The American Declaration of
Independence in Russian:
The History of Translation
and the Translation of History

Marina A. Vlasova

The Declaration of Independence in Russian

This essay continues Nikolai N. Bolkhovitinov's work on the ideas of the Declaration of Independence as they were accepted in Russia from 1776 till our days. The purpose of this second piece is to look at the relationships between the famous American document and its Russian readers from a slightly different angle. We would like to shift attention from a focus on the general flow of ideas in the style of intellectual history to a practical historical analysis of the translations in which the main elements will be the texts, their interpretations, and their historical significance.

As Bolkhovitinov's essay has shown, Russian acquaintance with the Declaration of Independence has a long and turbulent history: it embraces welcoming gestures by the Empress Catherine the Great and careful study of the text by such enemies of absolute rule as the Decembrists. Nonetheless, only the reforms of the 1860s brought the possibility of the first publication of the text in Russia and in Russian.

We may speak about two periods in the Russian history of the declaration using the date of the publication of the first Russian translation in 1863 as a milestone. While from the very beginning English and French versions of the text published abroad were accessible to the educated and interested audience, it was the first Russian translation that opened the way to the intercultural existence of the famous American document in Russia. Since that time numerous translations of the full text of the declaration have been completed. 1

The first Russian translation not only introduced a broader Russian audience to the declaration but also launched a kind of contest involving the authors of the document and its Russian interpreters. The prize they "competed" for was the mind and imagination of the readers. The Russian texts had to reproduce the meaning and emotional impulse that Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues designed the document to convey. Such an understanding of the goal of the translations permits us not only to evaluate the efforts of the translators and the qualities of their work but also to raise some intriguing questions: Did the times of the translations affect their character? Are there any differences in the interpretation of various ideas of the declaration? What dimensions (content, style, tone) of the Russian versions were the most adequate?

This research is based on comparison of ten publications and eight translations. These were all the Russian publications from the catalogs of the most intensively used scholarly libraries of Moscow. The first Russian text prepared by A. Lokhvitskii in 1863, the two translations by A. Kamenskii and E. I. Boshniak in 1897, and the fourth by the professor of history P. G. Mezhuev in 1901 -- all were published as appendixes to monographs on the history of the American Constitution and state. (Kamenskii and Boshniak had separately translated the monograph by Edward Channing, A History of the United States, 1763 - 1865. ) The same pattern was followed in 1995 when the declaration (in an already existing translation) became an appendix to the Russian translation of James Q. Wilson's American Government. 2Three Russian translations are included in collections of constitutional and legal documents of foreign countries -- a traditional form of textbook for students of law. These were an anonymous translation of 1935, a reproduction of Boshniak's 1897 translation in 1957, and the text prepared by the professor of law O. A. Zhidkov in 1993. There are only two separately published editions of the Declaration of Independence in Russian on our list -- both anonymous translations -- from 1991 and 1992. 3

The very dates of the translations are quite meaningful for a historian. Beginning in the 1860s (when the translation by Lokhvitskii appeared) -- a period favorable for introducing to the Russian audience a document based on the philosophy of natural rights and the ideas of republican government -- we may trace a tendency: The growing attention to the American declaration and other fundamental constitutional documents was connected in Russia with a specific preoccupation with problems of natural (civil) rights, republican government, and the possibility of, and grounds for, changes in governmental systems. The case of three translations -- those included in the two translations of Channing's book in 1897 and the publication by Mezhuev four years later -- illustrates this tendency. The turn of the century was marked in Russia by numerous and contradictory changes in social and political life. Industrial growth and reform and radical movements enhanced the receptivity of Russian society toward foreign experience. 4

In all three cases mentioned above, the declaration, though considered worth translating, appeared in Russian as appendix to some other material that might be accepted by readers as more important. These publications sought to inform Russian readers about American historical experience. This specific "historical environment" might affect the character of the translations. More careful study of the texts will let us clarify this point.

