Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.06
Jurij Labyntsev, Larisa L. Shchavinskaja
This article examines a Slavic historical and cultural phenomenon of the twentieth century — the multilingual Orthodox literature of the Second Polish Republic, otherwise known as interwar Poland. This literature became a full-fledged successor to the colossal religious and national-cultural heritage of the Orthodox peoples of the Russian Empire that had developed before the Empire’s collapse. Despite the harsh anti-Orthodox policy of the authorities of the new, revived-in-1918 Poland, which included huge territories with indigenous Belarusian and Ukrainian populations, conditions of religious life there were more tolerant than those in the USSR, where the religion experienced huge pressure, often reducing it to a semi-underground or even underground existence. During the two interwar decades in the Second Polish Republic, a huge amount of printed and handwritten Orthodox literature was generated, designed for the widest segments of the population, who spoke and read both East and West Slavic languages in addition to Church Slavonic. The main target of this literature was the Belarusian and Ukrainian peasantry, which made up about 93% of all Orthodox Christians in interwar Poland, the total number of which was close to 5 million people — 12% of the country's population. Orthodox literature of the Second Polish Republic did not lose its significance as time passed; it spread widely in the world, and its works are still reprinted and rewritten in many states, including modern Russia.
{"title":"Orthodox Literature of the Second Polish Republic: Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, and Czech","authors":"Jurij Labyntsev, Larisa L. Shchavinskaja","doi":"10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.06","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines a Slavic historical and cultural phenomenon of the twentieth century — the multilingual Orthodox literature of the Second Polish Republic, otherwise known as interwar Poland. This literature became a full-fledged successor to the colossal religious and national-cultural heritage of the Orthodox peoples of the Russian Empire that had developed before the Empire’s collapse. Despite the harsh anti-Orthodox policy of the authorities of the new, revived-in-1918 Poland, which included huge territories with indigenous Belarusian and Ukrainian populations, conditions of religious life there were more tolerant than those in the USSR, where the religion experienced huge pressure, often reducing it to a semi-underground or even underground existence. During the two interwar decades in the Second Polish Republic, a huge amount of printed and handwritten Orthodox literature was generated, designed for the widest segments of the population, who spoke and read both East and West Slavic languages in addition to Church Slavonic. The main target of this literature was the Belarusian and Ukrainian peasantry, which made up about 93% of all Orthodox Christians in interwar Poland, the total number of which was close to 5 million people — 12% of the country's population. Orthodox literature of the Second Polish Republic did not lose its significance as time passed; it spread widely in the world, and its works are still reprinted and rewritten in many states, including modern Russia.","PeriodicalId":127790,"journal":{"name":"East Slavic Studies","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116216095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.12
M. Dronov
{"title":"International Academic Conference “Actual Issues of the Church and Socio-political History of Russia, Belarus and East Europe”","authors":"M. Dronov","doi":"10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":127790,"journal":{"name":"East Slavic Studies","volume":"132 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124264568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.07
E. Borisenok
The Soviet policy of Ukrainization is one of the most notable experiments in ethnic relations conducted in the twentieth century. The “nationalist deviations” condemned by the party (Alexander Ya. Shumsky, Nikolai A. Skrypnik, and other active supporters of Ukrainization) are described in modern literature in more detail than as manifestations of “Great Russian chauvinism”. This article analyses the ideas of Bolshevik leaders who criticized Soviet Ukrainization and opposed its convinced supporters. The article analyses the statements of Grigory Ye. Zinoviev, Dmtiry Z. Lebed, Vagarshak A. Vaganyan, Yuri Larin, Anatoli V. Lunacharsky, and Semen Yu. Semkovsky. Since some Ukrainian lands ended up as parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, it became profitable for the Bolsheviks to support the Ukrainian idea in its Soviet form. Thus, Lebed, Zinoviev, and Vaganian considered the national question as a means of transforming the world. They were convinced of the priority of the class principle over the national, and were confident in the inevitable erasure of national differences. At the same time, they took into account the objective characteristics of the Ukrainian nation, the overwhelming majority of which, at the beginning of the twentieth century, was comprised of peasants. Discussions in the party environment were conducted not around the need for Ukrainization, but around its limits. The compulsion towards the broad masses of the population, excessive haste, and administrative pressure towards the Russian and Russian-speaking population, especially the proletariat, were critically assessed.
