Referring to archival data of the RGADA (Relations with Venice Fund), this article provides new information about the little-known period of life (1700–1703) of Ivan Botsis related to his transition to the Russian service and directly preceding it. Until now, there is no full-fledged biography of the outstanding associate of Peter the Great, and this study supplements the information about his life full of dangers. Botsis played a significant role in Russia’s success in the Baltic Sea during the Northern War, so filling the gap in his biography is of particular interest. Based on the information introduced into scholarly circulation, the author draws information about his activities immediately after the Morean War (1684–1699). Although he is primarily known as a Russian naval commander, based on the data studied, one may conclude that in his homeland, he proved himself to be a loyal subject of his new homeland, the Venetian Republic, in military affairs. And after the end of the conflict and the conquest of the Peloponnese by Venice, showered with honors, he tried to succeed in a peaceful profession, trading business, and not so much as a merchant but as a coordinator of the commercial activity of his compatriots for private and public benefit. At the peak of his career, the enterprising and even adventurous nature of the Greek captain led him to a conflict with the Venetian and Ottoman authorities, and the hope for the Russian tsar as the deliverer of the Greeks from Turkish rule and sympathy for his military enterprises during the Northern War made him abandon a privileged position in his homeland and embark on a perilous journey to Russia to serve Peter I. The details of his risky escape, described in a petition addressed to the tsar, resemble an excerpt from an adventure novel. The appendix of the article contains previously unpublished documents, i. e. a petition of Captain Botsis and an excerpt of a decree of Tsar Peter on the allocation of his salary.
{"title":"Captain Botsis’ Odyssey: On the Biography of the Russian Naval Commander","authors":"Alexey Yastrebov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.830","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.830","url":null,"abstract":"Referring to archival data of the RGADA (Relations with Venice Fund), this article provides new information about the little-known period of life (1700–1703) of Ivan Botsis related to his transition to the Russian service and directly preceding it. Until now, there is no full-fledged biography of the outstanding associate of Peter the Great, and this study supplements the information about his life full of dangers. Botsis played a significant role in Russia’s success in the Baltic Sea during the Northern War, so filling the gap in his biography is of particular interest. Based on the information introduced into scholarly circulation, the author draws information about his activities immediately after the Morean War (1684–1699). Although he is primarily known as a Russian naval commander, based on the data studied, one may conclude that in his homeland, he proved himself to be a loyal subject of his new homeland, the Venetian Republic, in military affairs. And after the end of the conflict and the conquest of the Peloponnese by Venice, showered with honors, he tried to succeed in a peaceful profession, trading business, and not so much as a merchant but as a coordinator of the commercial activity of his compatriots for private and public benefit. At the peak of his career, the enterprising and even adventurous nature of the Greek captain led him to a conflict with the Venetian and Ottoman authorities, and the hope for the Russian tsar as the deliverer of the Greeks from Turkish rule and sympathy for his military enterprises during the Northern War made him abandon a privileged position in his homeland and embark on a perilous journey to Russia to serve Peter I. The details of his risky escape, described in a petition addressed to the tsar, resemble an excerpt from an adventure novel. The appendix of the article contains previously unpublished documents, i. e. a petition of Captain Botsis and an excerpt of a decree of Tsar Peter on the allocation of his salary.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865837","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 deals with the management of missionary activity in Alaska in the late eighteenth – nineteenth centuries. The main objective is to reconstruct the management strategy of the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska with reference to archival documents and published sources. The research methodology relies on analysing the regional approach, where the region is perceived both as an object and a subject of empire-building. In the eighteenth century, the management of Alaska was carried out by the Shelikhov – Golikov Company, a Russian fur trading venture. The Russian merchants fully supplied the Orthodox mission consisting of monks. Later, the Russian authorities entrusted control over the Russian overseas lands to Shelikhov’s heirs, represented by the Russian-American Company. The conflicts between the colonial administration and the missionaries called for a new strategy, i. e. sending secular clergy to Alaska. Meanwhile, the Management of the Russian-American Company returned to the plans of G. Shelikhov, who knew the region well, unlike the metropolitan authorities.
