{"title":"Cross-Cultural Communication: Pragmatics and the Search for Meaning","authors":"L. Soboleva","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.4.838","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.838","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p>___</jats:p>","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138952398","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 History of the Synod, compiled at the beginning of 1667 by Paisius Ligarides, Metropolitan of Gaza († 1678), shortly after the condemnation of Patriarch Nikon († 1681) at the Great Moscow Synod (1666), has long attracted the attention of researchers. However, it is studied without involving the Greek text and its complete translation into Russian. The arrangements made between the middle and second half of the nineteenth century differ from the original in their selectivity and inaccuracy. The anonymous Russian translation, short and unprofessional, resembles a free paraphrase; in comparison with the Russian version, the English one, belonging to the British theologian and historian W. Palmer († 1879), is closer to the original in content. However, it omits complex phrases and designations of culture-specific Russian elements and contains the translator’s comments. The stumbling block for interpreters was Ligarides’ appeal to Antiquity, a literary device that characterises the writer’s style in the Moscow period of his life (since 1662). Appeals to ancient authors and writings and techniques dating back to ancient rhetoric are scattered throughout the History of the Synod, but there are many of them in the dedication to the client, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. This article considers the problem of ancient heritage in the History of the Synod with reference to this introductory section. An analysis of the content of his three themes – the idealisation of Antiquity, the appointment of history and the dignity of the ruler – helps reveal the significance of ancient culture and mythology to the writer. The appeal of the Metropolitan of Gaza to the classical heritage correlates with didactic and educational tasks. Ligarides supported the messianic idea, popular with the Greek clergy, about the significance of Moscow – the heir of Rome and the ruler of Moscow as the liberator of Christian peoples from the Muslim yoke. Approving the Byzantine model in the issue of separation of powers, according to which the secular ruler was an absolute monarch, Ligarides oriented Alexei Mikhailovich to follow the example of the rulers of the ancient era, who had the virtues of the kingcreator, triumpher, and enlightener. Encouraging the Russian elite to become more familiar with the ancient heritage and thus contributing to the Europeanisation of court culture, the Metropolitan brought closer the situation called the antiquity of Russian culture by philologists.
{"title":"Ancient Heritage in the History of the Synod by Paisius Ligarides, Metropolitan of Gaza: Dedication to the Russian Tsar","authors":"S. Sevastyanova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.4.855","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.855","url":null,"abstract":"The History of the Synod, compiled at the beginning of 1667 by Paisius Ligarides, Metropolitan of Gaza († 1678), shortly after the condemnation of Patriarch Nikon († 1681) at the Great Moscow Synod (1666), has long attracted the attention of researchers. However, it is studied without involving the Greek text and its complete translation into Russian. The arrangements made between the middle and second half of the nineteenth century differ from the original in their selectivity and inaccuracy. The anonymous Russian translation, short and unprofessional, resembles a free paraphrase; in comparison with the Russian version, the English one, belonging to the British theologian and historian W. Palmer († 1879), is closer to the original in content. However, it omits complex phrases and designations of culture-specific Russian elements and contains the translator’s comments. The stumbling block for interpreters was Ligarides’ appeal to Antiquity, a literary device that characterises the writer’s style in the Moscow period of his life (since 1662). Appeals to ancient authors and writings and techniques dating back to ancient rhetoric are scattered throughout the History of the Synod, but there are many of them in the dedication to the client, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. This article considers the problem of ancient heritage in the History of the Synod with reference to this introductory section. An analysis of the content of his three themes – the idealisation of Antiquity, the appointment of history and the dignity of the ruler – helps reveal the significance of ancient culture and mythology to the writer. The appeal of the Metropolitan of Gaza to the classical heritage correlates with didactic and educational tasks. Ligarides supported the messianic idea, popular with the Greek clergy, about the significance of Moscow – the heir of Rome and the ruler of Moscow as the liberator of Christian peoples from the Muslim yoke. Approving the Byzantine model in the issue of separation of powers, according to which the secular ruler was an absolute monarch, Ligarides oriented Alexei Mikhailovich to follow the example of the rulers of the ancient era, who had the virtues of the kingcreator, triumpher, and enlightener. Encouraging the Russian elite to become more familiar with the ancient heritage and thus contributing to the Europeanisation of court culture, the Metropolitan brought closer the situation called the antiquity of Russian culture by philologists.