There is a great deal of recent scholarship exploring how foreign news reached early modern Russia and what its impact there was. Of particular importance is the study of the kuranty, the translations of Western newspapers and pamphlets. By examining closely what may seem to have been an unusual choice to translate from Dutch newspapers – the cargo lists of Dutch ships from the East Indies – this article suggests how it might be possible to contextualize the news translations more broadly than has been done to date. It is important to examine the significance of the news where it originally appeared, since its significance in the Russian context may be quite different. And it is also important not just to focus on the Russian government’s interest in the political news that informed its foreign policy. Over a period of decades, the importance given certain topics may have changed. The interests of the translators themselves – among them Andrei Vinius – may help to explain why they selected particular items for translation from the substantial quantity of foreign news which began to arrive in Moscow regularly upon the establishment of the foreign postal connection in 1665. The article is published in two parts, the first one here covering the background and the analysis of the evidence up through 1665. The second part, to appear in a subsequent number of the journal, will deal with the lading lists of 1667 and 1671 and the complex analysis of the context within which they may have been of particular interest in Moscow.
{"title":"The Kuranty in Context: Dutch Lading Lists and Their Russian Translations. Part 1","authors":"D. Waugh","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.796","url":null,"abstract":"There is a great deal of recent scholarship exploring how foreign news reached early modern Russia and what its impact there was. Of particular importance is the study of the kuranty, the translations of Western newspapers and pamphlets. By examining closely what may seem to have been an unusual choice to translate from Dutch newspapers – the cargo lists of Dutch ships from the East Indies – this article suggests how it might be possible to contextualize the news translations more broadly than has been done to date. It is important to examine the significance of the news where it originally appeared, since its significance in the Russian context may be quite different. And it is also important not just to focus on the Russian government’s interest in the political news that informed its foreign policy. Over a period of decades, the importance given certain topics may have changed. The interests of the translators themselves – among them Andrei Vinius – may help to explain why they selected particular items for translation from the substantial quantity of foreign news which began to arrive in Moscow regularly upon the establishment of the foreign postal connection in 1665. The article is published in two parts, the first one here covering the background and the analysis of the evidence up through 1665. The second part, to appear in a subsequent number of the journal, will deal with the lading lists of 1667 and 1671 and the complex analysis of the context within which they may have been of particular interest in Moscow.","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":"46466184","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 analyzes a campaign to involve Russian and foreign sailors in discovering a sea route to Siberia. The campaign was launched in the 1860s–1870s by M. K. Sidorov, a Siberian gold miner and public figure (1823–1887). Sidorov’s recruiting campaign is a perfect example of an attempt to establish cooperation between segments of the imperial periphery in the realm of a private commercial project while avoiding direct participation of the imperial center. Sidorov acted as a third party in the communication between the imperial authorities and local communities, successfully pitching himself as an independent, albeit not always successful, actor. The window of opportunity for the enterprising Siberian industrialist opened due to the Great Reforms of the 1860s, which launched the process of a dynamic and multifaceted transformation of the Empire. This process was gradually encompassing the most remote borderland territories of the Empire, including those in the North. But, unlike businessmen from different classes who perceived these territories as a source of enrichment (export of timber, graphite, sea-hunting industry, fisheries, etc.), the imperial center treated its vast northern territorial possessions as a burden and did not want to invest in their development. In the 1860s–1870s, the transportation infrastructure of the northern borderland or the Empire developed largely due to specialists from Great Britain, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, Finland, the Governorate of Livonia, and Estonia. The northern periphery of the Russian Empire was increasingly falling under foreign influence, which caused concern for private entrepreneurs and government officials. A way to replace foreign sailors was training indigenous peoples of the Russian North in maritime affairs.