{"title":"The State Church Policy of the Russian Empire in Alaska","authors":"Yuliia Egorova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.821","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the management of missionary activity in Alaska in the late eighteenth – nineteenth centuries. The main objective is to reconstruct the management strategy of the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska with reference to archival documents and published sources. The research methodology relies on analysing the regional approach, where the region is perceived both as an object and a subject of empire-building. In the eighteenth century, the management of Alaska was carried out by the Shelikhov – Golikov Company, a Russian fur trading venture. The Russian merchants fully supplied the Orthodox mission consisting of monks. Later, the Russian authorities entrusted control over the Russian overseas lands to Shelikhov’s heirs, represented by the Russian-American Company. The conflicts between the colonial administration and the missionaries called for a new strategy, i. e. sending secular clergy to Alaska. Meanwhile, the Management of the Russian-American Company returned to the plans of G. Shelikhov, who knew the region well, unlike the metropolitan authorities.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865360","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}
Provincial institutions created by Peter I in 1710 were designed to ensure fiscal mobilisation, large-scale and maximum possible collection of material resources for the needs of warfare and the simultaneous reform of the armed forces. The first Russian governors had extensive administrative powers but, at the same time, they were under the strict financial control of the highest governing bodies: the Senate, its divisions, and the monarch himself. The governors were deprived of legal opportunities to spend at least some of the money collected through the provincial cash desks to ensure the functioning of their apparatus. It was not only about paying salaries to the ranks of provincial administrations, maintaining administrative buildings in working order, and purchasing consumables for office work. There was no money for more substantial expenditures: payment for the travel of numerous commissioners from the centre to the provinces, for the travel of their officials within the provinces, for the fees for the accommodation of these agents, for the expenses of their maintenance, for the payment of various kinds of state works, for the transportation of recruits and material supplies to the centre, i. e. everything that constituted the very essence of the functioning of local authorities. In this paradoxical situation, the main support could only be obtained from the zemstvo self-government bodies. The long-known practice of state bodies of local power being maintained by the population of the uyezd was replenished in the Petrine era with new elements. Lay fees covered the expenses of crown agents sent from the centre to the region and helped pay for some government work within the province. However, the peculiarities of the legislation of the era put the governors and their employees, who shifted the financial burden on the zemstvo, into a risky position. They could be accused of bribery and “unspecified fees” that undermined the solvency of the taxed population. Never previously published documents on Arkhangelsk province discovered by the author of the article reveal the complete picture of the financial support of the township communities of the Dvina uyezd for the activities of the provincial administration in 1711–1713 and the complex vicissitudes of relations between the central and local crown authorities and secular organisations. The documents were archived during the investigation of the case of the Arkhangelsk vice-governor A. A. Kurbatov and reflect one of the investigative episodes of 1716.
{"title":"Provincial Financing During the First Regional Reform. The Arkhangelsk Version","authors":"Dmitry Redin","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.831","url":null,"abstract":"Provincial institutions created by Peter I in 1710 were designed to ensure fiscal mobilisation, large-scale and maximum possible collection of material resources for the needs of warfare and the simultaneous reform of the armed forces. The first Russian governors had extensive administrative powers but, at the same time, they were under the strict financial control of the highest governing bodies: the Senate, its divisions, and the monarch himself. The governors were deprived of legal opportunities to spend at least some of the money collected through the provincial cash desks to ensure the functioning of their apparatus. It was not only about paying salaries to the ranks of provincial administrations, maintaining administrative buildings in working order, and purchasing consumables for office work. There was no money for more substantial expenditures: payment for the travel of numerous commissioners from the centre to the provinces, for the travel of their officials within the provinces, for the fees for the accommodation of these agents, for