Abstract
In the course of Elizabeth’s reign two hitherto non-existing factors begin to play an ever-increasing part: the softening of repressive measures resulting from the milder character of the regime, and increased Western-European, notably French, cultural influences. Although, as we have noted earlier, the intercourse with Europe did not cease after Peter’s death, it was, especially in the reign of Anna, largely restricted to its Germanspeaking part. With the tide of revulsion from the rule of the German clique of Biron which had brought Elizabeth to the throne, came also the interest in France and things French, aided and abetted by the new empress herself and her immediate entourage.1 Another important difference was that the carriers of Western-European influences were themselves, no longer, as in the early part of the century, predominantly “technicians” — carpenters, shipwrights, navigators, engineers, etc. — but often leading intellectuals, men of letters or creative artists. (Such were the foreign, mostly German, professors at the Academy of Sciences and, later, Moscow University; the organisers of and some participants in court theatricals, painters, sculptors, architects; the Russians sent to study at the universities abroad, of whom Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov are the most prominent examples). Their impact was consequently making itself felt in the realm of ideas rather than that of material things, and although it was confined to a very small group of people, these were the people whose influence was far in excess of their number. It was fortunate, if possibly fortuitous, coincidence that the type of the court favourite in Elizabeth’s reign was considerably superior in most respects, not least intellectually, to that in the regimes immediately preceding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
This does not appear to have been particularly affected by the fact that there was a break in diplomatic relations with France between 1748 and 1755. Close political ties were resumed towards the end of 1756.
Arkhiv kn. Vorontsova, (Vorontsov Archives) III, M., 1871, p. 649. This contains a rather remarkable item in the form of a translation of an article from a newspaper published at Utrecht, in French, dated 8 February 1754. The article is in the form of a report from Russia which refers to the fact that Elizabeth had abolished the death penalty upon her accession. After commenting on the allegedly dire consequences of this act, such as the increased incidence of arson, the author of the article notes that “it has been decided to make representations to the Empress, in the strongest possible terms, to prevail upon her to renounce her vows [never to condemn anyone to death] both for the sake of the preservation of Faith in her Realm and of Good Order”; and that “some members of the Holy Synod have taken it upon themselves to explain to the Empress the urgent necessity for this change.” Needless to say, the article looks very much as if it had been faked or, at least, inspired by someone in Russian government circles.
Zhizn’ i priklyucheniya Andreya Bolotova, (The Life and Adventures of Andrey Bolotov) I, M.-L., 1931. p. 174-5.
Cf. N. Vasilenko, “Rost frantsuzskogo vliyaniya v Rossii do frantsuzskoy revolutsii” (The Growth of French Influence in Russia Before the French Revolution), Otechest-vennaya voyna i russkoye obschestvo 1812–1912, (Te Patriotic War and Russian Society), M., 1911, p. 23.
The effects of Voltaire’s activities as a writer and a playwright had just about reached their climax. (Voltaire himself lived in Berlin between 1750 and 1753. His contacts with Russia gained in intensity after 1756, as a result of his having begun to work on the history of Peter the Great. The first volume of the Encyclopaedia came out in 1751. Montesquieu’s L’Esprit des Lois was published in 1748 and L’Esprit by Helvétius ten years later in Amsterdam. Didérot’s Sur La Poésie Dramatique appeared in 1757–58 (shortly before Rousseau’s Nouvelle Héloïse (1761) and Emile (1762).
Semyona Poroshina zapiski …, (Memoirs of S.P.) St. P., 1844. Poroshin, born in 1741, was educated at the Army Cadet Corps and appears to have had a good knowledge of French and German. From 1762 until 1768 he was tutor is mathematics to Prince Paul (the future Paul I). In 1765 he quotes his following remark to the young Prince: “There are books which are indispensable for every person’s education, among their number I count … the works of Mr. Montesquieu and L’Esprit by Helvétius …” (p. 217).
Roman Larionovich Vorontsov (1707–1783), brother of the Chancellor Mikhail Lario-novich. Alexander and Semyon were born in 1741 and 1744 respectively. The relevant correspondence dates from the period 1753–1783 and is to be found in Arkhiv kn. Voron-tsova, (Vorontsov Archives) Vols. XVI (1880) and XXXI (1885).