{"title":"The Northern Sea Route: National Patriotism and Business Interests","authors":"M. Agapov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.800","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes a campaign to involve Russian and foreign sailors in discovering a sea route to Siberia. The campaign was launched in the 1860s–1870s by M. K. Sidorov, a Siberian gold miner and public figure (1823–1887). Sidorov’s recruiting campaign is a perfect example of an attempt to establish cooperation between segments of the imperial periphery in the realm of a private commercial project while avoiding direct participation of the imperial center. Sidorov acted as a third party in the communication between the imperial authorities and local communities, successfully pitching himself as an independent, albeit not always successful, actor. The window of opportunity for the enterprising Siberian industrialist opened due to the Great Reforms of the 1860s, which launched the process of a dynamic and multifaceted transformation of the Empire. This process was gradually encompassing the most remote borderland territories of the Empire, including those in the North. But, unlike businessmen from different classes who perceived these territories as a source of enrichment (export of timber, graphite, sea-hunting industry, fisheries, etc.), the imperial center treated its vast northern territorial possessions as a burden and did not want to invest in their development. In the 1860s–1870s, the transportation infrastructure of the northern borderland or the Empire developed largely due to specialists from Great Britain, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, Finland, the Governorate of Livonia, and Estonia. The northern periphery of the Russian Empire was increasingly falling under foreign influence, which caused concern for private entrepreneurs and government officials. A way to replace foreign sailors was training indigenous peoples of the Russian North in maritime affairs.","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":"49355961","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 history of the establishment of departmental medical statistics in the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia in the first half of the nineteenth century. Starting from M. Foucault’s concepts of biopolitics and governmentality, historians have studied the medical and statistical mechanisms for representing “public health” in England, France, and other West European countries in some detail. The case of the Russian Empire remains unexplored in this respect. Researchers have predominantly turned to hygienic statistics and data on mortality and fertility in Russian cities of the late imperial period, while the early period has long remained untouched. Moreover, these data have been analyzed apart from the transnational context of their creation. This article seeks to fill this gap partially. By comparing the introduction of two key medico-statistical indicators in Prussia and Russia (the nomenclature of diseases and the indicator of causes of death by disease), it has been argued that the Russian authorities, in their governing practices, followed mainly the Prussian path. In addition, both countries came to the same statistical model of representing the “public health” of the nation/empire. However, in the case of the Russian Empire, this transition was stretched over many decades and was carried out haphazardly. The article analyzes the main causes of this uneven implementation. In conclusion, it discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each country’s medical and statistical models.
{"title":"“Her Language Must Be the Language of Figures”. Medical Statistics of the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia: A Comparative Perspective","authors":"R. Mitrofanov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.801","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.801","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the history of the establishment of departmental medical statistics in the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia in the first half of the nineteenth century. Starting from M. Foucault’s concepts of biopolitics and governmentality, historians have studied the medical and statistical mechanisms for representing “public health” in England, France, and other West European countries in some detail. The case of the Russian Empire remains unexplored in this respect. Researchers have predominantly turned to hygienic statistics and data on mortality and fertility in Russian cities of the late imperial period, while the early period has long remained untouched. Moreover, these data have been analyzed apart from the transnational context of their creation. This article seeks to fill this gap partially. By comparing the introduction of two key medico-statistical indicators in Prussia and Russia (the nomenclature of diseases and the indicator of causes of death by disease), it has been argued that the Russian authorities, in their governing practices, followed mainly the Prussian path. In addition, both countries came to the same statistical model of representing the “public health” of the nation/empire. However, in the case of the Russian Empire, this transition was stretched over many decades and was carried out haphazardly. The article analyzes the main causes of this uneven implementation. In conclusion, it discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each country’s medical and statistical models.","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":"47389512","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}
Elena Beliakova, L. Zhurova, K. Kostromin, A. Pigin, L. Soboleva
The actualization of the study of the irrational in the interpretation of man and communication with society in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries can be explained by modern ideas about the limitless incognizability of the phenomenon of life. Rational knowledge is accompanied by knowledge of the exceptional significance of the belief in the influence of otherworldliness for certain periods of history when the totality of conflicts, clashes, and features in people’s behavior is explained through an appeal to images of demonic properties. Historians, philologists, and theologians from various Russian academic centers discuss the representation of “otherworldliness” and the prospects of its study. The panelists discuss the studies of the functional properties of otherworldliness in various spheres of life and art and its manifestation in the genres of oral and written literature. Finally, they put forward ideas about the further directions of scholarly research in the sphere.
