Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.107
Pavel Anatolievich Vаrаbyou
The article is devoted to the perception of the heritage of Byzantium in the socio-political thought of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the period from 1453 to the middle of the 17th century. Already in the second half of the 17th century, the Left-Bank Ukraine left the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Metropolitanate of Kyiv withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The process of influence of the Byzantine civilization on the East Slavic culture after the fall of the Byzantine Empire is investigated. According to the findings, in the process of discussing the Union of Brest in the written tradition of the GDL and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Orthodox, Uniate, Catholic and Reformation narratives developed, in which the image of Byzantium had different shades: from positive to extremely negative, respectively. However, these narratives, which well complement the rather meager information about Byzantium in local letopis sources, are similar in one thing: they tend to see in it not the imperial past, but the current church heritage of the Greek people, which had a significant impact on the historical fate of the lands of Rus’. For the Polish-Lithuanian szlachta as an estate, the heritage of Byzantium was not a source of their own identity. Attempts to update the political idea of the liberation of Constantinople from the rule of the Turks came from the environment of the Greek diaspora of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. However, such projects were not approved here and were cut off from life. And even a major Orthodox magnate, Prince Wasyl-Konstanty Ostrogski, did not support, albeit difficult to implement, but a more realistic project to transfer the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the city of Ostrog. He also did not claim political succession from the Byzantine emperors, but did not interfere with the idea of his spiritual succession. The article pays more attention to the writings of Orthodox polemicists, because the heritage of Byzantium is very important and deserves special attention.
{"title":"The image of Byzantium in the narratives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (15th – first half of the 17th century)","authors":"Pavel Anatolievich Vаrаbyou","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.107","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the perception of the heritage of Byzantium in the socio-political thought of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the period from 1453 to the middle of the 17th century. Already in the second half of the 17th century, the Left-Bank Ukraine left the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Metropolitanate of Kyiv withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The process of influence of the Byzantine civilization on the East Slavic culture after the fall of the Byzantine Empire is investigated. According to the findings, in the process of discussing the Union of Brest in the written tradition of the GDL and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Orthodox, Uniate, Catholic and Reformation narratives developed, in which the image of Byzantium had different shades: from positive to extremely negative, respectively. However, these narratives, which well complement the rather meager information about Byzantium in local letopis sources, are similar in one thing: they tend to see in it not the imperial past, but the current church heritage of the Greek people, which had a significant impact on the historical fate of the lands of Rus’. For the Polish-Lithuanian szlachta as an estate, the heritage of Byzantium was not a source of their own identity. Attempts to update the political idea of the liberation of Constantinople from the rule of the Turks came from the environment of the Greek diaspora of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. However, such projects were not approved here and were cut off from life. And even a major Orthodox magnate, Prince Wasyl-Konstanty Ostrogski, did not support, albeit difficult to implement, but a more realistic project to transfer the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the city of Ostrog. He also did not claim political succession from the Byzantine emperors, but did not interfere with the idea of his spiritual succession. The article pays more attention to the writings of Orthodox polemicists, because the heritage of Byzantium is very important and deserves special attention.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788413","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.205
M. Korogodina
The scripts of the East-Slavonic manuscripts modify significantly in the 15th and 16th centuries. New types of scripts and styles of handwriting are appeared in that time. The multiplicity of the patterns makes up many scribes to master several styles of handwriting and to vary them depending on their goals. They often use another style of handwriting for the scribe’s note. It allows a scribe to differ the main text from the information about him. Various styles of handwriting, belonged to the same scribe, were used for coding different types of text and different genres. It led to the forming in the 16th century of the close connection of the style of the script not only with the genre of the book, but with its destination also. So appearance of new styles of scripts and variation of them testifies about shifts in the attitude to the culture heritage in East-Slavonic region. The ability of scribes to write in various handwritten styles poses the question of attribution of handwriting to researchers. Currently, there is no methodology for solving this applied problem. To date, studies of the functions and structure of the scribal manner, its relationship with the genre and purpose of the text are more promising. For example, to create a book the copyist takes into account the height of the line, its ratio to the proportions of the sheet, the mirror of the text, the width of the margins and even the thickness of this book. It is important not only the time and region of the appearance of new handwriting, but also their transition to those handwritten books whose writing had previously been standardized. Any changes in the design and appearance of the book – for example, the use of unusually small and dense handwriting, the appearance of pocket books that are copied into an eighth part of a sheet – speak of new functions of the book and the formation of new traditions.