The following printing presses opened during this period: in 1753 at the Metropolitan See at Kiev; in 1756 at Moscow University; in 1757 at the Army Cadet Corps; in 1759 at the School of Artillery and Fortification. In 1761 a second press was opened at the Senate, “for the printing of Books translated by Court Counsellor Volchkov.”
In 1755 the Academy of Sciences began to publish the first Russian semi-popular scientific and literary magazine Yezhemesyachnye sochineniya (Monthly Essays); from 1756 Moskovskiye Vedomosti (Moscow News) began to be published at the newly established University of Moscow press; in 1759 Prazdnoye vremya v pol’zu upotreblyonnoye (Leisure Usefully Employed), published at the Army Cadet Corps and Trudolyubivaya pchela (The Industrious Bee) edited by Sumarokov and printed at the Academy of Sciences, appeared at St. Petersburg.
Cf. Pekarsky, Istoriya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk v Peterburge, (History of the Imperial Academy of Sciences at [St.] Petersburg), II, St. P., 1873, pp. XLI f. Schumacher and Teplov were the joint authors of the Constitution of the Academy of 1747. A typical example of the spirit in which it was written is Section 17: “A new invention, suitable for publication in the Comentarii of the Academy, must not be included without the permission of the President, since no Academician — and even less an Adjunct — is permitted to make any decisions on his own.’ (The text of the Constitution is reproduced in Appendix 4 to Istoriya Akademii Nauk SSSR, (History of the USSR Academy of Sciences), I, M.-L., 1958, pp. 436-453.
For the present purpose I understand “censorship” to mean a direct control with the power to pass or suppress, exercised by the government or its organs, over the contents of a written work.
For example, the Minute of the Kantselariya of 16 January 1748 directs: “Two books translated by Vassily Lebedev … to be forwarded to Prof. Lomonosov, for examination…” (Sukhomlinov, Materiyaly…, (Source Materials), IX, p. 17). Anson’s Voyage Around the World translated (from the German version) by the same Lebedev, was passed for publication in March 1750. (Ibid., p. 320).
Sukhomlinov, IX, p. 460.
Ibid., p. 461.
Pekarsky, Istoriya Imp. Akademii …, (History of the Imperial Academy … ), II, 1873, pp. 897ff.
Ibid., p. 432.
For further examples cf. the Minutes No. 303 of 16 Jan. 1750 (Sukhomlinov, Vol. IX, p. 243) and No. 311 of 19 January 1750, (Ibid., p. 250). Also Skabichevsky, p. 32.
Essai sur l’homme par M. Pope. Traduit de l’anglois [sic], Amsterdam, 1738. The translator was one Silhouette. (N. S. Tikhonravov, “Istoria izdaniya “ “Opyta o chelov eke” “ v perevode Popovskogo”, Sochineniya, (The Story of the Publication of the Essay on Man in Popovsky’s Translation, in Works) II, M., 1898, p. 82. This article was originally published in Russkiy Arkhiv, (Russian Archives), VII, 1872, pp. 1311-1322.
Ibid., pp. 82-3.
The book was printed at the Moscow University Press at the time when Popovsky was, in a sense, one of its supervisors.
Tikhonravov, p. 86.
In 1747 the University was officially separated from the Academy proper. 23 Sukhomlinov, Materialy …, X, p. 518.
Ibid., p. 521.
E.g. professors who were late for their lectures were to be fined at the rate of one day’s pay for one hour’s absence. (Ibid., p. 522).
S. Shevyryov, Istoriya Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo Universiteta 1755–1855, (History of the Imperial University of Moscow) M., 1855, p. 13. The first Curators were I. I. Shuvalov (until his death in 1797) and Blumentrost. The Conference in 1756 consisted of six members appointed by Shuvalov: three Assessors and three Professors. By 1761 the proportion of the administrative to the academic element within the Conference changed in favour of the latter, its composition then being two Assessors, four Ordinary Professors, plus the Rector (Schaden) and a Secretary. (Cf. Dokumenty i materialy po istorii Moskovskogo Universiteta vtoroy poloviny XVIII veka, (Documents and Source Materials Relating to the History of Moscow University in the second half of the 18th Century), ed. by N. A. Penchko, I, (1756-1764), M., 1960.
