Pub Date : 2021-03-30DOI: 10.30965/18763316-12340005
D. Ostrowski
The historiography of sixteenth-century Church parties may have arisen from historians’ misinterpreting the use of the terms “band of Josephian monks” (cheti Osiflianskikh mnikhov) and the “non-possessor way of life” (nestiazhatel’noe zhitel’stvo) by the author of The History of the Grand Prince of Moscow. But he does not juxtapose these terms against each other. Those monks who live the non-possessor way of life are, instead, directly contrasted with those who love possession (liubostiazhatel’nye), but neither they nor the Josephians are described as a Church party, let alone one that had an “ideology”. The monks in The History who loved possessions are not identified with the Josephians, nor are the monks who follow the non-possessor way of life identified with the Trans-Volga elders. Another attempt to find the antecedent of the Church parties model were historians who cite the use by Zinovii Otenskii of the term nestiazhatel’ in relation to Vassian Patrikeev, but he too was not using the term in the sense of a Church party. These attempts are examples of “thick interpretation”; that is, imposing on the source testimony an outside construct that is not contained within it.
{"title":"Beyond the Church Parties Model: A Reply","authors":"D. Ostrowski","doi":"10.30965/18763316-12340005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-12340005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The historiography of sixteenth-century Church parties may have arisen from historians’ misinterpreting the use of the terms “band of Josephian monks” (cheti Osiflianskikh mnikhov) and the “non-possessor way of life” (nestiazhatel’noe zhitel’stvo) by the author of The History of the Grand Prince of Moscow. But he does not juxtapose these terms against each other. Those monks who live the non-possessor way of life are, instead, directly contrasted with those who love possession (liubostiazhatel’nye), but neither they nor the Josephians are described as a Church party, let alone one that had an “ideology”. The monks in The History who loved possessions are not identified with the Josephians, nor are the monks who follow the non-possessor way of life identified with the Trans-Volga elders. Another attempt to find the antecedent of the Church parties model were historians who cite the use by Zinovii Otenskii of the term nestiazhatel’ in relation to Vassian Patrikeev, but he too was not using the term in the sense of a Church party. These attempts are examples of “thick interpretation”; that is, imposing on the source testimony an outside construct that is not contained within it.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77109473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-30DOI: 10.30965/18763316-12340007
B. N. Mironov, Jan M. Surer
This article analyzes changes in both the nominal and real salaries of Russian officials and officers. The study draws upon data concerning provincial administrations, which employed a significant portion of officials, and the infantry, in which most of the officer corps served, from the introduction of monetary salaries in 1763 (for officials) and in 1711 (for officers) to 1913. A table of the changes in nominal salaries was compiled from legislative and regulatory documents, and, with the use of a consumer price index constructed by the author, time series of the real salaries of officials and officers of various ranks were obtained by decades over 150 years.
{"title":"The Salaries of Officials and Officers in the Russian Empire","authors":"B. N. Mironov, Jan M. Surer","doi":"10.30965/18763316-12340007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-12340007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article analyzes changes in both the nominal and real salaries of Russian officials and officers. The study draws upon data concerning provincial administrations, which employed a significant portion of officials, and the infantry, in which most of the officer corps served, from the introduction of monetary salaries in 1763 (for officials) and in 1711 (for officers) to 1913. A table of the changes in nominal salaries was compiled from legislative and regulatory documents, and, with the use of a consumer price index constructed by the author, time series of the real salaries of officials and officers of various ranks were obtained by decades over 150 years.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88899894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-30DOI: 10.30965/18763316-12340004
Paul Bushkovitch
The existence of parties in the Russian Orthodox Church 1480–1580 does not imply parties in the sense of coherent ideological groupings, as Don Ostrowski, David Goldfrank and Charles Halperin correctly argue. Iosif Volotskii and Nil Sorskii had complementary, not rival views. The issue of monastic lands was about regulation, not confiscation, and the parties were actually “old boy networks”. The Russian story needs a Byzantine context for the treatment of heresies, monastic lands, and other issues. Byzantium had different practices than the West, and so did the Russians. Western practice and terminology is not relevant.
