This review examines a book by E. M. Boltunova devoted to the “second coronation” of Nicholas I in Warsaw in 1829 and the memory of the Russian-Polish conflicts between the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries. The novelty of the book is determined by the conceptualisation of the coronation through the methodology of the history of emotions and the history of memory in the contextual framework of R. Wartman’s “power scenarios”. Over the course of ten chapters, the author of the book reconstructs the spectra of emotions in the context of the formation of imperial symbolic and political mechanisms of governance of the Kingdom of Poland in the first third of the nineteenth century. The reviewer draws attention to the ambiguity of the number of interpretations offered by the author, resulting from the chosen methodological optics. The reviewer concludes that the book makes a serious contribution to the existing historiography of Russian-Polish relations in the first third of the nineteenth century by portraying, through the reconstruction of emotions, the Russian Empire as an extremely dynamic space.
这篇评论探讨了 E. M. Boltunova 的著作，该书专门论述了 1829 年尼古拉一世在华沙的 "第二次加冕 "以及 17 世纪至 19 世纪早期俄波冲突的记忆。该书的新颖之处在于，在 R. Wartman 的 "权力情景 "背景框架下，通过情感史和记忆史的方法对加冕礼进行了概念化。在十个章节中，该书作者在十九世纪前三叶波兰王国帝国象征和政治治理机制形成的背景下重建了情感的光谱。评论者提请注意作者所提供的解释数量的模糊性，这是由所选择的方法论视角造成的。书评人的结论是，该书通过对情感的重构，将俄罗斯帝国描绘成一个极富活力的空间，为现有的 19 世纪前三分之一俄波关系史学做出了重要贡献。
{"title":"“Duty, Love, and Hate…”: Russian-Polish Relations in the First Third of the 19th Century","authors":"V. Ivshin","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.883","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.883","url":null,"abstract":"This review examines a book by E. M. Boltunova devoted to the “second coronation” of Nicholas I in Warsaw in 1829 and the memory of the Russian-Polish conflicts between the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries. The novelty of the book is determined by the conceptualisation of the coronation through the methodology of the history of emotions and the history of memory in the contextual framework of R. Wartman’s “power scenarios”. Over the course of ten chapters, the author of the book reconstructs the spectra of emotions in the context of the formation of imperial symbolic and political mechanisms of governance of the Kingdom of Poland in the first third of the nineteenth century. The reviewer draws attention to the ambiguity of the number of interpretations offered by the author, resulting from the chosen methodological optics. The reviewer concludes that the book makes a serious contribution to the existing historiography of Russian-Polish relations in the first third of the nineteenth century by portraying, through the reconstruction of emotions, the Russian Empire as an extremely dynamic space.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140365638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the case of seminarian David Kezeli who compiled the anti-Russian proclamation To the New Generation of Georgia, confiscated in December 1873. Although the St Petersburg and Caucasian authorities interpreted the case differently, they were united in their inattention to the situation of the Tiflis Theological Seminary. The internal problems of the theological educational institution, including the problem of the disloyalty of the “native” teachers, were to be solved by the officials of the Synod’s Educational Committee and the Exarch of Georgia. The author aims to show the ambivalence of the anti-Russian views of the Georgian seminarians and analyse the Kezeli case as part of the processes in religious education initiated by the 1867 reform. Special attention is paid to the discussion about the establishment of the Georgian language class, the idea of which either led to a consensus among the teachers or to a confrontation described in the Synod documents as a struggle between the Russian and Georgian “parties”. The origins and limitations of anti-Russian sentiments among seminarians are considered in relation to conflicts among teachers, the rules of access to educational and extracurricular literature, and the status of the Russian and Georgian languages. The author concludes that in the first years after the reform, young graduates of the theological academies were inspired by the opportunity to change the content of theological education by introducing the achievements of modern science into it. This goal united teachers of Russian and Georgian origin. They worked together both on projects for Georgian language classes and on compiling lists of advanced literature to be purchased for the student library. Georgian teachers, such as Jacob Gogebashvili, were prepared to become conduits of “human Russification”, arguing that only the Russian language allowed their students to access modern science. The transformation of interaction into conflict, which took on the form of a confrontation between the Russian and Georgian “parties” in the seminary, was explained on both sides by its participants’ personal ambitions. They were fighting for power and money, not for the promotion of the Georgian national idea or the defence of Russian interests in the region. David Kezeli was wholly a product of this situation. After completing his studies at the theological school and moving to the seminary, he felt hostility towards his teachers, seeing in them “Famusovs” who were trying to educate him as a “Molchalin”, while he was constructing himself as a “Bazarov”, the only “nihilist” in Georgia. The anachronism of Kezeli’s “nihilistic” identity emphasises his attachment to the generation of “fathers” who determined the literature available to him and provided him with a tool to master it, i. e. the Russian language.