the expenses of their maintenance, for the payment of various kinds of state works, for the transportation of recruits and material supplies to the centre, i. e. everything that constituted the very essence of the functioning of local authorities. In this paradoxical situation, the main support could only be obtained from the zemstvo self-government bodies. The long-known practice of state bodies of local power being maintained by the population of the uyezd was replenished in the Petrine era with new elements. Lay fees covered the expenses of crown agents sent from the centre to the region and helped pay for some government work within the province. However, the peculiarities of the legislation of the era put the governors and their employees, who shifted the financial burden on the zemstvo, into a risky position. They could be accused of bribery and “unspecified fees” that undermined the solvency of the taxed population. Never previously published documents on Arkhangelsk province discovered by the author of the article reveal the complete picture of the financial support of the township communities of the Dvina uyezd for the activities of the provincial administration in 1711–1713 and the complex vicissitudes of relations between the central and local crown authorities and secular organisations. The documents were archived during the investigation of the case of the Arkhangelsk vice-governor A. A. Kurbatov and reflect one of the investigative episodes of 1716.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865823","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 formation of metallurgy in Russia occurred during the Northern War, which predetermined the dominance of state ownership in this sector of the economy. During the end of the war, Peter I embarked on a policy of privatising the state-owned industry. The regulatory and legal basis for privatisation was the Berg Privileges of 1719. However, having begun the policy of transferring state-owned factories to companies of private industrialists, Peter I was not consistent. He thought about the development of the state-owned metallurgy of the Urals and, at the same time, considered the possibility of its transfer to private industrialists in the future. This article examines the position of W. de Henning on the issue of privatisation. During his leadership of the local mining industry in 1720–1722, V. N. Tatishchev was the first to raise the question of the need to privatise the state-owned metallurgy of the Urals. In 1722, Peter I appointed Henning as head of the state mining industry of the Urals, giving him extensive administrative power. In 1722–1724, Henning managed to reconstruct the old state-owned factories and build new ones – Yekaterinburg, Polevskoy, Pyskor, and Yagoshikha. Meanwhile, in 1724, Tatishchev presented to Peter I projects for the privatisation of state-owned factories in the Urals. The emperor “accepted these projects as beneficial ones” but at the same time, developed a complex procedure for considering privatisation issues in the relevant central and local state bodies. In 1724, Tatishchev’s projects received negative reviews from the Berg Collegium and Henning, who pointed to high profits from state-owned factories. At the same time, Henning proposed his projects which either meant the transfer of state-owned factories to the company of Peter I, A. D. Menshikov, F. M. Apraksin, etc., or the transfer of Pyskor plants to him, A. Stroganov, and M. Turchaninov. However, Tatishchev and Henning’s discussion of the projects ground to a halt due to the death of Peter I. Again, the question of privatisation of the state-owned metallurgy of the Urals arose during the so-called “sales crisis” of 1729–1732 and was already post-suppressed by Henning. Henning’s privatisation projects were discussed in the Senate, the Berg Board, and the Monetary Commission. In 1733, a Commission on state-owned factories was established. However, in 1732, the “sales crisis” was overcome, and Henning abandoned his privatisation projects. He finally came to the conclusion that state ownership in metallurgy was no less effective than private ownership and began a new stage of construction of state-owned factories in the Urals. The same position was held by Tatishchev, who replaced Henning in 1734–1737 as head of the Ural plants. The subsequent history of privatisation campaigns of the second half of the eighteenth – early twentieth centuries confirmed the validity of this conclusion, with considerable state ownership in metallurgy not only remaining but also e
冶金在俄罗斯的形成发生在北方战争期间，这决定了国家所有权在这一经济部门的主导地位。战争结束时，彼得一世开始推行国有工业私有化的政策。私有化的监管和法律基础是1719年的伯格特权。然而，在开始将国有工厂转移到私营工业家公司的政策后，彼得一世并不始终如一。他考虑了乌拉尔地区国有冶金业的发展，同时也考虑了将来将其转移到私人工业家手中的可能性。本文考察了德亨宁在私有化问题上的立场。在1720年至1722年领导当地采矿业期间，v·n·塔蒂什切夫(V. N. Tatishchev)是第一个提出需要将乌拉尔国有冶金业私有化的问题的人。1722年，彼得一世任命亨宁为乌拉尔地区国家采矿业的负责人，赋予他广泛的行政权力。1722年至1724年，亨宁设法重建了旧的国有工厂，并建立了新的工厂——叶卡捷琳堡、波列夫斯科、皮斯科尔和亚戈什哈。与此同时，1724年，塔季舍夫向彼得一世提出了私有化乌拉尔国有工厂的计划。天皇“视这些项目为有益项目而接受”，但与此同时，制定了一套复杂的程序，以便在相关的中央和地方国家机构中考虑私有化问题。1724年，塔蒂舍夫的项目受到了贝格学院和亨宁的负面评论，他们指出国有工厂的高额利润。与此同时，亨宁提出了他的计划，要么把国有工厂转让给彼得一世、a·d·门希科夫、f·m·阿普拉辛等人的公司，要么把皮斯科尔的工厂转让给他、a·斯特罗加诺夫和m·图尔恰尼诺夫。然而，由于彼得一世的去世，塔蒂舍夫和亨宁对项目的讨论戛然而停。此外，乌拉尔国有冶金企业私有化的问题在1729-1732年所谓的“销售危机”期间出现，并已被亨宁压制。亨宁的私有化计划在参议院、贝格委员会和货币委员会进行了讨论。1733年，成立了一个国有工厂委员会。然而，在1732年，“销售危机”被克服了，亨宁放弃了他的私有化计划。他最终得出结论，在冶金方面，国有制的效果不亚于私有制，并开始在乌拉尔地区建设国有工厂的新阶段。同样的职位由塔蒂舍夫担任，他在1734年至1737年取代亨宁成为乌拉尔工厂的负责人。随后18世纪下半叶至20世纪初私有化运动的历史证实了这一结论的有效性，冶金业的国有企业不仅保留下来，而且还在扩大。
