Russian readers became familiar with Croce’s novel in the 1740s thanks to the initial manuscript translations, copies of which continued to circulate among non elite readerships until the end of the century. The «Italian Aesop’s» popularity in Russia, as was true everywhere, was connected with its archetype. Bertoldo’s kindred similarity to the old Russian Kitovras (Marcolph) as well as personages from popular market place theater (Gaer, marshalka) unquestionably facilitated its rapid recognition and embrace by Russian readers. However, this amusing «popular» little book elicited conflicting sentiments, with the level of interest came an equal measure of condemnation.

Over the centuries the primary reading material for Russians remained books of moral improvement. Entertaining literature and even laughter itself was judged by the church to be linked with sinful activity (reading books of this type was deemed the equivalent of adultery and was subject to a corresponding punishment. In the post-Petrine era the contradiction manifested itself as a stark split: on the one hand, one avidly sought out all that was new and even forbidden emanating from the West. On the other hand, one was deathly afraid. This dualistic attitude toward laughter, a product of the particularities of a conservative Orthodox consciousness, had existed for a long time in all strata of Russian society. Certainly, a human being’s natural inclination toward laughter, in spite of all, found its outlet in jocular behaviour: popular comedy, various types of travesties, jokes, games, puppet shows, farces, and simply «playing the fool» in various ways. There was a boom in manuscript translations of romantic adventures and rogue novels during the 1740’s as readers from Russia’s popular classes manifested increased interest in literature whose character was far removed from traditional concepts of edification. A notable shift in readers’ interest toward «non-edifying» and possibly even harmful reading arises, as the Polish Slavist Eliza Małeк has commented, already in the second half of the century.

If one examines the figure of Bertoldo, who voluntarily gives up his freedom for a place near the throne, from the perspective of the Renaissance, as the Italian specialist in cultural studies Piero Camporesi has done, then one sees that before us stands a «phenomenon of compromise». By contrast, in the context of Russian culture of the eighteenth and even the first half of the nineteenth centuries, this is a figure who manifestly conveys a rather distinct type of freedom-loving character of protest, signified by a healthy and by no means safe opposition to the traditional representations of sacral authority, regarding the explicitly estate-bound characterization of the individual, and along with it «sinful laughter», and the «uselessness» of amusing literature. The deep protest-based essence of the archetype on which Croce based his hero extended the life of the text among Russian readers for at least a century.

During the age of Enlightenment, when reading «Bova Korolevich» or «Eruslan Lazarevich» was already looked upon in Russia as vapid, «Bertoldo» could have rather easily fallen into the same category. But it was destined for a different fate. Croce’s novel successfully adapted to the times. By adjusting its register to that of the epoch it fell into line with Enlightenment satire, even though it thereby inevitably eliminating some characteristic features of the popular comedy. Now the French reworkings of «Bertoldo» (just like their Russian translations) gained acceptance and found their ways into the private libraries of the eighteenth-century nobility.

The wide range of venues in which the Russian «Bertoldo» appeared throughout the century (from «popular» novels to theatrical versions and Enlightenment interpretations) bears witness to a rather rare phenomenon, the reading of a specific text simultaneously in «low» and «elite» strata of Russian society. The polyvalence of an archetype reborn on new soil enabled it to resonate in an unsurpassed way both with those older cultural demands which still survived in Russian society, as well as to new ones evoked by the epoch.

The monograph is structured in the following way:

A previously unknown Russian translation of «Bertoldo» occupies a central place in the monograph, published here in full on the basis of manuscript no. 191 in the library of Moscow University, and accompanied by linguistic and historical-culturological commentary. The appendix also includes some unknown and little known texts connected to the fate of «Bertoldo» in eighteenth-century Russia.

Visual material occupies an important place in this study. The illustrations for «Bertoldo» were quite popular, and in Italy they even gained an independent standing. Throughout the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they went through an artistic evolution in this «rationalist direction» through which the novel’s text underwent quite a few changes. The selection of illustrations consists of unique drawings for the Russian manuscript translation of «Bertoldo», models of western European book graphics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as well as other iconographic sources, which substantively enrich the history of this Italian «popular» book in eighteenth-century Russia/

…суда Парисова… похищения Елены… разорения троянского — Персонажи и сюжеты Троянского эпоса (включая события, непосредственно предшествовавшие войне греков против Трои, — «суд Париса», «похищение Елены») были известны уже древнерусскому читателю. Это знакомство происходило опосредованно, в первую очередь благодаря хронике Иоанна Малалы (кн. 5-я)! включавшей в себя обширный цикл сказаний о Троянской войне, а также — чрезвычайно популярной «Троянской истории» Гвидо делле Колонне (XIII в.), перевод которой на протяжении XVI–XVIII вв. неоднократно перерабатывался (Назаревский, с. 161–163; Творогов «Троянская история», с. 443–445; Творогов «Повесть», с. 279–280, Егунов, с. 21–27).

В XVII в. круг светских источников, которые знакомили с античностью, проникая на Русь с Запада, начинает расширяться за счет учебных книг, научных трактатов и, главное, сочинений самих античных авторов (Гомера, Вергилия, Овидия, Эзопа, Тита Ливия, Квинта Курция Руфа и др.). В первой трети XVIII в. они уже присутствуют во многих библиотеках знатных лиц — Стефана Яворского, Гавриила Бужинского, А. Матвеева, Д. Голицына и самого Петра I (Луппов, 1973). Распространение мифологических знаний при Петре I становится частью государственной политики, которая буквально навязывала обществу элементы новой культуры (Живов — Успенский, с. 221 и далее). В 1709 г. впервые напечатана гражданским шрифтом «Троянская история» Гвидо делле Колонне (в редакции XVII в.), которая до конца столетия переиздавалась еще 10 раз. В 1725 г. по инициативе царя издается «Библиотека о Богах» Аполлодора Афинского: она представляла собой энциклопедию мифологических сведений, ранее известных читателю по древнерусским хронографам, апокрифам, литературным сборникам. В 1751 г. русский читатель получил чрезвычайно популярный роман Джона Баркли «Аргенида» в переводе В. Тредиаковского (выполненном еще в 1725), который специально был снабжен «Митологическими изъяснениями, предназначенными для русского читателя». Здесь самым подробным образом излагались сюжеты троянского цикла, в том числе ключевые моменты Троянской войны: «Соединение греков на Трою», «Осада города Трои», «Взятие и всеконечное разорение города Трои» (Баркли, с. 922–935). Не менее подробно, с отсылками к античным авторам, прокомментирована «история о Парисе» и «похищение Елены»: «<…> хотя и говорит Геродот, что Елена не была в Азии, однако так повествуют Дарес и Диктис, Историки того времени, и кои сами были под Троею» (Баркли, с. 921–922).