{"title":"Demons and Heretics in Transitional Culture: Historical-Literary and Attitudinal Contexts in a Research Perspective","authors":"Elena Beliakova, L. Zhurova, K. Kostromin, A. Pigin, L. Soboleva","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.810","url":null,"abstract":"The actualization of the study of the irrational in the interpretation of man and communication with society in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries can be explained by modern ideas about the limitless incognizability of the phenomenon of life. Rational knowledge is accompanied by knowledge of the exceptional significance of the belief in the influence of otherworldliness for certain periods of history when the totality of conflicts, clashes, and features in people’s behavior is explained through an appeal to images of demonic properties. Historians, philologists, and theologians from various Russian academic centers discuss the representation of “otherworldliness” and the prospects of its study. The panelists discuss the studies of the functional properties of otherworldliness in various spheres of life and art and its manifestation in the genres of oral and written literature. Finally, they put forward ideas about the further directions of scholarly research in the sphere.","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":"42437898","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 two-year confrontation in the Ural Medical Society (hereinafter – UMS) in Yekaterinburg in 1905–1907 has not been an object of scholarly analysis previously. This is largely due to the religious aspect, i. e. the withdrawal of all Jewish doctors from the organization. The reconstruction of contradictions in the corporate medical environment of Yekaterinburg relied on the historical-genetic method within the framework of anthropologically oriented history. For information about the participants in the conflict, the author refers to a consolidated database created by him on doctors who served in Perm province. New documents from periodical press and archival funds play an essential role in understanding certain aspects of the confrontation. The article restores a complex of interconnected objective and subjective contradictions in the medical corporation of Yekaterinburg in the early twentieth century, which was aggravated during the revolutionary upheavals of 1905–1907. The determining factor for the beginning of the confrontation in the spring of 1905 was the actual erosion of the basic principle behind the UMS, which was its being apolitical. It was consistently observed starting with the establishment of the organization, which led to a deterioration in relations between its long-standing members. At the heart of acute political and interpersonal disagreements were different ideas of UMS members on national healthcare. They naturally aggravated during revolutionary upheavals and an oversaturation of the doctor “market” in Yekaterinburg. The peak of the growing confrontation was an unexpected scandal for the participants in the spring of 1906. It unfolded because of the intolerant wording in a letter asking for help with finding a qualified ophthalmologist for the eye clinic created in Yekaterinburg. Some of the members of the UMS extremely painfully perceived the harsh assessments of the ambiguous act of A. A. Mislavsky, the oldest honorary doctor of Yekaterinburg. As a result, the anti-Semitic component became not an “unfortunate misunderstanding” but a large-scale exacerbation in the long-term confrontation. In addition, the search for reasonable compromises that had begun was interrupted by external interference, which led to a new round of conflict. As a result, a large-scale confrontation in the UMS, during which its leadership changed three times, ended in considerable losses in 1907. A logical consequence was the return to apoliticism as the basic principle of UMS’s activity.
1905-1907年在叶卡捷琳堡乌拉尔医学会(以下简称乌拉尔医学会)为期两年的对抗，此前并没有成为学术分析的对象。这主要是由于宗教方面的原因，即所有犹太医生都退出了该组织。叶卡捷琳堡企业医疗环境中的矛盾重构依赖于人类学历史框架下的历史遗传学方法。关于冲突参与者的资料，提交人参考了他建立的关于在彼尔姆省服役的医生的综合数据库。来自期刊出版社和档案基金的新文件对了解对抗的某些方面起着至关重要的作用。本文还原了20世纪初叶卡捷琳堡医疗公司中相互关联的客观和主观矛盾的复杂性，这种矛盾在1905-1907年的革命动荡中加剧。1905年春天对抗开始的决定性因素是统一运动背后的基本原则的实际侵蚀，即它的非政治性。这种情况从本组织成立开始就一直存在，这导致其长期成员之间的关系恶化。在尖锐的政治和人际分歧的核心是UMS成员对国家医疗保健的不同想法。在革命动荡和叶卡捷琳堡医生“市场”过度饱和的情况下，这种情况自然会加剧。1906年春天，对参与者来说，一个意想不到的丑闻是这场日益激烈的对抗的顶峰。这起事件的起因是，在叶卡捷琳堡开设的眼科诊所里，一封寻求帮助寻找合格眼科医生的信中措辞不宽容。叶卡捷琳堡最年长的荣誉博士a·a·米拉夫斯基(A. A. Mislavsky)模棱两可的行为所招致的严厉评价，让该协会的一些成员感到极其痛苦。其结果是，反犹太成分不是一种“不幸的误解”，而是长期对抗的大规模恶化。此外，已经开始的寻求合理妥协的努力因外来干涉而中断，从而导致了新一轮的冲突。结果，联合工会内部发生了大规模的对抗，领导层三次更换，最终在1907年损失惨重。一个合乎逻辑的结果是，回归到非政治主义，将其作为UMS活动的基本原则。
