ambassadorial Chancery, which seems to suggest that the leadership of the Chancery were aware of the need to have a pool of well-trained diplomatic personnel. However, the curriculum of the school does not seem to have been tailored for the actual needs of diplomatic work. Although the school offered a wide range of languages, some may not have had practical utility in the context of foreign affairs of the time, potentially reflecting Glück’s personal interests as an exceptional polyglot. Moreover, the program was partly focused on noble education, without the specialization seen, for example, in the project of the Académie politique in France.37 By offering subjects that primarily interested the nobility, Glück seemed to respond to the new taste for “noble” education within the Moscow aristocracy. It is possible that he also followed an understanding of a diplomat’s ideal profile, which underscored the importance of qualities relevant for high-ranking diplomats, as argued before.38

• 39 On German in colleges and the recruitment of clerks proficient in German during the time of Peter t (...)
• 40 On the role of German in diplomatic relations between Russia and Sweden, see the article by Yana La (...)
• 41 V. Rzheutskii, I. Fediukin, V. Berelovich [V. Rjéoutski, I. Fedyukin, W. Berelowitch], eds., Ideal (...)
• 42 For example, at the court theatre: Alexei Evstratov, Les Spectacles francophones à la cour de Russi (...)

37In the noble education in Russia, whether it was public or private, there was a shift from learning German to a preference for French. What may appear as a “linguistic fashion” proves to be a complex process resulting from several elements whose action must be studied and measured for each case. The transition from German to French, clearly perceptible not only in the education of the Russian nobility but also in its cultural orientation and professional activity, can only be understood correctly if one considers a series of factors whose importance and influence changed over time. These include the role of the German-speaking nobility of the Baltic provinces and other Germans in the Russian state bureaucracy;39 the presence of numerous German-speaking teachers in Russian educational institutions; the country’s connections with German-speaking regions and those with a strong tradition of German practice, such as Sweden;40 the changing European context with a progressive ascendancy of French in various fields; the growing interest of the Russian nobility in an ideal of noble education strongly linked to a mastery and practice of French;41 and the broader role of French at the Russian court,42 to name only the most obvious.

• 43 The decree of September 9, 1773, prescribes that educational institutions should give preference to (...)

39This cultural and linguistic reorientation of the Russian nobility went against the linguistic policy of the Russian bureaucratic elites. On the one hand, they sought to support German43 as one of the languages of the Russian Empire, deeming it important for maintaining cohesion among the main ethnic groups of the elites. On the other hand, they aimed to more energetically promote Russian, which was increasingly thought of not only as the main language of the nation but also as a significant identity marker.

• 44 As it is reflected in the new regulation of the Cadet Corps: [Betskoi], Ustav imperatorskogo shliak (...)

40Indeed, the desire to give Russian a greater place in education and the professional sphere was a prominent trend throughout the period considered here. During the Petrine era, this idea remained implicit (evident, for example, in the desire to translate useful works for certain professions into Russian). However, it began to be expressed more clearly in the second half of the century, when the necessity to teach all subjects in the Russian language was debated and ultimately became a government priority.44

• 45 On French as a social marker for the Russian nobility, see: Offord, Rjéoutski, Argent, The French L (...)

43These nobles may have legitimately considered that French had become a universal vehicle of learning and communication. However, if their choice leaned towards French, would it not be because, in their imagination, it had become an important social marker for their milieu, an essential element of noble identity?45 Indeed, the very concept of nobility was increasingly associated with a style of courteous and elegant sociability for which proficiency in and use of French were considered essential.

• 46 I. Fediukin [I. Fedyukin], “‘Ot oboikh istinnoe shliakhetstvo’: Sukhoputnyi kadetskii korpus i kons (...)

44Similarly, within Russian educational institutions for the nobility, such as the Noble Land Cadets Corps, the educational process was imbued with the ideal of noble upbringing. Although elements of professional training were present in these institutions that prepared future military officers, they did not constitute the primary focus of the curriculum.46

• 47 M.A. Petrova, “Iazykovye praktiki rossiiskikh i avstriiskikh diplomatov vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v. (...)

