This article is devoted to the memory of Aristid Ivanovich Dovatur, an outstanding classical philologist, a representative of the Leningrad School of Antiquity. The paper aims to study some pages of Dovatur's life in the 1920s–1930s, reflecting his formation as a classical philologist. The author of the article introduces previously unpublished materials from Dovatur's archival heritage. Archival documents allow the author to reconstruct the main stages of Dovatur's life before the beginning of the Great Terror in 1937. According to the documents examined, it was his family and school that inspired him to study the Humanities. In Kiev and Saratov universities, where Dovatur studied at the Classical Department, his teachers were S. S. Dłożewski, S. V. Melikovа, S. I. Protasov, and V. Y. Kaplinsky. As for Dovatur's philological skills, an important role was played by the student circle of translators of Greek novels. He began his career when he was a student. The author identifies all places of his work in libraries and educational institutions. Archival documents help demonstrate Dovatur's close connection with the School of Classical Philology of Leningrad University, where under the supervision of S. A. Zhebelev, he began to study the political works of Aristotle. He became interested in studying the scholarly and folk style of Herodotus under the influence of academician I. I. Tolstoy. Dovatur's academic and pedagogical work did not stop during his Saratov exile. It was only his imprisonment in the GULAG that interrupted his scholarly activity. ; Статья посвящена памяти Аристида Ивановича Доватура, выдающегося филолога-классика, представителя ленинградской школы антиковедения. Целью данной работы является исследование некоторых страниц из жизни А. И. Доватура в 1920–1930-е гг., отражающих его становление как филолога-классика. Автор статьи вводит в научный оборот неизданные материалы из архивного наследия А. И. Доватура. Архивные документы позволили реконструировать основные этапы его жизненного пути до начала «Большого террора» в 1937 г. Как показывают документы, именно семья и школа привили будущему ученому интерес к гуманитарным дисциплинам. В Киевском и Саратовском университетах, где А. И. Доватур обучался на классическом отделении, его наставниками были С. С. Дложевский, С. В. Меликова, С. И. Протасов и В. Я. Каплинский. В формировании у А. И. Доватура навыков филологической работы большую роль сыграл студенческий кружок переводчиков греческих романов. Еще в студенчестве началась его трудовая деятельность. Удалось выявить места его службы в библиотеках и образовательных учреждениях. Архивные документы позволили показать тесную связь Аристида Ивановича с школой классической филологии Ленинградского университета, где под руководством академика С. А. Жебелева он приступил к изучению политических сочинений Аристотеля. Интерес к изучению научного и фольклорного стиля Геродота ему привил академик И. И. Толстой. Научная и педагогическая работа ученого не прекращалась и в саратовской ссылке. Лишь заключение в ГУЛАГ оборвало его научную деятельность.