Why the Declaration of Independence was not republished or retranslated immediately after the revolution of 1917 is hard to decide. To discover what kinds of books were translated from English and published in Soviet Russia during the first decades after 1917 is an ambitious task for special research. Nevertheless, we found no evidence of the declaration's postrevolutionary Russian-language adventures until 1935, when a collection of the constitutional and legislative documents of foreign, "bourgeois" countries was published for the first time in the Soviet period. Such collections served as readers for students of law; some of them consisted of full texts, others were filled with extracts. The translations of 1957 and 1995 were of the same character. In all of them the declaration appeared with other American "living documents," from the Mayflower Compact to contemporary civil codes of different states, together with constitutions and legal acts of other countries. 5

From 1935 on, the fate of the translation of the declaration into Russian was no longer connected with an interest in the historical dimension of what is now called "intercultural relations." In the minds of publishers the declaration seemed to be firmly connected with the text of the federal Constitution, and it never appeared in Russian without its "sister document." The connection between the two documents was in this context more formal than meaningful. The authors or editors of the readers or other collections of legal documents automatically put together the set of prominent historical texts that characterized the development of the constitutional, governmental, or legal structures of foreign countries.

Meanwhile the translation of the document after 1917 could be explained by other factors besides the pragmatic needs of the university curriculum. In 1935 the better prospects for publication of foreign legal documents may have been connected with the preparation of the new Constitution of the Soviet Union (adopted in 1936). It aimed to give more rights to the nonproletarian groups of the population, to democratize (in a Soviet manner) the electoral process, and to strengthen the social basis of the governmental system. In 1957 the next edition of the declaration (a republication of Boshniak's 1897 version) was published. We may associate this event with the growing interest in constitutional questions and social experience caused by the end of the era of Joseph Stalin and the atmosphere of a possible democratic change in the Soviet society.

Nevertheless, only with the beginning of the 1990s could relationships between such phenomena as the interest of society or society's receptivity and publishing activity develop in a more direct way. Radical changes in Russia led to the termination of direct state ideological intervention in publishing, growth of private publishing houses, and reduction of censorship. Since that time publishers have relied on the market based on the audience's interest or on their own understanding of what would appeal to readers. And for the Declaration of Independence, the market was very good.

The flow of editions from 1991 to 1995, almost one each year, is not accidental. There is an obvious linkage between the fundamental shifts in the former Soviet Union and the thirst for new understanding of what republicanism, democracy, rights of citizens, representative government, and the state's authority and responsibility are. All those years the United States was the focus of discussions about the possibility of following any foreign pattern in reforming Russia. Thus the American Declaration of Independence was translated again and for the first time published (together with the federal Constitution) in several separate editions. 6

This has been an external history of the translations. But how did that history influence the translations themselves? Did the Russian texts meet the challenges of their time? The comparative analysis of the content of the eight translations laid the ground for our generalizations in answer to those questions. To simplify the procedure, we divided the text into three parts: the first two paragraphs (the statement of natural rights and the idea of republican government), the grievances of the colonists against the king, and the final paragraph. At the first stage our main focus was on the ability of the translations to express the main thoughts of the original and on the differences between the Russian texts.

In the first paragraphs there is no evidence of mistakes in the translation of the famous passages on the "self-evident" truths and the right of the people to "throw off" a despotic government. We did not register any crucial misunderstandings separating the authors of the document and its translators. Perhaps the reason is very straightforward: Russian publications on the philosophy of "natural rights" and republican theory were not rare occasions even before the 1860s, when the first translation of the declaration was completed. There was no need to work out Russian equivalents to express the ideas that inspired Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues. Russian readers in both the 1860s and the 1990s were provided with texts that were quite adequate in general content.

Nevertheless, there were interesting differences in the interpretation of phrases of minor importance, if it is possible to use the term "minor importance" in dealing with this document. One example will demonstrate the point. It is not surprising that it is connected with the interpretation of the phrase on the republican basis of the government. Republicanism always attracted open-minded Russians, but for a long time it was just an abstraction for them. Actually, this means that most of the translators stood on the same grounds as the Founding Fathers. Thus in a line of the original text that is rather clear in its idea, "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security," the word combination "new Guards" confused most interpreters. Only Boshniak in 1897 and the anonymous translator in 1935 gave a Russian equivalent close to the original. From their Russian texts the reader could understand that after the overthrow of a despotic government, the new one built on the consent of the governed will consist of better guards ( strazhi in Boshniak's interpretation, or okhrana in the 1935 edition) of the people's future happiness. There is no crucial difference in meaning between strazhi and okhrana. Both Russian words are good equivalents of the English "guards" and serve to mark the act of protection, defense, or watching over. But strazhi sounds more archaic or rhetorical. 7

