“Svitrigailo, Grand Duke of Lithuania, or Supplement to histories of Lithuanian, Russian, Polish-Prussian” : Translation and Publication of Work of August Kotzebue in Russian Empire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of the history of the translation into Russian of the historical work of the German playwright August Kotzebue “Svitrigailo, the Grand Duke of Lithuania”, which was published in 1835, when the name of the famous German author had already become a sign of bad literary taste, and his works ceased to be published. For the first time, the study introduces into scientific circulation materials from several archives that store documents that allow us to draw conclusions about why Kotzebue’s essay on the history of Lithuania and Poland has been lying on the shelf of the censorship department for more than a decade. The results of the study showed that the manuscript could not be allowed for publication for a long time, not because of the scandal around the tragic death of its author, and not because of the new heroized interpretation of the image of Svitrigailo. The real reason for oblivion was the additions (documents from the Königsberg archive) with which Kotzebue supplied his work. The author of the article reports that, among various historical materials, three papal bulls were presented at the end of the manuscript, related to the project of a possible reunification of the Latin and Greek churches. It was these documents that delayed the publication of Kotzebue’s work in Russian. The archival materials involved show that the censorship of the first quarter of the 19th century considered the dissemination of materials related to the issue of unification of churches dangerous for Russian society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".