Статья посвящена изучению наследия педагогов прошлого (К. Д. Ушинского, Я. А. Коменского, И. Я. Яковлева) через труды академика РАО Г. Н. Волкова. Через значимость личности и трудов выдающихся ученых в истории педагогики показана актуальность обращения к их педагогическим идеям, которые в свете современных реалий являются востребованными. Обоснована необходимость сохранения этнических особенностей народного воспитания, отраженных во внедрении классиками педагогики в содержание современной им образовательной практики обширного пласта народной культуры и родного языка учащихся, что является значимым и для современной образовательной практики, направленной на сохранение и передачу подрастающему поколению традиционных ценностей. Материалом исследования явились научные труды отечественных ученых, посвященные проблеме использования наследия педагогов прошлого в современном образовательном процессе; работы Г. Н. Волкова, содержащие анализ, обобщения, заключения и взгляды на педагогические достижения классиков мировой педагогической науки. Основной метод исследования - теоретико-методологический анализ. Результатом исследования является обоснование введенных К. Д. Ушинским, Я. А. Коменским, И. Я. Яковлевым принципов народности, природосообразности обучения и воспитания, идеи приобщения к родной культуре для освоения во взаимодействии с ней культур других народов как основополагающих для современной системы образования, значимых и необходимых для формирования гражданственности, патриотизма у подрастающего поколения, сохранения и передачи исторической памяти, традиционных ценностей. The article is devoted to the study of the pedagogical heritage of teachers of the past (K.D. Ushinsky, Ya.A. Komensky, I.Ya. Yakovlev) through the works of Academician of the Russian Academy of Education G.N. Volkov. Through the significance of the personality and works of outstanding scientists of the history of pedagogy, there has been shown relevance of their pedagogical ideas, which are rather topical in the light of modern realities. The paper substantiates the necessity of preserving ethnic characteristics of folk education, which are reflected in the implementation of classical pedagogues into the content of contemporary educational practice of their vast stratum of traditional culture and native language of students, which is also important for the modern educational practice aimed at the preservation and transmission of traditional values to the younger generation. The research material is the scientific works of Russian scientists devoted to the problem of using the heritage of teachers of the past in the modern educational process; the works of G.N. Volkov containing analysis, generalizations, conclusions and a look at the pedagogical achievements of the classics of the world pedagogical science. The main research method is theoretical and methodological analysis. The result of the study is the justification of the introduced by K.D. Ushinsky, Ya.A. Komensky, I.Ya. Yakovlev, the principles of nationality, the naturalness of education and upbringing, the idea of familiarizing with native culture for the development of cultures of other peoples in interaction with it as fundamental for the modern education system, significant and necessary for the formation of citizenship, patriotism among the younger generation, preservation and transmission of historical memory, traditional values.
The modern conditions for the transformation of the productive forces and the production relations of capitalism are increasingly prompting us to turn to the theory and methodology of such important categories as commodities, money, capital, property, etc., critically analyze its potential, determining the possibilities for the effective use of the classical heritage, supplementing the luggage of new research. The evolution of capital leads to the fact that corporate capital becomes its dominant form, that is, ownership of capital is prevailing in the modern economy of the corporate sector. Special attention of theoretical scientists, economists and politicians, as well as politicians, concentrates on the analysis of the movement of corporate capital in the stream of modern transformations in all the richness of the contradictions in development. The reason for this is those transformations that corporate capital experiences in connection with systemic socio-economic transformations. It is these transformations, as shown in the article, logically cause the transition of the stages of the movement of corporate capital from one to another. Modern transformations of corporate and network structures turn corporate capital into virtual fictitious capital, creating certain contradictions and forming a complex system of economic relations at the macro and mega-level. The author used in the research process a methodological-theoretical, dialectical, historically-logical, evolutionary, systemic, critical approach. ; Современные условия трансформации производительных сил и производственных отношений капитализма все чаще побуждают нас обращаться к теории и методологии таких важнейших категорий как товар, деньги, капитал, собственность и др., критически анализировать ее потенциал, определяя возможности эффективного использования классического наследия, дополняя багажом новых исследований. Эволюция капитала приводит к тому, что господствующей его формой становится корпоративный капитал, то есть собственность на капитал является преобладающей в современной экономике корпоративного сектора. Особое внимание и ученых-теоретиков, и экономистов-практиков, а также политических деятелей концентрируется на анализе движения корпоративного капитала в потоке современных преобразований во всем богатстве противоречий развития. Причиной этого являются те трансформации, которые корпоративный капитал испытывает в связи с системными социально-экономическими преобразованиями. Именно эти трансформации, как показано в статье, логично обусловливают переход стадий движения корпоративного капитала из одной в другую. Современные преобразования корпоративных и сетевых структур превращают корпоративный капитал в виртуальный фиктивный капитал, порождая определенные противоречия и формируя сложную систему экономических отношений на макро- и мега- уровне. Автором в процессе исследования использованы методолого-теоретический, диалектический, исторически-логический, эволюционный, системный, критический подходы.