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138948753","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 process of language learning, the acquisition of the codes of polite correspondence, and language practices among Russian diplomats with reference to Prince Ivan Andreevich Shcherbatov (1696–1761), a prominent Russian diplomat at the Spanish, Ottoman, and British courts. Such developments, together with some other changes (such as the shift to appointing resident ambassadors) were significant features of Russian diplomacy during and just after the reign of Peter I and contributed to its integration into the European diplomatic space. The study refers to many previously unused archival sources, such as language-learning exercises, diplomatic and personal correspondence. During his extended stay in London, Shcherbatov learned French including a considerable variety of polite expressions. His mastery of French was to become one of the main tools that Shcherbatov used both in his diplomatic and personal correspondence. His personal network consisted of various foreigners, including many who were not French but for whom French was an important lingua franca. Even in his exchanges with Spanish officials, French was a useful medium; Shcherbatov often resorted to this language when replying to Spaniards who tended to use their own language in their letters addressed to foreign diplomats at the time. Despite his excellent command of French, Shcherbatov hardly ever used it in his correspondence with his fellow compatriots, even when dealing with addressees of non-Russian descent. This contrasts the linguistic practices of some of his colleagues of lower rank and social position who chose to use French in their diplomatic correspondence with their compatriots as a communicative strategy. Whether this early use of French should be interpreted as a sign of a new cultural or professional identity is a moot point.
{"title":"Between Russia and Western Europe: The Diplomatic Languages of Prince Ivan Scherbatov, a Russian Representative at the Spanish Court","authors":"Vladislav Rjéoutski","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.4.843","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.843","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the process of language learning, the acquisition of the codes of polite correspondence, and language practices among Russian diplomats with reference to Prince Ivan Andreevich Shcherbatov (1696–1761), a prominent Russian diplomat at the Spanish, Ottoman, and British courts. Such developments, together with some other changes (such as the shift to appointing resident ambassadors) were significant features of Russian diplomacy during and just after the reign of Peter I and contributed to its integration into the European diplomatic space. The study refers to many previously unused archival sources, such as language-learning exercises, diplomatic and personal correspondence. During his extended stay in London, Shcherbatov learned French including a considerable variety of polite expressions. His mastery of French was to become one of the main tools that Shcherbatov used both in his diplomatic and personal correspondence. His personal network consisted of various foreigners, including many who were not French but for whom French was an important lingua franca. Even in his exchanges with Spanish officials, French was a useful medium; Shcherbatov often resorted to this language when replying to Spaniards who tended to use their own language in their letters addressed to foreign diplomats at the time. Despite his excellent command of French, Shcherbatov hardly ever used it in his correspondence with his fellow compatriots, even when dealing with addressees of non-Russian descent. This contrasts the linguistic practices of some of his colleagues of lower rank and social position who chose to use French in their diplomatic correspondence with their compatriots as a communicative strategy. Whether this early use of French should be interpreted as a sign of a new cultural or professional identity is a moot point.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138948849","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 the usage of native and foreign languages in the multinational community of Russian diplomats in the second half of the eighteenth century, especially by the immigrants from the Ostsee (Baltic) provinces of the Russian Empire annexed as a result of the Great Northern War of 1700–1721. Incorporating the approaches of new diplomatic history that applies the methods of sociolinguistics and studies, among others, the national, social and cultural identities of international actors, the author examines language practices and language competences of Swedes Karl Gustav (Karl Matveevich) and Johann Matthias (Ivan Matveevich) Simolin in the context of their career strategies. The study refers to their correspondence with Russian monarchs and the leadership of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs over the 1740s–1780s kept in the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire and the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents. The reconstruction of both brothers’ career paths reveals that they used similar language competences they initially had in different ways. Karl Gustav, the elder brother, translator, and polyglot, was responsible for correspondence in German in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs for many years. However, when he received an appointment to Mitau, his only diplomatic post, in 1758, he began to conduct official correspondence in the Russian language. Johann Matthias, the younger brother, spent most of his life abroad and, starting from 1758, held diplomatic posts in Regensburg, Copenhagen, Stockholm, London, and Paris. German that he spoke as a native speaker and French were his main languages of correspondence with the Russian monarchs and the leadership of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. French gradually replaced German in documents of all types as the language of international and court communication. In addition, Simolin understood the Russian language perfectly, which, from the mid‑1770s, spared the Collegium from having to translate rescripts sent to him on behalf of the empress. The analysis of both brothers’ language practices demonstrates that despite the introduction of French into the internal correspondence of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs in the second half of the eighteenth century, the new subjects of the Russian Empire found it necessary to learn Russian to gain promotion and become part of the Russian imperial elite.