{"title":"Variation of the script in the East-Slavonic manuscripts of the 15th – 16th centuries","authors":"M. Korogodina","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.205","url":null,"abstract":"The scripts of the East-Slavonic manuscripts modify significantly in the 15th and 16th centuries. New types of scripts and styles of handwriting are appeared in that time. The multiplicity of the patterns makes up many scribes to master several styles of handwriting and to vary them depending on their goals. They often use another style of handwriting for the scribe’s note. It allows a scribe to differ the main text from the information about him. Various styles of handwriting, belonged to the same scribe, were used for coding different types of text and different genres. It led to the forming in the 16th century of the close connection of the style of the script not only with the genre of the book, but with its destination also. So appearance of new styles of scripts and variation of them testifies about shifts in the attitude to the culture heritage in East-Slavonic region. The ability of scribes to write in various handwritten styles poses the question of attribution of handwriting to researchers. Currently, there is no methodology for solving this applied problem. To date, studies of the functions and structure of the scribal manner, its relationship with the genre and purpose of the text are more promising. For example, to create a book the copyist takes into account the height of the line, its ratio to the proportions of the sheet, the mirror of the text, the width of the margins and even the thickness of this book. It is important not only the time and region of the appearance of new handwriting, but also their transition to those handwritten books whose writing had previously been standardized. Any changes in the design and appearance of the book – for example, the use of unusually small and dense handwriting, the appearance of pocket books that are copied into an eighth part of a sheet – speak of new functions of the book and the formation of new traditions.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788792","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.209
V. Koronevskii
The article is devoted to the problem of the origin and formation of the idea of the patron saint of the Belarusian territories and the Belarusian people in the period up to 1914. First of all, the history of the «Belarusian» component of the cult of St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk is analyzed. For the first time in the Belarusian context, she appears as early as 1663 in the poems of Simeon of Polotsk, however, in the future, the corresponding idea of the «patron saint of Belarus» was actualized only in the 1830s and then in the early 1870s. Until the 1890s it is mentioned only situationally: in periods that are especially important for local Orthodoxy, individual representatives of the Orthodox clergy of Polotsk and Vitebsk position the saint as the patroness of not only the Polotsk, but also the Belarusian region. However, at the turn of the XIX–XX centuries the idea of the «Belarusian Euphrosyne» is becoming more popular, and not only the Belarusian region, but also the Belarusian people are increasingly being called the object of the patronage of St. Euphrosyne. The idea reached its peak in 1910, when it was loudly declared that Euphrosyne of Polotsk was the patroness of the Belarusian branch of the «triune Russian people». In addition, the existence of the idea of a «Belarusian saint» among the leaders of the Belarusian national movement at the beginning of the 20th century is considered. It is established that as such they positioned the traditionally revered in the region Polish Catholic saints, and, first of all, St. Andrew Bobola, while the image of St. Euphrosyne did not play a prominent role in their narrative. The common and special features in the processes of origin and development of two «projects» of Belarusian saints, their correlation with each other are singled out.
这篇文章专门讨论到1914年为止，白俄罗斯领土和白俄罗斯人民的守护神观念的起源和形成问题。首先，分析了波洛茨克圣欧佛罗西尼崇拜的“白俄罗斯”组成部分的历史。早在1663年，她就在波洛茨克的西蒙(Simeon of Polotsk)的诗歌中首次出现在白俄罗斯语境中，然而，在未来，“白俄罗斯守护神”的相应概念直到19世纪30年代和19世纪70年代初才得以实现。直到19世纪90年代，它只在情况下被提及:在对当地东正教特别重要的时期，波洛茨克和维捷布斯克东正教神职人员的个人代表将圣人定位为不仅波洛茨克，而且是白俄罗斯地区的守护神。然而，在十九至二十世纪之交，“白俄罗斯Euphrosyne”的概念变得越来越流行，不仅在白俄罗斯地区，而且白俄罗斯人民也越来越多地被称为St. Euphrosyne赞助的对象。这种想法在1910年达到了顶峰，当时人们大声宣布波洛茨克的欧芙罗西妮是“三位一体的俄罗斯人”的白俄罗斯分支的守护神。此外，考虑到20世纪初白俄罗斯民族运动领导人中存在“白俄罗斯圣徒”的想法。可以确定的是，他们这样定位传统上在该地区受人尊敬的波兰天主教圣徒，首先是圣安德鲁·博博拉，而圣欧佛罗辛尼的形象在他们的叙述中并没有发挥突出作用。白俄罗斯圣徒的两个“项目”的起源和发展过程中的共同点和特点，它们之间的相互关系被挑选出来。
{"title":"The idea of a «Belarusian Saint» in the 19th – early 20th centuries: Alternatives and contradictions","authors":"V. Koronevskii","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.209","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the problem of the origin and formation of the idea of the patron saint of the Belarusian territories and the Belarusian people in the period up to 1914. First of all, the history of the «Belarusian» component of the cult of St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk is analyzed. For the first time in the Belarusian context, she appears as early as 1663 in the poems of Simeon of Polotsk, however, in the future, the corresponding idea of the «patron saint of Belarus» was actualized only in the 1830s and then in the early 1870s. Until the 1890s it is mentioned only situationally: in periods that are especially important for local Orthodoxy, individual representatives of the Orthodox clergy of Polotsk and Vitebsk position the saint as the patroness of not only the Polotsk, but also the Belarusian region. However, at the turn of the XIX–XX centuries the idea of the «Belarusian Euphrosyne» is becoming more popular, and not only the Belarusian region, but also the Belarusian people are increasingly being called the object of the patronage of St. Euphrosyne. The idea reached its peak in 1910, when it was loudly declared that Euphrosyne of Polotsk was the patroness of the Belarusian branch of the «triune Russian people». In addition, the existence of the idea of a «Belarusian saint» among the leaders of the Belarusian national movement at the beginning of the 20th century is considered. It is established that as such they positioned the traditionally revered in the region Polish Catholic saints, and, first of all, St. Andrew Bobola, while the image of St. Euphrosyne did not play a prominent role in their narrative. The common and special features in the processes of origin and development of two «projects» of Belarusian saints, their correlation with each other are singled out.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788384","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.212
Irina Nikolayevna Smirnova, R. Sokolov