I. I. Melnikova, ed., Izdaniya Moskovskogo Universiteta 1756–1779, (Publications of Moscow University), M., 1955, p. 8.
To avoid confusion of terms it is necessary to explain that the term “public lectures” referred to the lectures delivered before the students as a part of the ordinary curriculum, whereas “private” lectures, for which the professors were allowed to charge their own fees, were open to anyone interested outside the University. (Shevyryov, p. 15; Solov’yov, Istoriya Rossii …, (History of Russia), XXVI (Book XIII, M., 1965), p. 555; also cf. A. Kizevetter, “Moskovskiy Universitet”, in Moskovskiy Universitet 1755–1930, (Moscow University 1755–1930), Paris, 1930, pp. 15, 43.
Shevyryov, pp. 23f.
P.S.Z., XIV, No. 10,515.
Solov’yov, XXV (M., 1965), p. 193. The University library, according to the same report, consisted of about 5,000 volumes, not counting the text-books used by the students.
Pekarsky, Redaktor, sotrudniki, etc., (The Editor of the Contributors to, etc.), p. 4. 33 Ibid., p. 5.
Ibid., p. 42.
Ibid., p. 44. This refers to Bernard de Fontenelle’s work Entretiens sur la Pluralité des Mondes.
Ibid., p. 47. Cf. also USSR Academy of Sciences, M.V. Lomonosov — Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy (Complete Collection of Works), X., M.-L., 1957, pp. 141ff.
Pekarsky, op. cit., pp. 51–52. For an account in English of the “historical” controversies within the Academy at the time see H. Rogger, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia, Harvard U.P., 1960, chapter “The Uses of History”.
Ya. Grot, Pis’ma Lomonosova i Sumarokova k I. I. Shuvalovu, (Letters by Lomono-sov and Sumarokov to I. I. Shuvalov), (Supp. to Vol. I of Zapiski Imp. Akademii Nauk, (Records of the Imp. Academy of Sciences), No. 1), St. P., 1862, p. 18.
Letter from Taubert to Popov dated 7 January 1759, Arkhiv Akademii Nauk SSSR, (Archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences), No. 239, Fol. 33, quoted by D. D. Shamray and P. N. Berkov in “K tsenzurnoy istorii “ “Trudolyubivoy pchely” ” A. P. Sumarokova” (A Contribution to the History of Censorship of A. P. Sumarokov’s The Industrious Bee), XVIII Vek, Sb. 5, M.-L., 1962, p. 400. The authors of this article use the quoted instruction to Popov as a premise for the assertion that the “censorship” exercised by the Academy was intended to deal with both the “ideological” and “formal” aspects of a written work. In this they overlook Sumarokov’s letter applying for the use of the Academy’s printing facilities from which I have just quoted. Since the distinction between the contents and the form of items to be published was first made by Sumarokov himself, Taubert’s letter clearly amounts simply to an acceptance of his terms and cannot serve as a basis for a theory of principles of censorship as conceived by the Academy authorities. Berkov and Shamray also maintain a discreet silence around the rather unsavoury part played by Lomonosov in the “censorship” of the Bee and in its demise, producing instead the hypothesis that it may have been suppressed as a result of Sumarokov’s article in praise of Peter the Great (see below).
Dela arkhiva Akademicheskoy Kantselarii, (Files in the Archives of the Academy Chancellery), No. 239 (Report by Prof. Semyon Kotel’nikov of 4 October 1759 and the President’s order of 7 October 1759), quoted by Sukhomlinov, Istoriya Rossiyskoy Akademii, (History of the Russian Academy), III, St. P., 1876, p. 52.
Grot, op. cit., p. 42.
Berkov, Istoriya russkoy zhurnalistiki, (The History of Russian Periodical Press), pp. 126–7. See also D. D. Shamray, “Tsenzurnyi nadzor nad tipografiyey Sukhoputnogo Shlyakhetnogo Kadetskogo Korpusa” (Censorial Supervision over the Printing Press at the Land [i.e. Army] Corps of Noble Cadets), in USSR Academy of Sciences, XVIII vek, Sb. 2., M.-L., 1940, pp. 303-308, for details indicating that the “censorship” at the Corps printing press (established in 1757) was analogous to that at the Academy.