{"title":"Language Practices of the Brothers Simolin, Russian Foreign-Born Diplomats, in the Second Half of the 18th Century","authors":"Maria Petrova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.4.846","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.846","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the usage of native and foreign languages in the multinational community of Russian diplomats in the second half of the eighteenth century, especially by the immigrants from the Ostsee (Baltic) provinces of the Russian Empire annexed as a result of the Great Northern War of 1700–1721. Incorporating the approaches of new diplomatic history that applies the methods of sociolinguistics and studies, among others, the national, social and cultural identities of international actors, the author examines language practices and language competences of Swedes Karl Gustav (Karl Matveevich) and Johann Matthias (Ivan Matveevich) Simolin in the context of their career strategies. The study refers to their correspondence with Russian monarchs and the leadership of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs over the 1740s–1780s kept in the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire and the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents. The reconstruction of both brothers’ career paths reveals that they used similar language competences they initially had in different ways. Karl Gustav, the elder brother, translator, and polyglot, was responsible for correspondence in German in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs for many years. However, when he received an appointment to Mitau, his only diplomatic post, in 1758, he began to conduct official correspondence in the Russian language. Johann Matthias, the younger brother, spent most of his life abroad and, starting from 1758, held diplomatic posts in Regensburg, Copenhagen, Stockholm, London, and Paris. German that he spoke as a native speaker and French were his main languages of correspondence with the Russian monarchs and the leadership of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. French gradually replaced German in documents of all types as the language of international and court communication. In addition, Simolin understood the Russian language perfectly, which, from the mid‑1770s, spared the Collegium from having to translate rescripts sent to him on behalf of the empress. The analysis of both brothers’ language practices demonstrates that despite the introduction of French into the internal correspondence of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs in the second half of the eighteenth century, the new subjects of the Russian Empire found it necessary to learn Russian to gain promotion and become part of the Russian imperial elite.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138951612","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 circumstances behind Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan and Murom’s not delivering a sermon about the truth persecuted everywhere on the Day of St John Chrysostom on November 13, 1708. The text is marked as non dictum in the manuscript by the author. In historiography, Yavorsky’s undelivered sermons are often used to characterise the critical mood of the preacher in the context of the protracted Northern War and the author’s intentions, as he allegedly changed his mind in time to deliver an accusatory sermon. The author of the article suggests that the chief factor that prevented Yavorsky from preaching on the day of St John Chrysostom was the anathematisation of Hetman Ivan Mazepa (in 1708), which preceded the event, and the death of Dimitri Rostovsky, a close friend of the Metropolitan's (in 1709). The article provides arguments confirming the author’s intentions to voice the ideas of this sermon, such as the usage of its fragments in other texts. For the first time, the sermon for the Day of St John Chrysostom is presented in the context of Yavorsky’s preaching heritage, and its content is analysed considering the author’s complex intention (the article also contains rare Yavorsky’s poems in Latin and translations thereof). The research emphasises the need to publish the full text of Stefan Yavorsky’s sermons and further study their place in the public sphere and intellectual culture of the Petrine era.
