Istoricheskie poniatiia i politicheskie idei v Rossii XVI–XX veka: Sbornik nauchnykh rabot, and: Russische Begriffsgeschichte der Neuzeit: Beiträge zu einem Forschungsdesiderat (review)

The history of concepts (Begriffsgeschichte) has lately become the subject of active international discussion. Having established itself in various ways in the countries of Western Europe in the 1970s, conceptual history went on in the last 10–15 years “to occupy one of the most significant spaces in international historiography.”¹ Although interest in the method flagged in its home country in the 1990s,² a new phase of understanding began in Germany with the death in 2006 of the founding father of Begriffsgeschichte, Reinhart Koselleck.³ Centers for conceptual history have been founded in Holland and Finland, conferences and roundtables have taken place in Turkey and Mexico, and Koselleck’s works are actively being translated into other languages.⁴

The collection of articles Istoricheskie poniatiia i politicheskie idei v Rossii XVI–XX veka, a publication sponsored by the European University in St. Petersburg, likewise contributes to the further diffusion of the method of conceptual history—in this case, as applied to Russian materials. As is often the case with collections, the publication brings together articles of varying stages of research and theoretical sophistication. N. E. Koposov’s introductory article sets the theoretical tone and is primarily oriented toward the German school of conceptual history; this orientation is reinforced by publication of a translation of Koselleck’s classic, programmatic article on social history and the history of concepts.⁵ The remaining articles in the collection are devoted to analysis of the history of specific concepts in Russian political discourse, including gosudarstvo (state), demokratiia (democracy), suverenitet (sovereignty), and narodnost′ (nationality). Russian history, as a relatively new field for conceptual history, has also drawn the attention of German Slavists and Russian history specialists. The collection edited by Peter Thiergen, Russische Begriffsgeschichte der Neuzeit, presents the results of a German conference on this topic and contains 27 articles, organized by author’s last name without thematic divisions. The subtitle of the anthology, by calling Begriffsgeschichte a “research desideratum,” hints at the volume’s proselytizing goals. The intent of popularizing the method of conceptual history in Russia is confirmed by the text of the introductory article.

Despite Koselleck’s preference for small scholarly genres (in his entire career he wrote only one monograph) and the fact that his shorter articles could be easily accommodated in even a small journal, his work until recently has only rarely been translated.⁶ This statement includes the English-speaking world, which had limited access to the original texts of the founder of Begriffsgeschichte. The first full-scale edition of Koselleck’s articles in English was not published until 2002.⁷ The primary reason has been difficulties in translation. German terms, including the fundamental Begriff, do not always have unambiguous equivalents. For example, the English historical concept, although it is the most widespread translation of Begriff, is far from identical in meaning. The English concept, which derives from the Latin conceptum (past participle of concipere, to conceive) implies both ideas and, like the German Begriff, notions anchored in specific terms.⁸ Russian translations of Koselleck’s articles have not avoided this problem; one cannot always understand the author’s thought without the German original at hand.⁹ To complicate matters, the uses assigned and meanings formulated for historical concepts are ingrained in the national tradition. National variations of historical semantics were developed independently over time, and because no effort was made to have these terms correspond to one another, they cannot even be compared without preliminary research.

Until now the...