{"title":"Georgian National Idea in the Tiflis Seminary of the Post-Reform Time: The Optics of the Russian Language and Literature","authors":"Julia Safronova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.875","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.875","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the case of seminarian David Kezeli who compiled the anti-Russian proclamation To the New Generation of Georgia, confiscated in December 1873. Although the St Petersburg and Caucasian authorities interpreted the case differently, they were united in their inattention to the situation of the Tiflis Theological Seminary. The internal problems of the theological educational institution, including the problem of the disloyalty of the “native” teachers, were to be solved by the officials of the Synod’s Educational Committee and the Exarch of Georgia. The author aims to show the ambivalence of the anti-Russian views of the Georgian seminarians and analyse the Kezeli case as part of the processes in religious education initiated by the 1867 reform. Special attention is paid to the discussion about the establishment of the Georgian language class, the idea of which either led to a consensus among the teachers or to a confrontation described in the Synod documents as a struggle between the Russian and Georgian “parties”. The origins and limitations of anti-Russian sentiments among seminarians are considered in relation to conflicts among teachers, the rules of access to educational and extracurricular literature, and the status of the Russian and Georgian languages. The author concludes that in the first years after the reform, young graduates of the theological academies were inspired by the opportunity to change the content of theological education by introducing the achievements of modern science into it. This goal united teachers of Russian and Georgian origin. They worked together both on projects for Georgian language classes and on compiling lists of advanced literature to be purchased for the student library. Georgian teachers, such as Jacob Gogebashvili, were prepared to become conduits of “human Russification”, arguing that only the Russian language allowed their students to access modern science. The transformation of interaction into conflict, which took on the form of a confrontation between the Russian and Georgian “parties” in the seminary, was explained on both sides by its participants’ personal ambitions. They were fighting for power and money, not for the promotion of the Georgian national idea or the defence of Russian interests in the region. David Kezeli was wholly a product of this situation. After completing his studies at the theological school and moving to the seminary, he felt hostility towards his teachers, seeing in them “Famusovs” who were trying to educate him as a “Molchalin”, while he was constructing himself as a “Bazarov”, the only “nihilist” in Georgia. The anachronism of Kezeli’s “nihilistic” identity emphasises his attachment to the generation of “fathers” who determined the literature available to him and provided him with a tool to master it, i. e. the Russian language.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140368293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article considers a relevant issue of modern historiography, i. e. the expediency of introducing the concept of “Russia Abroad” in the study of Russian emigration of the 1920s–1930s, along with the definition of “diaspora”. The task is complicated by the lack of a unified categorical apparatus and a variety of interpretations. The problem is solved based on structural and constructivist approaches, as well as comparative analysis. The authors propose their own classification of identifying features of the diaspora, highlighting the geographical (territorial), social, political, cultural, and mental blocks. The phenomenon of Russia Abroad is analysed through the prism of diasporisation. The article shows the process of institutionalisation of the Russian emigration of the 1920s, which brings it closer to the diaspora. However, its composition, unlike that of diaspora, was polyethnic. The dominant trend was the preservation of not ethnic but cultural and civic identity, which determined the structure-forming leitmotif of activity aimed at constructing its “Russia Abroad”. However, having renounced the citizenship of Soviet Russia/USSR and recognising the Soviet government as illegitimate, the emigrants unsuccessfully tried to consolidate a legal connection with the state that had disappeared from the political map of the world, trying to defend the old passports. The vectors of reflexive activity with a myth-generating potential were an ostentatious opposition to all things Soviet, the preservation of national identity and traditional values (unlike those born in the revolution), the “ethical code”, social norms, and the justification of the missionary role of emigration. Of the many institutions that claimed to have become a successor authority, the Council of Former Ambassadors headed by M. N. Girs stands out. He concentrated human, financial, material, and organisational potential in his hands and had representation at international organisations, including the League of Nations, in Geneva. The foreign diplomatic corps became the guardian of the idea of all-Russian statehood. Well-established communication links helped him to carry out tasks that were not typical of him, adapted to the new situation and focusing primarily on the settlement of the legal situation of refugees. The article concludes about the consolidating function of both mythmaking and activities aimed at reproducing the attributes of statehood. The Russian “state-like form of being” contributed to the preservation of the Russian language, national identity, and the creation of a system of Russian educational institutions and institutes of historical memory. The doom of Russia Abroad was due to both its conservatism and confrontation with the motherland. The division into two Russias could not carry a positive potential. Foreign Russia can be characterised as a diaspora, but this phenomenon goes beyond even the wide range of identification features that are given to the dias