本文探讨了梁赞和穆罗姆都主教斯特凡-亚沃斯基 (Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan and Murom) 在 1708 年 11 月 13 日圣约翰-金口日没有发表关于各地受迫害的真理的布道的原因。作者在手稿中将此文标注为 "non dictum"。在史学界，亚沃斯基未发表的布道经常被用来描述传教士在旷日持久的北方战争背景下的批判情绪和作者的意图，因为据称他及时改变了主意，发表了一篇指责性的布道。文章作者认为，阻碍亚沃斯基在圣约翰-金口日布道的主要因素是在布道之前伊万-马泽帕（Hetman Ivan Mazepa）的诅咒（1708 年），以及都主教的密友迪米特里-罗斯托夫斯基（Dimitri Rostovsky）的去世（1709 年）。文章提供的论据证实了作者表达这篇布道的意图，如在其他文本中使用其片段。文章首次将圣约翰-金口日布道放在亚沃尔斯基布道遗产的背景下进行介绍，并根据作者的复杂意图对其内容进行了分析（文章还包含亚沃尔斯基罕见的拉丁文诗歌及其译文）。该研究强调了出版斯特凡-亚沃斯基布道文全文的必要性，并进一步研究了这些布道文在彼德时代公共领域和知识文化中的地位。
{"title":"What Was Stefan Yavorsky Silent about? Undelivered Sermons as a Multiple Equation","authors":"A. Popovich","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.4.854","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.854","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the circumstances behind Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan and Murom’s not delivering a sermon about the truth persecuted everywhere on the Day of St John Chrysostom on November 13, 1708. The text is marked as non dictum in the manuscript by the author. In historiography, Yavorsky’s undelivered sermons are often used to characterise the critical mood of the preacher in the context of the protracted Northern War and the author’s intentions, as he allegedly changed his mind in time to deliver an accusatory sermon. The author of the article suggests that the chief factor that prevented Yavorsky from preaching on the day of St John Chrysostom was the anathematisation of Hetman Ivan Mazepa (in 1708), which preceded the event, and the death of Dimitri Rostovsky, a close friend of the Metropolitan's (in 1709). The article provides arguments confirming the author’s intentions to voice the ideas of this sermon, such as the usage of its fragments in other texts. For the first time, the sermon for the Day of St John Chrysostom is presented in the context of Yavorsky’s preaching heritage, and its content is analysed considering the author’s complex intention (the article also contains rare Yavorsky’s poems in Latin and translations thereof). The research emphasises the need to publish the full text of Stefan Yavorsky’s sermons and further study their place in the public sphere and intellectual culture of the Petrine era.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138952355","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 explores the problem of the paralipsis of a folklore archive with reference to materials stored at Ural Federal University. The author hypothesises that folklore archives can be studied not only through access to the collections kept in them but also through paralipsis/lacunae that appear in them. In the Russian and European traditions, the very principle of collecting material determines the appearance of gaps in folklore archives. The researcher interviews the informant in accordance with their mental map, which inevitably leads to the loss of part of the material, especially in situations where the “context of the situation” is not fixed. The author analyses archival texts collected in the village of Gary, Sverdlovsk Region, in 1977. Gaps and omissions were identified during the digitalisation of the Ural Federal University folklore archive collection. The article describes the method of keywords, which made it possible to partially localise gaps. Also, the description of the texts of the archive through keywords helped identify lacunae of a genre, thematic, and contextual character never studied previously. The last part of the article mainly focuses on describing and interpreting gaps that appeared due to the lack of context. The article puts forward several hypotheses that make it possible to interpret some of the gaps identified. The author also attempts to restore the research context in which the material was collected, for which she employs methodological recommendations formulated by V. P. Kruglyashova, the academic leader of the folklore expedition. Part of the interpretation of the gaps relies on the comparison of her recommendations with their implementation in practice with reference to the Gary collection. From the methodological point of view, the article can be of use to everyone working on the problems of the digitalisation of cultural heritage.
