Antiokh Kantemir and His First Biographer and Translator

Antiokh Kantemir and His First Biographer and TranslatorAuthor(s): R. J. Morda EvansSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 37, No. 88 (Dec., 1958), pp. 184-195Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205018 .

Accessed: 21/09/2013 12:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 79.112.116.167 on Sat, 21 Sep 2013 12:40:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205018?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Antiokh Kantemir and His First

Biographer and Translator

R. J. MORDA EVANS

The satires of the well-known Russian poet and diplomat Antiokh

Dmitriyevich Kantemir (1709-44) were widely circulated in manu?

script form in Russia at the time of their composition. They were

not printed and published in book form in Russia, however, until

1762,1 almost twenty years after the author's death. Even then the

editor to whom the Academy of Sciences had given the task of

publishing the work, I. S. Barkov, thought fit to recast Kantemir's

notes and to tamper with his verse. Kantemir spent the last twelve

years of his short life as his country's diplomatic representative in

London (1732-8) and in Paris (1738-44). It was from Paris that he

sent in the spring of 1743 the carefully revised draft of his satires

and some other poetical works to St Petersburg. When the edition

of 1762 appeared, however, it also contained a life of the poet. This biography was an almost word for word translation from the

French: a translation of Kantemir's satires into French prose,

together with his life story, had in fact been published outside

Russia as early as 1749,2 a second edition appearing a year later.

This French translation was the basis of a German version in free

verse which was published in 1752 in Berlin.3 The French translation

of the satires and the life of Kantemir were published anonymously, but have generally been attributed to an Italian abbe, the Comte

Octavien de Guasco (1711-81), canon of Tournai and friend of

Montesquieu and Kantemir. In the translator's note to this French

version of the satires we are informed that it is itself a translation

from an Italian rendering of the poems, the result of the collaboration

of Kantemir and his friend the translator during the poet's last

illness: 'durant sa derniere maladie nous les traduisimes ensemble

en Italien'. It is the purpose of this article to sketch a portrait of the

rather elusive abbe Guasco and to discuss his claim to be the first

biographer and translator of Kantemir.

Most of our information about Guasco come, from his own

references to himself in the footnotes to some of Montesquieu's letters which Guasco published anonymously in 1767.4 There are

1 Satiry i drugiya stikhotvorcheskiya sochineniya Knyazya Antiokha Kantemira s istoricheskimi primechaniyami i kratkim opisaniyem yego zhizni, St Petersburg, 1762. 2 Satyres de M. le Prince Cantemir. Traduites en Frangois. Avec VHistoire de sa vie, London, 1749. 3 Heinrich Eberhards Freyherrn von Spilcker versuchte freye Uebersetzung der Satiren des Prinzen Kantemirs; nebst noch einigen Gedichten; auch einer Abhandlung von dem Ursprung, Nutzen und Fortsetzung der Satyren und dem Leben des Prinzen Kantemirs, Berlin, 1752. 4 Lettres Familieres du President de Montesquieu, Baron de la Brede, a divers amis d'Italie, 1767.



ANTIOKH KANTEMIR AND HIS FIRST BIOGRAPHER 185

some other contemporary references to him which are discussed

below; but as almost all other accounts of him draw mainly on the

information he himself provided it is essential to discuss that first.

This edition of the Lettres Familieres of Montesquieu, two-thirds of

which are addressed to the abbe Guasco himself, caused something of a literary scandal in France and England. The people chiefly involved were Montesquieu, Madame Geoffrin and Guasco.

