The article explores the role of accounting and reforms of financial management practices in 18th century Russian state administration and finance combining historical and comparative levels of analysis.
In this article the author considers only imagined gifts, those that never were presented in reality but nevertheless turned to be pivotal for many rulers, seeking to legitimize their audacious political ambitions. The best examples of such imagined gifts were those values and privileges that the popes allegedly received from Constantine the Great after his conversion to Christianity. The fictitious generosity of Constantine was invented in "his" famous detailed charter forged in the 8th or 9th century. But other imagined gifts, also possessing strong legitimizing effect, used to come into being in the same way, due to equally elaborated narratives. As the principality of Moscow was striving for regional dominance in the 15th and 16th centuries, a series of influential texts were composed, describing and explaining the gifts of extraordinary political and symbolic relevance, allegedly made either to ancestors of the ruling dynasty, or to predecessors of the highest church dignitaries. The most known among those writings are the anonymous Tale of the Nowgorodian white clow and the Tale of the princes of Vladimir, as well as the Epistle on the Monomachos Crown by Spiridon-Savva. These texts claimed that the secular potentates of Moscow, as well as ecclesiastical heads of Novgorod had been presented in the past with invaluable insignia, either symbolizing the succession to the Roman emperors, or testifying the special benevolence of God. As the author finally argues, the morphology of these imagined gifts was mainly the same as of those in the Donation of Constantine: no really new regalia were created, but the ones, already existing, were vested with quite new, and nobler, significance, able to ensure a higher level of legitimacy for their possessors. Therefore the ways, how such imagined gifts used to be invented, seem to be substantially identical throughout Europe.
The focus of this article is on a specific aspect of the recent state of historical research in Russia: the problem of universalization (cognitive and institutional) of Russian historical studies and recognition of the Russian scholars’ knowledge claims. Cognitive aspects of the “restructuring” of science, research themes, the state of the disciplinary community and communicative strategies, position of historians in the humanities establishment and relationships with the authorities are studied.
This paper is aimed to identify theoretical problems, which arise when studying the preconditions of and obstacles to the participation of the Russian historians in international scientific discussion. The investigation is based on the concepts of centre-periphery and cultural transfer. The key question is why, how and when the new historical knowledge developed by the Russian scholars became - or, as an extreme case, have not become - part of global scientific heritage. Discussion of ‘presence’ in the global science is connected not so much with the aftermath of autarchy during the socialist period as with the difficulties of adapting to new conditions of existence as a ‘normal’ discipline and the rigors of being a ’poor‘ science. In this article we review not only specifics of the transfer of knowledge produced by Russian historians, but also specifics of reception preceding it.
This article also contains analysis of all publications of Russian historians in foreign historical journals, included in the database Web of Science in 1993–2008 which are examined combining quantitative measures-number of articles and their citation indices - with qualitative analysis of publications.
book review of Gerd Stricker: Geschichte der russischen orthodoxen Kirche in der Diaspora
During the First World War, heroes and soldiers who “sacrificed their lives for the Father- land” were seen ambiguously in various segments of Russian society. The article analyzes the representation of those fallen at the two poles of Russian culture: in the official dis- course generated by the high and middle class urban ‘educated society’ and in the ‘com - mon’ discourse of villagers and urban dwellers who were culturally close to them. The study draws on official accounts, periodicals, popular literature, folklore (songs, poems, laments), peasant’s letters, and recorded conversations. The official patriotic discourse sacralized and romanticized the images of the fallen he - roes. In the traditional rural culture, attitudes towards the death on the battlefield and the posthumous fate of those fallen were articulated within different discourses, to which the binary opposition “hero” vs. “not hero” was not central. Here, the war victims were often regarded as needless sacrifices. Not only were they believed to be lost forever for their loved ones and for the communities they had belonged to, but also as disadvantaged and facing trouble in their afterlife. However, at both poles the ideas were changing in the course of the war. In the official ‘romantic-heroic’ discourse, the emphasis initially was on heroic deeds of brave individuals and gradually shifted towards the image of anonymous, sublime and tragic mass sacrifice, producing a cult of fallen soldiers. The warfare tech - niques changed, and the widespread use of weapons of mass destruction and of long- range artillery restricted the individuals’ opportunities for showing courage and led to de- personalization of heroes. This depersonalization crisis was resolved in the official dis- course by way of a gradual equalization of “heroes” and “the fallen”. The ‘popular’ front-line discourse took a rapid way from peasant fatalism and religiously motivated self-sacrificing victimhood, which was involuntary and not reflected upon, to- ward cynical and cold-blooded desacralization and depreciation of this sacrifice. These two discourses had little in common besides the religious motivation and the rhetoric of heroism. They were inherently different in terms of contents and articulation intensity. In a revised form, both discourses were later to be used by the Bolsheviks to compro- mise patriotism in Tsarist Russia and to develop Soviet rituals for honoring the “soldiers of the revolution”.