The article analyzes the situation of the protection of historical and cultural heritage in the end of 1917 – beginning of 1918 in Petrograd. After the October Revolution Anatoly Lunacharsky (the people’s commissar for education) decided to organize the central department for protection of historical and cultural heritage of Russia. This project was previously discussed by the Provisional Government. After the October Revolution it became even more current question. On the one hand it was the time of the building on completely new principles of state administration, and on the other, it was the time of general instability and in fact the outbreak of civil war. Responsibility for the safety of such artifacts (among them museum collections were the most important), which lay with the Bolsheviks, could be used as a weighty argument in the fight against numerous political opponents. It was in urgent need to take the preservation of cultural and historical monuments under centralized control. The foundation for such an organization was prepared by the Petrograd Artistic and Historical Commission, which began its activity in the period between the two revolutions of 1917. After the October Revolution, its members, realizing the importance of the tasks, refused to join the sabotage of the actions of the new government and continued to fulfill their duties. The authors analyze a number of archival documents, not previously considered by researchers in this perspective. These documents give reason to propose that Anatoly Lunacharsky planned to create the State Council for Arts under his own patronage in the period between January and February 1918. Also, he planned to transform the United Artistic and Historical Commission into the central executive body for protection of historical and cultural heritage. In fact, it should have been the ministry-equivalent organization. After the creation of the State Council for Arts this Commission should save its functions of the central executive institution. In this regard P. P. Veyner prepared a Note by the Anatoly Lunacharsky’s request, the publication of the text of which is carried out by the authors for the first time.
本文分析了1917年底至1918年初彼得格勒历史文化遗产保护的情况。十月革命后，Anatoly Lunacharsky(教育人民委员)决定成立保护俄罗斯历史和文化遗产的中央部门。临时政府以前曾讨论过这个项目。十月革命以后，这个问题就更加突出了。一方面，这是建立全新的国家管理原则的时期，另一方面，这是一个普遍不稳定的时期，实际上是内战爆发的时期。这些文物(其中博物馆藏品是最重要的)的安全责任属于布尔什维克，在与众多政治对手的斗争中，这可以作为一个重要的论据。迫切需要把文化和历史遗迹的保护置于集中控制之下。这样一个组织的基础是由彼得格勒艺术和历史委员会准备的，该委员会在1917年两次革命之间的时期开始活动。十月革命后，其成员意识到任务的重要性，拒绝参加破坏新政府的行动，继续履行自己的职责。作者分析了一些档案文件，以前没有被研究人员从这个角度考虑。这些文件有理由提出，阿纳托利·卢纳查尔斯基计划在1918年1月至2月期间在他自己的赞助下创建国家艺术委员会。他还计划，把艺术历史委员会转变为保护历史文化遗产的中央执行机构。事实上，它应该是相当于部级的组织。国务院艺术委员会成立后，应当保留其中央执行机构的职能。在这方面，P. P. Veyner根据Anatoly Lunacharsky的要求编写了一份说明，其案文是作者第一次出版的。
{"title":"The United Artistic and Historical Comission and its role in the Anatoly Lunacharsky’s plans of organization of the central department for protection of historical and cultural heritage (January – early February 1918)","authors":"Irina Nikolayevna Smirnova, R. Sokolov","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.212","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the situation of the protection of historical and cultural heritage in the end of 1917 – beginning of 1918 in Petrograd. After the October Revolution Anatoly Lunacharsky (the people’s commissar for education) decided to organize the central department for protection of historical and cultural heritage of Russia. This project was previously discussed by the Provisional Government. After the October Revolution it became even more current question. On the one hand it was the time of the building on completely new principles of state administration, and on the other, it was the time of general instability and in fact the outbreak of civil war. Responsibility for the safety of such artifacts (among them museum collections were the most important), which lay with the Bolsheviks, could be used as a weighty argument in the fight against numerous political opponents. It was in urgent need to take the preservation of cultural and historical monuments under centralized control. The foundation for such an organization was prepared by the Petrograd Artistic and Historical Commission, which began its activity in the period between the two revolutions of 1917. After the October Revolution, its members, realizing the importance of the tasks, refused to join the sabotage of the actions of the new government and continued to fulfill their duties. The authors analyze a number of archival documents, not previously considered by researchers in this perspective. These documents give reason to propose that Anatoly Lunacharsky planned to create the State Council for Arts under his own patronage in the period between January and February 1918. Also, he planned to transform the United Artistic and Historical Commission into the central executive body for protection of historical and cultural heritage. In fact, it should have been the ministry-equivalent organization. After the creation of the State Council for Arts this Commission should save its functions of the central executive institution. In this regard P. P. Veyner prepared a Note by the Anatoly Lunacharsky’s request, the publication of the text of which is carried out by the authors for the first time.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788448","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.111
Natalia Nikolaevna Bobrova
Byzantine icons of the 14th century in Russian museums are scattered material. In this regard, the situation when it is possible to identify or at least raise the question of whether two icons of such an artistic level from different collections belong to the same master is almost unique. The Late Paleologian icon of the Resurrection of Lazarus from the the Russian Museum can without exaggeration be called the pearl of the collection. The icon was received by the Russian Museum in 1928 from the collection of G. N. Gamon-Gaman through the State Museum Fund. There is a small icon of the Nativity of Christ distinguished by high pictorial skill in the collection of the new Patriarchal Museum of Church Art at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. The study of this late Paleologian monument is just beginning, but the special relevance of its research is due to the fact that the artistic features allow us to compare this image with the aforementioned icon of the Resurrection of Lazarus, a landmark monument of the collection of the Russian Museum. A number of features of the icon of the Nativity painting technique makes it possible to speak about a significant stylistic community of these two monuments despite the fact that the preservation of it is not the best. The similarity of the nuances of color, the principles of shaping, the presence of common characteristic techniques in the construction of gaps, the picturesque solution of clothes, the dashed manner of modeling the light part of the slides, individual handwriting and great similarity in individual details, the general features of the drawing of the hands and feet of the characters, the nature of the vegetation image, the proportions of the figures, the size of the image, the features of gilding halos (on top of the paint layer) ― all these aspects reveal such a close similarity of painting techniques that it becomes possible to raise the question of identifying in this case the individual manner of one master and the belonging of these two icons to the festive row of the same iconostasis. Technical studies of the icon of the Resurrection of Lazarus were carried out by S. I. Golubev during the restoration in the Russian Museum in 1986–1990, the research results of which definitely make it possible for a more substantive comparative analysis of the two icons.