Montesquieu had died twelve years before, in 1755; Madame

Geoffrin was nearly seventy years old, but still enjoyed considerable

celebrity because of the success of her salon5 and her association

with Stanislas I, king of Poland. There is no doubt that the real

purpose of Guasco's publication of these letters was twofold: to

extol his own virtues and achievements and to insult and discredit

Madame Geoffrin. The reader of Guasco's edition of the letters

would be left with the impression that her behaviour towards him

had been so reprehensible that Montesquieu had been constrained

to sever all connection with her out of respect for his friend. In the

longest of his footnotes Guasco gives his version of the affair in the

following terms:

Comme cette tracasserie courut tout Paris dans le temps, il ne sera

pas indifferent d'en dire quelque chose. Les raisons que Mad. Geoffrin disoit avoir pour rompre avec cet etranger, qui avoit ete de sa societe, etoient: 1. Que lui ayant donne une commission d'un service de

Faiiance, pendant qu'il etoit en Angleterre, il la lui avoit fait rembourser en trois paiements differents, des fonds qu'il avoit a Paris, au lieu de lui envoyer une lettre de change du total. 2. Qu'il avoit manque au ton de la bonne compagnie, en parlant un jour chez elle, dans le moment qu'on alloit a diner, d'une colique dont il etoit tourmente et

qui l'obligea de se retirer. 3. Qu'il tenoit a trop de societes. 4. Qu'elle le soupgonnoit d'etre un espion des Cours de Vienne ou de Turin,

puisqu'il etoit tant lie avec les Ministres Strangers. Mais a ces raisons, sans doute veritables, des gens ont ajoute malicieusement: 1. Que cet

Stranger ayant contracte plus de liaisons dans Paris qu'il n'en eut d'abord et n'allant plus journellement chez sile, elle se crut negligee. 2. Qu'ayant fait la vie du Prince Cantimir,6 et par le des personnes avec qui il etoit en liaison, il ne l'avoit point nominee. 3. Que lui ayant fait esperer la connoissance de Mr. le Marquis de S. Germain, Ambas- sadeur de Sardaigne, homme tres estime qu'elle ambitionnoit beaucoup de voir chez elle, la chose n'eut pas lieu paree que cet Ambassadeur ne s'en soucioit pas et que ce fut a l'epoque du refroidissement. Quoi qu'il en soit, une avanie qu'elle lui fit un jour chez elle, decida de la

5 *. . . certain it is that, when a prince, a minister, a man or woman of note, arrived from a foreign country, they went to call upon Madame GeofFrin, were ambitious of being invited to one of her dinners and took great pleasure in seeing us assembled at table.' Memoirs of Marmontel, written by himself. 2 vols, London, 1895, I, p. 259. 6 The name is spelt both Cantimir and Cantemir. The poet used the latter form when signing his name in Roman letters.



l86 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

rupture totale; elle cherchoit ensuite a la justifier par bien des voies,

jusqu'a viser a indisposer M. de Montesquieu contre lui, mais leur amitie etoit a toute epreuve.7

The above footnote and other wounding personal aspersions on

Madame Geoffrin's character to be found in Guasco's notes and

Montesquieu's letters provoked a vigorous reply from the partisans of Madame Geoffrin. The offending and offensive volumes were

seized on entry into France from Italy, where they had been printed and published, probably in Florence. The insulting references to

Madame Geoffrin were hurriedly expunged by means of scissors and

paste. Equally insulting remarks about her in an article by Guasco

in the Gazette d'Utrecht led to diplomatic pressure by the Due de

Choiseul and an apology and refutation were published by the editors

of that journal. French editions of the same Lettres Familiar es were

also published by the Geoffrin party, but all the offending matter

was carefully excluded. Guasco countered by further 'anonymous' editions of his own. An attentive reading of Guasco's long note

quoted above reveals his over-riding concern: to publicise himself, his links with foreign ministers, his friendship with the celebrated

Montesquieu, his membership of numerous societies. The real cause

of his vindictiveness?and he seems to have nursed his sense of

grievance in silence over many years?was most likely the humilia?

tion which Madame Geoffrin had inflicted upon him and to which

he refers in his last paragraph. There seems little doubt that Guasco

was a rather boring and uninteresting person who wanted to cut a

fine figure in the polite society of the French capital and make his

name known in learned circles. He was also what we should call a

'gate-crasher'. The humiliation he suffered was that of being

forcibly ejected from Madame Geoffrin's house, because he could

not, or would not, realise that his presence was not wanted. In his

Correspondance Litteraire Grimm, admittedly a partisan of Madame

Geoffrin, tells us that the incident took place towards the end of

1754 and that Madame Geoffrin's tolerance of Guasco for so long before the final rupture was entirely due to her respect for Monte?