John Maynard Keynes is recognised as the most distinguished economist of the twentieth century. His theoretical work has received wide recognition and has been interpreted in diverse ways, while the normative elements of his heritage have also been influential. During periods of recession, special attention has been paid to his recommendations in the area of economic regulation. His methodology has attracted less notice. He did not leave behind any particular description of his methodology, and in the literature devoted to Keynes's heritage, there is no systematic study of this topic. This article attempts to overcome the deficiency involved here. From the neoclassical school, Keynes inherited marginalism. Terming his approach "natural economic thinking", he employed elements of the method of classical political economy. He developed and employed the method of investigating highly complex economic phenomena, including analysis and synthesis, the reproductive and systemic approach, and direct and reverse linkages. Keynes's methodology, enriched through his application of elements of the methodology of political economy, allowed him to achieve a critical overview of the foundations of neoclassicism, and aided him in solving complex problems with which his teachers had been unable to cope. Mastering the methodology of Keynes represents a pressing need, since it can serve as a tool for investigating complex problems that were already emerging in the twentieth (!) century, but which remain inadequately researched on the level of theory. In the article, this aspect of Keynes's methodological heritage is revealed and described for the first time.
"This book is an enquiry into memory in the Western world. Specifically, memory is the framework of culture, because it links the present to the past--or tradition--and projects it into the future. For this reason, any work focusing on memory involves a double challenge: (1) to reveal the origin of concepts and (2) to glimpse the course of thoughts. This is the case of the present volume, in which the authors make several tastings of Europe's intellectual heritage, by taking into account both the Greek origin of this legacy and its relevance for understanding the European philosophical heritage. In particular, these papers focus on the Aristotelian tradition, the true keystone of Europe, and on other currents of thought that have also played an essential role in the intellectual evolution of the Old Continent. In the latter field, there are contributions, for instance, on philosophical-religious traditions such as Orphism or on certain fundamental aspects of Neoplatonism both in the Classical World and in Christian authors. The volume concludes with various works on the survival of these intellectual trends from the Renaissance to the present day. Consequently, this work offers the opportunity to delve deeper into some of the aspects that define Western civilisation, observed both from its origin and its evolution over the centuries. The volume contains papers in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and English."--
This article aims to analyse the legal teaching in France. Our approach is guided by a double perspective: the distinction between critical and mundane schools and the notion of crisis, brought from political science. After a brief historical introduction, we will demonstrate how, in the twentieth century, the legal teaching developed itself and produced what we call "classical legal teaching model". Our focus, departing from that double perspective, aim to a dynamics where great social transformations cause strong impact in French university and, on the other hand, how the body of law scholars, to keep their domination position, get to transmit throw the crisis the elements that guarantee that domination, on the "legal science specificities" pretext. Heritage is the political science brought key-concept to understand that dynamics and the classic model production. Our conclusion is an attempt to confront that dynamics with the issues that the legal teaching faces nowadays – specially the discipline loss of centrality – asking the question of how this new crisis will be faced by The Law Schools. ; O presente artigo tem por objetivo analisar o ensino jurídico na França. Nosso olhar é guiado por uma dupla perspectiva: a distinção entre faculdades críticas e mundanas e a noção de crise, trazida da ciência política. Após brevíssima introdução histórica, demonstraremos como, nas duas metades do século xx, o ensino jurídico se desenvolveu e produziu o que chamamos de modelo clássico de ensino do direito. Nosso foco, a partir dessa dupla perspectiva, aponta para uma dinâmica em que grandes transformações sociais causam significativo impacto na universidade francesa, e, em contrapartida, para como o corpo de juristas, a fim de se manter na posição dominante, consegue transmitir, através das crises, os elementos que garantem essa dominação, calcados nas especificidades da ciência jurídica. O conceito-chave para compreender esta dinâmica e que ao fim produzirá o modelo clássico é o de herança, também trazido da ciência política. Em conclusão, tentaremos confrontar essa dinâmica com as questões que o ensino jurídico francês enfrenta hoje – mormente relacionadas à perda de centralidade da disciplina –, lançando o questionamento de como essa nova crise será enfrentada pelas faculdades de direito.