俄罗斯博物馆里的14世纪拜占庭圣像是零散的材料。在这方面，有可能识别或至少提出这样一个问题，即来自不同收藏的具有如此艺术水平的两个图标是否属于同一位大师，这种情况几乎是独一无二的。来自俄罗斯博物馆的晚期古生物学的拉撒路复活图标可以毫不夸张地称为收藏中的明珠。1928年，俄罗斯博物馆通过国家博物馆基金从g.n. Gamon-Gaman的收藏中收到了这个图标。在莫斯科救世主基督大教堂的新教会艺术博物馆中，有一幅以高超的绘画技巧而闻名的耶稣诞生的小图标。对这个晚期古生物学纪念碑的研究才刚刚开始，但其研究的特殊意义在于，它的艺术特征使我们能够将这个图像与前面提到的拉撒路复活的图标进行比较，拉撒路复活是俄罗斯博物馆收藏的标志性纪念碑。耶稣诞生绘画技术的许多特征使我们有可能谈论这两个纪念碑的一个重要的风格共同体，尽管它的保存不是最好的。颜色的细微差别的相似性，造型的原则，在缝隙的构造中存在共同的特征技术，衣服的生动的解决方案，幻灯片的浅色部分的虚线造型方式，个人的笔迹和个人细节的相似性，人物的手和脚的绘画的一般特征，植被图像的性质，人物的比例，图像的大小，镀金光环的特征(在油漆层的顶部)——所有这些方面都揭示了绘画技术的密切相似性，以至于有可能提出在这种情况下识别一位大师的个人方式以及这两个图标属于同一圣像的节日行的问题。S. I. Golubev于1986-1990年在俄罗斯博物馆修复期间对拉撒路复活像进行了技术研究，其研究结果无疑为对两个像进行更实质性的比较分析提供了可能。
{"title":"The Late Paleologian icon of the Nativity of Christ from the Patriarch’s museum of church art at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow: on the features of the painting style","authors":"Natalia Nikolaevna Bobrova","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.111","url":null,"abstract":"Byzantine icons of the 14th century in Russian museums are scattered material. In this regard, the situation when it is possible to identify or at least raise the question of whether two icons of such an artistic level from different collections belong to the same master is almost unique. The Late Paleologian icon of the Resurrection of Lazarus from the the Russian Museum can without exaggeration be called the pearl of the collection. The icon was received by the Russian Museum in 1928 from the collection of G. N. Gamon-Gaman through the State Museum Fund. There is a small icon of the Nativity of Christ distinguished by high pictorial skill in the collection of the new Patriarchal Museum of Church Art at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. The study of this late Paleologian monument is just beginning, but the special relevance of its research is due to the fact that the artistic features allow us to compare this image with the aforementioned icon of the Resurrection of Lazarus, a landmark monument of the collection of the Russian Museum. A number of features of the icon of the Nativity painting technique makes it possible to speak about a significant stylistic community of these two monuments despite the fact that the preservation of it is not the best. The similarity of the nuances of color, the principles of shaping, the presence of common characteristic techniques in the construction of gaps, the picturesque solution of clothes, the dashed manner of modeling the light part of the slides, individual handwriting and great similarity in individual details, the general features of the drawing of the hands and feet of the characters, the nature of the vegetation image, the proportions of the figures, the size of the image, the features of gilding halos (on top of the paint layer) ― all these aspects reveal such a close similarity of painting techniques that it becomes possible to raise the question of identifying in this case the individual manner of one master and the belonging of these two icons to the festive row of the same iconostasis. Technical studies of the icon of the Resurrection of Lazarus were carried out by S. I. Golubev during the restoration in the Russian Museum in 1986–1990, the research results of which definitely make it possible for a more substantive comparative analysis of the two icons.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788478","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.207
P. Lukin
The article discusses a praise inscription in the Saviour Church on Nereditsa Hill, built and decorated with frescoes at the end of the 12th c. In the church there is a portrait of the ktetor, Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich of Novgorod, with an inscription praising him, in which he is called «the God-loving prince, the second Vsevolod». The question arises: who was meant by the «first Vsevolod»? Scholars offered two candidates: the Vladimir Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest, whose protégé was Yaroslav, and the Novgorod Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, driven out of Novgorod in 1136. Vsevolod the Big Nest, as has been shown in previous scholarship, does not fit this role, because at the time of the temple`s painting he was alive, and such exaltation did not comply with the Old Russian traditions. The main argument in favour of the candidacy of Vsevolod Mstislavich is an account of the hagiographic work, written in Pskov on the occasion of the transfer of his relics. However, it turns out to be a late and unreliable text. The author substantiates the idea that by the «first Vsevolod» may have been implied the Prince of Kiev Vsevolod Yaroslavich (1077, 1078–1093), who was the great grandfather of Yaroslav Vladimirovich. In annals there are evidences of veneration of Vsevolod Jaroslavich by his descendants, the eldest of which in the late 1190s was Yaroslav. Besides, it was Vsevolod Yaroslavich who according to some evidence was considered as a donator of the Novgorod liberties at that time. On the other hand, Yaroslav’s father Vladimir Mstislavich and Vsevolod Mstislavich were the sons of the prince of Kiev Mstislav the Great from different marriages, and belonged to the princely clans mostly warring with each other. Both for Yaroslav Vladimirovich and for Novgorodians Vsevolod Yaroslavich was a much more acceptable figure to be praised and to serve as a model for descendants. The article shows that historiography was influenced by late hagiography and modern historians’ perceptions of the Novgorod «revolution» of 1136, of which Vsevolod Mstislavich was a victim. At the same time real dynastic beliefs of Riurikids in pre-Mongol Rus and the elite surrounding them have turned out to be almost completely forgotten.