{"title":"Russia Abroad vs Russian Diaspora in the Interwar Period","authors":"Z. Bocharova, Irina Kuptsova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.881","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.881","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers a relevant issue of modern historiography, i. e. the expediency of introducing the concept of “Russia Abroad” in the study of Russian emigration of the 1920s–1930s, along with the definition of “diaspora”. The task is complicated by the lack of a unified categorical apparatus and a variety of interpretations. The problem is solved based on structural and constructivist approaches, as well as comparative analysis. The authors propose their own classification of identifying features of the diaspora, highlighting the geographical (territorial), social, political, cultural, and mental blocks. The phenomenon of Russia Abroad is analysed through the prism of diasporisation. The article shows the process of institutionalisation of the Russian emigration of the 1920s, which brings it closer to the diaspora. However, its composition, unlike that of diaspora, was polyethnic. The dominant trend was the preservation of not ethnic but cultural and civic identity, which determined the structure-forming leitmotif of activity aimed at constructing its “Russia Abroad”. However, having renounced the citizenship of Soviet Russia/USSR and recognising the Soviet government as illegitimate, the emigrants unsuccessfully tried to consolidate a legal connection with the state that had disappeared from the political map of the world, trying to defend the old passports. The vectors of reflexive activity with a myth-generating potential were an ostentatious opposition to all things Soviet, the preservation of national identity and traditional values (unlike those born in the revolution), the “ethical code”, social norms, and the justification of the missionary role of emigration. Of the many institutions that claimed to have become a successor authority, the Council of Former Ambassadors headed by M. N. Girs stands out. He concentrated human, financial, material, and organisational potential in his hands and had representation at international organisations, including the League of Nations, in Geneva. The foreign diplomatic corps became the guardian of the idea of all-Russian statehood. Well-established communication links helped him to carry out tasks that were not typical of him, adapted to the new situation and focusing primarily on the settlement of the legal situation of refugees. The article concludes about the consolidating function of both mythmaking and activities aimed at reproducing the attributes of statehood. The Russian “state-like form of being” contributed to the preservation of the Russian language, national identity, and the creation of a system of Russian educational institutions and institutes of historical memory. The doom of Russia Abroad was due to both its conservatism and confrontation with the motherland. The division into two Russias could not carry a positive potential. Foreign Russia can be characterised as a diaspora, but this phenomenon goes beyond even the wide range of identification features that are given to the dias","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140366992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Based on a wide range of archival sources, this article analyses the history of the creation and functioning of the Nikolskaya branch of the Ussuri Railway in the conditions of the Russian-Chinese transborder of the eastern approach to the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER). Designed to connect the CER with the Russian railway network, this branch was significant in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries from the point of view of ensuring the connection of the Trans-Siberian Railway with Vladivostok before the construction of a bypass along the Amur. The concept of “transborder” makes it possible to fit this plot into the broader problem of the formation of contact sociocultural zones along the long land border between Russia and China. The unification of the roads of the two empires into a single railway network led to an increase in migration flows, the founding of new settlements, and the development of civil and military infrastructure, elements of which can be still seen today. At the same time, for a long time, researchers paid no attention to the construction of the connecting branches of the CER and the Trans-Siberian Railway, excluding the adjacent territories from the general narrative of transborder issues, which makes the study particularly relevant. At the same time, archival materials make it possible to characterise not only the difficulties that the Russian government encountered during the construction of the connecting branch but also the initial stage of the formation of a network of settlements along it, their development, as well as the specifics of existence in transborder conditions. The listed issues were raised not only in the Committee of the Siberian Railway, the Ministry of Railways, and the Ministry of Finance, which directly supervised the construction and determined the volume of financing, but also in the CER Society. From the financial point of view, turning to the method of joint road construction using private and state funds, previously tested on other railways in the country, would become one of the arguments for leasing the Ussuri Railway to the CER Society.