The article, consisting of three thematic blocks, presents an interpretation of the main trends in the evolution of modern scientific and philosophical discussions on general problems of education and educational policy that continue with unabated intensity for the past two decades in Western analytical literature. The priority is given to the analysis of modern theories of education and their interrelations with the ancient tradition, which still affects the modern concepts of democracy and citizenship. The author also explores the various, sometimes diametrically opposed approaches of scientists to the analysis of the phenomenon of globalization and the causes of the crisis of traditional democratic institutions and educational systems. The review also presents critical assessments of the value of diverse studies, in which scholars clearly strive to revive and reinterpret both the classical philosophy of education of the XVIII-XIX centuries and the heritage of the greatest education theorists of the twentieth century.
This review describes and analyzes the main scientific works of the remarkable BritishRussian sociologist Teodor Shanin (1930–2020). The suggestion is to divide Shanin's rich intellectual heritage into three main genres: anthologies, monographs, and essays.
The review begins with the genre of anthologies, understood in the broadest sense of the word: from a collection of modern scientific articles to collections of excerpts from classical works. In this genre, T. Shanin acted as the head of research projects, the author of editorial introductions and the scientific articles themselves in anthologies devoted to models of scientific knowledge of the world, peasants and peasant communities, developing countries, Marxist theory in connection with the development of Russia, types of informal-expolar economies, reflexive peasant studies, methods of qualitative research, interdisciplinary research of generations.
Shanin's books, written in the genre of authentic scientific monographs, on the social mobility of the Russian peasantry at the beginning of the 20th century, the two-volume "Russia as a Developing Society" and the collection of his selected scientific articles titled "Defining Peasants" are examined.
In conclusion, it is noted that Teodor Shanin was a bright and sharp essayist who left a number of remarkable articles in the essay genre, namely in the later period of his life — when he was living and working in post-Soviet Russia. The defining feature of Shanin as a writing scientist was his ability to think in terms of original models in a wide interdisciplinary context.
The article is an overview of a prominent scientific event — The Second Russian Congress of Aesthetics (Yekaterinburg, July 2021). The paper assesses the state of aesthetics as a scientific and educational discipline throughout its history of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. The article highlights four stages of the Soviet history of aesthetics. The first stage, the 1930s, received following K. Clark, the nomination "return of aesthetics", which was associated with the general conservative turn of the Stalinist cultural policy, the creation of the socialist realist canon, the program of building socialism, the denial of the functionalism of the previous (avant-garde) stage. The "return of aesthetics" had not only a political and pragmatic content but contributed to the saturation of Soviet culture with fragments of the classical heritage, primarily the philosophical one. At the second stage (late Stalinism), there was a rollback of aesthetics in the direction of extreme political instrumentalization. During a short period of the "thaw," aesthetics began to go behind public liberal discourse, yielding leadership to journalism and art criticism. At the stage of the "long seventies", aesthetics becomes an influential and in-demand scientific discipline, included in the program of "technical progress" and "education of the builder of communism", important ideological, aesthetic, and applied tasks are assigned to aesthetics since it is expected to influence all spheres of life. Aesthetics as philosophy and science develops, responding to contacts with semiotics, psychology, anthropology, cultural history, and sociology. Relying on the selective stream of translations of Western art philosophy, Soviet aesthetics begins to resonate with world trends, which is facilitated by the tacit consensus of the idea of aesthetics as a part of philosophical and humanitarian knowledge that has its autonomy. The state of aesthetics in the 1990s and early 2000s is qualified as a change of scientific generations and the emergence of new groups of professionals in aesthetic and artistic knowledge, not related to academic aesthetics, forming their conceptual vision of the development of art and aesthetics relations. The current state of aesthetics was diagnosed with a brief description of the last 15 years, when contacts with foreign aesthetic schools became regular and academic aesthetics began to be in demand in master's educational programs, intellectual venues for festivals, and biennials of contemporary art, and cultural management programs. A large portion of the article is devoted to the analysis of the composition of the participants, their professional interests and competencies, the frequent concepts discussed in the sections, the