In the translations of 1863, 1897 (by Kamenskii), 1991, and 1993 (by Zhidkov), more abstract and impersonal "guarantees of security" appeared. Mezhuev in 1901, showing extreme verbosity in an unnecessarily long passage, spoke about "principles and forms of the new government that will guarantee the security and welfare of the people." In 1992 the most modernized version of a mischievous "guards" appeared: "the new system of the securing of law and order in the future." It seems that a clear idea of a government serving as a guard of the people's security could not easily penetrate into a Russian mind accustomed to the situation where there were always some "systems of security" or abstract and elusive "guarantees" between the governed and the governors. The most obvious explanation of this situation is the absence in Russians' collective political experience of the idea of representation of the people's interest by any representative institution -- by the elected "guards." 8

Study of the part of the declaration dedicated to the abuse of power by George III brought us to the same conclusion: There were no problems with the general content of the original in all the translations, but numerous minor inaccuracies or slips were registered.

The greatest constraint on the translators was not of an ideological nature. Some mistakes in the Russian texts were caused by a lack of historical knowledge and a readiness to modernize the wording. The Russian interpreters did not possess adequate historical information on the conflict between the rebellious colonies and the English sovereign, on the nature of the powers of the king and the Parliament. Thus in several lines in the list of the grievances, Russian readers are supplied with a variety of interpretations of the legislative authority of the king, and most of the Russian equivalents are close to inadequate. In the third passage, where (in the original text) the king "refused to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance," only the text by Boshniak (1897) contains an absolutely satisfactory Russian equivalent ( otkazalsia provodit' zakony ). Elsewhere one can find confusing expressions, which if translated back into English sound like this: "did not approve the laws" in the publications of 1863 and 1901 or "delayed the laws" in Kamenskii (1897), even "refused to sanction" in the editions of 1935 and 1992, and "did not allow to pass" in the 1991 text, with the same in Zhidkov's translation of 1993. 9

The seventh point of the grievances as translated into Russian also might be misleading for readers. The "migration" that the king refused to encourage was transformed into "emigration" in Kamenskii (1897) and Mezhuev (1901), "immigration" in the Boshniak (1897), 1991, and Zhidkov (1993) editions. Only the texts of 1935 and 1992 contain the more acceptable Russian word pereselenie (the exact equivalent of "migration"). Readers in Russia had to make a special effort to understand that the translators had placed themselves on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean, speaking about "emigration" from the British side and "immigration" from the American. 10

The translations of the final paragraph of the declaration followed the same pattern: satisfactory reproduction of the general content is accompanied here by less successful attempts to fill the gap between the languages. We may stress two points. First, it seems, the translators did not have any problems of ideological bias. The case of the "guards" mentioned above and the absence of capital letters in words of religious character (God, Creator, Supreme Judge, etc.) in the text of 1935 -- in the time of militant atheism -- constitute rare exceptions to the rule. The second conclusion is that there is no striking difference on the level of content in the Russian texts from different periods.

But more careful study of the texts with emphasis on the style, tone, and wording of the Russian translations has brought us to less optimistic conclusions. It is not necessary to stress the importance not only of the ideas of the declaration but also of the ways in which they were formulated and presented to the attention of "mankind." But what is obvious to the historian in our day was apparently not to the Russian interpreters of the American document whether in 1863 or in 1993. Concentrated on the universalistic ideas of the text, the translators often ignored the wording, style, tone, and emotional features of the original.

Thus they did not pay any attention to the fact that, in describing the grievances and the colonists' attempts to warn "British brethren" of intentions of "their legislature" to extend its jurisdiction over the colonies, the declaration never pronounced the word "Parliament." No doubt, our authors did not have any access to or interest in books on the history of the declaration. They knew nothing, for example, about the interpretation of this silence by Carl L. Becker in his famous monograph. 11 At the same time they were guided by their poor knowledge of what had happened in America in 1776. The purpose of a translation, in their understanding, was above all to reflect the document's general meaning.