{"title":"Nationalist Conflict in the Medical Corporation of Yekaterinburg: A Case Study in the Early Twentieth-Century Crisis","authors":"E. Chernoukhov","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.804","url":null,"abstract":"The two-year confrontation in the Ural Medical Society (hereinafter – UMS) in Yekaterinburg in 1905–1907 has not been an object of scholarly analysis previously. This is largely due to the religious aspect, i. e. the withdrawal of all Jewish doctors from the organization. The reconstruction of contradictions in the corporate medical environment of Yekaterinburg relied on the historical-genetic method within the framework of anthropologically oriented history. For information about the participants in the conflict, the author refers to a consolidated database created by him on doctors who served in Perm province. New documents from periodical press and archival funds play an essential role in understanding certain aspects of the confrontation. The article restores a complex of interconnected objective and subjective contradictions in the medical corporation of Yekaterinburg in the early twentieth century, which was aggravated during the revolutionary upheavals of 1905–1907. The determining factor for the beginning of the confrontation in the spring of 1905 was the actual erosion of the basic principle behind the UMS, which was its being apolitical. It was consistently observed starting with the establishment of the organization, which led to a deterioration in relations between its long-standing members. At the heart of acute political and interpersonal disagreements were different ideas of UMS members on national healthcare. They naturally aggravated during revolutionary upheavals and an oversaturation of the doctor “market” in Yekaterinburg. The peak of the growing confrontation was an unexpected scandal for the participants in the spring of 1906. It unfolded because of the intolerant wording in a letter asking for help with finding a qualified ophthalmologist for the eye clinic created in Yekaterinburg. Some of the members of the UMS extremely painfully perceived the harsh assessments of the ambiguous act of A. A. Mislavsky, the oldest honorary doctor of Yekaterinburg. As a result, the anti-Semitic component became not an “unfortunate misunderstanding” but a large-scale exacerbation in the long-term confrontation. In addition, the search for reasonable compromises that had begun was interrupted by external interference, which led to a new round of conflict. As a result, a large-scale confrontation in the UMS, during which its leadership changed three times, ended in considerable losses in 1907. A logical consequence was the return to apoliticism as the basic principle of UMS’s activity.","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":"49003743","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 a historical paradox: the participation of former and present members of the secret Decembrist societies in suppressing the St Petersburg uprising on 14 December 1825, Decembrists against Decembrists. Thus, Colonel Vasily Perovsky, a former member of the Union of Welfare, Nicholas’s I adjutant, met Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, who arrived from Warsaw with a letter from Tsarevich Konstantin at the city outpost and then called troops loyal to the emperor to the square. Another adjutant, a member of the same Union, Colonel Alexander Kavelin, brought the young Tsarevich Alexander Nikolayevich (future Alexander II) to the Winter Palace and visited the mortally wounded Governor-General of St Petersburg Count Mikhail Miloradovich on behalf of the emperor. General Sergei Shipov, a member of the Union of Salvation and the Union of Prosperity, commanded the Guards Brigade and tried to prevent the Guards crew from joining the rebels. In a similar attempt, a member of the Union of Prosperity, Colonel Pavel Khvoshchinsky, was wounded in the Moscow Guards Regiment. That day, Alexander von Moller, colonel of the Finnish Guards Regiment, commanded the guards in the Winter Palace, the Admiralty, and the Senate. Officers-cavalry guards members of the St Petersburg branch of the Southern Society I. Annenkov, Prince A. Vyazemsky, H. Depreradovich, D. Artsybashev and a member of the Northern Society A. Muravyov, as well as a member of both secret societies cornet of the Guards Horse Regiment Prince A. Suvorov, participated in cavalry attacks on the rebels. Why and how did these people end up in the ranks of opponents of their comrades in secret societies? Can their actions be explained by something as banal as a betrayal? Did the participants in the uprising accept such an explanation? And how did Nicholas I take the revealed facts of officers’ participation in secret societies who took his side in the confrontation on 14 December? The author of the article puts forward answers to these questions.