structure of polemical problems, and crosscutting topics of all congress participants. ; Статья представляет собой обзор крупного научного события — Второго российского эстетического конгресса (Екатеринбург, июль 2021 года). Оценивается состояние эстетики как научной и образовательной дисциплины в контексте ее истории советского и постсоветского периодов. Выделены четыре этапа советской истории эстетики. Первый этап — 1930-е годы — получил, вслед за К. Кларк, номинацию «возвращения эстетики», что было связано с общим консервативным поворотом сталинской культурной политики, созданием соцреалистического канона, программой строительства социализма, отрицанием функционализма предыдущего — авангардного — этапа. «Возвращение эстетики» не только имело политикопрагматическое содержание, но и способствовало насыщению советской культуры фрагментами классического наследия, прежде всего — философского. На втором этапе — позднего сталинизма — произошел откат эстетики в сторону предельной политической инструментализации. На коротком этапе «оттепели» эстетика начала отставать от публичного либерального дискурса, уступая лидерство публицистике и художественной критике. На этапе «длинных семидесятых» эстетика становится влиятельной и востребованной наукой, включенной в программу «технического прогресса» и «воспитания строителя коммунизма», на эстетику возлагаются важные идеолого-эстетические и прикладные задачи, от нее ожидается влияние на все сферы жизни. Эстетика как философия и наука развивается, откликаясь на контакты с семиотикой, психологией, антропологией, историей культуры, социологией. Опираясь на избирательный поток переводов западных философий искусства, советская эстетика начинает резонировать с мировыми трендами, чему способствует негласный консенсус представления об эстетике как о такой части философского и гуманитарного знания, которая обладает своей автономией. Состояние эстетики в 1990-х и начале 2000-х годов квалифицируется как смена научных поколений и возникновение новых групп профессионалов в эстетическом и художественном познании, не связанных с академической эстетикой, формирующих собственное концептуальное видение развития искусства и эстетических отношений. Современное состояние эстетики диагностировано на кратком описании последних 15 лет, когда контакты с зарубежными эстетическими школами стали регулярными, академическая эстетика начинает быть востребованной в магистерских образовательных программах, интеллектуальных площадках фестивалей и биеннале современного искусства, программах управления культурой. Большая часть статьи посвящена анализу состава участников, их профессиональным интересам и компетенциям, частотным концептам, обсуждаемым в секциях, структуре дискуссионных проблем и сквозным темам всех участников конгресса.
The proposed translation of selected fragments of the work of the German philosopher Ernst Bloch "The Heritage of Our Times" is devoted to the temporal characteristics of various social groups of German society at the beginning of the 20th century. The first fundamental concept in these characteristics is the concept of non-simultaneity considered in different aspects. Second, it is the concept of heritage as a set of economic, political, cultural, mental elements of the past that remained in German society of the 1930s. Bloch showed the impact of these elements o on the life of the middle class (peasants, craftsmen, small-scale urban bourgeoisie). In Bloch's view, the fact that the Nazis used these elements in their propaganda explains the popularity of Nazism in Germany. The author also forwards the characteristic of Germany as a classical state of non-simultaneity and poses the task to re-formulate the Marxist-style irrational in the mass consciousness and not to hand over dreams and images of the future to reactionary forces. Here Bloch makes use of the European philosophical tradition of Hegel and Marx. He introduces the concept of objectively non-simultaneous and subjectively non-simultaneous contradictions into the analysis of modern capitalism. Social dialectics, according to Bloch, should be multi-layered in the temporal aspect. ; Предлагаемый перевод избранных фрагментов работы немецкого философа Эрнста Блоха «Наследство нашего времени» посвящен темпоральным характеристикам различных социальных групп германского общества начала ХХ века. Основными в этих характеристиках являются, во-первых, понятие «неодновременность», которое рассматривается в различных аспектах, во-вторых, понятие «наследство» как совокупность экономических, политических, культурных, ментальных элементов прошлого, сохранившихся в германском обществе 1930-х гг. Блох показывает влияние этих элементов на жизнь средних слоев — крестьян, ремесленников, мелкой городской буржуазии. Использование этих элементов в нацистской пропаганде объясняет, согласно Блоху, популярность нацизма в Германии. Дается характеристика Германии как «классической страны неодновременности». Автор ставит задачу переформулировать по-марксистски иррациональное в массовом сознании и не отдавать мечты и образы будущего реакционным силам. При этом Блох опирается на европейскую философскую традицию в лице Г. Гегеля и К. Маркса. Он вводит парные понятия «объективно неодновременные противоречия» и «субъективно неодновременные противоречия» в анализ современного капитализма. Социальная диалектика должна быть, по Блоху, в темпоральном аспекте многослойной.