squieu. He also asserts that she remained on good terms with the

latter right up to the time of his death.8

Who then was the abbe Guasco? If we limit ourselves to what he

himself tells us and to the information given in Montesquieu's letters, we learn that he left his home in Turin and went to Paris for treat?

ment for his eyes. We know that Kantemir also suffered from eye-

trouble, and as Kantemir's transfer from London to Paris coincided

7 Lettres Familieres, 1767, pp. 238-9 (Guasco's edition). 8 F.-M. Grimm, Correspondance Litter aire, ed. M. Tourneux, Paris, 1877-9, VII (1879), P- 391-




with Guasco's arrival (1738), they may well have become acquainted

through Dr Gendron who was celebrated for his skill in treating diseases of the eye. Kantemir had actually made a special journey from London in 1736 to consult him. Not long after his arrival in

Paris Guasco had to return to Turin because of the death of his

father. Life there was made difficult for him and his two brothers

on account of the hostility of the Marquis d'Ormea, the chief

minister. As a result his two brothers left the country, seeking their

fortunes first in Russian and then in Austrian service. After a year in Turin Guasco tells us that he returned to Paris, where he gave himself up to literary pursuits because of the difficulties of following a career in the church. He became friendly with Montesquieu and

spent long periods on his estates near Bordeaux. He applied himself

with enough industry to writing essays and dissertations on the

subjects set for prizes by the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles

Lettres to be successful in winning three times, and he was finally elected into one of the four places reserved for foreigners. He travelled

a great deal in France and also visited England. In 1750, while he

was in London, he was received by the Duke of Richmond and

Lord Chesterfield. He was elected member of the Royal Society.9 It seems likely also, from references in the letters, that Guasco helped

Montesquieu in the preparation of his works for the press and in

finding buyers for his wines. After the quarrel with Madame Geoffrin

(1754) and Montesquieu's death (1755) Guasco returned to Italy. He finally settled in Verona and died there in 1781. This latter

fact and some details of his life in Italy can be found in Dacier's

'eloge' of Guasco, pronounced before the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres after his death.10

Grimm's portrait of Guasco in the Correspondance Litteraire is far

from flattering. After pondering the fact that great men often seem

to attract wheedling flatterers he tells us that Guasco was always at

Montesquieu's heels: 'un plat et ennuyeux personnage ... les

vilains yeux hordes de rouge a la fagon des dindons ... un des plus

grands seccatori de 1'Europe savante et galante . . . dans plus d'un

sens un vilain homme'. Even Dacier, in the obituary notice already referred to, felt constrained to comment in unfavourable terms on

his treatment of Madame Geoffrin: 'la verite . . . nous defend de

dissimuler que dans une occasion il s'est venge avec peu de mesure

et de delicatesse. Hatons-nous d'ajouter, pour contrebalancer

l'affligeant aveu que nous avons ete forces de faire, que le merrie

9 Although Guasco did not sign the Charter Book, his name appears in the list of new members for 1750. The entry is for 1 November and reads: Guasco, Octavien de, comte de Clavieres, abbe.

10 Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Histoire et Memoires, 45, Paris, 1793, pp. 186-95.



l88 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

homme, qui ne pouvait pardonner une injure, a eu la generosite de

pardonner a un ingrat qui lui devoit de l'attachement et avoit

attente a sa vie.'11 Be that as it may the fact that Guasco did not return to Paris after the Geoffrin affair hardly counts in his favour. There may well have been some truth in the charge that he was a

spy in the service of an Italian court: he himself includes it in the

alleged reasons for Madame Geoffrin's behaviour towards him and

qualifies them all as 'sans doute veritables'.12

The linking of Guasco's name with the translation into French

prose of Kantemir's satires and the life of the poet to which we have

already referred stems from Guasco's edition of the letters of Monte?

squieu discussed above. From certain of those letters and more

particularly from the footnotes the reader must conclude that the

abbe de Guasco wrote Kantemir's life and published it together with a translation of the satires into French prose in 1749. The

following are the most important references:

(a) Letter from Montesquieu to Guasco, 1 August 1744.