Anton Alexeyevich Barsov (1730–1791) studied at the Academy of Sciences under Lomonosov and Tredyakovsky. Transferred to Moscow University upon its opening in 1755, appointed Ordinary Professor of Rhetorics in 1761 in which post he remained until his death.
Cf. Dokumenty i materialy …, (Documents and Source Materials …), N. A. Penchko, ed. I, passim.
For example, an announcement which appeared in St. Petersburg Vedomosti in 1761 offered financial inducement to those who had in their possession books already translated and invited them to bring such books to the Academy for publication; it also offered a choice of books in foreign languages available at the Academy bookshop free of charge to potential translators. (Solov’yov, XXVI, p. 574).
J. Lough, An Introduction to Eighteenth Century France, Lond., 1960, p. 305.
P. Hazard, European Thought in the Eighteenth Century, Cleveland, 1963, pp. 74ff.
Hazard, ibid.
By the Manifesto of 21 February 1762. (P.S.Z., XV, No. 11, 445). It prescribed corporal punishment, without investigation, for those invoking slovo i delo.
Samuel Bentham, younger brother of the famous Jeremy, describes a case of a practical application of this law some twenty years later. Among his unpublished diaries written during a trip to Siberia in 1781–1782 there is a note dated June 1781 about a man who had invoked slovo i delo in a quarrel with his brother: “… the ukaze is to flog such a man directly without further inquiry, but as he [one Grigori Grigorievich, apparently a manager of a factory] does not chuse to be call’d a cruel person he would immediately send him in chains to Catherinburg, for the Governor to punish him”. (British Museum, Additional Manuscripts — shown subsequently as B.M., AddMss. — 33,552, Fol. 190).
N. D. Chechulin in Istoriya Pravitel’s tvuyushchego Senata za dvesti let 1711–1911, (History of the Governing Senate for the Two Hundred Years 1711–1911), II, St. P., 1911, pp. 690–691 and 696.
The Council of State established at the outbreak of the first Turkish war, in November 1768, was, for the remaining part of Catherine’s reign, concerned almost exclusively with foreign affais, but it can be considered covered by this definition since its members were recruited from precisely this circle of immediate advisors.
The following quotation taken from the draft of her letter to Voltaire, written in 1765, may serve as an illustration: “Je dois rendre justice a la nation; c’est un excellent terrain, sur lequel unne bonne graine prend bien vite; mais aussi il nous faut des axiomes incontestablement reconnus pour vrais.” (Sbornik Russkogo (later Imperatorskogo Russ kogo) Istoricheskogo Obschestva (The Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society), henceforth Sb. R.I.O., X, p. 35).
This offer was made on Catherine’s behalf to Didérot by I. I. Shuvalov, via Voltaire. The latter wrote in this connection (to Didérot, on 25 September N.S., 1762): “… in what times do we live? France persecutes philosophers while the Scythians offer them protection.” (M. F. Shugurov, “Didro i ego othosheniya k Yekaterine II” (Didérot and his Relations with Catherine II), in Osmnadtsatyi Vek, (The Eighteenth Century), ed. by P. Bartenev, M., 1868, p. 261). The Encyclopaedia was to be published at Riga.
Among those was Sheshkovsky, later to acquire renown as the investigator of Ra dishchev and Novikov.
P.S.Z., XVI, No. 11,717.
Sb. R.I.O., X, p. 133.
Privilegiya i ustav Imperatorskoy Akademii tryokh znatneyshikh khudozhestv, Zhivopisi, Skul’ptury i Arkhitektury s vospitateVnym pri onoy Akademii uchilishchem, (The Charter and Statute of the Imp. Academy of the Three Most Prominent Arts, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture With the Boarding School Attached to the Aforementioned Academy), St. P., 1765. This Academy was actually established already in the reign of Elizabeth, in 1758, but no legislative act concerning it was passed at the time.
Letter dated at St. Petersburg, 29 June/10 July 1766. (Sb. R.I.O., X, St. P., 1872, p. 94).
