Царь и мятежники: Николай I о предыстории и уроках декабристского мятежа
The article restores Nikolay I perception of reasons and consequences of the Decembrist uprising.
This volume brings together twenty four articles by eminent historians from around Europe, presented in form of papers at the international conference on the Crimean War (1853-1856) held in Warsaw in 2007.
The article is devoted to the significance of the Constitution of Cadiz for bilateral relationship between Spain and Russia at the beginning of the XIX century and its intellectual importance for Russian society.
It shows that after two years of secret contacts between R.Koshelev, the representative of the Russian Emperor, on one hand, and A.Colombi, substituted later by F.Cea Bermúdez, on the other hand (both nominated by the national power as representatives of Spain, appointed to negotiate on military and political alliance), and after the begging of the invasion of the Napoleonic troops in the territory of Russia in June, 1812 developed to be official contacts.The negotiations culminated in the celebration of Russian-Spanish treaty, which was signed on July, 20, 1812 in Velikii Luki by F.Cea Bermúdez and N. Rumiántsev. Article 3 of the treaty stated that the Russian tsar Alexander I recognized the Constitution of 1812, so in that he was the first monarch in Europe. However the second promulgation of the Constitution of Cadiz in 1820 provoced admiration of the progressive part of the Russian society and hostility of the Emperor and his court.The intellectual importance of the Constitution of 1812 for the progressive part of the Russian society was outstanding. It became a symbol of the victory of the revolutionary and anti-absolutist movement for many Russians. The practical significance of the Constitution of 1812 in Russia is noted: the decembrist N.Muraviev took as models some of its provisions elaborating his constitutional projects.
The Constitution of 1812 was an object of scientific interest of Russian and Soviet historians, who emphasized its role in the political evolution of Spain in the European context. In the 30s of the XX century Soviet researchers paid particular attention to its role as the act of of the Spanish people`s protest. Both lines of the estimation of the Constitution were persued during the II part of the XXth century. First publications of Russian and Soviet authors devoted to the Constitution of 1812 demonstrated particular attention to its legal analisys in the contexst of the constitutional development of Spain and another European countries.
Thebook considers ideological, political, religious, cultural, and everyday life aspects of "the Decembrists and France" theme. The French liberalism is show to have played a role in the shaping of Decembrists ideology. The book also contains comparative historical analysis of the Enlightenment and liberal ideas in France and in Russia. These subjects are considered against the general background of the cultural and political life in France and Russia in the late 18 and early 19 centuries; the book is based on a large number of sources, many of which have not been addressed by scholars before.
For specialists in history, philology, cultural studies, and for the general readership with and interest in the problems of cultural interaction.
The article is devoted to the influence of the Spanish Constitution of 1812 to the constitutionalism of the Russian Empire in the first quarter of the XIX. The author demonstrates the attention of different circles of Russian society to the national liberation movement of the Spanish people against France in 1808-1814 and to the Revolution of 1820-1823 in Spain as well as the Spanish events coverage in the Russian press. Effect of inspiring of the Fundamental law of 1812, enacted in Spain also in 1820 is noticed to be an example for the Russians to pursue for their Motherland. Particular attention is given to the constitutional ideas of members of secret societies, the future of the Decembrists, the motion of which is studied in the context of the "military revolution" in Europe. The researcher analyzes the influence of the Spanish constitution of 1812 on P.Pestel, author of "Russkaya Pravda" (project of the Southern secret society) and N. Muraviev who prepared the constitutional project, which we can study in three editions.
In this paper, I will discuss the existing candidates for action-defining entities and structures (the entities and structures which make some X an action) and propose one more candidate. First, I will examine the standard causal theory which became mainstream in analytical philosophy (although this situation is starting to change). Then I will sketch some arguments against the causal theory of action stemming from the works of earlier analytic philosophers, especially from Wittgenstein’s reflections on the nature of the action. Next, I will try to address the problems of action theory by introducing the concept of will as distinguishing feature of actions. Finally, I will discuss the difficulties concerning the concept of will as I construe it in this paper.
The present study simultaneously belongs to literary studies and to social history, including the history of culture and of political ideas. Indeed it concerns attitudes about the tsar in Russia during various periods of Russian history, and the linguistic - and more generally speaking, semiotic - means in which these attitudes were manifested. Obviously, this is connected to the history of political views. It is demonstrated how differing attitides toward the tsar correlate with various stages of Russian political and cultural history; how diverse aspects of Russian cultural life converged around this question; and how in different periods the very same texts could be interpreted as having very different content, relating to the interests of the particular time.
The political preconditions for the sacralization of the monarch in Russia were twofold. On the one hand, this was the transference onto the tsar of Moscow the functions of the Byzantine basileius, that could be realized both in the conception of Moscow as the Third Rome, which was contrasted to Byzantium, and in the later Byzantanization of the Russian state and ecclesiastical life (beginning in the reign of Aleksei Mikhailovich). On the other hand, this was the tsar’s assimilation of the functions of head of the church (beginning with the reign of Peter I). The very combination of these two essentially contradictory tendencies only became possible in the conditions of Baroque culture, insofar as texts that were authoritative for cultural consciousness could be reconceptualized in any direction within a Baroque framework.