. . . L'Abbe Venuti m'a fait part, mon cher abbe, de 1'affliction que vous a cause la mort de votre ami le Prince de Gantimir et du projet que vous avez forme de faire un voyage dans nos provinces meridionales

pour retablir votre sante. Vous trouverez partout des amis pour remplacer celui que vous avez perdu; mais la Russie ne remplacera pas si aisement un Ambassadeur du merite du Prince de Gantimir.

Footnote to word 'Ambassadeur'.

On peut voir ce qui en est dit dans sa vie, qui est a la tete de la traduction en Francois de ses Satyres Russes, par un anonyme que Ton croit etre Tami, a qui Mr. de Montesquieu ecrit cette lettre.13

(b) Letter from Montesquieu to Guasco, 1746.

... Le Pere Desmolets m'a dit qu'il avoit trouve un libraire pour votre manuscrit des Satyres mais que personne ne veut de votre savante

dissertation, paree qu'on est sur du debit de ce qui porte le norn de

satyres, et tres peu des dissertations savantes.

Footnote to words 'manuscrit des Satyres'.

Il y a apparence qu'il est ici question des Satyres Russes du Prince

Cantimir, avec la vie de l'Auteur, imprimee en Hollande et a Paris. T. i,in-i2.14

(c) Letter from Montesquieu to Guasco, dated 1 March 1747.

... la Duchesse d'Aiguillon, votre muse favorite.

11 Ibid., p. 195. 12 Lettres Familieres, 1767, pp. 238-9 (Guasco's edition). 13 Lettres Familieres, 1767, pp. 47-8 (Guasco's edition). 14 Ibid., p. 59. The title-pages of both the 1749 and 1750 editions carry the words A LONDRES, chez JEAN NOURSE.




Footnote to 'la Duchesse d'Aiguillon'.

C'est a elle qu'il avoit dedi6 la traduction des Satyres Russes du Prince Cantimir sous le norn de Mad . . . paree qu'elle etoit fort liee avec le Prince Cantemir et que c'est a sa requisition que Ton avoit fait la Traduction Francoise de ses Satyres.15

There is also the reference to Kantemir in Guasco's long footnote on

the quarrel with Madame Geoffrin. To the reasons 'sans doute

veritables' for the rupture he added three more 'malicious' state?

ments which people were making to account for Madame Geoffrin's

behaviour. Of these the second, already quoted above, was: 'Qu'ayant fait la vie du Prince Cantimir, et parle des personnes avec qui il

6toit en liaison, il ne 1'avoit point nomrafe.'16

The French prose translation and the biography were published in 1749. The dedication to Madame XXX is dated 1 February 1745, not quite a year after Kantemir's death. Some of the statements in

this dedication and the note of the translator which follows it fill

out the information which can be found in the Lettres Familieres.

The translator seeks to excuse himself in advance:

J'ai lieu de croire Madame que, soit dans la Vie du Prince Cantimir, soit dans ses Ouvrages, le fond des choses aura le bonneur de Vous

plaire. Je n'ose pas en esperer autant pour l'Historien et pour le Traducteur.... Il est singulier, en effet, qu'un Italien s'avise de parler Francois devant une de personnes de France qui le scait le mieux.17

In the translator's note, after referring to his collaboration with

Kantemir in the translation of the satires into Italian, we read:

Des personnes, qui etoient liees avec le Prince Cantimir, m'ayant paru souhaiter de voir ces Satires en Frangois, j'en ai hazarde moi- meme la traduction, que j'en donne aujourd'hui.18

The translator also tells us that he has added certain notes to explain passages in the text which refer to Russian customs; and that he has been able to prevail on 'one of his friends' M-L-P-D-C (i.e. M. le Prince de Charles) to turn into French verse the original Russian dedicatory ode to the empress of Russia and the poem in

praise of the author by the archbishop of Novgorod. Most modern scholars and commentators who have written about

Kantemir accept the evidence given above and consider Guasco as

the first biographer and translator of the Russian satirist. One of the

latest Russian scholars to discuss the question, M. P. Alekseyev, is

quite categorical in his conclusion: 'at the present time Guasco's

authorship can no longer properly be denied: it is established beyond 16 Ibid., p. 85. 16 Lettres Familieres, 1767, pp. 238-9 (Guasco's edition). 17 Satyres de M. le Prince Cantemir, 1749, p. 4. 18 Ibid., p. 8.