International audience ; In the mid-19th century, Emperor Alexander II was carrying out large scale liberal reforms in Russia. In the course of these reforms, a problem was put forward about public preservation of historical monuments and archaeological sites as national cultural heritage. A step to this direction was undertaken in 1859 when the Imperial Archaeological Commission (IAC) was organized in Saint-Petersburg. Over the second half of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Commission remained the single State body concerned with archaeology and protection of sites and monuments on the territory of Russian Empire. In its activities, this Institution combined scientific research, organizational, monitoring and controlling functions. In the present monograph mainly created by the collective of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, the history of the first archaeological institution in Russia is systematically presented and analysis of its activities proposed for the first time. The organization of IAC was preceded by a long process of formation of the interest of the Russian society to the archaeology. The immediate precursor of IAC was the "Office of Archaeological Researches" founded in 1841 by the Minister for Home Affairs Lev Perovsky (1796–1856). The activities of the Office were concerned with investigations of archaeological sites of Kerch and Bosporos, Chersonesos, kurgans in the surroundings of Vladimir and Suzdal and settlements of the Golden Horde on the Volga River. During this period, the main principles which afterwards lay in the foundation of IAC were established. After the death of Lev Perovsky, the investigations were entrusted to Count Sergey Stroganov (1794–1882). The result of this appointment was that the assistant of Lev Perovsky and his nephew Count Alexey Uvarov (1824–1884), who planned to stand himself at the head of Russian archaeology, left Saint-Petersburg and moved to Moscow where in 1864 he founded the Moscow Archaeological Society in opposition to the Imperial Archaeological Commission. The confrontation between two Institutions however became actually a stimulus for the progressive advancement of the science and protection of monuments of antiquity. In 1857, Sergey Stroganov proposed to organize the "Main Archaeological Commission". That project became the basis of IAC, the statute of which was approved on February 2, 1859, by Emperor Alexander II. That statute secured for the Commission the right to conduct "earthen excavations", monitoring of the discoveries of hoards and archaeological objects in Russia and supervision over building activity at archaeological sites. The principles underlying the foundation of IAC were partly oriented to France and its "Commission des Monuments Historiques" (1837). The experience of the activities of IAC was used in organizing archaeological institutions in some European countries (Austria, Italy). The activity of IAC may be subdivided through three periods connected with its chairmen: 1859–1882 when Sergey Stroganov was the chairmen of IAC, 1882–1886 when it was headed by the Director of the Imperial Hermitage Museum Alexander Vasil'chikov (1832–1890), and 1886–1918 when the Commission was directed by Count Alexey Bobrinskoy (1852–1927). Originally, the staff of the Commission consisted of eight persons. In the activity of the Commission, such famous historians and archaeologists took part as Ivan Zabelin (1859–1876), Vladimir Tiesenhausen (1825–1902) and Nikodim Kondakov (1876–1891). Initially, the Commission was housed in the palace of Stroganov in Nevsky Prospect in Saint-Petersburg. The activities of the Commission have established the system of regulation of archaeological researches in Russia, which with several alterations existed until the beginning of the 21st century. This system was based on the "Otkryty list" (laissez-passer) as individual authorizations for researchers to conduct excavations with the indispensable submission of a report to the archives of the Commission. This practice has initiated the creation of the unique corpus of sources for the archaeology, architectural monuments and sites of different nations and modern states of East-Central