本文以乌拉尔联邦大学保存的资料为参考，探讨了民俗档案中的 "旁观者"（paralipsis）问题。作者认为，研究民俗档案不仅可以通过查阅档案中的藏品，还可以通过档案中出现的 "空白"（paralipsis/lacunae）来进行。在俄罗斯和欧洲的传统中，收集材料的原则本身就决定了民俗档案中会出现空白。研究人员根据信息提供者的思维导图对其进行访谈，这不可避免地会导致部分材料的丢失，尤其是在 "情境背景 "不固定的情况下。作者分析了 1977 年在斯维尔德洛夫斯克地区加里村收集的档案文本。在对乌拉尔联邦大学民俗档案收藏进行数字化时发现了空白和遗漏。文章介绍了使用关键词的方法，这种方法可以对空白进行部分定位。此外，通过关键词对档案文本的描述有助于发现以前从未研究过的体裁、主题和背景特征方面的空白。文章的最后一部分主要侧重于描述和解释由于缺乏上下文而出现的空白。文章提出了几个假设，从而有可能对发现的一些空白进行解释。作者还试图还原材料收集的研究背景，为此她采用了民俗考察学术带头人 V. P. Kruglyashova 提出的方法建议。对差距的部分解释依赖于将她的建议与参照加里藏品在实践中的执行情况进行比较。从方法论的角度来看，这篇文章对所有致力于解决文化遗产数字化问题的人都有帮助。
{"title":"Paralipsis Archives: Ways of Localisation and Interpretation of Gaps in a Folklore Archive","authors":"Tatiana I. Khoruzhenko","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.4.849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.4.849","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the problem of the paralipsis of a folklore archive with reference to materials stored at Ural Federal University. The author hypothesises that folklore archives can be studied not only through access to the collections kept in them but also through paralipsis/lacunae that appear in them. In the Russian and European traditions, the very principle of collecting material determines the appearance of gaps in folklore archives. The researcher interviews the informant in accordance with their mental map, which inevitably leads to the loss of part of the material, especially in situations where the “context of the situation” is not fixed. The author analyses archival texts collected in the village of Gary, Sverdlovsk Region, in 1977. Gaps and omissions were identified during the digitalisation of the Ural Federal University folklore archive collection. The article describes the method of keywords, which made it possible to partially localise gaps. Also, the description of the texts of the archive through keywords helped identify lacunae of a genre, thematic, and contextual character never studied previously. The last part of the article mainly focuses on describing and interpreting gaps that appeared due to the lack of context. The article puts forward several hypotheses that make it possible to interpret some of the gaps identified. The author also attempts to restore the research context in which the material was collected, for which she employs methodological recommendations formulated by V. P. Kruglyashova, the academic leader of the folklore expedition. Part of the interpretation of the gaps relies on the comparison of her recommendations with their implementation in practice with reference to the Gary collection. From the methodological point of view, the article can be of use to everyone working on the problems of the digitalisation of cultural heritage.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138953405","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 contribution of exiles to teaching children living in the settlement of the Yekaterinburg plant, the largest in the mining and industrial Urals, to read and write. It was a place where the features of the new policy of Vasily Tatishchev, who became head of the factories in 1734, concerning teaching literacy to the vastest range of children possible and using exiles sent there from all over the country as teachers, were most clearly manifest. Based on the extensive use of archival documents of administrative and information character and petitions, the author characterises the peculiarities of the cadre of exiled teachers, which has never been done previously. The author reveals the reasons for the extensive recruitment of exiles and, starting from 1742, pardoned ex-exiles as teachers, reconstructs their composition, reveals their previous posts, the crimes for which they were exiled, common features characterising their vital activity, position in society, their relations among themselves and with other representatives of society, and the different levels of their material situation. Additionally, the article examines the peculiarities of the attitude of the Ural authorities toward the exiled teachers. The petitions of the exiles indicate that with them, the position of a literacy teacher enjoyed great appreciation despite the low pay. For the first time in history, the author analyses the student records of the grammar school, identifying all the cases of collective enrolment and the total number of children taught by the exiled Yekaterinburg masters, including those from the nearby factories. Also, the article introduces data about private literacy schools in Yekaterinburg opened by exiles, where they taught children for a fee as part of a contract with their parents at their homes. Based on this, the author concludes that the contribution of exiles as teachers to the development of children’s literacy in Yekaterinburg deserves the highest assessment.