190 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

all doubt'.19 His article is mainly concerned with the background to Batyushkov's well-known imaginary conversation between Kante?

mir, Montesquieu and the abbe Venuti, entitled cVecher u Kante-

mira'. He does refer however, in passing, to the identification of

Guasco and in so doing disposes of the patently false attribution of

the work to the abbe Venuti, friend of both Guasco and Monte?

squieu. This was clearly a case of mistaken identity, a slip on the

part of V. Ya. Stoyunin which was too readily repeated by later

writers, notably I. I. Shimko, S. A. Wenger and D. S. Mohren-

schildt. The same error is repeated even more recently in the

collected works of Belinsky, in the notes to the latter's celebrated

essay on Kantemir. Confidence in Guasco's claim to be Kantemir's

first biographer is also evident in the recent welcome edition of the

poet's works which has been issued in Russia.20 The editor of this

volume always quotes the life of Kantemir in the following words:

0. Gouasco. [sic] Vie du Prince Antiochus Cantemir. It should be borne

in mind, however, that this identification of Guasco rests almost

Entirely on the evidence supplied by Guasco himself in his edition

of the Lettres Familihes of 1767. Subsequent references to Guasco's

authorship, such as, for example, Dacier's remarks in his memorial

address to the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, can hardly be treated as first-hand independent evidence in support of Guasco.

There is one other piece of evidence quoted by Alekseyev which

should be considered here. The mistaken attribution of the work

to the abbe Venuti was first discussed by V. N. Aleksandrenko. In

showing that Venuti had not the slightest claim to consideration

Aleksandrenko drew attention to a copy of the Satyres (1750) in the

library of the British Museum. This copy was presented to the

British Museum in 1795 by Sir William Musgrave and contains

several interesting manuscript notes. The names of Madame

d'Aiguillon and Guasco have been written in at the top and bottom

of the dedicatory address where the printed version reads: A Mad.

XXX' and is signed: 'L'A. XXX'. There is also the following

interesting note on the fly-leaf at the front of the book:

Ces Satyres ne sont pas, comme il est dit au titre, traduites du Russe en Francis, mais traduites en Francis sur la traduction Italienne faite sur le Russe. Un Italien qui savait le Russe et etoit ami du Prince Cantemir traduisoit ses satyres dans sa langue. L'abbe Guasco a mis en

Frangois la traduction Italienne. Le Prince Cantemir est le premier, dit-on, qui ait fait des vers Russes. 19 M. P. Alekseyev,

* Montesquieu i Kantemir', (Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta,

1955, no. 6, p. 71). 20Antiokh Kantemir, Sobraniye stikhotvoreniy (Biblioteka Poeta. Sovetskiy Pisatel'),

Leningrad, 1956. See also F. Ya. Priima, 'Antiokh Kantemir i yego frantsuzskiye litera- turnyye svyazi', (Russkaya literatura, Trudy otdela novoy russkoy literatury, I (1957), PP- 7-45).




Aleksandrenko speculated on this apparent distinction between the

translator into Italian on the one hand and on the other, Guasco, who turned the Italian version into French prose. His suggestion that perhaps S. K. Naryshkin had a hand in the matter seems

hardly worth serious consideration. It is true that the records of the

Paris secret police say that he was a frequent visitor at Kantemir's

house and that he sometimes spent his time copying out unimpor? tant documents; but the report refers to 1741 and Naryshkin was

not an Italian.21 Alekseyev suggests that a more likely source of help would have been the two Guasco brothers who had spent some time

in Russian service and returned in 1742. It seems improbable that

their comparatively short stay in Russia would equip them ade?

quately to deal with Kantemir's syllabic verse.22 It is highly unlikely moreover that the abbe Guasco knew Russian; but, on the other

hand, the manuscript note quoted above might easily have been the

result of too cursory a reading of the introductory matter and an

acquaintance with the Lettres Familieres.