正如Don Ostrowski, David Goldfrank和Charles Halperin正确地论证的那样，1480-1580年俄罗斯东正教会中政党的存在并不意味着政党是一致的意识形态团体。Iosif Volotskii和Nil Sorskii的观点是互补的，而不是对立的。寺院土地的问题是监管，而不是没收，各方实际上是“老男孩网络”。俄国的故事需要拜占庭式的背景来处理异端、修道院土地和其他问题。拜占庭有不同于西方的习俗，俄国人也是如此。西方的做法和术语是不相关的。
{"title":"Parties and Factions in the Russian Orthodox Church, 1480–1580: Some Observations","authors":"Paul Bushkovitch","doi":"10.30965/18763316-12340004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-12340004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The existence of parties in the Russian Orthodox Church 1480–1580 does not imply parties in the sense of coherent ideological groupings, as Don Ostrowski, David Goldfrank and Charles Halperin correctly argue. Iosif Volotskii and Nil Sorskii had complementary, not rival views. The issue of monastic lands was about regulation, not confiscation, and the parties were actually “old boy networks”. The Russian story needs a Byzantine context for the treatment of heresies, monastic lands, and other issues. Byzantium had different practices than the West, and so did the Russians. Western practice and terminology is not relevant.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88360811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-30DOI: 10.30965/18763316-12340001
D. Ostrowski
The dominant construct to explain early sixteenth-century internal Russian Church relations was for over a hundred years one of conflict between two parties – the Possessors (a.k.a. Josephians) and the Non-Possessors (a.k.a. Trans-Volga Elders). Source-based research challenged that conflict model by demonstrating that Iosif Volotskii, the presumed leader of the Possessors, and Nil Sorskii, the presumed leader of the Non-Possessors, and their disciples and followers were not antagonists but collaborators with each other. Nonetheless, the Church parties model has continued being used to explain Russian Church relations for the mid-sixteenth-century. Yet, it is just as faulty to explain the evidence of mid-century as it is for earlier. Evidence, instead of being analyzed, is shoehorned to fit the model. The Church parties-in-conflict model is a historiographical construct that obstructs rather than informs understanding the source testimony. That testimony is far more complex and nuanced than the simplistic Church parties model allows for.
{"title":"A Construct That Obstructs: The Church Parties Model of Sixteenth-Century Russian Church Relations","authors":"D. Ostrowski","doi":"10.30965/18763316-12340001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-12340001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The dominant construct to explain early sixteenth-century internal Russian Church relations was for over a hundred years one of conflict between two parties – the Possessors (a.k.a. Josephians) and the Non-Possessors (a.k.a. Trans-Volga Elders). Source-based research challenged that conflict model by demonstrating that Iosif Volotskii, the presumed leader of the Possessors, and Nil Sorskii, the presumed leader of the Non-Possessors, and their disciples and followers were not antagonists but collaborators with each other. Nonetheless, the Church parties model has continued being used to explain Russian Church relations for the mid-sixteenth-century. Yet, it is just as faulty to explain the evidence of mid-century as it is for earlier. Evidence, instead of being analyzed, is shoehorned to fit the model. The Church parties-in-conflict model is a historiographical construct that obstructs rather than informs understanding the source testimony. That testimony is far more complex and nuanced than the simplistic Church parties model allows for.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90632548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-30DOI: 10.30965/18763316-12340002
David M. Goldfrank
This scholar’s work on Nil Sorskii and Iosif Volotskii progressed unevenly from adhering to Ia.S. Lur’e’s modification of the traditional Nil vs. Iosif paradigm to a strident assertion of their collaborative alliance promoting monasticism and resolutely opposing dissidence, with a mixture of intersection and compatible differences of emphasis in their original writings. But one must concede the possibility that Nil’s collaboration did not include support of Iosif’s enthusiastic endorsement of monasterial riches, the commemoration culture that bolstered it, and the harshest measures against convicted heretics. And while in in no way provable, one cannot know for certain that Nil did not speak up in some way against monasterial riches at a Moscow synod in 1503.