{"title":"W. de Henning’s Position on the Privatisation of State-Owned Metallurgy","authors":"Mikhail Akishin","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.817","url":null,"abstract":"The formation of metallurgy in Russia occurred during the Northern War, which predetermined the dominance of state ownership in this sector of the economy. During the end of the war, Peter I embarked on a policy of privatising the state-owned industry. The regulatory and legal basis for privatisation was the Berg Privileges of 1719. However, having begun the policy of transferring state-owned factories to companies of private industrialists, Peter I was not consistent. He thought about the development of the state-owned metallurgy of the Urals and, at the same time, considered the possibility of its transfer to private industrialists in the future. This article examines the position of W. de Henning on the issue of privatisation. During his leadership of the local mining industry in 1720–1722, V. N. Tatishchev was the first to raise the question of the need to privatise the state-owned metallurgy of the Urals. In 1722, Peter I appointed Henning as head of the state mining industry of the Urals, giving him extensive administrative power. In 1722–1724, Henning managed to reconstruct the old state-owned factories and build new ones – Yekaterinburg, Polevskoy, Pyskor, and Yagoshikha. Meanwhile, in 1724, Tatishchev presented to Peter I projects for the privatisation of state-owned factories in the Urals. The emperor “accepted these projects as beneficial ones” but at the same time, developed a complex procedure for considering privatisation issues in the relevant central and local state bodies. In 1724, Tatishchev’s projects received negative reviews from the Berg Collegium and Henning, who pointed to high profits from state-owned factories. At the same time, Henning proposed his projects which either meant the transfer of state-owned factories to the company of Peter I, A. D. Menshikov, F. M. Apraksin, etc., or the transfer of Pyskor plants to him, A. Stroganov, and M. Turchaninov. However, Tatishchev and Henning’s discussion of the projects ground to a halt due to the death of Peter I. Again, the question of privatisation of the state-owned metallurgy of the Urals arose during the so-called “sales crisis” of 1729–1732 and was already post-suppressed by Henning. Henning’s privatisation projects were discussed in the Senate, the Berg Board, and the Monetary Commission. In 1733, a Commission on state-owned factories was established. However, in 1732, the “sales crisis” was overcome, and Henning abandoned his privatisation projects. He finally came to the conclusion that state ownership in metallurgy was no less effective than private ownership and began a new stage of construction of state-owned factories in the Urals. The same position was held by Tatishchev, who replaced Henning in 1734–1737 as head of the Ural plants. The subsequent history of privatisation campaigns of the second half of the eighteenth – early twentieth centuries confirmed the validity of this conclusion, with considerable state ownership in metallurgy not only remaining but also e","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865976","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 reforms and reformist searches in the sphere of public administration during the reign of Alexander I and the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I, the successive and distinctive features of the government reform policy in the context of the project activity of M. M. Speransky. The author focuses on determining the reasons for the actualization of transformations in the system of the higher and central apparatus between 1802 and the early 1830s, analysing the specifics of the modernization process in different periods of the institutional development of Russia, identifying similarities and differences in the “administrative structure” of Alexander I and Nicholas I. It has been established that, in general, the official reformation in the field of public administration in the first third of the nineteenth century, based on the theoretical and conceptual framework developed by M. M. Speransky, was consistent, systemic, and interconnected and was an integral part of the modernization of Russian statehood. The author demonstrates that the transformational searches of the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I reflected in the activities of the Committee on December 6, 1826, and being a logical continuation of the reforms of Alexander I, were aimed at creating an effective, unified, and rationalized management system of absolutism of the New Age. The administrative transformations of the two epochs were subject to legislative reform and were an integral part of two models of relations between the government and society, Alexander and Nicholas, respectively.