Be that as it may, there are several other facts which make it

difficult to accept unreservedly Guasco's claim to be Kantemir's

biographer and translator. In the first place there must be some

doubt about what is, at present, the main source of the evidence

for that claim. The letters of Montesquieu which Guasco published can be checked in only two instances. There are no copies and no

rough drafts of any of the others, although it was Montesquieu's

practice to follow such a procedure. In one of the two cases where

a check can be made Guasco did indeed alter the original. It is

true that the change is insignificant but it serves to underline

Guasco's vanity and his unreliability. There is also, in the foreword

to Guasco's edition of the letters, a passage which rather increases

the reader's doubts with regard to the text:

Quelques-unes de ces lettres etant ecrites d'un caractere peu lisible, d'autres etant mal conservees, il se sera peut-etre glisse quelques inexactitudes dans la copie, que j'en ai fait faire; mais je puis assurer

que cela n'est pas arrive souvent et n'a occasionne aucune alteration essentielle.

In this respect it is necessary to bear in mind, however, that the

editor of Montesquieu's collected correspondence is inclined to

accept Guasco's Lettres Familieres as being genuine; but even he is

doubtful about the three letters on the Geoffrin affair and only

points to the two cases where the other letters can be checked for his

21 V. N. Aleksandrenko, K biografii Knyazya A. D. Kantemira, Warsaw, 1896, p. io. 22 M. P. Alekseyev, 'Montesquieu i Kantemir' (VestnikLeningradskogo Universiteta, 1955,

no. 6, p. 73).




opinion that the collection is, on the whole, genuine.28 Grimm was

much more suspicious and very forthright in his accusations:24

'Je m'etais toujours bien doute que cet abbe . . . etait dans plus d'un

sens un vilain homme. Rien n'empeche de le soupcjonner d'avoir

falsifie les lettres du president au sujet de cette aventure. Un homme

qui peut s'avilir jusqu'a mettre d'indignes faussetes sur le compte d'une personne dont il croit avoir se plaindre peut bien avoir altere

quelques passages.' Guasco's attempt to deny the responsibility for

the publication of the Lettres Familieres in a letter to the Journal

Encyclopedique is such a blatant piece of casuistry that one is bound

to look upon all his other statements with regard to himself as

completely unreliable.25

In the light of such a lack of confidence in the source of our

information about Guasco's role in the writing of the first biography of Kantemir and the translation of his satires into French, we are

surely justified in treating some of the statements made in the

editions of 1749 and 1750 with caution. The translator's account of

his collaboration with Kantemir in an Italian version of the satires

has already been mentioned above. It is impossible to assess with

any certainty the scope of the translator's collaboration. There is

no extant Italian version. There is of course no absolute proof that

Guasco was ignorant of Russian. We do know, on the other hand, that Kantemir's knowledge of Italian was excellent. Even during his

stay in England he had evidently felt confident enough of his

mastery of the language to translate Algarotti's Newtonianismo per le

dame into Russian; and what is more to criticise the author's Italian.

An expert examination of the French translation might be able to

tell us whether it bears the mark of a translation from the Italian

rather than from the Russian. For the time being there are grounds for thinking that if Guasco did indeed collaborate with Kantemir in an Italian version of the satires, his contribution was a very modest one. It is not certain from Guasco's own statements whether the work was commissioned by the Duchesse d'Aiguillon or not. In 1749 he wrote that he had attempted the translation because the close friends of Kantemir had 'seemed to him to desire to see them in French'. In the footnote in the Lettres Familieres quoted above he states that the work had been dedicated to the Duchesse d'Aiguillon because it was at her request that the translation had been made.

Some of the statements that are made in the life of Kantemir

23 Francois Gebelin (avec la collaboration de M. Andre Morize), Montesquieu: Corre? spondance, Publications de la Societe des Bibliophiles de Guyenne, 2 vols, Bordeaux, 1914, I, pp. viii-xii.