46It can be assumed that in the professions practiced by nobles, linguistic needs followed a similar trajectory. This is suggested by M.A. Petrova in a recent article. By analysing the language choices in the correspondence of Russian diplomats in the second half of the eighteenth century, she draws attention to the fact that their education and life experiences abroad influenced their language choices in their diplomatic correspondence. Thus, Count (later, Serene Prince) Aleksandr Andreevich Bezborodko, who had a significant influence on Russian diplomatic affairs in the 1780s to the early 1790s, did not master French as well as some Russian diplomats from aristocratic families, which apparently determined his language choice in his exchanges with the highest dignitaries of the College of Foreign Affairs. However, more common seem to have been cases similar to that of diplomats Nikolai (1754‑1826) and Sergei Rumiantsev (1755-1838), sons of the Field Marshal General Piotr Aleksandrovich Rumyantsev-Zadunaiskii (1725-1796), who had travelled extensively in Europe during their youth and studied at the University of Leiden, and who primarily communicated with the College in French.47 A better understanding of language-learning strategies and professional orientations at different levels, involving both families and individuals, is necessary for a nuanced and balanced view of the social history of languages in Russia, beyond governmental policies.

• 48 Vladislav Rjéoutski, “Native Tongues and Foreign Languages in the Education of the Russian Nobility (...)
• 49 Ekaterina Kislova, “Latin as the language of the orthodox clergy in eighteenth-century Russia,” in (...)
• 50 Buck, “The Russian Language Question.”

47If Russian nobles displayed a keen interest in learning French, they were reluctant to learn Latin, as shown by the example of the young Russian aristocrats in Strasbourg studied by Berelowitch and Baudin, along with research on institutions such as the Noble Land Cadets Corps and Moscow University.48 It is quite naturally also that French, and not Latin, became the primary language of instruction for Russian aristocrats in Strasbourg, as shown by the authors. In contrast, the clergy learned Latin even though this language was not directly used in their daily pastoral work.49 Latin retained its significance for scholars50 and physicians and was tied to their professional identity, as we are reminded by the same authors. Thus, in their education and linguistic practices, the nobles stood in contrast to clergy and scholars.

• 51 Even among the clergy: Kislova, “Le français et l’allemand dans l’éducation religieuse en Russie au (...)

48Did this opposition blur over time as more people from social groups other than the nobility also learned French?51 Tardy’s study suggests so, revealing that students at the Academy of Fine Arts in St Petersburg, typically from modest backgrounds, systematically learned French. Yet, for future artists, proficiency in French primarily served practical purposes. It not only provided access to professional literature and courses (some of which were taught in French by professors at the Academy of Fine Arts) but also facilitated their life and studies during travels abroad. Essentially, artists did not use French as a social marker, unlike nobles.

• 52 On asymmetry of power in linguistic practices and, more generally, on power and language, see: Rosi (...)

49This observation is illustrated in the article by the correspondence between Prince Aleksandr Mikhailovich Golitsyn, a diplomat and vice-chancellor of the Empire, and the sculptor Fedot Ivanovich Shubin regarding the prince’s bust. Although both men were fluent in French, its use in their correspondence was deemed inappropriate, as it would have implied that Golitsyn was addressing Shubin as an equal. We see that both the positions of the actors and the roles of the languages were often marked by a significant power asymmetry.52

• 53 On the varying attitudes towards the adoption of French as the language for internal communication (...)

54In the last third of the century, the prevalence of French in the internal exchanges of Russian diplomats reached a point where it began to be perceived as the primary professional language of Russian diplomats. Should this process be explained by the European context in which French had become an international lingua franca? This is by no means certain because varied approaches are observed within Europe. For example, Spanish and British diplomats used almost exclusively their own language for internal correspondence; Prussia enforced French on its diplomats from the 1740s onwards; and Danish diplomats often communicated in German before shifting to French.53

• 54 Offord, Rjéoutski, Argent, The French Language in Russia, 123, 166, 170, 195, 214, 225, 573.
• 55 Petrova, “Iazykovye praktiki rossiiskikh i avstriiskikh diplomatov,” 46-47. For the discussion of e (...)