本文以斯佩兰斯基的项目活动为背景，研究亚历山大一世统治时期和尼古拉一世统治初期公共行政领域的改革和改革主义探索，以及政府改革政策的连续性和独特性。作者着重于确定在1802年至1830年代初之间实现高级和中央机构系统变革的原因，分析俄罗斯制度发展不同时期现代化进程的具体情况，确定亚历山大一世和尼古拉斯一世“行政结构”的异同。19世纪前30年，在斯佩兰斯基(M. M. Speransky)的理论和概念框架基础上，公共行政领域的官方改革是一致的、系统的、相互关联的，是俄罗斯国家现代化的一个组成部分。作者论证了1826年12月6日委员会活动中反映的尼古拉一世统治初期的转型搜索，是亚历山大一世改革的逻辑延续，旨在创造一个有效的，统一的，合理化的新时代专制主义管理体系。这两个时期的行政变革都是以立法改革为主体的，是亚历山大和尼古拉斯两种政府与社会关系模式的组成部分。
{"title":"M. M. Speransky’s Administrative Reform Projects in a Comparative Retrospective of the Reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I","authors":"Tatyana Andreeva","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.824","url":null,"abstract":"This article studies the reforms and reformist searches in the sphere of public administration during the reign of Alexander I and the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I, the successive and distinctive features of the government reform policy in the context of the project activity of M. M. Speransky. The author focuses on determining the reasons for the actualization of transformations in the system of the higher and central apparatus between 1802 and the early 1830s, analysing the specifics of the modernization process in different periods of the institutional development of Russia, identifying similarities and differences in the “administrative structure” of Alexander I and Nicholas I. It has been established that, in general, the official reformation in the field of public administration in the first third of the nineteenth century, based on the theoretical and conceptual framework developed by M. M. Speransky, was consistent, systemic, and interconnected and was an integral part of the modernization of Russian statehood. The author demonstrates that the transformational searches of the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I reflected in the activities of the Committee on December 6, 1826, and being a logical continuation of the reforms of Alexander I, were aimed at creating an effective, unified, and rationalized management system of absolutism of the New Age. The administrative transformations of the two epochs were subject to legislative reform and were an integral part of two models of relations between the government and society, Alexander and Nicholas, respectively.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865978","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 review considers a monograph by N. V. Melnikova dedicated to the reconstruction of the most significant aspects of staffing in the atomic project in the context of the Soviet economic system. Despite the abundance of publications discussing the history of the creation of nuclear weapons in the USSR, this topic has not yet received adequate coverage, and the monograph under review fills this gap with a wide range of problems examined. More specifically, it addresses the issues of who determined the personnel policy in the nuclear project, what its specificity was, how staffing and recruiting occurred in practice, and due to which factors it was possible to quickly create a powerful and qualified team of the nuclear weapons complex and encourage people to work intensively and responsibly. The research makes a significant contribution to the historiography of the atomic project. However, its value is not limited to this. Some generalizations and conclusions in the monograph make it possible to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the “socialist economic system” and to clarify how it was possible to succeed in solving tasks significant for the country.
