Search results

Во второй половине XIX века общества российских врачей представляли собой общественные организации с отличающимися от государственных ведомств интересами. В начале XIX века ученые врачи состояли в научных обществах, представляющих собой клубы экспертов при правительстве или структурную часть учебных институций. Их члены доказывали правительству свою благодарность и предлагали советы по «правильному» управлению империей. Между этими двумя периодами в истории профессии остался неизученным фрагмент, когда у врачебного сословия стала формироваться элитная солидарность, а государство делегировало профессиональной верхушке право на управление медиками. Автор анализирует декларации Петербургских врачебных обществ о намерениях и о статусе профессионального сообщества. ; During the second half of the XIX century Russian physician's associations were public organizations with interests rather different from the state departments. At the beginning of the XIX century learned physicians were gathered together into the scientific organizations representing clubs of experts at the government or structural part of educational institutions. Their members proved to the government the gratitude and offered councils for the "correct" management of the empire. Between these two periods in the history of a profession there is a fragment when at medical estate elite solidarity began to be formed, and the state delegated to a professional top the right for management of physicians. The author analyzes declarations of intention by the Petersburg medical associations and representations of professional community.

Elena Vishlenkova recalls the emergence of the idea for Anatoly Remnev's study of the debates surrounding the founding of the first Siberian University. She offers excerpts from e-mail exchanges about Remnev's study. In her own e-mail, she discusses the interpretation of the Siberian University and its location as a reflection of the mental mapping of Siberia between Europe and Asia. In his response to Vishlenkova's e-mail, Remnev stresses that his major interest was to explore how paradoxically the interests of authority and of the Siberian regionalists coincided in the discussion of opening the first Siberian University. He also expressed an interest in comparing the case of Siberian University with similar developments elsewhere in the Russian empire as well as in the colonies of the Western empires.

SUMMARY:
The article by Elena Vishlenkova tells the story of the emergence of the professional medical corporation in Russia in the first half of the nineteenth century. The article delves into a great number of new archival and published materials that throw light on the relationships between the "enlightened state" – the principal subject of Russia's modernization – and the physicians who were sponsored and educated by the state. Physicians in the state service were integrated into the system of bureaucratic ranks, enjoyed special benefits and social prestige. The wide popularity of traditional medicine and the low level of trust demonstrated by the lower classes toward professional ("European") medicine only encouraged the alliance between Russian physicians and the imperial state. All of this distinguished the Russian case from other European medical professions, where private physicians and independent professional corporations dominated the scene. Being patronized by the imperial government, Russian physicians actively participated in its civilization efforts aimed at creating a regular state and society in Russia. The ideological basis for this alliance was found in the philosophy of the "police state" and "sciences of policing" in which medicine and a medicalized approach toward social domain played a very important role. The article treats in detail a number of initiatives that this alliance has generated, such as physicians' active engagement in producing medical-topographic reports on the localities where they worked and their self-fashioning as population experts in the empire. They produced new rational knowledge about the society and suggested methods for treating its "diseases." The state was the major sponsor of this knowledge production. Vishlenkova traces the evolution of this alliance throughout the first part of the nineteenth century, and the growing disparity between the goals of the Russian "police state" and the understanding of their social mission by the gradually empowered community of Russian physicians.

SUMMARY:
In the article that serves as an introduction to the publication of documents, Elena Vishlenkova analyzes the system of Russian imperial universities as it emerged after 1804, when specific territories were assigned for scientific exploration and cultural influence – the so-called school districts. The Kazan University district was the largest one, which included the territory from Nizhnii Novgorod to the Far East and from the Northern Sea to the Caucasus. Vishlenkova reconstructs the academic biographies and scientific activities of a number of its professors who were engaged in exploring the geographical and human resources of their region viewed as a part of the larger world, the Russian empire, the "Orient," or of the "Slavic world." According to Vishlenkova, Kazan university professors lived and worked in the situation of a cultural frontier. They regarded themselves as members of the European intellectual community and subjects of universal modern science. At the same time, in Kazan they lived in a multicultural environment, on a civilizational border between Europe and Asia, and their students and sometimes colleagues included "Asians," while their practical knowledge often contradicted their scientific presumptions. Vishlenkova traces how in Kazan, a common European pattern of traveling and "collecting" peoples and human artifacts was becoming transformed into a more anthropologically informed study of cultures and languages that required the involvement of not only natural scientists but also humanity professors. The article begins with the story of a professor of natural history and botany, Karl Fuks, and proceeds with the analysis of different travel instructions written by Kazan University professors of Fuks's generation as well as by the curator of the Kazan school district, M. L. Magnitsky. Vishlenkova evaluates a project of local anthropology by a professor of the philosophy department, V. Ia. Bulygin. Then she examines the so-called Oriental expeditions of the university. These programs were developed by scholars with only general theoretical knowledge as well as by experts already engaged in local "oriental" studies. Among the latter were scholars such as professor of Turkish-Tatar languages A. K. Kazem-Bek, who personally represented the very "Orient" those expeditions were expected to study. Vishlenkova shows how the complex vision of the "Orient," which combined the insider with the outsider perspective, influenced Kazan scholars of Slavic languages and cultures. In particular, the article traces the influence of Kazan Orientalists on the research practices and perception of the "Slavic world" of well-known Kazan linguists such as Professor V. I. Grigorovich.

SUMMARY:
The article by Elena Vishlenkova explores the peculiarity of the visual language of self-description in the Russian Empire and its potential for constructing Russian identity. The author contends that visual language was central to the process of constructing "Russianness" due to the following considerations: the majority of Russia's population was illiterate, mass visual production was superior to other "languages" in terms of its communicative and semiotic potential, and due to the existence of a link between visual and verbal projects of Russianness and the subsequent concept of the "Russian people." The author analyzes mass graphic production from the 18 th century to the first quarter of the 19 th century in Russia. She scrutinizes the ethnographic illustrations ("costumes"), caricatures, print making and the decoration of kitchen ware, medals, and bas-reliefs. The author contends that there were at least three visual images of Russianness: "ethnographic," "populist," and "Slavic." Vishlenkova focuses on the various intentions of the authors of constructed Russianness, the practices of representation, and the emerging visual conventions of the perception of art. In terms of intentionality, she differentiates between the desire of the authorities to capture a cumulative image of the subject-population, the search for a medium for interaction between elites and the people in the situation of war, and the response to the intellectual challenge of German Romanticism. The author demonstrates the development of representations of Russianness from conventionality to naturalism and metaphoric elevation. The narrative also captures the ruptures and alternative modalities of representations that resulted from the limitations of collective art production and the lack of authenticity in the process of the development of visual language.

SUMMARY:
Elena Vishlenkova explores symbols of the Russian politics and culture in the first quarter of the 19 th century as they represented different visions of war and peace. According to the author, traditional interpretations of the memory of the Patriotic War of 1812 in Russia contributed to the emergence of the nationalist discourse in Russia and the dissolution of "imperial consciousness". However, the author's research into representations of the monarchy and various symbols of the epoch demonstrate a disconcerting view.

The monarchy's self-representation focused on the figure of the emperor and the universal and theurgical character of the Tsar. After the war itself the representation of the monarch appealed to the Christian tradition in order to stress peace and re-conciliation. No monuments to the war itself or to the fallen heroes were erected, while the main site of commemoration emerged in the form of a universal temple (Christ the Savior). The memory of the war stressed not the national but the universal character of the turmoil, its religious and cosmological nature.

Во время реконструкции «биографий» архивов Казанского, Московского и Харьковского университетов, а также Министерства народного просвещения, авторы статьи обнаружили архивную реформу. Она проводилась в столичных министерствах с конца 1820-х и в начале 1830-х годов. Законодательные органы власти добивались от государственных учреждений упорядочивания хранения делопроизводственных документов с целью их использования для эффективного управления империей. В этой связи университеты должны были либо копировать систему хранения документов Сената, либо придумать оригинальную систему, но в любом случае обеспечить легкий поиск справок для управления. Изучение сохранившихся университетских архивов показало, что распоряжения императора и министров выполнялись очень по-разному, что породило столь отличающиеся по структуре и полноте коллекции документов в университетских городах. ; When reconstructing the archives' biographies at Kazan, Moscow, and Kharkov universities, as well as at the Ministry of Public Education, we came across an archival reform. It was held at the Saint-Petersburg ministries from the late 1820s up to the middle 1830s. The legislative wanted the government agencies to organize storages of documents in order to use them for the efficient management of the empire. In this regard, the universities had either to duplicate archival system at the Senate or to design an original system. In any case, they intended to provide an easy search system for notes and documents. The authors found out that the orders of the Emperor and ministers were carried out in a very different way. This resulted in the formation of many documentary collections that had different structure and content.

Статья посвящена анализу архивной реформы в российских университетах 1830-х годов. Тогда были впервые разобраны хранилища документов в канцеляриях советов, правлений, факультетов, попечителей и, создана система адресации документов, что позволило использовать их для исследования университетского прошлого. Обнаруженные в фондах Министерства народного просвещения (в Российском государственном историческом архиве), а также Казанского (в Национальном архиве Республики Татарстан) и Московского (в Центральном государственном архиве Москвы) университетов протоколы обсуждений принципов хранения свидетельств позволяют реконструировать логику формирования университетских дискурсов ; This article focuses on the archival reform in Russian universities in the 1830s. It was time of the first systematization of the documents in the offices of Council, Board, faculties and curators, time of creation of the addressing system in archives. All this allowed using the documents for the investigation of the university past. Records of the discussions about principles of evidence storage, that were found in the funds of the Ministry of Public Education (Russian State Historical Archives), Kazan (National Archives of the Republic of Tatarstan) and Moscow (Central State Archive in Moscow) universities, enabled to reconstruct the logic of university discourses forming.