苏联的乌克兰化政策是20世纪在民族关系方面进行的最显著的实验之一。被党谴责的“民族主义偏差”(亚历山大·亚)。Shumsky, Nikolai A. Skrypnik和其他乌克兰化的积极支持者)在现代文学中被描述得比“大俄罗斯沙文主义”更详细。本文分析了布尔什维克领导人批评苏维埃乌克兰化并反对其坚定支持者的思想。本文对叶氏的言论进行了分析。Zinoviev, dmitry Z. Lebed, Vagarshak A. Vaganyan, Yuri Larin, Anatoli V. Lunacharsky, Semen Yu。Semkovsky。由于乌克兰的一些土地最终成为波兰、捷克斯洛伐克和罗马尼亚的一部分，布尔什维克支持乌克兰以苏维埃形式存在的想法变得有利可图。因此，列别德、季诺维也夫和瓦尼亚尼亚认为民族问题是改造世界的一种手段。他们深信阶级原则优先于民族原则，并相信民族差异必将消除。同时，他们考虑到乌克兰民族的客观特点，在二十世纪初，乌克兰民族的绝大多数是农民。党内的讨论不是围绕着乌克兰化的必要性，而是围绕着乌克兰化的局限性。对广大人民群众的强迫、过度仓促以及对俄语和俄语人口，特别是无产阶级的行政压力，都进行了严格的评估。
{"title":"Soviet Ukrainization in the Internal Party Polemics of the 1920s","authors":"E. Borisenok","doi":"10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.07","url":null,"abstract":"The Soviet policy of Ukrainization is one of the most notable experiments in ethnic relations conducted in the twentieth century. The “nationalist deviations” condemned by the party (Alexander Ya. Shumsky, Nikolai A. Skrypnik, and other active supporters of Ukrainization) are described in modern literature in more detail than as manifestations of “Great Russian chauvinism”. This article analyses the ideas of Bolshevik leaders who criticized Soviet Ukrainization and opposed its convinced supporters. The article analyses the statements of Grigory Ye. Zinoviev, Dmtiry Z. Lebed, Vagarshak A. Vaganyan, Yuri Larin, Anatoli V. Lunacharsky, and Semen Yu. Semkovsky. Since some Ukrainian lands ended up as parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, it became profitable for the Bolsheviks to support the Ukrainian idea in its Soviet form. Thus, Lebed, Zinoviev, and Vaganian considered the national question as a means of transforming the world. They were convinced of the priority of the class principle over the national, and were confident in the inevitable erasure of national differences. At the same time, they took into account the objective characteristics of the Ukrainian nation, the overwhelming majority of which, at the beginning of the twentieth century, was comprised of peasants. Discussions in the party environment were conducted not around the need for Ukrainization, but around its limits. The compulsion towards the broad masses of the population, excessive haste, and administrative pressure towards the Russian and Russian-speaking population, especially the proletariat, were critically assessed.","PeriodicalId":127790,"journal":{"name":"East Slavic Studies","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125721887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.05
Maria E. Klopova
The article examines the history of the family of prominent figures of the Carpathian-Russian Renaissance. The head of the family, A. I. Dobryansky, played a significant role in the formation of the national identity of the East Slavic population of the Habsburg monarchy. He was one of the first to put forward the idea of creating a separate East Slavic (“Rus'”) province within the empire during the revolutionary events of 1848–1849. Later, he took an active part in the cultural and national life of the Russian population of the empire. His children were loyal followers of their father. The eldest daughter Olga, who became the wife of the Rusyn politician E. Grabar, together with her father, was accused of high treason and brought to trial in 1882. Another daughter, Alexia Gerovskaya, led a women's Russophile society in Chernivtsi. Other daughters and sons of Dobryansky were also active in the Russophile movement. The third generation of this family also left a mark on history. The Gerovsky brothers are also active participants in the Russophile movement, and were imprisoned on charges of anti-state activities, from where they fled to Russia. Olga Grabar's son Igor became an outstanding Russian artist, restorer, and art critic.