{"title":"Senate Square: Decembrists Against Decembrists","authors":"V. Shkerin","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.797","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.797","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with a historical paradox: the participation of former and present members of the secret Decembrist societies in suppressing the St Petersburg uprising on 14 December 1825, Decembrists against Decembrists. Thus, Colonel Vasily Perovsky, a former member of the Union of Welfare, Nicholas’s I adjutant, met Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich, who arrived from Warsaw with a letter from Tsarevich Konstantin at the city outpost and then called troops loyal to the emperor to the square. Another adjutant, a member of the same Union, Colonel Alexander Kavelin, brought the young Tsarevich Alexander Nikolayevich (future Alexander II) to the Winter Palace and visited the mortally wounded Governor-General of St Petersburg Count Mikhail Miloradovich on behalf of the emperor. General Sergei Shipov, a member of the Union of Salvation and the Union of Prosperity, commanded the Guards Brigade and tried to prevent the Guards crew from joining the rebels. In a similar attempt, a member of the Union of Prosperity, Colonel Pavel Khvoshchinsky, was wounded in the Moscow Guards Regiment. That day, Alexander von Moller, colonel of the Finnish Guards Regiment, commanded the guards in the Winter Palace, the Admiralty, and the Senate. Officers-cavalry guards members of the St Petersburg branch of the Southern Society I. Annenkov, Prince A. Vyazemsky, H. Depreradovich, D. Artsybashev and a member of the Northern Society A. Muravyov, as well as a member of both secret societies cornet of the Guards Horse Regiment Prince A. Suvorov, participated in cavalry attacks on the rebels. Why and how did these people end up in the ranks of opponents of their comrades in secret societies? Can their actions be explained by something as banal as a betrayal? Did the participants in the uprising accept such an explanation? And how did Nicholas I take the revealed facts of officers’ participation in secret societies who took his side in the confrontation on 14 December? The author of the article puts forward answers to these questions.","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":"47402941","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}
In the 1960s–1970s, researchers focused on the figure of elder Kapiton when V. S. Shulgin and S. A. Zenkovsky simultaneously became interested in him. As a result, the image of an ascetic and charismatic leader formed, uniting small communities of followers around him. Of particular interest was the fact that Kapiton seemed to show some skepticism about some church practices before Patriarch Nikon’s liturgical reform. Thus, he appeared to be an “Old Believer” before the Raskol. While most of the documents about Kapiton’s activities rely on the testimonies of his opponents, the petition found in the State Archive of Vologda Region provides an exceptional opportunity to understand how his supporters perceived the elder. The petition shows that the monastery founded by Kapiton was divided into two opposing camps, the reconciliation between which was impossible. The sources created in these conditions deserve a particularly critical approach, so it is difficult to restore the ideas and practices characteristic of Kapiton on their basis.