24 F.-M. Grimm, Correspondance Littiraire, ed. M. Tourneux, Paris, 1877-9, VII, p. 392. 25 Maurice Tourneux, 'Madame Geoffrin et les editions expurgees des Lettres Fami? lieres de Montesquieu' (Revue d'Histoire Littiraire de la France, I, Paris, 1894, PP* 52-64).




make it hard to believe that it was entirely the work of Guasco. One

such comes at the very end of the life of the poet. After mentioning the translations and other works of Kantemir, the biographer goes on in the following words:

Je ne fais pas mention de celui de ses ouvrages qui seroit sans doute le plus estime, s'il pouvoit voir le jour. Je veux parler des relations,

qu'il a envoyees a sa cour, des affaires & des interets des principales cours de 1'Europe qui sont toutes bien ecrites et dont plusieurs sont des chefs-d'oeuvres.26

Even if the abbe Guasco knew Russian, which is most unlikely, it is

hardly credible that he had access to the personal and confidential

despatches which Kantemir sent to the Russian authorities regularly twice a week. There is, of course, no reason why a biographer could not obtain such information elsewhere; but in this case the

tone of the passage certainly leads the reader to believe that the

writer of the words had first-hand experience of the documents

concerned. Other passages tell us of Kantemir's subterfuge on the

death of the Empress Anne in 1740, when the ambassador, rightly

anticipating that the regency of Biron might be short, sent his

congratulatory letter under separate cover to a friend, instructing that it be delivered or destroyed in the light of political develop? ments.27 There are also some fairly detailed references to Kantemir's

poetic vocabulary and his place in Russian literature. Here again there is no reason why the biographer should not be reproducing facts which he has learned from those better able to judge; but the

following two passages seem to imply something more than a mere

knowledge of facts:28

(a) On mele fort souvent dans le Russien des mots tires de l'Esclavon et d'autres langues ^trangeres. Le P. Cantemir les a hannis de cet

ouvrage, aussi bien que de ses autres poesies, autant qu'il lui a ete

possible; ce qui fait voir que la langue est assez riche d'elle-meme. M. Trediacofski avoit aussi voulu hasarder des vers hexametres et

pentametres et composa sur ce genre de versification une prosodie Russienne: mais ces vers ne reussirent pas et le prince Cantemir a fait

plusieurs remarques sur cette prosodie, qui restent en manuscrit, ou il

n'approuve pas les regies donnees par cet auteur.

(b) Outre les satyres il a introduit le premier les vers non rimes dans la langue Russe dans ses traductions d'Anacreon, & des epitres d'Horace, & il y a fort bien reussi au jugement des connoisseurs

Russiens, de sorte qu'il a porte la poesie en cette langue a un point, qui fait esperer qu'elle s'y perfectionnera de plus en plus. Mais il faut

pour cela un genie et un zele aussi grand que celui de cet illustre auteur. Et si jamais les Moscovites ont autant de poetes que les Italiens

26 Satyres . . ., 1750, p. cxxviii. 27 Ibid., p. lxvii. 28 Ibid., pp. lvi, lviii.




et les Francois, ils regarderont, a juste titre, le prince Cantemir, comme le principal fondateur de leur parnasse.

There was, however, someone to whom Guasco could turn for much of the material in the biography. It seems to me quite possible that

the life of the poet was as much the work of Heinrich I. Gross as of

Guasco. Gross was the younger brother of Christian Friedrich Gross, one of Kantemir's teachers during the period before he left Russia

for London in 1732. It was at the elder brother's earnest request that

Kantemir had taken Heinrich into his service. Heinrich joined Kantemir in London and remained with him to the end of the

poet's life. It was Gross who succeeded Kantemir as Russian diplo? matic representative in Paris and it was he who was responsible for

winding up Kantemir's affairs in Paris and seeing to the sale of his

books and the sending of his body and certain personal effects to

Russia. It is difficult to think of anyone else in Paris during Kante?

mir's embassy who would have as detailed a knowledge of Kantemir's

confidential despatches, his correspondence and his literary activities.