{"title":"Portrait of a family on the background of the epoch (A.I. Dobryansky, Grabars, Gerovskys)","authors":"Maria E. Klopova","doi":"10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.05","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the history of the family of prominent figures of the Carpathian-Russian Renaissance. The head of the family, A. I. Dobryansky, played a significant role in the formation of the national identity of the East Slavic population of the Habsburg monarchy. He was one of the first to put forward the idea of creating a separate East Slavic (“Rus'”) province within the empire during the revolutionary events of 1848–1849. Later, he took an active part in the cultural and national life of the Russian population of the empire. His children were loyal followers of their father. The eldest daughter Olga, who became the wife of the Rusyn politician E. Grabar, together with her father, was accused of high treason and brought to trial in 1882. Another daughter, Alexia Gerovskaya, led a women's Russophile society in Chernivtsi. Other daughters and sons of Dobryansky were also active in the Russophile movement. The third generation of this family also left a mark on history. The Gerovsky brothers are also active participants in the Russophile movement, and were imprisoned on charges of anti-state activities, from where they fled to Russia. Olga Grabar's son Igor became an outstanding Russian artist, restorer, and art critic.","PeriodicalId":127790,"journal":{"name":"East Slavic Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116102546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.10
I. Barinov
This article examines the tradition of naming the Belarusian ethnic territory in the German language and its dynamics over the past three centuries. At the end of the seventeenth century some German authors related the term “White Russia” to the regions of the modern Republic of Belarus. Rare contact between Germans and Belarusians contributed to the fact that the Belarusian territory was perceived within the Polish and Russian paradigm, as it also was in linguistic terms. Up to the beginning of the twentieth century the designation “Belarus” was transmitted using the word “Weissrussland”. In various contexts, it could be translated as “white Russia” (part of a greater country) or the “White Russians’ Land” (in the local dimension). The beginning of the First World War contributed significantly to the dissemination of information about Belarus in Germany. Between 1916 and 1945, there was a conflict between the traditional designation “Weissrussland” and the new form “Weissruthenien”. The origins of the latter term have not yet been definitively clarified. After 1945, the term “Weissruthenien” was rejected as politically motivated in both German states. Until 1990, the traditional form of “Weissrussland” was used in Western Germany, while in Eastern Germany the official Soviet transcription of “Belorussland” was implemented. Despite the fact that after the reunification of Germany use of the national name of the country (Belarus) began, the term “Weissrussland” is still present in public discourse.
{"title":"The Designation of Belorussia in the German language from the Eighteenth to the Twenty-First Centuries","authors":"I. Barinov","doi":"10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2782-473x.2022.1.10","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the tradition of naming the Belarusian ethnic territory in the German language and its dynamics over the past three centuries. At the end of the seventeenth century some German authors related the term “White Russia” to the regions of the modern Republic of Belarus. Rare contact between Germans and Belarusians contributed to the fact that the Belarusian territory was perceived within the Polish and Russian paradigm, as it also was in linguistic terms. Up to the beginning of the twentieth century the designation “Belarus” was transmitted using the word “Weissrussland”. In various contexts, it could be translated as “white Russia” (part of a greater country) or the “White Russians’ Land” (in the local dimension). The beginning of the First World War contributed significantly to the dissemination of information about Belarus in Germany. Between 1916 and 1945, there was a conflict between the traditional designation “Weissrussland” and the new form “Weissruthenien”. The origins of the latter term have not yet been definitively clarified. After 1945, the term “Weissruthenien” was rejected as politically motivated in both German states. Until 1990, the traditional form of “Weissrussland” was used in Western Germany, while in Eastern Germany the official Soviet transcription of “Belorussland” was implemented. Despite the fact that after the reunification of Germany use of the national name of the country (Belarus) began, the term “Weissrussland” is still present in public discourse.","PeriodicalId":127790,"journal":{"name":"East Slavic Studies","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122469296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：