{"title":"Between Two Empires: Railway Construction in the Far East in the Late Imperial Period","authors":"N. Dmitrieva","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.877","url":null,"abstract":"Based on a wide range of archival sources, this article analyses the history of the creation and functioning of the Nikolskaya branch of the Ussuri Railway in the conditions of the Russian-Chinese transborder of the eastern approach to the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER). Designed to connect the CER with the Russian railway network, this branch was significant in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries from the point of view of ensuring the connection of the Trans-Siberian Railway with Vladivostok before the construction of a bypass along the Amur. The concept of “transborder” makes it possible to fit this plot into the broader problem of the formation of contact sociocultural zones along the long land border between Russia and China. The unification of the roads of the two empires into a single railway network led to an increase in migration flows, the founding of new settlements, and the development of civil and military infrastructure, elements of which can be still seen today. At the same time, for a long time, researchers paid no attention to the construction of the connecting branches of the CER and the Trans-Siberian Railway, excluding the adjacent territories from the general narrative of transborder issues, which makes the study particularly relevant. At the same time, archival materials make it possible to characterise not only the difficulties that the Russian government encountered during the construction of the connecting branch but also the initial stage of the formation of a network of settlements along it, their development, as well as the specifics of existence in transborder conditions. The listed issues were raised not only in the Committee of the Siberian Railway, the Ministry of Railways, and the Ministry of Finance, which directly supervised the construction and determined the volume of financing, but also in the CER Society. From the financial point of view, turning to the method of joint road construction using private and state funds, previously tested on other railways in the country, would become one of the arguments for leasing the Ussuri Railway to the CER Society.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140367370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article studies the Soviet repatriation policy after the Second World War referring to Soviet repatriation mission officers’ correspondence with the United Nations Relief and Reconstruction Administration (UNRRA), as well as Russian DPs’ ego-documents. The authors of the article raise the question about the fact that Soviet repatriation policy sparked an information war in the media in the second half of the 1940s, which has never been done by researchers previously. A variety of sources are used in the work, including the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace (Stanford, USA), the Bakhmetev Archives of Russian and Eastern European Culture at Columbia University (New York, USA), the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF, Moscow), as well as the UN Archive. The authors argue that discussions of Soviet repatriation policy should be placed within the context of the Cold War era, which began with the breakup of the Big Three alliance. The Soviet government used a variety of information, political, and intellectual resources to ensure the return of the maximum possible number of USSR citizens to their homeland. In this paper, the authors demonstrate that for the purposes of counterpropaganda, the anti-communist forces used the idea of repatriation by utilizing the potential of displaced people who had survived the Stalinist repression of the 1930s to oppose the existing political regime in the USSR. Considerable attention is paid to the position of UNRRA officials, primarily the heads of its mission in Austria. Several of them were highly critical of the activities of the Soviet repatriation authorities, believing that their behaviour often failed to help displaced people become interested in returning home.