{"title":"Who was the «first Vsevolod»? A new interpretation of the ktetor inscription in the Saviour Church on Nereditsa Hill","authors":"P. Lukin","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.207","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses a praise inscription in the Saviour Church on Nereditsa Hill, built and decorated with frescoes at the end of the 12th c. In the church there is a portrait of the ktetor, Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich of Novgorod, with an inscription praising him, in which he is called «the God-loving prince, the second Vsevolod». The question arises: who was meant by the «first Vsevolod»? Scholars offered two candidates: the Vladimir Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest, whose protégé was Yaroslav, and the Novgorod Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, driven out of Novgorod in 1136. Vsevolod the Big Nest, as has been shown in previous scholarship, does not fit this role, because at the time of the temple`s painting he was alive, and such exaltation did not comply with the Old Russian traditions. The main argument in favour of the candidacy of Vsevolod Mstislavich is an account of the hagiographic work, written in Pskov on the occasion of the transfer of his relics. However, it turns out to be a late and unreliable text. The author substantiates the idea that by the «first Vsevolod» may have been implied the Prince of Kiev Vsevolod Yaroslavich (1077, 1078–1093), who was the great grandfather of Yaroslav Vladimirovich. In annals there are evidences of veneration of Vsevolod Jaroslavich by his descendants, the eldest of which in the late 1190s was Yaroslav. Besides, it was Vsevolod Yaroslavich who according to some evidence was considered as a donator of the Novgorod liberties at that time. On the other hand, Yaroslav’s father Vladimir Mstislavich and Vsevolod Mstislavich were the sons of the prince of Kiev Mstislav the Great from different marriages, and belonged to the princely clans mostly warring with each other. Both for Yaroslav Vladimirovich and for Novgorodians Vsevolod Yaroslavich was a much more acceptable figure to be praised and to serve as a model for descendants. The article shows that historiography was influenced by late hagiography and modern historians’ perceptions of the Novgorod «revolution» of 1136, of which Vsevolod Mstislavich was a victim. At the same time real dynastic beliefs of Riurikids in pre-Mongol Rus and the elite surrounding them have turned out to be almost completely forgotten.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788313","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.202
M. Leskinen
The article analyzes a number of visual representations of «Little Russians» / «Malorusy» (Ukrainians) and Belarusians («Belorussians» / «White Russians»), which were addressed to a wide range of Russian society in the 1860s – 1900s and which were formed under the influence of literature, scientific and popular ethnographies descriptions and text-books. These visual texts were creating the stereotypical images of peoples / nations (so as of the Russian people) in mass consciousness the Russian Empire. The works that are accessible primarily by the mass audience (genre canvases, book illustrations, magazine lithographs, advertisements, posters, postcards etc) are analyzed in context of ethnic stereotypes (of «Little Russians» / «Malorusy» (Ukrainians) and of «Belorussians» / «White Russians» (Belarusians)) reflections. The author is considered some methodological problems deals with stereotypes’ researching in the field of the identification of «the Russian people» as the unity of Great Russians, Little Russians and White Russians during imperial nation-building. Complications of interpreting visual ethnic images are also due to the differences of discourse of the Ukrainian and Belarusian identities history and national movements in the Russian Empire of the 19th century. In particular, Ukrainian Soviet and modern historiography considers many artists to the pantheon of national culture. But if we accept such attributions, it turns out that stereotypes of the «others» (the heterostereotypes of Little Russians / Ukrainians) turns out to be their auto stereotypes. If we proceed from the assumptions that the creators of the images belonged to the Russian («all-Russian») culture, the questions arise did they interpret them as specifically ethnic, or as the embodiment of regional / gender or only the social (the peasant) variations?