{"title":"Staffing and Recruiting in the USSR Nuclear Project","authors":"Evgeny Artemov, Evgeny Vodichev","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.837","url":null,"abstract":"This review considers a monograph by N. V. Melnikova dedicated to the reconstruction of the most significant aspects of staffing in the atomic project in the context of the Soviet economic system. Despite the abundance of publications discussing the history of the creation of nuclear weapons in the USSR, this topic has not yet received adequate coverage, and the monograph under review fills this gap with a wide range of problems examined. More specifically, it addresses the issues of who determined the personnel policy in the nuclear project, what its specificity was, how staffing and recruiting occurred in practice, and due to which factors it was possible to quickly create a powerful and qualified team of the nuclear weapons complex and encourage people to work intensively and responsibly. The research makes a significant contribution to the historiography of the atomic project. However, its value is not limited to this. Some generalizations and conclusions in the monograph make it possible to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the “socialist economic system” and to clarify how it was possible to succeed in solving tasks significant for the country.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865979","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 study of the composition of secret societies and the military conspiracy of the Decembrists conducted by the author over 20 years. One of the main tasks of this work was to identify the unknown Decembrists who remained unnoticed during the government investigation and, for the most part, in historiography. The article considers members of secret societies and participants of the military uprisings of 1825–1826, little-known in literature and never previously identified. The relevance and academic significance of the reconstruction based on the extant source data consists in the development of existing ideas about the Decembrist movement. The author clarifies insufficiently studied specific episodes of the history of secret societies, adjusting the biographies of identified participants, including those known in a general historical context. The article examines the personalities of the newly identified members of secret societies (K. M. Poltoratsky, S. S. Lanskoy, I. M. Lyubovsky, P. A. Nabokov, F. S. Panyutin). The affiliation of the personalities considered to conspiratorial unions is associated with issues little-studied in the history of Decembrism: the involvement of persons endowed with high official status and public authority in the movement, the spread of the Decembrist society among provincial officials, the involvement in the movement of regimental commanders, who the initiators of the “southern uprising” (Chernigov regiment) relied on in their plans. Other cases discussed in the article explore the participation in Decembrist unions of representatives of the capital’s merchants, and naval officers, unnoticed by the investigation of the participants in the St Petersburg conspiracy of 1825. Special attention is paid to the evidence base; the author evaluates the reliability of documentary indications, verifies them against other evidence, and reveals the channels for obtaining information to the authors of the evidence, which makes it possible to conclude that the affiliation of identified persons with the Decembrist societies is substantiated by documents.
这篇文章介绍了作者20多年来对秘密社团的组成和十二月党人的军事阴谋进行研究的结果。这项工作的主要任务之一是确定那些在政府调查中未被注意到的不知名的十二月党人，在很大程度上，在历史编纂中。这篇文章考虑了秘密社团的成员和1825-1826年军事起义的参与者，他们在文学中鲜为人知，以前也从未被发现过。基于现存原始资料的重建的相关性和学术意义在于对十二月党人运动的现有观念的发展。作者澄清了研究不足的秘密社团历史的具体事件，调整了已确定的参与者的传记，包括那些在一般历史背景下已知的人。这篇文章考察了新发现的秘密社团成员的个性(K. M. Poltoratsky, S. S. Lanskoy, I. M. Lyubovsky, P. A. Nabokov, F. S. Panyutin)。被认为是阴谋联盟的人物的隶属关系与十二月党人历史上很少研究的问题有关:在运动中被赋予高级官员地位和公共权力的人的参与，十二月党人社会在省级官员中的传播，参与运动的团指挥官，“南方起义”(切尔尼戈夫团)的发起人在他们的计划中依赖于他们。文章中讨论的其他案例探讨了首都商人代表和海军军官参加十二月党人工会的情况，而对1825年圣彼得堡阴谋参与者的调查却没有注意到这一点。特别注意证据基础;发件人评估了文件记载的可靠性，对照其他证据加以核实，并向证据的作者透露了获取资料的渠道，从而可以得出结论，文件证实了已查明的人与12月党人团体的联系。
{"title":"New Personalities of Participants of the Russian Secret Societies of the 1810s–1820s: Touches to the Traditional Picture of the Decembrist Movement","authors":"P. Ilyin","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.798","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the results of the study of the composition of secret societies and the military conspiracy of the Decembrists conducted by the author over 20 years. One of the main tasks of this work was to identify the unknown Decembrists who remained unnoticed during the government investigation and, for the most part, in historiography. The article considers members of secret societies and participants of the military uprisings of 1825–1826, little-known in literature and never previously identified. The relevance and academic significance of the reconstruction based on the extant source data consists in the development of existing ideas about the Decembrist movement. The author clarifies insufficiently studied specific episodes of the history of secret societies, adjusting the biographies of identified participants, including those known in a general historical context. The article examines the personalities of the newly identified members of secret societies (K. M. Poltoratsky, S. S. Lanskoy, I. M. Lyubovsky, P. A. Nabokov, F. S. Panyutin). The affiliation of the personalities considered to conspiratorial unions is associated with issues little-studied in the history of Decembrism: the involvement of persons endowed with high official status and public authority in the movement, the spread of the Decembrist society among provincial officials, the involvement in the movement of regimental commanders, who the initiators of the “southern uprising” (Chernigov regiment) relied on in their plans. Other cases discussed in the article explore the participation in Decembrist unions of representatives of the capital’s merchants, and naval officers, unnoticed by the investigation of the participants in the St Petersburg conspiracy of 1825. Special attention is paid to the evidence base; the author evaluates the reliability of documentary indications, verifies them against other evidence, and reveals the channels for obtaining information to the authors of the evidence, which makes it possible to conclude that the affiliation of identified persons with the Decembrist societies is substantiated by documents.