这位学者对尼尔·索尔斯基和约瑟夫·沃洛茨基的研究从坚持美国的观点开始，进展并不均衡。Lur 'e对传统的Nil vs. Iosif范式进行了修改，以一种尖锐的断言，他们的合作联盟促进了修道主义，坚决反对持不同政见者，在他们的原创作品中混合了交叉和兼容的强调差异。但我们必须承认，尼尔的合作可能不包括支持约瑟夫对修道院财富的热情认可，支持它的纪念文化，以及对被定罪的异教徒采取最严厉的措施。虽然无法证明，但我们无法确定尼尔在1503年的莫斯科宗教会议上没有以某种方式反对修道院的财富。
{"title":"Double Devil’s Advocacy: Were They or Weren’t They? Only Nil Sorskii Knew","authors":"David M. Goldfrank","doi":"10.30965/18763316-12340002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-12340002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This scholar’s work on Nil Sorskii and Iosif Volotskii progressed unevenly from adhering to Ia.S. Lur’e’s modification of the traditional Nil vs. Iosif paradigm to a strident assertion of their collaborative alliance promoting monasticism and resolutely opposing dissidence, with a mixture of intersection and compatible differences of emphasis in their original writings. But one must concede the possibility that Nil’s collaboration did not include support of Iosif’s enthusiastic endorsement of monasterial riches, the commemoration culture that bolstered it, and the harshest measures against convicted heretics. And while in in no way provable, one cannot know for certain that Nil did not speak up in some way against monasterial riches at a Moscow synod in 1503.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75975829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-10DOI: 10.30965/18763316-04701004
David M. Goldfrank
Halperin’s extensively researched, methodically logical and thought out, and clearly written, if perforce selective study of Ivan iv and his reign scrupulously devotes attention to the reliability of the available sources. The author’s leitmotif here is that diplomatic papers and chronicles, as well as polemical literature, à la the disputed Ivan iv-Kurbskii epistolary exchange, as well as the History attributed to the latter and also foreigners’ reports, can simultaneously be authentic, authorial works and factually unreliable. Halperin flags in such sources numerous statements which stand either uncorroborated by other sources, some surely not credible, such as the young Ivan as a “monster in training,” or contradicted by them, for example, that oprichnina members were totally separated from the rest of Russian society. Halperin also modifies Michael Cherniavsky’s “Renaissance Prince” paradigm for Ivan iv with an emphasis on the explosive social tensions seen for this era and the dynamics of the domestic terror which the tsar unleashed, as well as his personal religious sensitivities and political ideology. Herein Halperin perceptively grasps the anomaly of Ivan’s repudiating the lasting, state-strengthening reforms of the 1550s. This reviewer takes partial responsibility for where Halperin was misled by the ‘Kurbskii’ History regarding Trans-Volgan hermitages.
{"title":"Halperin’s Heraclean Feat: Navigating the ‘Reliable Sources’ Challenge en route to Crafting a Book ‘for all Seasons’ and Modifying the ‘Renaissance Prince’ Paradigm","authors":"David M. Goldfrank","doi":"10.30965/18763316-04701004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-04701004","url":null,"abstract":"Halperin’s extensively researched, methodically logical and thought out, and clearly written, if perforce selective study of Ivan iv and his reign scrupulously devotes attention to the reliability of the available sources. The author’s leitmotif here is that diplomatic papers and chronicles, as well as polemical literature, à la the disputed Ivan iv-Kurbskii epistolary exchange, as well as the History attributed to the latter and also foreigners’ reports, can simultaneously be authentic, authorial works and factually unreliable. Halperin flags in such sources numerous statements which stand either uncorroborated by other sources, some surely not credible, such as the young Ivan as a “monster in training,” or contradicted by them, for example, that oprichnina members were totally separated from the rest of Russian society. Halperin also modifies Michael Cherniavsky’s “Renaissance Prince” paradigm for Ivan iv with an emphasis on the explosive social tensions seen for this era and the dynamics of the domestic terror which the tsar unleashed, as well as his personal religious sensitivities and political ideology. Herein Halperin perceptively grasps the anomaly of Ivan’s repudiating the lasting, state-strengthening reforms of the 1550s. This reviewer takes partial responsibility for where Halperin was misled by the ‘Kurbskii’ History regarding Trans-Volgan hermitages.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42044746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-10DOI: 10.30965/18763316-04701002
S. Bogatyrev
