19-20 世纪之交 "别拉亚-克里尼察同意 "的老信徒为俄罗斯皇帝祈祷的问题

IF 0.4 4区综合性期刊 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.1134/s1019331623070134

N. A. Starukhin

{"title":"19-20 世纪之交 \"别拉亚-克里尼察同意 \"的老信徒为俄罗斯皇帝祈祷的问题","authors":"N. A. Starukhin","doi":"10.1134/s1019331623070134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Abstract</h3><p>An unknown anti-encyclical essay of the 1890s is introduced into scientific circulation, which is attributed to the authoritative Belaya Krinitsa public figure M.I. Brilliantov. One of the copies of this work, which is part of a collection obtained at one time as a result of field research by Siberian archaeographers, is used. The main range of sources for this work has been identified. The internal causes of a major conflict in the Belaya Krinitsa Consent, provoked by the release of the “<i>Okruzhnoe Poslanie</i>” (Encyclical Letter) in February 1862, and the main lines of argumentation of the apologist from Belaya Krinitsa are explored. It is shown that the essay sums up the many years of polemics between the <i>okruzhnik</i> (encyclical) and <i>neokruzhnik</i> (nonencyclical) groupings.</p>","PeriodicalId":56335,"journal":{"name":"Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Problems of Praying for Russian Emperors among the Old Believers of the Belaya Krinitsa Consent at the Turn of the 19th–20th Centuries\",\"authors\":\"N. A. Starukhin\",\"doi\":\"10.1134/s1019331623070134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Abstract</h3><p>An unknown anti-encyclical essay of the 1890s is introduced into scientific circulation, which is attributed to the authoritative Belaya Krinitsa public figure M.I. Brilliantov. One of the copies of this work, which is part of a collection obtained at one time as a result of field research by Siberian archaeographers, is used. The main range of sources for this work has been identified. The internal causes of a major conflict in the Belaya Krinitsa Consent, provoked by the release of the “<i>Okruzhnoe Poslanie</i>” (Encyclical Letter) in February 1862, and the main lines of argumentation of the apologist from Belaya Krinitsa are explored. It is shown that the essay sums up the many years of polemics between the <i>okruzhnik</i> (encyclical) and <i>neokruzhnik</i> (nonencyclical) groupings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1134/s1019331623070134\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1134/s1019331623070134","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 19 世纪 90 年代一篇不为人知的反历法文章被引入科学流通领域，这篇文章的作者是具有权威性的 Belaya Krinitsa 公众人物 M.I. Brilliantov。本文使用了该作品的一个副本，它是西伯利亚考古学家在一次实地研究中获得的藏品的一部分。该作品的主要资料来源已经确定。探讨了 1862 年 2 月发布的 "Okruzhnoe Poslanie"（通谕）所引发的 "Belaya Krinitsa Consent "重大冲突的内部原因，以及 "Belaya Krinitsa "辩护士的主要论点。文章总结了 Okruzhnik（通谕派）和 neokruzhnik（非通谕派）之间多年的论战。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Problems of Praying for Russian Emperors among the Old Believers of the Belaya Krinitsa Consent at the Turn of the 19th–20th Centuries

Abstract

An unknown anti-encyclical essay of the 1890s is introduced into scientific circulation, which is attributed to the authoritative Belaya Krinitsa public figure M.I. Brilliantov. One of the copies of this work, which is part of a collection obtained at one time as a result of field research by Siberian archaeographers, is used. The main range of sources for this work has been identified. The internal causes of a major conflict in the Belaya Krinitsa Consent, provoked by the release of the “Okruzhnoe Poslanie” (Encyclical Letter) in February 1862, and the main lines of argumentation of the apologist from Belaya Krinitsa are explored. It is shown that the essay sums up the many years of polemics between the okruzhnik (encyclical) and neokruzhnik (nonencyclical) groupings.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

141

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences provides a broad coverage of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ activities. It publishes original works, surveys, speeches, and discussions with participation of the members of Russian Academy of Sciences, leading scientists in Russia and worldwide and presents various viewpoints on important subjects related to all fields of science. The journal addresses the questions of scientist’s role in society and the role of scientific knowledge in the modern world.