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43547085","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 attempts to combine data obtained through interviews by a psychologist of female donors participating in an assisted reproductive technology program and interpret them through narrative analysis and communicative situation analysis. The article describes the structure of an oocyte-donor which has never been done before with reference to Russian-language material. An ethical platform for the study is openness to a new type of scientific knowledge that results from the interpretation of the informants’ answers who try to comprehend their motives to donate. The narrative analysis of 21 transcripts helps determine the roles of the interviewer and the informant at each stage and their contribution to the discussion-testing communicative situation. The interview includes several stages, such as “a window to the past”, at which the autobiographical narrative is recorded as comprehensively as possible; a description of the donor’s current state which focuses on strategies for solving problem situations; the interview ends with a series of thought experiments that allow the psychologist to assess the emotional stability of the potential donor and make a forecast regarding the prospects for long-term cooperation with the reproductive medicine clinic. The paper outlines the cases of participants’ cooperation and mismatches in building a credible and value-consistent autobiographical narrative that includes the donation experience. The authors seek to fit this experience into a broader value context, including a compensatory one related to the urgent problems of potential donors. Women’s answers help specify the concept of donor ‘multi-motivation’. The ambiguity of public opinion regarding donation as a reproductive medicine phenomenon is expressed in the fact that the availability of information for those who are aware of the issue co-exists with donors’ persistent reluctance to display their activity outside the inner circle. Research perspectives include the need to consider the narrative contribution of each participant in the situation of reproduction, i. e. physicians, donors, and recipient parents, and its further use in practice.
{"title":"“Tango for Two”: Women’s Interviews in Clinical Reproductive Practice","authors":"Natalya Gramatchikova, I. Polyakova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.805","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.805","url":null,"abstract":"This article attempts to combine data obtained through interviews by a psychologist of female donors participating in an assisted reproductive technology program and interpret them through narrative analysis and communicative situation analysis. The article describes the structure of an oocyte-donor which has never been done before with reference to Russian-language material. An ethical platform for the study is openness to a new type of scientific knowledge that results from the interpretation of the informants’ answers who try to comprehend their motives to donate. The narrative analysis of 21 transcripts helps determine the roles of the interviewer and the informant at each stage and their contribution to the discussion-testing communicative situation. The interview includes several stages, such as “a window to the past”, at which the autobiographical narrative is recorded as comprehensively as possible; a description of the donor’s current state which focuses on strategies for solving problem situations; the interview ends with a series of thought experiments that allow the psychologist to assess the emotional stability of the potential donor and make a forecast regarding the prospects for long-term cooperation with the reproductive medicine clinic. The paper outlines the cases of participants’ cooperation and mismatches in building a credible and value-consistent autobiographical narrative that includes the donation experience. The authors seek to fit this experience into a broader value context, including a compensatory one related to the urgent problems of potential donors. Women’s answers help specify the concept of donor ‘multi-motivation’. The ambiguity of public opinion regarding donation as a reproductive medicine phenomenon is expressed in the fact that the availability of information for those who are aware of the issue co-exists with donors’ persistent reluctance to display their activity outside the inner circle. Research perspectives include the need to consider the narrative contribution of each participant in the situation of reproduction, i. e. physicians, donors, and recipient parents, and its further use in practice.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41571165","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}
Published in 2020, The Belgorod Line. History. Fortification. People, a book by Andrey Papkov, Nikolay Petrukhintsev, and Dmitry Khitrov is the first attempt to understand and update modern achievements in studying the Belgorod Line. The authors reveal the historical specifics behind the construction of this military-defensive line in the broad historical context of the seventeenth century. They show the background of events (before 1635), the building process, and the social processes after the line was erected (1658). A special place is given to the military reforms of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, preceding the famous army reforms of Peter the Great. The Belgorod Line. History. Fortification. People allows the scholarly community to move to a new stage in understanding the features of the social and military history of the southern border of Russia, but first, it is important to understand the political context of the events of the construction of the Belgorod line. Until 1645, the construction of fortifications was not systematic. But after the accession to the throne of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, the construction of the Belgorod line acquired a clear logic. However, in 1654 Russia entered the war with Poland, and the military potential of the southern Russian border was used for other military tasks in the west. This political context of the development of events is reflected in the book under review.