{"title":"Ethnic stereotypes of the Ukrainians (Little Russians) and Belarusians (Belorussians) in the visual texts in Russian culture in the second half of the 19th century: Issues of interpretations","authors":"M. Leskinen","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.202","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes a number of visual representations of «Little Russians» / «Malorusy» (Ukrainians) and Belarusians («Belorussians» / «White Russians»), which were addressed to a wide range of Russian society in the 1860s – 1900s and which were formed under the influence of literature, scientific and popular ethnographies descriptions and text-books. These visual texts were creating the stereotypical images of peoples / nations (so as of the Russian people) in mass consciousness the Russian Empire. The works that are accessible primarily by the mass audience (genre canvases, book illustrations, magazine lithographs, advertisements, posters, postcards etc) are analyzed in context of ethnic stereotypes (of «Little Russians» / «Malorusy» (Ukrainians) and of «Belorussians» / «White Russians» (Belarusians)) reflections. The author is considered some methodological problems deals with stereotypes’ researching in the field of the identification of «the Russian people» as the unity of Great Russians, Little Russians and White Russians during imperial nation-building. Complications of interpreting visual ethnic images are also due to the differences of discourse of the Ukrainian and Belarusian identities history and national movements in the Russian Empire of the 19th century. In particular, Ukrainian Soviet and modern historiography considers many artists to the pantheon of national culture. But if we accept such attributions, it turns out that stereotypes of the «others» (the heterostereotypes of Little Russians / Ukrainians) turns out to be their auto stereotypes. If we proceed from the assumptions that the creators of the images belonged to the Russian («all-Russian») culture, the questions arise did they interpret them as specifically ethnic, or as the embodiment of regional / gender or only the social (the peasant) variations?","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788614","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.203
E. Boltunova
The articles examines the history of Central Russia, or what was known as the governorates of Greater Russia (velikorusskiye / velikorossiyskiye gubernii), in the first half of the 19th century, during the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I. The author starts with focusing on the naming of the region and tracing its borders – both as it appeared in research discourses and in the rising language of the authorities. Following on with a look at the new practices of administration and the language of symbols, the author concludes that the region was steadily marginalized both in the “outside gaze” and even in the region’s selfidentification. The author suggests that over time this perception of Central Russia crystallized into a mental construct which largely survived numerous regime changes from the Russian Empire to the USSR to Post-Soviet Russia. A case for studying the administration of the territories is found in Alexander I’s project of governorates general (as it was put in practice in Greater Russia and then dismantled under Nicholas I). Special attention is paid to the work of governors general A. D. Balashov and A. N. Bakhmetev, most notably to the latter’s memorandum “On the advantage of and need for governors general” (1826). The document explores reasons for preserving the institute of governorates general in the Russian Empire’s hinterlands. The article also presents an overview of the research field as it can be applied to studying Central Russia as compared to the body of literature on the history of Russia’s other macro-regions.
这些文章考察了19世纪上半叶亚历山大一世和尼古拉斯一世统治时期俄罗斯中部或大俄罗斯省(velikorusskiye / velikorossiyskiye gubernii)的历史。作者首先关注了该地区的命名和边界的追踪——无论是在研究话语中出现的，还是在官方语言中出现的。接着，作者考察了新的行政实践和符号语言，得出结论认为，该地区在“外界的注视”甚至在该地区的自我认同中都逐渐被边缘化。作者认为，随着时间的推移，这种对俄罗斯中部的看法逐渐形成了一种心理结构，这种结构在从俄罗斯帝国到苏联再到后苏联时期的多次政权更迭中基本幸存下来。研究领土管理的一个案例是亚历山大一世的总督计划(该计划在大俄罗斯实施，但在尼古拉一世的统治下被废除)。该书特别关注总督A. D. Balashov和A. N. Bakhmetev的工作，尤其是后者的备忘录《关于总督的优势和需要》(1826年)。该文件探讨了在俄罗斯帝国腹地保留总督察官制度的原因。文章还介绍了研究领域的概述，因为它可以应用于研究俄罗斯中部，而不是俄罗斯其他宏观地区的历史文献。
{"title":"“The land… somewhat distant from the Monarch’s view”: Central Russia in the first half of the XIX centurury","authors":"E. Boltunova","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.203","url":null,"abstract":"The articles examines the history of Central Russia, or what was known as the governorates of Greater Russia (velikorusskiye / velikorossiyskiye gubernii), in the first half of the 19th century, during the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I. The author starts with focusing on the naming of the region and tracing its borders – both as it appeared in research discourses and in the rising language of the authorities. Following on with a look at the new practices of administration and the language of symbols, the author concludes that the region was steadily marginalized both in the “outside gaze” and even in the region’s selfidentification. The author suggests that over time this perception of Central Russia crystallized into a mental construct which largely survived numerous regime changes from the Russian Empire to the USSR to Post-Soviet Russia. A case for studying the administration of the territories is found in Alexander I’s project of governorates general (as it was put in practice in Greater Russia and then dismantled under Nicholas I). Special attention is paid to the work of governors general A. D. Balashov and A. N. Bakhmetev, most notably to the latter’s memorandum “On the advantage of and need for governors general” (1826). The document explores reasons for preserving the institute of governorates general in the Russian Empire’s hinterlands. The article also presents an overview of the research field as it can be applied to studying Central Russia as compared to the body of literature on the history of Russia’s other macro-regions.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788728","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.102