{"title":"The Contribution of Exiles to the Distribution of Literacy among the Children of Yekaterinburg in 1734–1740s","authors":"Alevtina Safronova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.818","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the contribution of exiles to teaching children living in the settlement of the Yekaterinburg plant, the largest in the mining and industrial Urals, to read and write. It was a place where the features of the new policy of Vasily Tatishchev, who became head of the factories in 1734, concerning teaching literacy to the vastest range of children possible and using exiles sent there from all over the country as teachers, were most clearly manifest. Based on the extensive use of archival documents of administrative and information character and petitions, the author characterises the peculiarities of the cadre of exiled teachers, which has never been done previously. The author reveals the reasons for the extensive recruitment of exiles and, starting from 1742, pardoned ex-exiles as teachers, reconstructs their composition, reveals their previous posts, the crimes for which they were exiled, common features characterising their vital activity, position in society, their relations among themselves and with other representatives of society, and the different levels of their material situation. Additionally, the article examines the peculiarities of the attitude of the Ural authorities toward the exiled teachers. The petitions of the exiles indicate that with them, the position of a literacy teacher enjoyed great appreciation despite the low pay. For the first time in history, the author analyses the student records of the grammar school, identifying all the cases of collective enrolment and the total number of children taught by the exiled Yekaterinburg masters, including those from the nearby factories. Also, the article introduces data about private literacy schools in Yekaterinburg opened by exiles, where they taught children for a fee as part of a contract with their parents at their homes. Based on this, the author concludes that the contribution of exiles as teachers to the development of children’s literacy in Yekaterinburg deserves the highest assessment.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865363","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}
Continuing to question some traditional historiographical theses, in this second part, the author discusses the common assertion that “popular” praxis is dependent on naïve belief in the benevolent tsar: on the contrary, the subjects of action adapt their beliefs to their needs. A still very influential historiography considers that illusions, naïve, popular, and false as well as passivity would constitute the plurisecular “mentality” of the Russian peasantry. But mentality is a category that is deficient in the explanation of historical dynamics, especially when it comes to change. Against the verdict “false” applied to the myth of the benevolent tsar, the author explains why a myth is neither true nor false and stresses that it should not be considered as a stage in a history of thought that would lead to a scholarly representation but it is necessary to understand its origin, its logic and the usefulness of its use by human beings, in particular its role in the production of modern political thought. Against the positivist historiography’s disdain for popular metaphors, the author highlights the “truth” of the autocratic system that this linguistic figure expresses and the permeability between metaphor and action. The study concludes by tracing, based on the material analyzed, Russian history’s own path towards a political modernity that by its reality inhibits the existence of any central modernity and situates the moment at which this Russian modernity appears in the light of day.