{"title":"The Belgorod Line as an Object of Research: Heuristic and Analytical Possibilities of Traditional and Modern Historical Methods","authors":"D. Lyapin","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.813","url":null,"abstract":"Published in 2020, The Belgorod Line. History. Fortification. People, a book by Andrey Papkov, Nikolay Petrukhintsev, and Dmitry Khitrov is the first attempt to understand and update modern achievements in studying the Belgorod Line. The authors reveal the historical specifics behind the construction of this military-defensive line in the broad historical context of the seventeenth century. They show the background of events (before 1635), the building process, and the social processes after the line was erected (1658). A special place is given to the military reforms of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, preceding the famous army reforms of Peter the Great. The Belgorod Line. History. Fortification. People allows the scholarly community to move to a new stage in understanding the features of the social and military history of the southern border of Russia, but first, it is important to understand the political context of the events of the construction of the Belgorod line. Until 1645, the construction of fortifications was not systematic. But after the accession to the throne of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, the construction of the Belgorod line acquired a clear logic. However, in 1654 Russia entered the war with Poland, and the military potential of the southern Russian border was used for other military tasks in the west. This political context of the development of events is reflected in the book under review.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44499322","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 a monograph on the political biography of Alikhan Bukeikhanov, an outstanding researcher and public figure of Kazakhstan, written by a Russian author. The undeniable achievements of Kazakh historiography consist in the introduction to academic use of a significant volume of sources about the life and activities of the participants of the Alash movement and their fate in the Soviet state. Documents and literature on A. Bukeikhanov occupy a significant place among them. The book by V. I. Kozodoy assesses some misconceptions and unsubstantiated assertions entrenched in historiography concerning terminological inaccuracies and episodes of the character’s life. At the same time, the book contains hypotheses and assumptions which are not substantiated. Meanwhile, in the reviewer’s opinion, they become the basis for making fundamental conclusions and revising the predecessors’ assessments. While Kozodoy selectively addresses studies by Russian historians, conceptually, his book is based on Kazakh historiography. Following it, he portrays Bukeykhanov as a founder of modern democratic independent Kazakhstan, compares him to M. Kemal (Ataturk), and characterizes the revolutionary process and civil war as Kazakhs’ struggle for independence. The analysis makes it possible to estimate Kozodoy’s monograph not so much as a scholarly project but as an important part of the nation-building political mythology of modern Kazakhstan.
{"title":"The Founder of Kazakh Autonomy as Seen by a Modern Russian Author","authors":"V. Rynkov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.814","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses a monograph on the political biography of Alikhan Bukeikhanov, an outstanding researcher and public figure of Kazakhstan, written by a Russian author. The undeniable achievements of Kazakh historiography consist in the introduction to academic use of a significant volume of sources about the life and activities of the participants of the Alash movement and their fate in the Soviet state. Documents and literature on A. Bukeikhanov occupy a significant place among them. The book by V. I. Kozodoy assesses some misconceptions and unsubstantiated assertions entrenched in historiography concerning terminological inaccuracies and episodes of the character’s life. At the same time, the book contains hypotheses and assumptions which are not substantiated. Meanwhile, in the reviewer’s opinion, they become the basis for making fundamental conclusions and revising the predecessors’ assessments. While Kozodoy selectively addresses studies by Russian historians, conceptually, his book is based on Kazakh historiography. Following it, he portrays Bukeykhanov as a founder of modern democratic independent Kazakhstan, compares him to M. Kemal (Ataturk), and characterizes the revolutionary process and civil war as Kazakhs’ struggle for independence. The analysis makes it possible to estimate Kozodoy’s monograph not so much as a scholarly project but as an important part of the nation-building political mythology of modern Kazakhstan.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46894983","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：