It was suppressed in Paris and the author confined to the Bastille, albeit for a short period.
Sukhomlinov, Istoriya Rossiyskoy Akademii, (History of the Russian Academy), I, p. 121. The autograph draft of Marmontel’s letter to Catherine is in the British Museum (Add.Mss. 21,514).
Cf. Sochineniya Imperatritsy Yekateriny II, (Works of Empress Catherine II), ed. by A. N. Pypin, Vol. V, St. P., 1901, pp. 17f. Gavriil (Petrov) later Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, figured prominently in the work of the “Commission” (see also below, P. 97).
Sukhomlinov, p. 122.
P.S.Z., XVI, No. 11,843.
Cf. V. A. Bil’basov, Istoriya Yekateriny Vtoroy, (History of Catherine the Second), II, Berlin, 1900, pp. 292ff. Catherine, in one of her notes, referred to this decree as “the Manifesto on Silence” (o molchanii).
For example, in 1757, during the Seven Years War, Elizabeth issued an edict ordering the immediate cessation of “discussions and arguments on various political matters”. (P.S.Z., XIV, No. 10,733).
Sb. R.I.O., XLVIII, p. 559, and the memorandum from the College of Foreign Affairs to the College of Commerce, dated 24 June 1763 and signed by M. Vorontsov and Prince Alexander Golitsyn. (Arkhiv. kn. Vorontsova, henceforth: Vorontsov Archives, VII, M., 1875, p. 605.)
It was reproduced by Bartenev in Vosmnadtsatyi Vek, (The Eighteenth Century), Book 3, p. 392.
Sb. R.I.O., VII, p. 318.
For the possible Western model cf. the French Royal Decree prescribing death penalty for “all those who shall be convicted of having composed, or caused to be composed and printed, writings intended to attack religion, to assail our authority, or to disturb the ordered tranquillity of our realm”. (Quoted in Kingsley Martin, French Liberal Thought in the Eighteenth Century, N.Y. & Lond. 1962, p. 100.)
Johann Kaspar (Ivan Andreyevich) Taubert (1717–1771), born in Russia of a German family, from 1758 member of the Kantselariya of the Academy (the other members at the time were Lomonosov and Staehlin).
This advice was not to be followed until 1796.
Pekarsky, Istoriya Akademii Nauk, (History of the Academy of Sciences), II, pp. 789–790.
Another example of a book of this kind is Anecdotes russes ou lettres d’un officier Allemand published in London and also (in German), ostensibly at “Petersburg”, in Holland, in 1764, with subsequent editions in 1765, 1766 and 1769. Its author, “C. F. S. de la Marche” was actually Christian Friedrich Schwann (1733–1815), a Prussian who had served in Russia as a proof-reader at the Academy of Sciences, and later on the staff of Prince Georg v. Holstein-Gottorp, between 1758 and 1762. (Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Vol. XXXIII, Leipzig, 1891). Bil’basov in referring to this book mistakenly states that the author “had never been to Russia” and speculates as to the sources of his information. (Istoriya Yekateriny Vtoroy, (History of Catherine the Second), XII, Berlin n.d., p. 30).
Cf. D. Shamray, “Iz istorii tsenzurnogo rezhima Yekateriny II” (From the History of Catherine II’s Censorship), XVIII vek, Sb. 3, M.-L., 1958, p. 188.
V. P. Semennikov, Materialy dlya istorii russkoy literatury i dlya slovarya pisateley epokhi Yekateriny II, (Source Materials for the History of Russian Literature and for the Dictionary of Writers of the Period of Catherine II), St. P., 1914, p. 96.
E.g. Shamray, op. cit., p. 191. For the actual wording of the original and the correction see Sb. R.I.O., X, p. 274.
Cf. S.R.I.O., XIII, p. 13 for Catherine’s note to I. P. Yelagin who, between 1766 and 1779 held the Post of the Director of Public Spectacles — assuring him that there are no objections to the performance of the comedy, and Semennikov, op. cit., pp. 96ff. for other details of this incident.