{"title":"Soviet Repatriation in Postwar Politics and Private Life: Pro et Contra","authors":"Alexey Antoshin, Julia Zapariy","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.866","url":null,"abstract":"This article studies the Soviet repatriation policy after the Second World War referring to Soviet repatriation mission officers’ correspondence with the United Nations Relief and Reconstruction Administration (UNRRA), as well as Russian DPs’ ego-documents. The authors of the article raise the question about the fact that Soviet repatriation policy sparked an information war in the media in the second half of the 1940s, which has never been done by researchers previously. A variety of sources are used in the work, including the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace (Stanford, USA), the Bakhmetev Archives of Russian and Eastern European Culture at Columbia University (New York, USA), the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF, Moscow), as well as the UN Archive. The authors argue that discussions of Soviet repatriation policy should be placed within the context of the Cold War era, which began with the breakup of the Big Three alliance. The Soviet government used a variety of information, political, and intellectual resources to ensure the return of the maximum possible number of USSR citizens to their homeland. In this paper, the authors demonstrate that for the purposes of counterpropaganda, the anti-communist forces used the idea of repatriation by utilizing the potential of displaced people who had survived the Stalinist repression of the 1930s to oppose the existing political regime in the USSR. Considerable attention is paid to the position of UNRRA officials, primarily the heads of its mission in Austria. Several of them were highly critical of the activities of the Soviet repatriation authorities, believing that their behaviour often failed to help displaced people become interested in returning home.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140368860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Ottoman Empire came out of World War I defeated. The representative of Great Britain signed the armistice agreement with the Turks in the port of Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos. With that, the Turks were subject to capitulation. The terms of the Mudros armistice also had an impact on the Armenian Question. During the war, the Turks organized the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian territories under Ottoman rule (Cilicia and 7 provinces of Western Armenia) were completely ethnically cleansed. Out of 2.5 million Ottoman Armenians, 1.5 million were killed and 1 million became refugees. The task of this study is to demonstrate how Cilicia was immediately liberated from the Turks by the agreement of Mudros and the Armenians were able to return to their homeland, but Western Armenia was not liberated, which led to the emergence of the Kemalist nationalist movement and the failure of the Armenian Question. The article covers the negative consequences of the conditions of the Mudros armistice in the failure of the Armenian Question. The problem has never been considered from this point of view by historiography. Analyzing facts, the article shows that it was due to the intrigues of British imperialist diplomacy, which was directed primarily against France. However, it also aimed to block Russia’s way from the Caucasus to the south. The British tried to achieve their far-reaching goals through another power – the United States. The work mostly refers to archival materials and documents, also drawing on some studies related to the topic. The article is built on comparative and critical analysis, observing the principles of objectivity and historicity. Many representatives of Western and Russian historiography have addressed the Franco-British contradictions over the Ottoman heritage. Armenian historians have also referred to some aspects of the issue in question. In the study, facts previously published for different purposes are presented in a new way. The problem was set to show the influence of the British far-reaching aims on the Armenian Question.
{"title":"The Mudros Armistice. The Armenian Question and British Diplomacy","authors":"S. Poghosyan, V. Virabyan, Armine Yeprikyan","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.876","url":null,"abstract":"The Ottoman Empire came out of World War I defeated. The representative of Great Britain signed the armistice agreement with the Turks in the port of Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos. With that, the Turks were subject to capitulation. The terms of the Mudros armistice also had an impact on the Armenian Question. During the war, the Turks organized the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian territories under Ottoman rule (Cilicia and 7 provinces of Western Armenia) were completely ethnically cleansed. Out of 2.5 million Ottoman Armenians, 1.5 million were killed and 1 million became refugees. The task of this study is to demonstrate how Cilicia was immediately liberated from the Turks by the agreement of Mudros and the Armenians were able to return to their homeland, but Western Armenia was not liberated, which led to the emergence of the Kemalist nationalist movement and the failure of the Armenian Question. The article covers the negative consequences of the conditions of the Mudros armistice in the failure of the Armenian Question. The problem has never been considered from this point of view by historiography. Analyzing facts, the article shows that it was due to the intrigues of British imperialist diplomacy, which was directed primarily against France. However, it also aimed to block Russia’s way from the Caucasus to the south. The British tried to achieve their far-reaching goals through another power – the United States. The work mostly refers to archival materials and documents, also drawing on some studies related to the topic. The article is built on comparative and critical analysis, observing the principles of objectivity and historicity. Many representatives of Western and Russian historiography have addressed the Franco-British contradictions over the Ottoman heritage. Armenian historians have also referred to some aspects of the issue in question. In the study, facts previously published for different purposes are presented in a new way. The problem was set to show the influence of the British far-reaching aims on the Armenian Question.