This paper discusses the comparative aspect of Charles Halperin’s biography of Ivan the Terrible. In his book, Halperin reassesses Michael Cherniavsky’s view of Ivan the Terrible as a Renaissance prince by noting that Cherniavsky overestimated the importance of Moscow-the Third Rome theory and used unreliable later sources. In Russian scholarship, according to Halperin, comparative works on Ivan iv have been marred with nationalism. One should also add here the negative impact of vulgar Marxism on Soviet comparative studies of Ivan iv. Nevertheless, a comparative approach to Ivan the Terrible is still viable because, as Halperin astutely notes, the first Russian tsar “resembled his contemporaries among foreign rulers more than he did his Muscovite predecessors or successors.” In this article I apply Halperin’s comparative methodology to Ivan iv the Terrible and Philip ii the Prudent of Spain. What Ivan and Philip had in common was not Renaissance ideas but intensive religious beliefs. The paper examines the foreign and domestic policies of both monarchs, as well as their contemporary visual representations from the perspectives of their religious views. Ivan’s and Philip’s preoccupation with their countryside residences, Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda and the Escorial respectively, is also discussed in the context of the rulers’ intensive religiosity. Despite their different confessions, Ivan iv and Philip ii were driven by aspirations for what they saw as original, simple, correct Christianity.
{"title":"Ivan the Terrible and Philip the Prudent","authors":"S. Bogatyrev","doi":"10.30965/18763316-04701002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-04701002","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the comparative aspect of Charles Halperin’s biography of Ivan the Terrible. In his book, Halperin reassesses Michael Cherniavsky’s view of Ivan the Terrible as a Renaissance prince by noting that Cherniavsky overestimated the importance of Moscow-the Third Rome theory and used unreliable later sources. In Russian scholarship, according to Halperin, comparative works on Ivan iv have been marred with nationalism. One should also add here the negative impact of vulgar Marxism on Soviet comparative studies of Ivan iv. Nevertheless, a comparative approach to Ivan the Terrible is still viable because, as Halperin astutely notes, the first Russian tsar “resembled his contemporaries among foreign rulers more than he did his Muscovite predecessors or successors.” In this article I apply Halperin’s comparative methodology to Ivan iv the Terrible and Philip ii the Prudent of Spain. What Ivan and Philip had in common was not Renaissance ideas but intensive religious beliefs. The paper examines the foreign and domestic policies of both monarchs, as well as their contemporary visual representations from the perspectives of their religious views. Ivan’s and Philip’s preoccupation with their countryside residences, Aleksandrovskaia Sloboda and the Escorial respectively, is also discussed in the context of the rulers’ intensive religiosity. Despite their different confessions, Ivan iv and Philip ii were driven by aspirations for what they saw as original, simple, correct Christianity.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47980101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-10DOI: 10.30965/18763316-04701007
Janet D. Martin
It is not possible to understand Ivan iv and his policies, Charles Halperin emphasizes, without taking into account Muscovite political, economic, social, and cultural history. To explain the mass terror that characterized the oprichnina, Halperin delves particularly into social history and finds the roots of the terror in the establishment and enlargement of the gentry, which entailed a high degree of social mobility. Without any mechanisms for releasing the anxiety produced by social mobility, social pressures mounted until the establishment of the oprichnina provided an opportunity for the gentry to release their frustrations in unrestrained violence. An inquiry into a wider range of social and economic developments reveals that the gentry had to deal with stress arising from multiple sources, more disturbing and persistent than social mobility. It also indicates that the gentry did have mechanisms at their disposal to express and alleviate their anxieties. This inquiry does not confirm or reject Halperin’s conclusion that gentry oprichniki, contravening Ivan’s intent, were responsible for unleashing mass terror. It does suggest that to discover the roots of the gentry’s actions it may be necessary to consider a wider range of factors in Muscovy’s complex, dynamic social and economic history.