The article reconstructs the circumstances of adopting the first artistic conventions that allowed Russian artists at the beginning of the nineteenth century to create their first versions of the national past. The origin of new visual symbols such as national heroes, costumes, and typical ethnic looks is dated and their semantics deciphered based on the analysis of such sources as notes describing the motifs to be pictured in history paintings as well as patriotic press publications and pieces of history painting and sculpture. Their reception by the public and the complications of their subsequent verbal conceptualization are presented within the context of a controversy between the publishers of two art journals of the 1820s, Paul Svinyin and Vasily Grigorovich. Vishlenkova believes that the priority of visual language in the Russian national project had to do with the specific cultural situation of the Russian Empire, particularly at the turn of the nineteenth century. A low literacy rate meant that Russian elites could not rely on verbal language as a tool for mobilizing support and generating imperial, ethnic, and national solidarities. That's why students of nationalism find no convincing written evidence of a Russian national consciousness either in the eighteenth century or in the first three decades of the nineteenth. In contrast to their unsuccessful efforts, Vishlenkova’s analysis of the visual language of describing the past detects elements of the national imagination of the time at issue. The author defines the 1830s as a turning point in the evolution of Russian ways to see the national past: the convention between the artists and their audience changed, resulting in a substitution of document-based symbols for symbolic representations of the Russian past. This convention revision antiquated the early nineteenth century history paintings, and rendered the signs of the national employed in them incomprehensible.
This study is an attempt to present the political organization of Rus’ in the 10th century reevaluating the much debated role of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Rus’ian polity.
A large number of Scandinavians (mostly from Sweden and Gotland) migrated to Eastern Europe in the 9th – middle of the 11th centuries. This fact is clear from the historical, linguistic and archeological evidence accumulated to date. However, there is much unclear about results and significance of this migration. Particularly controversial is the question if and how it related to the formation of the political structures of Rus’ which united a variety of peoples (gentes) in Eastern Europe in the 10-11th centuries.
I examine the elite of Kievan Rus’ in the middle of the 10th century. The original sources from this time give us some valuable information on the political organization and social hierarchy of Rus’. Two of these sources are of particular importance in the case: the treaty of 944 between Rus’ and Byzantium (a copy included in the “Tale of Bygone Years”) and the description of the embassy of Olga, princess of Rus’, to Constantinople in 957 given by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogentis in his treatise “De Ceremoniis” (II, 15). In my opinion there are some correspondences between the evidence on Rus’ in these two texts which have not been noticed or articulated in the debates on the texts. Emphasizing these correspondences and referring to other sources’ data I attempt a consistent description of the elite of Kievan Rus’. I conclude that the Rus’ of the middle of the 10th century was, politically and territorially, an association of 25 non-tribal administrative units located mostly along the famous “route from the Varangians to the Greeks”. These units or most of them were headed by Scandinavian leaders who formally recognized a superiority of the Kievan prince. This model disagrees sharply with a picture created by the Rus’ian chronicles of the 11th – early 12th centuries who exalted the Rurikid’s dynasty and did not mention in their narratives any other leaders or clans of Rus’ competing to it. My conclusions aim at verifying this picture and considering a contribution of the Scandinavians to political developments in medieval Rus’.
The study explores the parameters and factors of internationalization of Russian historical science in 2000–2015. Through a bibliometric analysis of publications and journals from the Web of Science database the study assesses the overall representation of Russian historians in the international scientific community, and determines the usability of journal databases for the research of effectiveness of internationalization strategies.
In addition to the quantitative indicators (the number of publications and references), this research sets qualitative features of the articles of Russian historians: distribution by the type of the journal, top themes, changes in the content of publications during the analyzed period, as well as comparative profiling of the historians' publication activity per research and educational institutions, and countries.
The article focuses on the dynamics of power and resistance in the state anti-cholera campaigns in one of Russian imperial borderlands, the Kazakh steppe, in the nineteenth century. In exploring the strategies of handling disease by the Russian authorities it questions the notion of indifference of the Russian state towards the medical needs of the indigenous populations and addresses a complex of factors that influenced the directions of Russian medical policies in the steppe, their scope, pace and limits.
Chronologically, the study is concentrated on the two greatest outbreaks of the epidemic: the one of 1829−1831, which marked the first appearance of cholera in the Russian empire and set the pat tern for dealing with the disease, and the one of 1892, which is regarded as the most devastating cholera epidemic in Russia. Geographically the study is confined to the Western part of the Kazakh steppe, governed from the city of Orenburg for the most of the nineteenth century.