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140368381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses little-known works by artist L. A. Shvartsman (1920–2022) based on the Petersburg Tales by N. V. Gogol. The works from private collections created in 1953–1956 did not attract the attention of researchers at the time, whereas the appeal to the characters of The Overcoat, Portrait, and Nevsky Prospekt was an important stage for Shvartsman in the formation of a personal artistic programme. His studies at the art school at the All-Union Academy of Arts (1937–1941) determined his attitude to classical art and influenced the emotional perception of St Petersburg. The atmosphere of the “thaw” contributed to the master’s appeal to the unsettled life of a “little man”, defenceless in the face of power and a rude crowd. Having achieved fame as an animation film production designer by the mid‑1950s, Shvartsman sought to build his own system of translating verbal language into visual language outside the film production system, independently solving the creative tasks set. By calling his works “illustrations”, the master did not mean a book illustration, for which it is necessary to initially think over the design and style of the publication. The artist went from full-scale sketches, developed colouristic approaches and strove for the self-sufficiency of each work, hence the noticeable easel character of his works. At the same time, they also have expressive images inherent in sketches of animated films, stylised figures, a sense of action that logically develops and is predicted. The artist approached Gogol’s text selectively, focusing on the life and characters of the heroes, on the originality of the St Petersburg environment. He is interested in the image of Akaky Akakievich, moderately funny and ridiculous, but attractive in his fixation on rewriting papers – a matter which he treats with inspiration, with full dedication. Shvartsman did not want to dramatise situations, avoided climaxes, being satisfied with fixing the temptations of life, which, in the end, would lead the characters to a sad ending. In the process of artistic reading of the Petersburg Tales, Shvartsman not only developed expressive images and compositions, but also built his own creative worldview with moral guidelines and rules.
{"title":"Leonid Shvartsman: An Artistic Reading of the Petersburg Tales by Nikolai Gogol","authors":"E. Alekseev","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.880","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses little-known works by artist L. A. Shvartsman (1920–2022) based on the Petersburg Tales by N. V. Gogol. The works from private collections created in 1953–1956 did not attract the attention of researchers at the time, whereas the appeal to the characters of The Overcoat, Portrait, and Nevsky Prospekt was an important stage for Shvartsman in the formation of a personal artistic programme. His studies at the art school at the All-Union Academy of Arts (1937–1941) determined his attitude to classical art and influenced the emotional perception of St Petersburg. The atmosphere of the “thaw” contributed to the master’s appeal to the unsettled life of a “little man”, defenceless in the face of power and a rude crowd. Having achieved fame as an animation film production designer by the mid‑1950s, Shvartsman sought to build his own system of translating verbal language into visual language outside the film production system, independently solving the creative tasks set. By calling his works “illustrations”, the master did not mean a book illustration, for which it is necessary to initially think over the design and style of the publication. The artist went from full-scale sketches, developed colouristic approaches and strove for the self-sufficiency of each work, hence the noticeable easel character of his works. At the same time, they also have expressive images inherent in sketches of animated films, stylised figures, a sense of action that logically develops and is predicted. The artist approached Gogol’s text selectively, focusing on the life and characters of the heroes, on the originality of the St Petersburg environment. He is interested in the image of Akaky Akakievich, moderately funny and ridiculous, but attractive in his fixation on rewriting papers – a matter which he treats with inspiration, with full dedication. Shvartsman did not want to dramatise situations, avoided climaxes, being satisfied with fixing the temptations of life, which, in the end, would lead the characters to a sad ending. In the process of artistic reading of the Petersburg Tales, Shvartsman not only developed expressive images and compositions, but also built his own creative worldview with moral guidelines and rules.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140368840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article presents the results of the examination of the activities of the Union of Russian Workers of France / Union of Soviet Citizens in France in Paris which existed from 1925 to 1929 and acted as one of the most numerous unions of Russian emigrants. Drawing on materials from the archive of the Historical Service of the French Ministry of Defence, prepared by Sûreté Générale in the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, the author of the article identifies the purpose of creation and the tasks that the participants of the associations set themselves. The microhistorical approach and the study of the everyday life of Russian emigrants demonstrates that the primary goal was to help compatriots in adapting their life in exile. An analysis of the activities of the members of the union to improve the lives of compatriots made it possible to identify a number of successful examples of the help of the members of the union in solving urgent problems of emigrants. Additionally, the article demonstrates various ways of providing material assistance to those in need, as well as attempts to develop the intellectual culture of Russian emigrants and increase their competitiveness for employment in France. The measures taken by the members of the unions were aimed, among other things, at encouraging Russian emigrants to return to Russia. According to the author, such actions were soft cultural propaganda in favour of the Soviet Union, and these attempts to return emigrants to their homeland yielded results. The article also presents examples of the activities of the members of the union that did not contribute to the successful stay of Russian emigrants in France. The paper presents an example of the activity of the members of the union in appropriating the property of St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, inciting emigrants to rebellion and organising demonstrations demanding the transfer of the church to the USSR Embassy. The result of this activity was a more thorough supervision of the activities of the organisation by the employees of the Sûreté Générale and the repatriation of a few active members of the union. It is concluded that this activity hindered the life of the Russian colony in Paris and did not contribute to its security in France.