55Instead, the surge of French in Russian diplomacy may be better explained by the prominence of Francophonie in high Russian society during this period. Many diplomats came from this social stratum, where French was commonly used in correspondence and even within families,54 likely influencing their professional communication practices. The example of the correspondence between Prince Dmitrii Mikhailovich Golitsyn (1721-1793), who long represented Russia at the court of Vienna, and his cousin Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Golitsyn (1723-1807), Vice Chancellor of the Russian Empire, analysed by M.A. Petrova, is enlightening in this regard. Their exchanges span the personal and the professional realms, with personal and professional subjects often addressed in the same letter. The language used by D.M. Golitsyn is characterized by frequent code-switching even within a single letter and the absence of a clear link between the choice of language and the topic discussed, except perhaps for two subjects: estate management, typically addressed in Russian, and the education of these diplomats’ nephews, which is consistently discussed in French.55 It can be assumed that many diplomats were losing a clear vision of the functions of both languages in diplomatic correspondence.

• 56 Petrova, “Iazykovye praktiki rossiiskikh i avstriiskikh diplomatov,” 49-53.

56From this perspective, in the second half of the century, there is a clear difference between the language practices of Russian diplomats and those of Austrian diplomats, as further demonstrated by M.A. Petrova. The latter preferred to write their official reports in German, while they often used French in their semi-official letters addressed to Joseph II, Chancellor Wenzel Anton, Prince von Kaunitz, or Vice-Chancellor Johann Ludwig, Count von Cobenzl.56 In this way, the boundary between different types of diplomatic correspondence was delineated by the choice of language, just as in Swedish diplomacy in the first half of the century, as demonstrated by S. Holm.

• 57 N.I. Khimina, Gosudarstvennost´ Rossii. Slovar´-spravochnik [The Statehood of Russia. A handbook] ( (...)

57The widespread use of French by Russian diplomats, even in reports addressed to the monarch, elicited a strong reaction from Catherine II. In 1787, the empress issued a decree demanding that these diplomatic reports be submitted in the diplomat’s native language.57 In other words, Russian-speaking diplomats were henceforth required to write reports in Russian rather than French. It is certainly not a coincidence that this decree was issued at a time when Russian authorities were promoting the Russian language, especially in educational institutions, and the Russian Academy was created (1783) following the model of the French Academy to defend and promote the country’s language. Despite these measures, by the century’s end, Russian had relinquished its position as the language of internal correspondence in Russian diplomacy, allowing French to become the quintessential professional language of Russian diplomats.

• 58 For the relationship between language and nation in Europe before the nineteenth century, see, for (...)
• 59 Even though some changes can be observed in this regard at the beginning of the nineteenth century, (...)

58Towards the end of this period, there is, on the one hand, the assertion of ideas that associate linguistic practice with national identity, thus prefiguring the nationalism of the nineteenth century.58 On the other hand, one sees the traditional attachment of a segment of the Russian nobility to an idea that does not necessarily equate language use, whether public or intimate, with patriotic feelings. This nobility perpetuated the predominant role of French as the main language for accessing knowledge and continued relegating Russian to a secondary role in education.59 The authors of the studies published here do not observe a rejection of the use of foreign languages in the internal correspondence of diplomats. However, it is noteworthy that, in the 1720s‑1740s, senior Russian-speaking diplomats generally refrained from using French in this type of communication.

• 60 Ekaterina Basargina, Proekty akademicheskoi reformy 1855-1917 gg. [Projects of the reform of the Ac (...)

59Even in the era of nationalism, language practice in certain professional circles in Russia escapes this ideological framework. In the nineteenth century, this situation was exemplified by the continuing use of French in diplomatic circles, including in the internal correspondence of Russian diplomats. This practice persisted due to the enduring dominance of French in noble education and in the social life of the upper nobility, but certainly also because French was now considered the quintessential professional language of Russian diplomacy. Similarly, German experienced a revival at the Academy of Sciences and in the Russian academic world, reflecting both the increasing influence of German science and the presence of scholars from the Baltic provinces.60

• 61 Let us cite, for example, a study on the transfer of architectural terminology from French to Russi (...)
• 62 G.I. Smagina, “Publichnye lektsii Sankt-Peterburgskoi Akademii nauk vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v.” [T (...)
• 63 “Nauki perenesutsia na nash iazyk.” RGIA (Rossiiskii gosudartvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv - State Hi (...)