M. Popović, Vratislav Zervan
Mihailo St. Popović, in his part of the Study, follows up on the premise that an own local concept of ecumene was emerging during the reigns of Stefan Uroš II Milutin and Stefan Uroš III Dečanski. In his analysis, he relies on Serbian medieval charters and inscription. Following the analysis of the charter of Serbian King Stefan Uroš II Milutin for the Ulijare settlement, he recognizes the clear antithesis between the fatherland and the Serbian Land of the Serbian King on one hand, and Great Romania and the Greek Empire of the Byzantine Emperor, on the other. According to him, the narrative part of the manuscript clearly proves that it is not possible to notice the concept of universality in Milutin’s politics. Inspired by the research of Paul Nick Kardulias, he considers the Kingdom of Serbia as a self-contained space. With an emphasis on the examination of the charters and inscriptions, he states that during the reign of Milutin, such a space was probably created. From the World System Analysis perspective, charters and inscriptions from the reign of Stefan Uroš III Dečanski paint a slightly different picture. They probably illustrate the transition from selfcontained space to the great realm. In his part of the study, Vratislav Zevran focused mainly on the semantic level of the use of Slavic pendants of the Greek word οἰκουμένη and expressions otьčьstvije and otьčьstvo. The most common equivalent of the word οἰκουμένη was the loan translation vъseljenaja. By analyzing the use of the adjective derivative vьseljenьskyi in connection with the Byzantine common titles, he finds that the idea of universality prevailed only in the titles of general councils, and the only Byzantine Emperor thusly named was Andronikos II. Although he does not recognize the use of the adjective derivative vьseljenьskyi anywhere near the Serbian monarch, he believes that based on several examples, Serbian panegyric probably promoted the idea of a Serbian ruler who was also vьseljenьskyi. The key concept of a fatherland still lacks a comprehensive analysis of sources. Two forms otьčьstvije and otьčьstvo have settled in Church Slavonic. Over time, the ambivalence of both forms merged into a concept that implied the meaning of «family», «genus» and/or «generation». At the same time, they were joined by the attributes «royal» or «rulers», which indeed emerged on the basis of the word otьcь and worked with the meaning of the authority and power of the father. This concept then also appears in the hagiographic work of Danilo and his disciple.
Mihailo St. popoviki在他的研究部分中，在Stefan Uroš II Milutin和Stefan Uroš III de anski统治期间出现了自己的地方基督教概念的前提下进行了后续研究。在他的分析中，他依赖于塞尔维亚中世纪的宪章和铭文。在分析了塞尔维亚国王斯蒂芬·乌洛什二世·米卢廷关于乌利哈雷解决方案的宪章之后，他认识到，一方面是塞尔维亚国王的祖国和塞尔维亚土地，另一方面是拜占庭皇帝的大罗马尼亚和希腊帝国，两者之间存在明显的对立。根据他的说法，手稿的叙述部分清楚地证明，在米卢京的政治中，不可能注意到普遍性的概念。受Paul Nick Kardulias研究的启发，他认为塞尔维亚王国是一个自给自足的空间。他强调了对宪章和铭文的审查，他指出，在米卢廷统治期间，这样一个空间可能是创建的。从世界体系分析的角度来看，斯蒂芬·乌洛什三世德安斯基统治时期的宪章和铭文描绘了一幅略有不同的画面。它们可能说明了从独立空间到大领域的过渡。在他的部分研究中，Vratislav Zevran主要关注希腊语单词ο ι κο η的斯拉夫语垂饰和表达otьčьstvije和otьčьstvo的语义层面。最常见的“ο ο κο”的对应词是贷款翻译vъseljenaja。通过分析形容词衍生物vьseljenьskyi与拜占庭共同头衔的使用，他发现普遍性的概念只在总会议的头衔中盛行，而唯一这样命名的拜占庭皇帝是安德洛尼科斯二世。虽然他不承认在塞尔维亚君主附近使用了形容词衍生物vьseljenьskyi，但他认为基于几个例子，塞尔维亚的panegyric可能促进了塞尔维亚统治者vьseljenьskyi的想法。“祖国”这一核心概念仍然缺乏对其来源的全面分析。两种形式otьčьstvije和otьčьstvo在教会斯拉夫语中固定下来。随着时间的推移，这两种形式的矛盾心理融合成一个概念，暗示了“家庭”、“属”和/或“一代”的含义。与此同时，他们还加入了“王室”或“统治者”的属性，这些属性确实是在otьcь这个词的基础上出现的，并与父亲的权威和权力的含义一起工作。这个概念随后也出现在达尼洛和他的门徒的圣徒作品中。
{"title":"The «Fatherland» of the Serbian Kings Milutin and Dečanski or Some Additional Thoughts on the «Medieval Serbian Oecumene»","authors":"M. Popović, Vratislav Zervan","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.102","url":null,"abstract":"Mihailo St. Popović, in his part of the Study, follows up on the premise that an own local concept of ecumene was emerging during the reigns of Stefan Uroš II Milutin and Stefan Uroš III Dečanski. In his analysis, he relies on Serbian medieval charters and inscription. Following the analysis of the charter of Serbian King Stefan Uroš II Milutin for the Ulijare settlement, he recognizes the clear antithesis between the fatherland and the Serbian Land of the Serbian King on one hand, and Great Romania and the Greek Empire of the Byzantine Emperor, on the other. According to him, the narrative part of the manuscript clearly proves that it is not possible to notice the concept of universality in Milutin’s politics. Inspired by the research of Paul Nick Kardulias, he considers the Kingdom of Serbia as a self-contained space. With an emphasis on the examination of the charters and inscriptions, he states that during the reign of Milutin, such a space was probably created. From the World System Analysis perspective, charters and inscriptions from the reign of Stefan Uroš III Dečanski paint a slightly different picture. They probably illustrate the transition from selfcontained space to the great realm. In his part of the study, Vratislav Zevran focused mainly on the semantic