{"title":"The Union of Russian Emigrants in Paris: Adaptation and Pro-Russian Activities (with Reference to the Sûreté Générale)","authors":"Ksenia Bespalova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.863","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the results of the examination of the activities of the Union of Russian Workers of France / Union of Soviet Citizens in France in Paris which existed from 1925 to 1929 and acted as one of the most numerous unions of Russian emigrants. Drawing on materials from the archive of the Historical Service of the French Ministry of Defence, prepared by Sûreté Générale in the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, the author of the article identifies the purpose of creation and the tasks that the participants of the associations set themselves. The microhistorical approach and the study of the everyday life of Russian emigrants demonstrates that the primary goal was to help compatriots in adapting their life in exile. An analysis of the activities of the members of the union to improve the lives of compatriots made it possible to identify a number of successful examples of the help of the members of the union in solving urgent problems of emigrants. Additionally, the article demonstrates various ways of providing material assistance to those in need, as well as attempts to develop the intellectual culture of Russian emigrants and increase their competitiveness for employment in France. The measures taken by the members of the unions were aimed, among other things, at encouraging Russian emigrants to return to Russia. According to the author, such actions were soft cultural propaganda in favour of the Soviet Union, and these attempts to return emigrants to their homeland yielded results. The article also presents examples of the activities of the members of the union that did not contribute to the successful stay of Russian emigrants in France. The paper presents an example of the activity of the members of the union in appropriating the property of St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, inciting emigrants to rebellion and organising demonstrations demanding the transfer of the church to the USSR Embassy. The result of this activity was a more thorough supervision of the activities of the organisation by the employees of the Sûreté Générale and the repatriation of a few active members of the union. It is concluded that this activity hindered the life of the Russian colony in Paris and did not contribute to its security in France.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140364908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses the anti-colonial discourse in the Soviet historical science of the 1920s and 1930s. The work is based on both published materials and documents from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is demonstrated that the anti-colonial discourse was built as an antithesis to the pre-revolutionary state-national historical narrative and was based on a radical and critical class analysis. In the 1920s, a kind of “historiographical sweep” took place, when, using class analysis, the students of M. N. Pokrovsky revealed the “great power” and “colonial” ideologems of the classics of Russian historical science and their followers. The anti-colonial vector of Soviet historiography was embodied in the historiographical concept of the “history of the peoples of the USSR”. It was assumed that all the peoples of the USSR were to receive a full-fledged place in history. However, since the mid‑1930s, there has been a drift from radical revolutionary anti-colonialism towards a more statesmanlike ideology and the development of consolidating concepts. The turning point was the meeting of historians with Stalin in March 1934, after which the process of transition from the concept of “the history of the peoples of the USSR” to “the history of the USSR” was launched, which was fixed in the Short Course of the History of the USSR (1937) edited by A. V. Shestakov. The international context also played a significant role in curtailing anticolonial rhetoric, since there were fears that foreign policy opponents would use this to divide the peoples of the USSR. Historians of the “old school”, who advocated the return to the concepts of pre-revolutionary historiography, also played a certain role in the correction. In turn, these concepts fit better into the current ideological situation and found support in the Central Committee of the CPSU(b). The marginalization of anti-colonial discourse occurs during the war and postwar period.