This linking of the name of Kantemir's secretary with the publi? cation of the translation of the satires and the biography is made all

the more plausible by a specific reference to Gross in the editor's

foreword to the German translation of the satires, which was pub? lished in 1752. The editor of the German version was C. F. Mylius, a cousin of the great dramatic critic and playwright Lessing. He

refers to the translation of the satires into French in the following terms: 'Sein ehemaliger Gesandschaftssekretar und nachheriger

Nachfolger in seinem Gesandschaftsposten, Herr Gross, iibersetzte

diese Satyren, unter des Verfassers Aufsicht, in franzosische Prose.'29

The translator, a certain Baron von Spilcker, merely refers to the

French text and tells us that the translator states that he is an

Italian; Spilcker is nevertheless ready with the suggestion that the

biographer must have had intimate knowledge of confidential

affairs: 'Es giebet sich . . . der Uebersetzer fur einen Italiener aus, welcher den Prinzen, allen Anscheinen nach, wo nicht gar als ein

Freund, doch wenigstens als ein Geheimschreiber begleitet.'30 It may be argued that Mylius merely found a name to fit the

suggestion; but the name he found was certainly not that of an

Italian: it was that of the man who was in the best position to have done a translation and who had most knowledge of the details of

Kantemir's life. There are two other facts which deserve under?

lining here: Gross went from Paris to Berlin in 1749 as Russian

plenipotentiary; he died in 1765. He was therefore in Potsdam at

the time of the translation into German and had died before the

89 Spilcker ... Vorrede des Herausgebers (pages unnumbered). 30 Ibid., p. liii.




publication of Montesquieu's Lettres Familieres by Guasco, the source

of the identification of Guasco as the biographer and translator.

One is surely justified in surmising that Mylius himself may have

learned from Gross who translated the Russian satires first into

French.

The evidence is naturally inconclusive. There are nevertheless, as we have seen, good grounds for treating Guasco's claims with

great caution. His credentials are poor. His claim was made in a

highly unorthodox way in a highly controversial book, which was

published twenty-three years after Kantemir's death and eighteen

years after the actual French biography and translation. There is no

need to enumerate again the problems which an acceptance of his

claim presents. There is no gainsaying the fact that many of these

problems would not arise if Heinrich Gross were the author. Kante?

mir's loyal and grateful subordinate both in London and Paris, he

was anxious to prove his worth and be a faithful secretary and

friend. His knowledge of Russian and French were excellent. His

intimate acquaintance with the affairs of the embassy and the

political situation is also beyond doubt. Even if the abbe Guasco

were responsible for the actual publication of the work it is far from

certain that he was the author and further research is necessary before we take him at his word.31 In concluding we may perhaps be allowed to quote his own casuistic statement on the matter of

anonymous authors, published in the Journal Encyclopedique at the

time of the Geoffrin affair discussed above:

. . . Quand il n'y a aucune preuve que quelqu'un soit l'auteur d'un

ecrit, il ne faut point le lui attribuer; que des conjectures ne sont point des preuves pour le lui attribuer; que quand il y a des choses dans un ecrit qu'un auteur ne doit point dire de soi-meme, il faut d'autant moins le lui attribuer; enfin, que dans le eas ou un auteur veut garder Panonymite, il n'est pas dans les regies des procedes de le traduire en

public et qu'a moins qu'on ne lui en veuille d'ailleurs il faut le consulter avant que de rien affirmer. . . .32

As Guasco's last recommendation is beyond his powers the modern

scholar must be content with some more diligent research before he

can solve the problem. 31 *Gia mi ha scritto Montesquieu della castrazione fatta dal cancelliere al Cantemir.

Non voglio che si stampi se e castrato a segno di non interessar phi.' Guasco to Filippo Venuti, Montpellier, 17 February 1749. Cortona, Biblioteca dell5 Academia etrusca, MS. 572, ff. 16-17. I am indebted to Mr Robert Shackleton, fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, for this reference.

38 M. Tourneux, 'Madame Geoffrin et les editions expurgees des Lettres Familieres de Montesquieu' (Revue d'Histoire Littiraire de la France, I, Paris, 1894, pp. 52-64).



Antiokh Kantemir and His First Biographer and Translator

Documents

Transcript of Antiokh Kantemir and His First Biographer and Translator