{"title":"Towards a Conceptual-Historical Critique of the Essentialist and Teleological Interpretations of Russian History. Part 2","authors":"Claudio Ingerflom","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.835","url":null,"abstract":"Continuing to question some traditional historiographical theses, in this second part, the author discusses the common assertion that “popular” praxis is dependent on naïve belief in the benevolent tsar: on the contrary, the subjects of action adapt their beliefs to their needs. A still very influential historiography considers that illusions, naïve, popular, and false as well as passivity would constitute the plurisecular “mentality” of the Russian peasantry. But mentality is a category that is deficient in the explanation of historical dynamics, especially when it comes to change. Against the verdict “false” applied to the myth of the benevolent tsar, the author explains why a myth is neither true nor false and stresses that it should not be considered as a stage in a history of thought that would lead to a scholarly representation but it is necessary to understand its origin, its logic and the usefulness of its use by human beings, in particular its role in the production of modern political thought. Against the positivist historiography’s disdain for popular metaphors, the author highlights the “truth” of the autocratic system that this linguistic figure expresses and the permeability between metaphor and action. The study concludes by tracing, based on the material analyzed, Russian history’s own path towards a political modernity that by its reality inhibits the existence of any central modernity and situates the moment at which this Russian modernity appears in the light of day.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865364","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 adaptation and re-semantisation of the “great power” concept in Soviet public discourse between 1920 and 1935. The actualisation of the “great power” concept in the public discourse of this period was associated with the need to comprehend the USSR in the system of international relations, the one of “great powers”. After the First World War and the revolutionary events of the early twentieth century, Russia was excluded from the European system of international relations, and the USSR had to fight for the recognition of the new state formation. Simultaneously, the new authorities had to defend their positions within the country. In addition, the new state was in a complex relationship with the legacy of the Russian Empire. Denying numerous imperial attitudes at the ideological level, the USSR had to deal with old institutions, including the diplomatic and authoritative language of Imperial Russia. At the same time, new goals required revision of inconvenient intellectual constructs. The author aims to establish how the “great power” concept was rethought and appropriated by the Bolsheviks and the Soviet authorities after the 1917 Revolution and the Civil War (1917–1922). The author identifies several main stages of rethinking the concept in public discourse and, based on an analysis of the press, proves that the “great power” concept was only partially resemanticised. It acquired new semantic connotations (primarily ideological) while retaining a significant part of the previous pre-revolutionary attitudes. The author reveals that from the early 1920s, there were attempts to assign the “great power” status to Soviet Russia. During this period, the great-power narrative was re-actualised and stabilised. The main factor confirming the “great power” status is the country’s internal successes.
{"title":"The USSR as a “Great Power”: Imperial Narratives and the State’s Status, 1920–1935","authors":"Maria Ivanova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.833","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the adaptation and re-semantisation of the “great power” concept in Soviet public discourse between 1920 and 1935. The actualisation of the “great power” concept in the public discourse of this period was associated with the need to comprehend the USSR in the system of international relations, the one of “great powers”. After the First World War and the revolutionary events of the early twentieth century, Russia was excluded from the European system of international relations, and the USSR had to fight for the recognition of the new state formation. Simultaneously, the new authorities had to defend their positions within the country. In addition, the new state was in a complex relationship with the legacy of the Russian Empire. Denying numerous imperial attitudes at the ideological level, the USSR had to deal with old institutions, including the diplomatic and authoritative language of Imperial Russia. At the same time, new goals required revision of inconvenient intellectual constructs. The author aims to establish how the “great power” concept was rethought and appropriated by the Bolsheviks and the Soviet authorities after the 1917 Revolution and the Civil War (1917–1922). The author identifies several main stages of rethinking the concept in public discourse and, based on an analysis of the press, proves that the “great power” concept was only partially resemanticised. It acquired new semantic connotations (primarily ideological) while retaining a significant part of the previous pre-revolutionary attitudes. The author reveals that from the early 1920s, there were attempts to assign the “great power” status to Soviet Russia. During this period, the great-power narrative was re-actualised and stabilised. The main factor confirming the “great power” status is the country’s internal successes.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865821","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 study of “words and deeds” as a type of crime began over a hundred years ago. This well-known formula proceeded from the public obligation of the population to protect the sovereign and their family from any evil intentions. This phenomenon began to develop on Russian soil as early as the mid-fifteenth century and is present in a wide range of documents: secured or affirmed deeds; the sovereign’s grants to Siberian foreigners; letters of commendation with a golden seal, issued to those who lived in the recently annexed territories with a predominantly non-Orthodox population, as well as territorial entities that were formally part of the Muscovite State; state oaths. It is believed that the cases of the sovereign’s “words and deeds” have been preserved since the seventeenth century, their mentions known since earlier times. However, the lists found in the materials of the Siberian Prikaz from the mandate letters of 1599 to the Tobolsk voivode stolnik S. F. Saburov about the investigation of the accusation of “words and deeds” of the Tobolsk children of the boyars Bykasov suggests that such materials from the sixteenth century are yet to be studied. However, to detect them, it is necessary to significantly expand the range of documents under consideration and not be limited, as before, only to the materials of the Razryad Prikaz. The materials analysed are the remains of the most ancient case identified on charges of sovereign’s “words and deeds”. The Bykasov family mentioned in it, served as the sovereign’s grooms in the tsar’s stables at least from the early sixteenth century. Andrei Timofeevich Bykasov was involved in the case of the Shuysky princes in 1586, for which all his relatives were exiled to Siberian cities. At the end of the Time of Troubles, A. T. Bykasov became a stable officer of the Stable Prikaz, which compensated him and his brothers for the trials that they had had to go through.