Sb. R.I.O., VII, pp. 292-3. Saltykov’s report which is dated 17 November 1764, contains the following characteristic sentence: “The licence amongst these young men has now reached the point where, if allowed to go unpunished, they may well start writing about other things [as well].”
Saltykov then headed the Department V of the Senate in Moscow. (From 1763 the Senate was divided into six Departments, four of which were located in St. Petersburg and two in Moscow).
P.S.Z., XVII, No. 12,313. That the authors of the Catalogue had no fear of any serious consequences, despite Saltykov’s attitude, is evident from the fact that, as we learn from Poroshin’s diary, Count Alexander Stroganov openly admitted its authorship a few months later, in the presence of the young Crown Prince Paul and several members of the latter’s entourage. (Poroshin, p. 146).
Its text was published by T. A. Martemyanov in “Iz istorii tsenzury russkoy narodnoy pesni” (To the history of the Censorship of Russian folk song), Istoricheskiy Vestnik, (The Historical Messenger), XCVIII, St. P., 1904, p. 685.
G. Macartney, An Account of Russia 1767, London, 1768, p. 90.
Ibid., p. 35.
Ibid., p. 228.
Sb. R.I.O., CXLI, p. 84.
August Ludwig Schloezer’s öffentliches und privat-Leben von ihm selbst beschrieben, Erstes Fragment, Goettingen, 1802, pp. 300f.
A. I. Khodnev, Istoriya Imperatorskogo Vol’nogo Ekonomicheskogo Obschestva s 1765 do 1865 goda, (History of the Imperial Free Economic Society from 1765 to 1865), St. P., 1865, p. 4.
Ibid., p. 34.
This was originally published three times a year in 1200 copies. From the following year (1766) the number of copies published was doubled. The rate of three issues a year was maintained until 1775, thirty volumes having appeared in all. The publication then ceased for some years. It was resumed in 1779 under the title Continuation of the Works, etc. and was published until 1794, inclusive, at the rate of one to two issues a year. In 1795 the title was changed to New Continuation … of which only three issues appeared: in 1795, 1796, and 1798.
Macartney is writing about this competition in his Account of Russia 1767 refers to the Free Economic Society as the “Society of Free Inquiry”.
For the full text of this essay see Chteniya v Imp. Obshchestve Istorii i Drevnostey Rossiyskikh, (Lectures at the Imp. Society of Russian History and Antiquities), M., 1862, Book 2. Five other essays were awarded secondary prizes, among them one by a Russian, Polenov. (Cf. also Istoriya Akademii Nauk SSSR, I, p. 405).
By twelve votes to three, the latter being those of the German members of the Academy of Sciences (The Eulers — father and son, and, probably, Taubert) who obviously had no personal involvement in the matter.
Such as Roman Vorontsov, Sivers, brothers Chernyshov, Mellisino, and Teplov who voted in favour of translation.
Khodnev, pp. 23ff. Cf. also USSR Academy of Sciences, Istorlya russkoy literatury, (History of Russian Literature), IV, Part 2, M.-L., 1947, p. 17.
105 titles per year as opposed to 30. (Russkaya kniga ot nachala pis’mennosti do 1800 goda, (Books in Russia from the Earliest Writings to 1800), ed. by V. Adaryukov and A. Sidorov, M., 1924, table on p. 346). P. Milyukov in Ocherki po istorii russkoy kul’tury (Studies in the History of Russian Culture), III, Paris, 1930, p. 396, quotes the figures: 105 titles per year for 1761–1770 and 23 per year for 1751–1760.
Zhizn’ i priklyucheniya Andreya Bolotova, Russkaya Starina, (The Life and Adventures of Andrey Bolotov, The Russian Past), III, St. P., 1871, p. 298.
Vorontsov Archives, XVI, M., 1880, p. 96.
These were: Svobodnyye chasy, (Leisure Hours) — 1763, Sobraniye luchshikh sochi neniy, (Collection of the Best Works), — 1762, Nevinnoye uprazhneniye, (Innocent Pastime), — 1763, and Dobroye namereniye, (Good Intention), — 1764. All were published in Moscow.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Papmehl, K.A. (1971). Erosion of Old Attitudes. In: Freedom of Expression in Eighteenth Century Russia. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9101-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9101-2_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8397-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9101-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive