Search results

The article examines the early stage of cooperation between the writer and philosopher P.P. Pertsov and the conservative newspaper Novoe Vremya (1868–1917). Fragments of Pertsov's archival correspondence with the philosophical writer V.V. Rozanov, Pertsov's father and the critic of the liberal magazine «Russian wealth» A.G. Gornfeld are partially introduced into scientific circulation. The author analyzes the reasons for Pertsov's difficult attitude to the publisher and editor of Novoye Vremya, the playwright and founder of the Maly theater in St. Petersburg, A.S. Suvorin. The author substantiates the conclusion about Pertsov's fundamental differences related to the position of Novoye Vremya in the case of the French officer A. Dreyfus. An overview of Pertsov's publications in the newspaper related to the beginning of his collaboration with the newspaper is given. The author traces the evolution of the attitude of a young critic, a liberal in the recent past, to the «New time». Russian Russian theater and drama is the first time that Pertsov's correspondence with A. Suvorin is introduced into scientific circulation, filled with reflections on Russian theater and Russian dramaturgy. The letters discuss Pertsov's theatrical articles: «About the new theater» (about the production of a play by the German playwright G. Gauptmana «Lonely») and «a Satire or a drama» (about productions of new plays by A.P. Chekhov). Pertsov and Suvorin discuss performances of the Art public theater (Moscow art theater), which opened in Moscow in 1898. In a polemic with a young critic, Suvorin defended the national theater, represented by plays by Russian playwrights, primarily A.N. Ostrovsky. Pertsov advocated a new theater, focused primarily on the production of plays by modern playwrights regardless of their nationality.

The article explores the biographies of Peter Kisel and Cimafiej Hurka, who represented the Viciebsk district at the Diet of 1569 and directly participated in the conclusion of the Union of Lublin. For a long time in historiography, attention was paid only to the most influential figures of this Diet. However, the simple, «unremarkable» representatives of the wide circles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania' nobility played their role in the negotiations on the union. Interests and ideas, conscious and values, and finally, the personal experience of these people directly determined their social and political position, and therefore, to one degree or another, the life of the entire state. The aim of research is to reflect the most important forms of social activity of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania' petty and middle nobility in the second half of the 16th century on the example of two Viciebsk noblemen's unique destinies. It shows the influence of the military and political events of the 1560s on political activities of Peter Kisel and Cimafiej Hurka. The Livonian War's experience definitely influenced their position on the conclusion of the union between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Kingdom in 1569. The author concludes that it was the cardinal transformations of the 1560s (state reforms, the establishment of the Commonwealth) that allowed them to actively participate in a public life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It also enabled Kisel and Hurka noble families to take a firm place among the political elite of the Viciebsk district for a long time. It is emphasized that a detailed study of «unremarkable» noblemen's biographies provides advanced research of the noble estate of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The article examines the features of memoir narration in the memoirs of Boris Egorov, distinguished by both a special interest in personal history, inscribed in the general historical course, and the need to return again in memory to previously visited significant places. A passionate love of memories is combined in the author's biography, marked by an unquenchable thirst for wandering, with a fondness for travel. Memories become a journey through the places of personal memory and appear as a journey into the depths of personal history. As a historian of Russian culture, one who professionally deals with the past and interprets the events of the image/svg+xml past, the author of the memoirs clearly understands that these events will certainly leave a mark, if not in documents, then in the human soul, so that the past continues to live in the present and to influence it. Memories of Boris Egorov are a way not only of reproducing, but also transforming pictures of the past, highlighted in the memory of the memoirist: the uniqueness of personality and the uniqueness of private biography allow us to see and comprehend everything that happened in the life of society and individuals in a new way.

The article deals with the main milestones of the biography of Doctor of History, Professor N.V. Minaeva, who worked at the Faculty of History of Moscow Pedagogical State University for almost half a centuryin the context of the history of her family, which largely reflected the dramatic and tragic pages of the Soviet era. The author shares his impressions of communication with N.V. Minaeva, tells about her character traits, life position, her as a teacher and a scientist. For the first time, a systematic bibliography of her scientific works is provided.

In light of the release of the Russian translation of Max Weber's "Economy and society", the article examines the relationship between the socio-economic views of Weber and Marx, and analyzes Weber's position on the possibilities of the creation, functioning, and prospects of a socialist economy. An important question is also investigated about the connection of various aspects of Weber's biography with the peculiarities of his theoretical position. In particular, the concept of the "iron cage", which served as an explanation for Weber's theoretical positions in American sociology of the 20th century, is criticized.

The article deals with the letters of A. Chekhov's friends, the writer
M. Kiselyeva and her husband A. Kiselyev, Head of Zvenigorod zemstvo, to Chekhov.
In chronological order this collection covers the most significant period of Chekhov's
biography, from 1886 to 1900, and unfolds many aspects of his life in the Babkino
area and Zvenigorod zemstvo. There were many persons who came into different
contacts with Chekhov (their notes, though not found and studied so far, do wait in
the wings; in particular, one source is P. Arkhangelsky's memoirs). There were many
epistolary and memoir documents (contemporary writers' letters, the young Chekhovs' letters, N. Golubeva's (M. Kiselyeva's sister) notes, and many others). The
Kiselyevs' 109 letters can be regarded valuable in terms of their deliberate mundane
character as there are more 'non-literary' letters but at the same time they are not
trivial at all. This fact enables the researcher to have a different perspective on somewhat pragmatic (A. Kiselyev's stories about the zemstvo's everyday routine; M. Kiselyeva's stories about her mystical visions; their complaints about their financial and
health problems) and linguistic (word play, puns, vivid descriptions, life events
presented as jokes) character of the Kiselyevs' correspondence with Chekhov, and
to extend the borders of the writer's biography. Thus a different understanding of
Chekhov's storylines can be suggested. These letters also reveal some aspects of the
life of Chekhov and his family members; they enable the author to interpret variously literary legacy of various writers, to consider the stories of their works' creation,
the characters' prototypes and artistic forms from a different angle.

Рецензируемое исследование представляет собой первый опыт систематического изложения биографии крупнейшего вологодского купца XVII столетия Г.М. Фетиева, а также сводной публикации документальных материалов, связанных с его торговой и служебной деятельностью. Оно подводит итог почти двадцати лет работы автора – видного российского медиевиста, доктора исторических наук М.С. Черкасовой.
The study under review is the first attempt of a systematic presentation of Gavriil (Gavrila) Fetiev's biography, the largest Vologda merchant of the 17th century and a consolidated publication of documentary materials related to his trading and official activities. It summarizes almost twenty years of work of the author, Doctor of Historical Sciences, prominent Russian medievalist Marina S. Cherkasova.

The article touches upon characteristic features of a so-called Volto del Cavallo, a Renaissance portal on the rulers' d'Este palace facade in the 15th century Ferrara. It's analyzed in the process of its gradual formation and in the context of such problems as time (in terms of a private biography as well as historically), space (palatial space, that of Ferrara as a city, space of the Quattrocento Ecumene), glory and last but not least memory of Ferrara leaders. This range of Volto del Cavallo parallel interpretations tends to be new and brings one to a conclusion that each aspect in question, when looked at in connection with the discussed portal was engaged in glorification of the d'Este power.

The article is a tribute of respect to the memory of Gennady Evgenyevich Markov, a major Russian ethnologist, archaeologist and historian of primitive society, doctor in history, professor of the Department of Ethnology, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University. The authors provide a detailed analysis of the scientific contribution and life path of the outstanding Soviet/Russian scholar and place their narrative in a broad socio-cultural and intellectual context of the country and society. G.E. Markov's biography is closely connected with the history of the Department of Ethnography/Ethnology at the Faculty of History, Moscow State University and serves as a serious basis for reconstructing the genesis of university ethnography and its dynamics over the course of nearly 85 years. Such a long period of existence of the university department and its sustainable effectiveness in training professional staff were essentially ensured by the high qualification of scientific and pedagogical staff, reliance on solid theoretical and methodological foundations and interdisciplinarity, a combination of conservatism with flexibility and adaptability to the challenges of the time, the ability to preserve disciplinary continuity and ensure the transmission of the scholarly tradition. All these components of the successful development of university ethnology are subjected to a comprehensive and balanced examination in the article. G.E. Markov's biography in all its typical and special manifestations forms the semantic core of the analysis and presentation. The authors offer their view on complex and sharply debatable issues of professional self-determination, the logic of scientific discovery, the correlation between field and desk research, the influence of ideology and politics on scientific thought. The article presents the authors' vision of the prospects for the development of the Department of Ethnology, based on a harmonious combination of ethnological and anthropological approaches to understanding the disciplinary framework, unconditional reliance on scholarly tradition and its authorities, the need to improve the methods of training in terms of instrumentality and practice-oriented nature, which will allow graduates of the department to be in demand and stay in the profession.

This interview is the last in the series of conversations between Dmitri Shalin and Igor Semenovich Kon (1928–2011), recorded between 1990 and 2008. The present conversation took place in Las Vegas, U.S.A., 26–28 May 2008. The text reproduces a portion of the interview where I.S. Kon talks about his career and assesses his contribution to social science. The interview reflects the author's interest in the biographical sources of sociological imagination and biocritical hermeneutics – a research program articulated in the online projects International Biography Initiative (IBI) and The Erving Goffman Archives (EGA). The conversation sheds new light on Kon's scholarly activity in the soviet and postsoviet periods, helping us understand this major figure in the Russian social science as he casts critical glance on his professional career, reflects on inevitable compromises he had to make with the authorities, and reveals the impact that the generational shift had on his work and life.

The monograph by L.V. Polyakova collects and systematizes the material
concerning the creative biography of E. Zamyatin, his ideological priorities, poetics, the history of publications, relations with writers. The historiosophical concepts of
the fi rst third of the century, facts and phenomena of literary life, disputes of critics,
as well as modern literary thought are presented. A broad context is being built that
allows us to perceive the philosophical depth and artistic power of Zamyatin's prose
in its integrity, multidimensionality, connections with the humanitarian insights of
the twentieth century. Zamyatin's creative individuality is revealed through the
correlation of his views on the people, the revolution, world history with the views
of N. Berdyaev, A. Blok, M. Gorky, S. Yesenin, I. Ilyin, T. Mann, N. Trubetskoy,
S. Frank, O. Spengler and many others. Hermeneutical approach to the comprehension
of works is effective, comparative analysis is actively used. L.V. Polyakova's research
is marked by a vivid polemic and reasoned judgments.

The paper focuses on Simon Frank's relation to Vladimir Solovyov's religious and philosophical ideas. The use of historical, critical, and textual research methods enables to analise possible influence of those ideas on Frank in different periods of his creative biography. It is stated that despite an apparent fundamental difference in perception of Solovyov's philosophy by the "early" and "late" Frank, in fact, his changing attitude to Slovyov was not so radical. The article also presents here an archival manuscript - by Simon Frank's report on Vladimir Solovyov - that has not been known before. The text, having been taken into account of other sources, is attributed as the paper read on November 15, 1925 in Berlin. On the basis of analytical study of this text, as well as the paper "Die russische Weltanschauung" published in 1926, it is concluded that Frank almost invariably kept his critical position towards a number of certain features of Solovyov's philosophical conception, and towards his abstract rationalism in particular. However, in the mid-1920s, and not only in his latest works, Frank defined Soloviev's worldview - as well as his own – as panentheism and justification of the idea of Divine humanity.

This article dwells upon time and space in J. von Eichendorff's Eine Meerfahrt (1836). Eichendorff seldom uses the sea as an element of his fictitious
landscapes; there are, however, a few prominent cases where the sea becomes a symbol of the Absolute, of an element comprising the entire world. Eichendorff rarely uses such an image; he typically relies upon creeks, rivers, streams, etc. The imagery of the novella Eine Meerfahrt provides for an impressive array of allusions to different texts, both by other authors and by Eichendorff himself. In earlier works, Eichendorff used such allusions as a means of discussion, arguing in favor or against certain elements of the worldview expressed in the works of his fellow romanticists. This article suggests that Eine Meerfahrt is different in nature, being comparable rather to Eichendorff's later works on literary history. This novella is interpreted as a literary 'biography' of the Romantic movement. Eine Meerfahrt speaks of a voyage, or rather two voyages across the ocean, both abortive; these are regarded as a symbolic depiction of the 'promise' and 'failure' of the Romanticism (Eichendorff used these expressions in his autobiographic notes). A change in the narrator's point of view, which is observed in the last lines of the novella, is interpreted as a shift into the point of view of a historian who is detached both from the passed Romantic era and from the new epoch coming in its stead.

William Shakespeare's works had been written more than 4 centuries ago; since then scholars had enough time to subject his texts and the facts of his biography to the interpretations which are so numerous and so diversified that many Shakespearologists have come to believe that it is simply impossible to give indisputable answers to quite a number of highly significant questions. To these unsolvable problems one might attribute the identification of the addressee of Shakespeare's sonnets and of Mr W.H. who is mentioned in the dedication to these poetic texts. Syntactically the text of the dedication may be interpreted either as one sentence with "Mr W.H." acting in the capacity of an indirect object or as a subject in the first of the two independent clauses. The choice of either of these two variants of reading (in the article the second variant is accepted as the only possible one) influences the direction of the further discussion of the sonnets. The article is aimed at showing that through studying the literary texts by Shakespeare and his contemporaries and through closely analyzing the relevant direct and circumstantial evidence one may arrive at the inherently sound and noncontroversial interpretations of Shakespeare's life and work. When applied to Shakespeare's sonnets, such an approach allows one 1) to corroborate certain theories concerning the time when most of the sonnets were created and 2) to prove that the addressee of the sonnets and Mr W.H. were two different people who may be identified with a fair degree of certainty.