@misc{DuevelEhmigMcCalletal.2024,
  author    = {D{\"u}vel, Pia and Ehmig, Ulrike and McCall, Jeremiah and Unceta G{\´o}mez, Luis and Bakogianni, Anastasia and Fischer, Jens and Serrano Lozano, David and Amb{\"u}hl, Annemarie and Matz, Alicia and Brinker, Wolfram and Mach, Jonas Konstantin and Mancini, Mattia and Werner, Eva},
  title     = {Spring Issue},
  series = {thersites},
  volume    = {2024},
  journal   = {thersites},
  number    = {18},
  editor    = {Amb{\"u}hl, Annemarie and Carl{\`a}-Uhink, Filippo and Rollinger, Christian and Walde, Christine},
  issn      = {2364-7612},
  doi       = {10.34679/thersites.vol18},
  year      = {2024},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{CoudenysWarditz2021,
  author    = {Coudenys, Wim and Warditz, Vladislava},
  title     = {Is translation child's play?},
  series = {Die Welt der Slaven : internationale Halbjahresschrift f{\"u}r Slavistik},
  volume    = {66},
  journal   = {Die Welt der Slaven : internationale Halbjahresschrift f{\"u}r Slavistik},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Harrassowitz},
  address   = {Wiesbaden},
  issn      = {0043-2520},
  doi       = {10.13173/ws.66.1.46},
  pages     = {46 -- 69},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {1765 and 1767 saw the publication of the German, respectively the English translation of Lomonosov's Kratkij rossijskij letopisec s rodosloviem (1760). For the very first time the European reading public could find out how Russians saw their own history. These translations testified to Russia's ascent both as an empire and as a part of European learned society, and were made by youths who wanted to further their own career and were neither professional translators nor historians. In this article, we argue that the translations of Lomonosov's Kratkij rossijskij letopisec should not be studied as an isolated act of cultural transfer but as an episode in a longer history of circulation of knowledge. We demonstrate the complexity of this circulation by reassessing the 'quality' of these translations and positioning them in that longer history of circulation of knowledge by analysing the distribution of historical concepts (Begriffe) in Lomonosov's original and its translations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{AhnertDecultotGroteetal.2017,
  author    = {Ahnert, Thomas and Decultot, Elisabeth and Grote, Simon and Lifschitz, Avi},
  title     = {The German Enlightenment},
  series = {German history : the journal of the German History Societ},
  volume    = {35},
  journal   = {German history : the journal of the German History Societ},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0266-3554},
  doi       = {10.1093/gerhis/ghx104},
  pages     = {588 -- 602},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The term Enlightenment (or Aufkl{\"a}rung) remains heavily contested. Even when historians delimit the remit of the concept, assigning it to a particular historical period rather than to an intellectual or moral programme, the public resonance of the Enlightenment remains high and problematic—especially when equated in an essentialist manner with modernity or some core values of 'the West'. This Forum has been convened to discuss recent research on the Enlightenment in Germany, different views of the term and its ideological use in public discourse outside academia (and sometimes within it).},
  language  = {en}
}