{"title":"An Old Believer before the Schism: A New 17th-Century Document on Elder Kapiton","authors":"Aleksander Lavrov, A. Morokhin","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.809","url":null,"abstract":"In the 1960s–1970s, researchers focused on the figure of elder Kapiton when V. S. Shulgin and S. A. Zenkovsky simultaneously became interested in him. As a result, the image of an ascetic and charismatic leader formed, uniting small communities of followers around him. Of particular interest was the fact that Kapiton seemed to show some skepticism about some church practices before Patriarch Nikon’s liturgical reform. Thus, he appeared to be an “Old Believer” before the Raskol. While most of the documents about Kapiton’s activities rely on the testimonies of his opponents, the petition found in the State Archive of Vologda Region provides an exceptional opportunity to understand how his supporters perceived the elder. The petition shows that the monastery founded by Kapiton was divided into two opposing camps, the reconciliation between which was impossible. The sources created in these conditions deserve a particularly critical approach, so it is difficult to restore the ideas and practices characteristic of Kapiton on their basis.","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":"47225051","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 discusses the justification by Anton Kartashev, a Russian emigrant historian, theologian, and public figure for the ideal of Holy Rus’, which was supposed to serve as a religious basis for the creation of the cultural and historical identity of the representatives of the “second wave” of emigration from the Soviet Union during the Second World War. In the case study, the author of the article applies methods of “personal history” and “new intellectual history” to both historical works and such ego documents as letters published and stored in the Bakhmeteff Archive of Russian and East European Culture at Columbia University. Considering the genesis of the concept of Holy Rus’ in the publications of Karashev before the war, the author of the article shows the influence on the content of the political views of the public man who followed the principles of centrism, intransigence, and non-precondition. Along with this, the article reveals the links between the historical and cultural, canonical and dogmatic justifications of the ideal in his narratives which were constructed as the Hegelian triad: thesis – antithesis – synthesis. Kartashev represented the process of transformation of the emerging symphony of church and state in Ancient Rus’ and Muscovite State through its denial in the laic culture of the Russian Empire after the Petrine reforms into a new desired symphony of church and society. The central place in the article is occupied by the characteristics of changes among Russian émigrés at the end and after the Second World War and by the explanation of the impact of these changes on the motivation of Kartashev to present his vision of the ideal of Holy Rus’ in a form of a book. As a result of studying the long process of preparing the edition and the subsequent reviewing and discussion of the book, it is shown that this ideal was perceived ambiguously. Such perception of Kartashev’s book was influenced by the complication of ideological divisions among Russian emigrants as a result of the spread among the part of them of the mood of “Soviet patriotism” and the addition to their ranks of anti-Soviet-minded “displaced persons” from the Soviet Union, as well as differences in the vision of life prospects by the representatives of the “older” generations of refugees who had to leave Soviet Russia soon after the revolution and the “younger” one, who were entering into life abroad. As a result, most of the participants in the discussion of the book, speaking kindly about the author, nevertheless emphasized their disagreement with both the political and religious-dogmatic justifications of the ideal of Holy Rus’ as a basis for their cultural and historical identity.
{"title":"Anton Vladimirovich Kartashev as a Prophet not in His Own Country","authors":"A. Antoshchenko","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.811","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the justification by Anton Kartashev, a Russian emigrant historian, theologian, and public figure for the ideal of Holy Rus’, which was supposed to serve as a religious basis for the creation of the cultural and historical identity of the representatives of the “second wave” of emigration from the Soviet Union during the Second World War. In the case study, the author of the article applies methods of “personal history” and “new intellectual history” to both historical works and such ego documents as letters published and stored in the Bakhmeteff Archive of Russian and East European Culture at Columbia University. Considering the genesis of the concept of Holy Rus’ in the publications of Karashev before the war, the author of the article shows the influence on the content of the political views of the public man who followed the principles of centrism, intransigence, and non-precondition. Along with this, the article reveals the links between the historical and cultural, canonical and dogmatic justifications of the ideal in his narratives which were constructed as the Hegelian triad: thesis – antithesis – synthesis. Kartashev represented the process of transformation of the emerging symphony of church and state in Ancient Rus’ and Muscovite State through its denial in the laic culture of the Russian Empire after the Petrine reforms into a new desired symphony of church and society. The central place in the article is occupied by the characteristics of changes among Russian émigrés at the end and after the Second World War and by the explanation of the impact