Moscow as Perceived by Alexander II’s Elder Sons

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Quaestio Rossica Pub Date : 2023-06-28 DOI:10.15826/qr.2023.2.799
F. Melentev
{"title":"Moscow as Perceived by Alexander II’s Elder Sons","authors":"F. Melentev","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the attitude to Moscow of Grand Princes Nicholas Alexandrovich and Alexander Alexandrovich; the latter became Emperor Alexander III afterwards. The opinion has taken root in historiography and become self-evident that the peacemaker tsar loved the ancient capital like no other ruler of the Russian Empire. The article aims to reconstruct the attitude of Alexander III and his elder brother to Moscow and understand why it arose and how it changed over time. The research methodology considers the achievements of the new political history, the history of everyday life, and the history of emotions. The article refers to unpublished letters, diaries, and memoirs of contemporaries, the grand princes’ diaries, and their correspondence with Alexander II, Empress Maria Alexandrovna, Grand Princes Mikhail Nikolaevich, and Vladimir Alexandrovich, which have not been introduced into scholarly circulation previously. The analysis makes it possible to assert that warm feelings for Mother See did not arise in the tsar-liberator’s eldest sons immediately. The formation of their attitude toward the ancient capital was influenced by professors of Moscow University invited to teach the Grand Princes, such as statistician I. K. Babst, lawyer K. P. Pobedonostsev, and historian S. M. Solovyov. Also, the princes were influenced by the conservative Moscow periodicals they read and Empress Maria Alexandrovna. Unlike the Tsarina, Alexander II was suspicious of the Moscow public, which seemed insufficiently loyal to him. Therefore, his sons’ positive attitude towards Moscow and its society was not something taken for granted. At the same time, attempts to influence the sympathies of the grand princes to the ancient capital pursued the goal not so much to stimulate the tsarevichs’ interest in Moscow antiquities as to make them supporters of “people’s autocracy”, as well as adherents of the “national policy”. In conclusion, the author analyzes the phrase attributed to Alexander III that “Moscow is the temple of Russia, and the Kremlin is its altar” providing arguments about the doubtfulness of its authorship.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":"57 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestio Rossica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.799","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the attitude to Moscow of Grand Princes Nicholas Alexandrovich and Alexander Alexandrovich; the latter became Emperor Alexander III afterwards. The opinion has taken root in historiography and become self-evident that the peacemaker tsar loved the ancient capital like no other ruler of the Russian Empire. The article aims to reconstruct the attitude of Alexander III and his elder brother to Moscow and understand why it arose and how it changed over time. The research methodology considers the achievements of the new political history, the history of everyday life, and the history of emotions. The article refers to unpublished letters, diaries, and memoirs of contemporaries, the grand princes’ diaries, and their correspondence with Alexander II, Empress Maria Alexandrovna, Grand Princes Mikhail Nikolaevich, and Vladimir Alexandrovich, which have not been introduced into scholarly circulation previously. The analysis makes it possible to assert that warm feelings for Mother See did not arise in the tsar-liberator’s eldest sons immediately. The formation of their attitude toward the ancient capital was influenced by professors of Moscow University invited to teach the Grand Princes, such as statistician I. K. Babst, lawyer K. P. Pobedonostsev, and historian S. M. Solovyov. Also, the princes were influenced by the conservative Moscow periodicals they read and Empress Maria Alexandrovna. Unlike the Tsarina, Alexander II was suspicious of the Moscow public, which seemed insufficiently loyal to him. Therefore, his sons’ positive attitude towards Moscow and its society was not something taken for granted. At the same time, attempts to influence the sympathies of the grand princes to the ancient capital pursued the goal not so much to stimulate the tsarevichs’ interest in Moscow antiquities as to make them supporters of “people’s autocracy”, as well as adherents of the “national policy”. In conclusion, the author analyzes the phrase attributed to Alexander III that “Moscow is the temple of Russia, and the Kremlin is its altar” providing arguments about the doubtfulness of its authorship.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
亚历山大二世长子眼中的莫斯科
本文考察了尼古拉斯·亚历山德罗维奇和亚历山大王子对莫斯科的态度;后者后来成为亚历山大三世皇帝。这种观点已经植根于史学,并且不言自明,这位和事佬沙皇像俄罗斯帝国的其他统治者一样热爱古都。这篇文章旨在重建亚历山大三世和他的哥哥对莫斯科的态度,并了解它为什么会出现以及它是如何随着时间的推移而变化的。研究方法论考虑了新政治史、日常生活史和情感史的成就。这篇文章提到了同时代人未发表的信件、日记和回忆录,大王子的日记,以及他们与亚历山大二世、玛丽亚·亚历山德罗夫娜皇后、米哈伊尔·尼古拉耶维奇大王子和弗拉基米尔·亚历山德罗维奇的通信,这些信件以前从未被引入学术流通。这一分析使我们有可能断言,这位沙皇解放者的长子并没有立即产生对西太后的热情。他们对古都态度的形成受到了莫斯科大学受邀教授大王子们的影响,如统计学家I.K.Babst、律师K.P.Pobedonostsev和历史学家S.M.Solovyov。此外,王子们还受到了他们阅读的保守的莫斯科期刊和玛丽亚·亚历山德罗夫娜皇后的影响。与沙皇不同,亚历山大二世对莫斯科公众持怀疑态度,而莫斯科公众似乎对他不够忠诚。因此,他的儿子们对莫斯科及其社会的积极态度并不是理所当然的。与此同时,试图影响大王子对古都的同情,其目的与其说是刺激沙皇对莫斯科文物的兴趣,不如说是让他们成为“人民专制”的支持者,以及“国家政策”的追随者。最后,作者分析了亚历山大三世的一句话,即“莫斯科是俄罗斯的圣殿,克里姆林宫是它的祭坛”,为其作者身份的怀疑提供了论据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quaestio Rossica
Quaestio Rossica HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Quaestio Rossica is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on the study of Russia’s history, philology, and culture. The Journal aims to introduce new research approaches in the sphere of the Humanities and previously unknown sources, actualising traditional methods and creating new research concepts in the sphere of Russian studies. Except for academic articles, the Journal publishes reviews, historical surveys, discussions, and accounts of the past of the Humanities as a field.
期刊最新文献
Ancient Heritage in the History of the Synod by Paisius Ligarides, Metropolitan of Gaza: Dedication to the Russian Tsar An Uncompleted Machine-Building Giant in the Urals: Mobilisation Policy and Construction Practice Between Russia and Western Europe: The Diplomatic Languages of Prince Ivan Scherbatov, a Russian Representative at the Spanish Court Il parlait assez bien français et plusieurs langues: Foreign Language Acquisition and the Diplomatic Self-Fashioning of Prince Boris Ivanovich Kurakin The Fifth Kingdom, Yuri Buida’s Historiographical Metafiction: Mystification of Historical Conceptualisation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1