level of the use of Slavic pendants of the Greek word οἰκουμένη and expressions otьčьstvije and otьčьstvo. The most common equivalent of the word οἰκουμένη was the loan translation vъseljenaja. By analyzing the use of the adjective derivative vьseljenьskyi in connection with the Byzantine common titles, he finds that the idea of universality prevailed only in the titles of general councils, and the only Byzantine Emperor thusly named was Andronikos II. Although he does not recognize the use of the adjective derivative vьseljenьskyi anywhere near the Serbian monarch, he believes that based on several examples, Serbian panegyric probably promoted the idea of a Serbian ruler who was also vьseljenьskyi. The key concept of a fatherland still lacks a comprehensive analysis of sources. Two forms otьčьstvije and otьčьstvo have settled in Church Slavonic. Over time, the ambivalence of both forms merged into a concept that implied the meaning of «family», «genus» and/or «generation». At the same time, they were joined by the attributes «royal» or «rulers», which indeed emerged on the basis of the word otьcь and worked with the meaning of the authority and power of the father. This concept then also appears in the hagiographic work of Danilo and his disciple.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67788824","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 : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2022.216
Elena Vitalievna Klyushina
The article is devoted to the analysis of curatorial strategies used in the international exhibition «Wild Souls. Symbolism in the Baltic States», successfully implemented under the supervision of Rodolphe Rapetti in 2018–2021 in Paris, Tallinn, Vilnus and Riga. Revealing the originality of the curatorial narrative contributes to the identification of current research directions in the study of the Baltic countries visual culture of the 19th–20th centuries. The implemented project has the potential for further revision of generally accepted ideas about the genesis and development of the symbolist art in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This also contributes to the formation and widespread dissemination of methodological approaches that have not been previously used in the art studies of these countries. To understand the novelty of the chosen strategies, historiographical analysis of art in the Baltic countries from the 1940s to the 1980s is carried out. The third conference of art historians of the Baltic republics in 1990 was called a turning point in the history of cultural studies. It is at this scientific event that Boris Bershtein calls for a metaposition and the usage of metalanguage in the construction of an «internal» description of national culture. According to the author of this article, an exhibition «Wild Souls» is intended to become such a metaposition, capable of summarizing the already accumulated knowledge and offering a new look at the development of visual culture. Using universal approaches to the study of symbolism, Rodolphe Rapetti, together with colleagues from Baltic museums, demonstrates the trans-regional community of artistic phenomena that took place in these countries, and also convincingly proves the involvement of the Baltic artists in the general European artistic process at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
{"title":"Constructing art history: Contemporary curatorial strategies in studying symbolism of the Baltic states","authors":"Elena Vitalievna Klyushina","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2022.216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2022.216","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the analysis of curatorial strategies used in the international exhibition «Wild Souls. Symbolism in the Baltic States», successfully implemented under the supervision of Rodolphe Rapetti in 2018–2021 in Paris, Tallinn, Vilnus and Riga. Revealing the originality of the curatorial narrative contributes to the identification of current research directions in the study of the Baltic countries visual culture of the 19th–20th centuries. The implemented project has the potential for further revision of generally accepted ideas about the genesis and development of the symbolist art in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This also contributes to the formation and widespread dissemination of methodological approaches that have not been previously used in the art studies of these countries. To understand the novelty of the chosen strategies, historiographical analysis of art in the Baltic countries from the 1940s to the 1980s is carried out. The third conference of art historians of the Baltic republics in 1990 was called a turning point in the history of cultural studies. It is at this scientific event that Boris Bershtein calls for a metaposition and the usage of metalanguage in the construction of an «internal» description of national culture. According to the author of this article, an exhibition «Wild Souls» is intended to become such a metaposition, capable of summarizing the already accumulated knowledge and offering a new look at the development of visual culture. Using universal approaches to the study of symbolism, Rodolphe Rapetti, together with colleagues from Baltic museums, demonstrates the trans-regional community of artistic phenomena that took place in these countries, and also convincingly proves the involvement of the Baltic artists in the general European artistic process at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67789317","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：