of these changes on the motivation of Kartashev to present his vision of the ideal of Holy Rus’ in a form of a book. As a result of studying the long process of preparing the edition and the subsequent reviewing and discussion of the book, it is shown that this ideal was perceived ambiguously. Such perception of Kartashev’s book was influenced by the complication of ideological divisions among Russian emigrants as a result of the spread among the part of them of the mood of “Soviet patriotism” and the addition to their ranks of anti-Soviet-minded “displaced persons” from the Soviet Union, as well as differences in the vision of life prospects by the representatives of the “older” generations of refugees who had to leave Soviet Russia soon after the revolution and the “younger” one, who were entering into life abroad. As a result, most of the participants in the discussion of the book, speaking kindly about the author, nevertheless emphasized their disagreement with both the political and religious-dogmatic justifications of the ideal of Holy Rus’ as a basis for their cultural and historical identity.","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":"46968793","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 attitude to Moscow of Grand Princes Nicholas Alexandrovich and Alexander Alexandrovich; the latter became Emperor Alexander III afterwards. The opinion has taken root in historiography and become self-evident that the peacemaker tsar loved the ancient capital like no other ruler of the Russian Empire. The article aims to reconstruct the attitude of Alexander III and his elder brother to Moscow and understand why it arose and how it changed over time. The research methodology considers the achievements of the new political history, the history of everyday life, and the history of emotions. The article refers to unpublished letters, diaries, and memoirs of contemporaries, the grand princes’ diaries, and their correspondence with Alexander II, Empress Maria Alexandrovna, Grand Princes Mikhail Nikolaevich, and Vladimir Alexandrovich, which have not been introduced into scholarly circulation previously. The analysis makes it possible to assert that warm feelings for Mother See did not arise in the tsar-liberator’s eldest sons immediately. The formation of their attitude toward the ancient capital was influenced by professors of Moscow University invited to teach the Grand Princes, such as statistician I. K. Babst, lawyer K. P. Pobedonostsev, and historian S. M. Solovyov. Also, the princes were influenced by the conservative Moscow periodicals they read and Empress Maria Alexandrovna. Unlike the Tsarina, Alexander II was suspicious of the Moscow public, which seemed insufficiently loyal to him. Therefore, his sons’ positive attitude towards Moscow and its society was not something taken for granted. At the same time, attempts to influence the sympathies of the grand princes to the ancient capital pursued the goal not so much to stimulate the tsarevichs’ interest in Moscow antiquities as to make them supporters of “people’s autocracy”, as well as adherents of the “national policy”. In conclusion, the author analyzes the phrase attributed to Alexander III that “Moscow is the temple of Russia, and the Kremlin is its altar” providing arguments about the doubtfulness of its authorship.
{"title":"Moscow as Perceived by Alexander II’s Elder Sons","authors":"F. Melentev","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.2.799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.2.799","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the attitude to Moscow of Grand Princes Nicholas Alexandrovich and Alexander Alexandrovich; the latter became Emperor Alexander III afterwards. The opinion has taken root in historiography and become self-evident that the peacemaker tsar loved the ancient capital like no other ruler of the Russian Empire. The article aims to reconstruct the attitude of Alexander III and his elder brother to Moscow and understand why it arose and how it changed over time. The research methodology considers the achievements of the new political history, the history of everyday life, and the history of emotions. The article refers to unpublished letters, diaries, and memoirs of contemporaries, the grand princes’ diaries, and their correspondence with Alexander II, Empress Maria Alexandrovna, Grand Princes Mikhail Nikolaevich, and Vladimir Alexandrovich, which have not been introduced into scholarly circulation previously. The analysis makes it possible to assert that warm feelings for Mother See did not arise in the tsar-liberator’s eldest sons immediately. The formation of their attitude toward the ancient capital was influenced by professors of Moscow University invited to teach the Grand Princes, such as statistician I. K. Babst, lawyer K. P. Pobedonostsev, and historian S. M. Solovyov. Also, the princes were influenced by the conservative Moscow periodicals they read and Empress Maria Alexandrovna. Unlike the Tsarina, Alexander II was suspicious of the Moscow public, which seemed insufficiently loyal to him. Therefore, his sons’ positive attitude towards Moscow and its society was not something taken for granted. At the same time, attempts to influence the sympathies of the grand princes to the ancient capital pursued the goal not so much to stimulate the tsarevichs’ interest in Moscow antiquities as to make them supporters of “people’s autocracy”, as well as adherents of the “national policy”. In conclusion, the author analyzes the phrase attributed to Alexander III that “Moscow is the temple of Russia, and the Kremlin is its altar” providing arguments about the doubtfulness of its authorship.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":"57 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41288072","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：