The result was texts where a spade was called a spade: Instead of the diplomatic and loose expression "their legislature," one can read "English Parliament" ( angliiskii parlament in Russian). This means that Russian readers of Lokhvitskii (1863), Mezhuev (1901), and Zhidkov (1993) will never learn about the extreme caution that characterized the declaration's treatment of the rivals, never understand that it was the king, not the Parliament, whom the colonists blamed as the worst enemy. 12

The lack of attention or respect to the form is especially depressing in the case of Mezhuev. The only historian on our list, he left a text reflecting the content perfectly but almost alien to the original's style and tone. For example, one of the most emotional phrases about the king -- that he sent to the colonies "swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance" -- in Mezhuev's translation sounds quite neutral: "he sent to us a mass of the officers, who cause numerous displeasures and who eat up the people's money." Mezhuev's text is not actually a translation in a strict sense. Rather, it is a translation that incorporates comments or explanations, and it is hard for the reader to determine where the translator stops and the historian starts. 13

Other texts contain more colorful equivalents of this English line. Lokhvitskii, Kamenskii, Boshniak, and the anonymous authors of 1935 and 1991 preferred the Russian expression tolpy chinovnikov (crowds of officers) as an equivalent of the original's "swarms." Three texts contain positively scary phrases describing what those officers had done. From Lokhvitskii's, Boshniak's, and the 1992 Russian variants of the declaration one can learn that British officeholders were "sucking the colonists' blood" or "juices." Unfortunately, these are rare examples of interpretations that convey the feeling of the original. 14

There are other examples of careless treatment of the original. The texts published in the 1990s demonstrate an unjustified desire to use modern style. In the text of 1992 one can find the equivalent of the verb "to sanction" -- which sounds extremely modern in Russian -- used in six sentences in the list of grievances. There are several explanations why the declaration failed to impress its Russian translators. First, most of them were oriented to ideas, thoughts, and statements and emotionally indifferent to matters of style. The indifference was not dictated by the personal tastes or interests of the interpreters, rather by their general understanding of what was most attractive in the declaration for Russian readers: ideas of natural rights, liberation from colonial dependence, the right of people to overthrow their governors. Nevertheless, the acquaintance of the Russian interpreters with these themes and their ability to reproduce the general content of the document turned out to be insufficient to show very important historic and cultural peculiarities of the English text. 15

The second reason is a logical consequence of the first: It was the time gap that separated the interpreters and the document. The emotional appeal of the declaration was addressed to the "mankind" of the 1770s, and for the next generations it did not sound the same. None of the translators who were responsible for introducing the declaration into the broad Russian cultural context was fully aware of his mission. The translators managed to cross the language barrier but there was one more barrier before them. To cross it meant to reproduce the aura of the English document of the late eighteenth century.

It's a very interesting question, how the time gap might be crossed in the translation. If we suppose that to reproduce the characteristics of the text written in the late eighteenth century we should use the Russian language of the same period, the result might be quite unexpected. In several phrases in the Russian texts of the Declaration of Independence published in the nineteenth century, the authors seem to have experimented with the style. In the list of grievances the colonists' "Charters," taken away by the malicious king, were mentioned. Lokhvitskii (1863) instead used the Russian word l'goty (privileges), which was not a big success. Kamenskii preferred another term -- gramoty (from the Greek grammata, here meaning official document). The content, the tone were captured. But at the same time this word brought a definite Russian flavor to the whole phrase. It seems that even in the 1890s gramoty sounded too archaic, with the usage limited to special occasions. It is possible to imagine -- if we let ourselves continue this game of stylization -- that such words as duma could be used as an equivalent of "representative house" or tsar instead of "king." 16

More striking examples are connected with the word combinations "in the most humble terms" in Mezhuev's text and "voice of . . . consanguinity" in Kamenskii's. In both phrases the translators chose very Russian equivalents, quite proper for the Russian language of the eighteenth century, but alien to the American origins of the document. Instead of "humble" we read vernopoddannicheskii, which actually means extremely loyal. It is obviously too strong for the Declaration of Independence, and for the Russian reader it is too strongly associated with the forms for addressing the Russian tsar. The Russian translation of "consanguinity" brings us to times more distant than the 1770s: Kamenskii wrote plemennoe rodstvo (tribal kinship). Maybe the time gap here was crossed and even jumped. The price of this action was not very reasonable: the translators' efforts in this direction were to some extent destructive of the national identity of the original. 17