The struggle against cholera in the Kazakh steppe demonstrates that the state public health efforts in the steppe were often undermined by conflicting programmes of the central and local administra tion, which was particularly evident in the quarantine policies. They were further constrained by the lack of unanimity among the doctors, whose agency in the delivery of health care to the nomads was pivotal. The differences in their professional outlooks inspired rivalry and latent conflicts between them. The sanitary initiatives of the Russian administration were also restricted by the scant know ledge of the nomads’ private lives which even in the end of the century remained largely hidden from the alien rulers. The various modes of resistance to sanitary measures by Kazakhs were setting up limitations for the state power and testing its efficiency in handling epidemics. The non-cooperation of Kazakhs exposed the divide between the rulers and the ruled and signalled the need for the Russian officials to gain Kazakhs’ trust.
Analytical review of the fundamental work of A. Walicki on the history of Russian thought.
Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, roughly translatable as an “outline of the history of philosophy”, is a monumental undertaking that aims to cover the whole of the history of philosophy as comprehensively, correctly, and objectively as humanly possible. For English-speaking readers, it may be comparable to a mixture of a biographical encyclopedia and a handbook or companion. In addition, most chapterscontain detailed doxographical overviews of philosophical works. Comprehensive bibliographies both of sources and the secondary literature are contained in the volume as well.
Review on: Katrin Boeckh / Oleh Turij (Hg.), Religiöse Pluralität als Faktor des Politischen in der Ukraine
This paper discusses the genesis of a basic concept of moral discourse – the concept of “justice” [spravedlivost’] – in Russian culture. This study was inspired by the lack of Russian and foreign research of the evolution of the concept of “justice” in the Russian language. The methodological basis of this work is the late Wittgenstein’s philosophical principles of interpreting social phenomena through the real word usage. This paper presents historical study of “justice” on the basis of sources from the late 11th through the 20th century. The analysis consists of two stages: 1) Identifying the time of the appearance of a given word-concept in the Russian language and explaining its origins in its socio-cultural con- text; and 2) tracing the semantic evolution of the concept in connection with social and cultural dynamics.
The Political Organization of Rus' in the 10th Century This study is an attempt to present the political organization of Rus' in the 10th century reevaluating the much debated role of the Scandinavians in the formation of the Rus'ian polity. A large number of Scandinavians (mosdy from Sweden and Gotland) migrated to Eastern Europe in the 9th - middle of the 11th centuries. This fact is clear from the historical, linguistic and archeological evidence accumulated to date. However, much is unclear about the results and significance of this migration. Particularly controversial is the question if and how it came to be related with the formation of the political structures of Rus' which united a variety of peoples (gentes) in Eastern Europe in the 10th - 11th centuries. In this paper I examine the elite of Kievan Rus' in the middle of the 10th century. The original sources from that time give us some valuable information on the political organization and social hierarchy of Rus'. Two of these sources are of particular importance: the treaty of 944 between Rus' and Byzantium (a copy is included in the Tale of Bygone Years) and the description of the embassy of Olga, princess of Rus', to Constantinople in 957 given by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his treatise De Ceremoniis (II, 15). In my opinion there is some corresponding evidence on Rus' in these two texts which has not been noticed or articulated in the debates on the texts. Emphasizing these correspondences and referring to the witnesses of other sources I attempt a consistent de- scription of the elite of Kievan Rus'. I conclude that the Rus' of the middle of the 10th : century was, politically and territorially, an association of 25 non-tribal administrative units located mostly along the famous "Route from the Varangians to the Greeks". These units or most of them were headed by Scandinavian leaders who formally recognized a superiority of the Kievan prince. This model disagrees sharply with the picture created by the Rus'ian chronicles of the 11th - early 12th centuries which exalt the Rurikid dynasty and do not mention in their narratives any other competing leaders or clans. My study aims at verifying this picture and considering a contribution of the Scandinavians to political de-1 velopments in medieval Rus'.
The article describes the history of voluntary associations and the civil society in Russia during World War I. The author shows that self-mobilization was the main aim of the Russian civil society at the beginning of World War I. The author discusses how the Russian civil society adapted to the war conditions and formed the special type of 'mobilization society' reflected in the participation of associations of the two Russian capitals in different campaigns of the War period: the struggle against German dominance in spiritual life, economy and commerce, "Alliance with England", solidarity with the "fellow Slavs". The case of the two capitals is perfectly representative of the rest of the country. Obshchestvennost` was equally, if no more than the state, invested in designing and pulling these rallies through.The article is based on a wide range of sources, including the documents stored in central Russian libtraries and archives (RGIA, GARF).