{"title":"Pressure Cookers, Safety Valves, and Mass Terror during the Oprichnina","authors":"Janet D. Martin","doi":"10.30965/18763316-04701007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-04701007","url":null,"abstract":"It is not possible to understand Ivan iv and his policies, Charles Halperin emphasizes, without taking into account Muscovite political, economic, social, and cultural history. To explain the mass terror that characterized the oprichnina, Halperin delves particularly into social history and finds the roots of the terror in the establishment and enlargement of the gentry, which entailed a high degree of social mobility. Without any mechanisms for releasing the anxiety produced by social mobility, social pressures mounted until the establishment of the oprichnina provided an opportunity for the gentry to release their frustrations in unrestrained violence. An inquiry into a wider range of social and economic developments reveals that the gentry had to deal with stress arising from multiple sources, more disturbing and persistent than social mobility. It also indicates that the gentry did have mechanisms at their disposal to express and alleviate their anxieties. This inquiry does not confirm or reject Halperin’s conclusion that gentry oprichniki, contravening Ivan’s intent, were responsible for unleashing mass terror. It does suggest that to discover the roots of the gentry’s actions it may be necessary to consider a wider range of factors in Muscovy’s complex, dynamic social and economic history.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85664431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-10DOI: 10.30965/18763316-04701001
Brian J. Boeck
Though Nikolai Karamzin has been credited with developing the ‘Two Ivans’ paradigm, which emphasizes Anastasiia’s death as the clear, unequivocal dividing line between the good Ivan and the evil Groznyi, he did not invent it. He derived the notion from the only major Russian text about Ivan the Terrible that is still unpublished.
{"title":"The Lady Vanishes: The Death of Anastasiia and Ivan’s Regression to Ancestral Evil","authors":"Brian J. Boeck","doi":"10.30965/18763316-04701001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-04701001","url":null,"abstract":"Though Nikolai Karamzin has been credited with developing the ‘Two Ivans’ paradigm, which emphasizes Anastasiia’s death as the clear, unequivocal dividing line between the good Ivan and the evil Groznyi, he did not invent it. He derived the notion from the only major Russian text about Ivan the Terrible that is still unpublished.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41329383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-10DOI: 10.30965/18763316-04701010
J. Spock
The art of analyzing a book for the purpose of historical inquiry is an art often not addressed until graduate school, and even then, its process is often assumed by the instructor. “Four Birds, One Stone” presents goals and options for utilizing Charles Halperin’s Ivan the Terrible in the undergraduate and graduate classroom in order to teach students how to understand an author’s methodology, how to identify source types and their uses, how to evaluate an author’s argumentation, and how to recognize the organization of material, in addition to guiding students through the book’s historical content. The article provides major arguments and themes presented in Ivan the Terrible, and also suggests ways that chapters can be utilized to help students grapple with content relating to the tsar and to Muscovy. Halperin’s book supplies opportunities to introduce students to problems of historiography and other elements of historical interpretation, and this article calls attention to some of those topics. This article aims to provide instructors with ideas not only for exploring the use of Halperin’s book for instruction at both undergraduate and graduate levels, but to also consider how to better enable student engagement with the text of any secondary source.
{"title":"Four Birds, One Stone: Teaching History, Teaching Ivan the Terrible, Teaching Ivan the Terrible, Teaching Muscovy","authors":"J. Spock","doi":"10.30965/18763316-04701010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763316-04701010","url":null,"abstract":"The art of analyzing a book for the purpose of historical inquiry is an art often not addressed until graduate school, and even then, its process is often assumed by the instructor. “Four Birds, One Stone” presents goals and options for utilizing Charles Halperin’s Ivan the Terrible in the undergraduate and graduate classroom in order to teach students how to understand an author’s methodology, how to identify source types and their uses, how to evaluate an author’s argumentation, and how to recognize the organization of material, in addition to guiding students through the book’s historical content. The article provides major arguments and themes presented in Ivan the Terrible, and also suggests ways that chapters can be utilized to help students grapple with content relating to the tsar and to Muscovy. Halperin’s book supplies opportunities to introduce students to problems of historiography and other elements of historical interpretation, and this article calls attention to some of those topics. This article aims to provide instructors with ideas not only for exploring the use of Halperin’s book for instruction at both undergraduate and graduate levels, but to also consider how to better enable student engagement with the text of any secondary source.","PeriodicalId":43441,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN HISTORY-HISTOIRE RUSSE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69267869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","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：