To find a balance between the modernization and the russification of the text was really a hard job. Meanwhile, one historical fact was unfortunately ignored by all of the Russian translators. It was connected with something lying on the very surface, with the name of the entity from which the document declared independence. A strange blindness characterized all the translators in relation to the term "state." The problem is that in the Russian language there are two separate words for state as nation or national state and as unit in a federation. Speaking about the United States, the Russian will say gosudarstvo, whereas speaking about Indiana, she will use the term shtat. In all Russian editions of the declaration, except Mezhuev's text, every time the English "state" appeared it was translated as shtat -- meaning a member of a federation. Even in reference to the political units that were declaring independence, the term is meaningless, as the federation itself formally still did not exist. So the last phrase of the document in Russian proclaims the independence of shtaty -- members of federation. As a result the main idea of the declaration -- to place the colonies on the same ground with other independent states as nations -- became less explicit. Only Mezhuev's historical approach saved him from the mistake: He made a note each time he translated "state" as gosudarstvo (national state). Obviously, other less sophisticated authors automatically used a term present in the modern name of the federation of American states. 18

Nevertheless, the mission the translators accomplished was quite different and extremely important. They succeeded in bringing the ideas of the declaration to the Russian audience. It is symbolic that the main part of the document that defended revolution on the basis of "self-evident truths" about "unalienable rights" found adequate Russian equivalents in all the texts. The brilliant formula "all men are created equal" attracted Russian readers in all times.

All the interpreters in our analysis used the same and, it seems, the only possible Russian word for "men" -- liudy. Only two authors deviated from the choice of the others, who gave a very precise equivalent for "created" -- sotvoreny. Lohkvitskii (1863) and Mezhuev (1901) preferred to write (if retranslated from Russian), that "all men were born equal." It is hard to explain this shift of emphasis. If it had happened in the post-1917 translations, one would hardly resist a temptation to connect such wording with a secular cast of mind. But even with this inaccuracy, both texts contain Russian equivalents of all the other expressions in which the Creator was mentioned. 19

There is no evidence of gender biases in the Russian translation of the declaration. The word "men" in all the compared texts was translated as liudy -- close in the meaning to the English "people" and absolutely asexual. But even without gender nuances, this expression deserves attention. In stressing the difficulties of cross-temporal and cross-cultural translations, we should not overlook common grounds in the historical development and the evolution of language in both countries. The history of changing meanings of the English word "man," connected with the notions freeman, freedom, and independence, has its Russian analogy. The Russian equivalent for "men" -- liudy -- has its own history. Initially, it referred to free persons, citizens, those who are not peasants. In the second part of the nineteenth century, the meaning was the opposite. Liudy meant people of humble origin, peasants ( muzhiki in Russian). 20

It's a pity that most of the Russian translators of the Declaration of Independence were not self-conscious about the time gap and the necessity of crossing the cultural barrier. Contemporary interdisciplinary effort based on linguistic and cultural intercourse theories together with an adequate understanding of historical grounds might produce better Russian texts.

Marina A. Vlasova is a researcher at the Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. All the bibliographical research for this essay was done by Irina A. Aggeeva of the Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences.

1. In 1863 the full text of the declaration in Russian translation appeared as an appendix to a chapter on the historical basis of the Constitution of the North American states in the monograph: Aleksandr V. Lokhvitskii, Obzor sovremennykh konstitutsii (A review of contemporary constitutions) (2 parts, St. Petersburg, 1863), part 2, pp. 113 - 18.

2. E. Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, 1763 - 1865 (A history of the United States of North America, 1763 - 1865), trans. A. Kamenskii (St. Petersburg, 1897), 334 - 38; E. Channing, Istoria Severo-Amerikanskikh Soedinennykh Shtatov (The history of the North American United States), trans. E. I. Boshniak (Moscow, 1897), 378 - 83; P. G. Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy (The great split of the Anglo-Saxon race) (St. Petersburg, 1901), 149 - 54; James Q. Wilson, Amerikanskoe pravitel'stvo (American government), trans. G. A. Stetsenko, A. N. Seregin, and S. E. Grachev (Moscow, 1995), 463 - 67. The translation of the declaration in Wilson's book, although not attributed, is that of O. A. Zhidkov (see n. 3 below). The book was disseminated among the members of the Russian Association for American Studies as a gift from the embassy of the United States.

3. Y. V. Kliuchnikov, ed., Konstitutsii burzhuaznykh stran, Ò. 1 (Constitutions of bourgeois countries, vol. I) (Moscow, 1935), 15 - 18; Konstitutsii i zakonodatel'nye akty burzhuaznykh gosudarstv, XVII - XIX vv (Constitutions and legislative acts of bourgeois states, eighteenth-nineteenth centuries) (Moscow, 1957), 167 - 70; O. A. Zhidkov, ed., Soedinennye Shtaty Ameriki. Konstitutsiia i zakonodatel'nye akty (United States of America. Constitution and legislative acts) (Moscow, 1993), 25 - 28. The very text prepared by Zhidkov was reprinted in the appendix to the translation of Wilson's book in 1995. Deklaratsiia Nezavisimosti Soedinennykh Shtatov Ameriki (The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America) (Moscow, 1991), 3 - 6; Konstitutsiia Soedinennykh Shtatov Ameriki. Deklaratsiia Nezavisimosti (Constitution of the United States of America. Declaration of Independence) (St. Petersburg, 1992), 3 - 6.