{"title":"The Decolonization of the History of USSR’s Peoples in Soviet Historiography (1920–1930)","authors":"V. Tikhonov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.873","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.873","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the anti-colonial discourse in the Soviet historical science of the 1920s and 1930s. The work is based on both published materials and documents from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is demonstrated that the anti-colonial discourse was built as an antithesis to the pre-revolutionary state-national historical narrative and was based on a radical and critical class analysis. In the 1920s, a kind of “historiographical sweep” took place, when, using class analysis, the students of M. N. Pokrovsky revealed the “great power” and “colonial” ideologems of the classics of Russian historical science and their followers. The anti-colonial vector of Soviet historiography was embodied in the historiographical concept of the “history of the peoples of the USSR”. It was assumed that all the peoples of the USSR were to receive a full-fledged place in history. However, since the mid‑1930s, there has been a drift from radical revolutionary anti-colonialism towards a more statesmanlike ideology and the development of consolidating concepts. The turning point was the meeting of historians with Stalin in March 1934, after which the process of transition from the concept of “the history of the peoples of the USSR” to “the history of the USSR” was launched, which was fixed in the Short Course of the History of the USSR (1937) edited by A. V. Shestakov. The international context also played a significant role in curtailing anticolonial rhetoric, since there were fears that foreign policy opponents would use this to divide the peoples of the USSR. Historians of the “old school”, who advocated the return to the concepts of pre-revolutionary historiography, also played a certain role in the correction. In turn, these concepts fit better into the current ideological situation and found support in the Central Committee of the CPSU(b). The marginalization of anti-colonial discourse occurs during the war and postwar period.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140366591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article covers autobiographical and research facts from the life of a Mongolian Russian scholar, literary critic, and translator of A. S. Pushkin’s works. The author of the article is a graduate of the Faculty of Philology at Gorky Ural State University and President of the Mongolian Association of Teachers of the Russian Language and Literature. The article discusses issues related to his translation and research activities, and, more particularly, his conceptual approach to assessing literary critical thoughts and the principles he adheres to when translating Russian culture-related phenomena into Mongolian. Also, the article discusses some problems of saving values transferred by Russian literature and culture, with the author expressing his opinion on the Russian national mentality formed primarily through friendly communication. When working in modern Mongolian literary criticism, the researcher had to decide from what position to understand certain parameters in assessing artistic phenomena that existed in the era of socialist realism. As a result, he concludes that the most destructive thing in managing artistic culture, in particular, was excessive ideologization and moralizing, which is temporary and always becomes a barrier to the nature of creative thinking. By working in the field of translation studies and on the ways of transmitting Russian culture-specific phenomena in poetic texts into the Mongolian language, the researcher proposes to adhere to the principle that, first of all, the form and message of the work should not be affected, so that in terms of value it provides readers with an adequate perception in the target language.
{"title":"Russia Means a Lot to Me","authors":"Tseveenii Magsar","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.862","url":null,"abstract":"This article covers autobiographical and research facts from the life of a Mongolian Russian scholar, literary critic, and translator of A. S. Pushkin’s works. The author of the article is a graduate of the Faculty of Philology at Gorky Ural State University and President of the Mongolian Association of Teachers of the Russian Language and Literature. The article discusses issues related to his translation and research activities, and, more particularly, his conceptual approach to assessing literary critical thoughts and the principles he adheres to when translating Russian culture-related phenomena into Mongolian. Also, the article discusses some problems of saving values transferred by Russian literature and culture, with the author expressing his opinion on the Russian national mentality formed primarily through friendly communication. When working in modern Mongolian literary criticism, the researcher had to decide from what position to understand certain parameters in assessing artistic phenomena that existed in the era of socialist realism. As a result, he concludes that the most destructive thing in managing artistic culture, in particular, was excessive ideologization and moralizing, which is temporary and always becomes a barrier to the nature of creative thinking. By working in the field of translation studies and on the ways of transmitting Russian culture-specific phenomena in poetic texts into the Mongolian language, the researcher proposes to adhere to the principle that, first of all, the form and message of the work should not be affected, so that in terms of value it provides readers with an adequate perception in the target language.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140366744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：