60The emergence and assimilation of specialized terminologies play a crucial role in the training of professionals and the functioning of various professions.61 During the eighteenth century, several Russians felt a glaring lack of specialized terms in their own language. For example, in the 1780s, the academician Nikolai Yakovlevich Ozeretskovskii declined the offer from Princess Ekaterina Dashkova, the director of the Academy of Sciences, to deliver public lectures on botany in Russian, citing the absence of necessary terminology in this language.62 The shift towards teaching in Russian, especially at the university level, in the second half of the eighteenth century, was probably aimed at not only improving the efficiency of education and broadening the social base of university education but also developing Russian terminology in the major scientific disciplines. When Ekaterina Dashkova wrote that “the sciences will be expressed in our language,”63 she was doubtless referring also to the development of scientific terminology in Russian.

• 64 See the project website for more information: https://krp.dhi-moskau.org/ (accessed 27.12.2023).
• 65 It should be noted that these texts were translated almost exclusively from Western European langua (...)

61The formation of terminology was closely linked to translation activity. As demonstrated by the project of the German Historical Institute in Moscow on the translation of socio-political texts,64 translators regularly introduced new terms via their translations. The formation of professional vocabulary through translation was a by-product of this activity, with the main goals of translators and editors being to familiarize the public with the works of foreign authors or to compensate for the lack of original works in Russian.65

• 66 N.A. Smirnov, Zapadnoe vliianie na russkii iazyk v Petrovskuiu epokhu [The Western influence on the (...)

62The era of Peter the Great was marked by the translation and massive adaptation of new terms.66 As Sdvizhkov shows in his article, many translations of military literature during Peter’s reign were driven by the urgent needs of Russia, which was opening to the Western world and needed European technologies. At that time, most Russian publications on military affairs were indeed translations. However, this ratio changed during the reign of Catherine II, when only about 15 % of military publications (in the broad sense) were translations due to the emergence of Russian authors writing on this subject.

• 67 For more details, see: S.V. Pol´skoi, “Rukopisnyi perevod i formirovanie svetskogo politicheskogo i (...)
• 68 An example regarding the diplomatic field, as mentioned earlier: Petrova, “P.A. Levashev i ego pere (...)

63The form and meaning of concepts created in the translation process were largely influenced by the translator’s general knowledge and social experience. In Russia at that time, there was a wide diversity of translation cultures: the clergy, college clerks, and nobles did not translate in the same way but chose words from areas of language that were more familiar to them.67 Translations of texts important to a particular profession were not always made by people practicing those professions, but such cases were not unusual and can provide insight into the work of professionals reflecting on the use of terminology in their own field.68

• 69 There are many studies on borrowings in the Russian language, particularly during the Petrine perio (...)
• 70 Some examples from their correspondence: akceptatsiia, aktsessiia, aprobatsiia, difikulty, korreshp (...)

64Professional terminologies were not created solely in the translation process but also in the act of writing texts in Russian. Russian diplomats, who wrote reports in Russian (common practice in Russian diplomacy at the beginning of the century), used borrowed terms extensively.69 For example, Prince Ivan Andreevich Shcherbatov, representing Russia in Spain, and Aleksei Veshniakov, Russian consul in Cadiz, sprinkled their correspondence from the 1720s with numerous French borrowings.70 Only some of these terms referred to diplomatic concepts; thus, the borrowing process extended beyond the strictly professional sphere. Some of these words probably did not exist in Russian at the time and were created by the diplomats when writing their letters.

• 71 On the languages that could be used depending on the recipient and the type of diplomatic correspon (...)

71This dual nature is reflected in the use of languages by diplomats. While they are pushed to engage with foreign colleagues and host courts in their preferred languages, they are compelled to communicate with hierarchical superiors and their monarch using traditional language(s), and the language of the country, in this case Russian, was often the preferred medium for this kind of exchanges.71

• 72 Translators and interpreters have sometimes been equated with diplomats: Ruth A. Roland, Interprete (...)

75If senior diplomatic personnel were less affected by these requirements, it is, in my opinion, because, with their extensive yet sometimes unspecialized education, adept social skills in courtly circles, and mastery of French, aristocrats were well-suited for the types of contacts expected of ambassadorial or ministerial roles during that era. Subordinate staff could handle specific tasks, which naturally included translation, but also certain contacts, and even diplomatic correspondence, although the extent of the involvement of this staff in these varied functions cannot always be fully understood.72