这种将“言行”作为一种犯罪类型的研究始于一百多年前。这个众所周知的公式源于人民的公共义务，即保护君主及其家人免受任何邪恶意图的伤害。早在15世纪中期，这种现象就开始在俄罗斯土地上发展起来，并出现在广泛的文件中:担保或确认的契约;对西伯利亚外国人的主权补助;发给居住在最近被吞并的非东正教人口占多数的领土上的人以及正式属于莫斯科国的领土实体的人的盖有金色印章的奖状;国家宣誓。据信，君主的“言行”的案例自17世纪以来一直保存下来，他们的提及早在更早的时候就已经知道了。然而，在西伯利亚普里卡兹1599年发给托博尔斯克voivode stolnik S. F. Saburov的委托书材料中发现的关于调查波雅尔比卡索夫的托博尔斯克子女“言行”指控的清单表明，这些来自16世纪的材料尚待研究。但是，为了发现它们，必须大大扩大所审议的文件的范围，而不能象以前那样只局限于《Razryad Prikaz》的材料。所分析的材料是由君主的“言行”指控而确定的最古老案件的残骸。书中提到的比卡索夫家族，至少从16世纪初起就在沙皇的马厩里担任君主的马夫。安德烈·季莫费耶维奇·比卡索夫卷入了1586年的舒伊斯基王公一案，他所有的亲戚都因此被流放到西伯利亚的城市。动乱时期结束时，a·t·比卡索夫成为普里卡兹马厩的一名马厩官，这是对他和他的兄弟们所经历的审判的补偿。
{"title":"The Bykasov Family in the Context of Political Investigation (Siberia, Late 16th Century)","authors":"Andrey Belyakov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.3.828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.3.828","url":null,"abstract":"This study of “words and deeds” as a type of crime began over a hundred years ago. This well-known formula proceeded from the public obligation of the population to protect the sovereign and their family from any evil intentions. This phenomenon began to develop on Russian soil as early as the mid-fifteenth century and is present in a wide range of documents: secured or affirmed deeds; the sovereign’s grants to Siberian foreigners; letters of commendation with a golden seal, issued to those who lived in the recently annexed territories with a predominantly non-Orthodox population, as well as territorial entities that were formally part of the Muscovite State; state oaths. It is believed that the cases of the sovereign’s “words and deeds” have been preserved since the seventeenth century, their mentions known since earlier times. However, the lists found in the materials of the Siberian Prikaz from the mandate letters of 1599 to the Tobolsk voivode stolnik S. F. Saburov about the investigation of the accusation of “words and deeds” of the Tobolsk children of the boyars Bykasov suggests that such materials from the sixteenth century are yet to be studied. However, to detect them, it is necessary to significantly expand the range of documents under consideration and not be limited, as before, only to the materials of the Razryad Prikaz. The materials analysed are the remains of the most ancient case identified on charges of sovereign’s “words and deeds”. The Bykasov family mentioned in it, served as the sovereign’s grooms in the tsar’s stables at least from the early sixteenth century. Andrei Timofeevich Bykasov was involved in the case of the Shuysky princes in 1586, for which all his relatives were exiled to Siberian cities. At the end of the Time of Troubles, A. T. Bykasov became a stable officer of the Stable Prikaz, which compensated him and his brothers for the trials that they had had to go through.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135865974","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：