4. Lokhvitskii, Obzor sovremennykh konstitutsii, 113 - 18; Channing, Istoria Severo-Amerikanskikh Soedinennykh Shtatov, trans. Boshniak, 378 - 83; Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, trans. Kamenskii, 334 - 38; Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy, 149 - 54.

5. See, for example, Z. M. Chernilovskii, ed., Khrestomatia po istorii gosudarstva i prava zarubezhnykh stran (A reader on the history of the state and law.) (Moscow, 1984), 182 - 85.

6. Deklaratsiia Nezavisimosti, 3 - 6; Konstitutsiia Soedinennykh Shtatov, 3 - 6.

7. The English text of the declaration that was used for comparison with Russian versions was taken from a book published by the United States Information Agency: Melvin I. Urofsky, ed., Basic Readings in U.S. Democracy (Washington, 1994), 4. Channing, Istoria Severo-Amerikanskikh Soedinennykh Shtatov, trans. Boshniak, 379; Kliuchnikov, ed., Konstitutsii burzhuaznykh stran, 15.

8. Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, trans. Kamenskii, 335; Deklaratsiia Nezavisimosti, 3; Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy, 149; Konstitutsiia Soedinennykh Shtatov, 3.

9. Channing, Istoria Severo-Amerikanskikh Soedinennykh Shtatov, trans. Boshniak, 379; Lokhvitskii, Obzor sovremennykh konstitutsii, 115; Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy, 150; Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, trans. Kamenskii, 335; Kliuchnikov, ed., Konstitutsii burzhuaznykh stran, 16; Konstitutsiia Soedinennykh Shtatov, 4; Deklaratsiia Nezavisimosti, 4; Zhidkov, ed., Soedinennye Shtaty Ameriki, 26.

10. Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, trans. Kamenskii, 336; Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy, 151; Channing, Istoria Severo-Amerikanskikh Soedinennykh Shtatov, trans. Boshniak, 380; Deklaratsiia Nezavisimosti, 4; Zhidkov, ed., Soedinennye Shtaty Ameriki, 27; Kliuchnikov, ed., Konstitutsii burzhuaznykh stran, 16; Konstitutsiia Soedinennykh Shtatov, 44.

11. Carl L. Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (1922; New York, 1958), 18 - 19.

12. Lokhvitskii, Obzor sovremennykh konstitutsii, 117; Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy, 153; Zhidkov, ed., Soedinennye Shtaty Ameriki, 28.

13. Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy, 151.

14. See Lokhvitskii, Obzor sovremennykh konstitutsii, 116; Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, trans. Kamenskii, 336; Channing, Istoria Severo-Amerikanskikh Soedinennykh Shtatov, trans. Boshniak, 380; Kliuchnikov, ed., Konstitutsii burzhuaznykh stran, 16; Deklaratsiia Nezavisimosti, 4; Konstitutsiia Soedinennykh Shtatov, 4.

15. Konstitutsiia Soedinennykh Shtatov, 4.

16. Lokhvitskii, Obzor sovremennykh konstitutsii, 117; Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, trans. Kamenskii, 337.

17. Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy, 153; Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, trans. Kamenskii, 338.

18. Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglo-saksonskoi rasy, 150; Lokhvitskii, Obzor sovremennykh konstitutsii, 118; Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov, trans. Boshniak, 383; Channing, Istoria Soedinennykh Shtatov Severnoi Ameriki, trans. Kamenskii, 338; Zhidkov, ed., Soedinennye Shtaty Ameriki, 26.

19. Lokhvitskii, Obzor sovremennykh konstitutsii, 114; Mezhuev, Velikii raskol anglosaksonskoi rasy, 149; Deklaratsiia Nezavisimosti, 3.

20. Vladimir Dal', Tolkovyi slovar' v chetyrekh tomakh (Dictionary of the Russian language in four volumes) (1881; 4 vols., Moscow, 1989), II, 284.