Europe and Asia. The main activity of the Commission in 1859–1886 included excavations of sites of the Scythian culture and Classical Greek antiquities on the Taman Peninsula, in the Crimea (Kerch, Bosporos) and on some other territories, now in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the widespread opinion that the Commission studied exclusively the Classical and Scythian antiquities is incorrect: already then the first investigations in Siberia, Central Asia were conducted as well as studies of sites of the Bronze and Stone ages in Northern Russia. The finds came predominantly to the collections of the Imperial Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg and Historical Museum in Moscow. Another important responsibility of the Commission was the acquisition of monetary hoards and treasures of historical objects found on the territory of Russian Empire. The first investigator of hoards was a curator of the Hermitage collections Julian Iversen (1859–1900). Simultaneously, the Commission consulted the restoration and conservation activities of the Ministry of Home Affairs, primarily for the monuments of the defensive architecture and church buildings. For that purpose, the staff of the Commission included a representative of the Academy of Arts Feodor Solntsev (1859–1892). Protection of the monuments of archaeology also was an important task of the Commission. In 1866, Sergey Stroganov achieved the prohibition of treasure-hunting in Russia. The Commission, as the central state institution, actively collaborated with provincial Statistic Committees and Archive Commissions in the field of studies and protection of local monuments and sites. During the chairmanship of Alexander Vasil'chikov, the reforms of the Commission's activities were prepared. These reforms took place already under Count Alexey Bobrinskoy. In 1886–1887, an interdisciplinary program for studies of Slavic-Russian archaeology, the eastern Black-Sea region, Siberia etc. was developed. During that period, the Commission was moved to an office in the Winter Palace in Saint-Petersburg. On March 11, 1889, Emperor Alexander III approved by his decree the exclusive right of the Commission to conduct archaeological excavations and to license their execution on state and public lands. Simultaneously, the Commission, together with the Academy of Arts, was charged with supervision over restoration and protection of objects of art and architectural monuments. In 1890, the "Regulations for the Archaeological Commission and Academy of Arts on the order of consideration of petitions about restoration of historical monuments" were approved. Beginning with 1894, special sessions of IAC began to consider projects of restorations an conservations. The main specialists of IAC in the branch of restoration were Petr Pokryshkin (1870–1922), Konstantin Romanov (1882–1942) and Dmitry Mileev (1878–1914). The Commission got also Vladimir Suslov (1857–1921), Nikolay Sultanov (1850–1908), Ieronim Kitner (1839–1929) and Georgy Kotov (1859–1942) to take part in the architectural restorations. These activities resulted in establishment of standards of modern scientific restoration, using primarily the archaeological approach, which are efficacious even in the 21st century. Among the most successful restoration projects of IAC, noteworthy are the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Nereditsa hill near Novgorod, Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour at Berestovo in Kyiv, the Saint Boris and Gleb church at Kolozha in Grodno, the Saint George church in Yuryev-Polskoy, Cathedral of the Dormition of Mother of God in the Moscow Kremlin, Ipatyevsky Monastery in Kostroma, Ferapontov Monastery in Vologda region, Bakhchisarai Palace in Crimea, Smolensk and Pskov city walls etc. Among the most important problems of IAC in the restoration issues were its relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. As early as 1893, the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1827–1907) confirmed that restoration of churches must be conducted with permission of the Commission, however in practice many churches were disfigured by illiterately made repairs. Part of the difficulties proceeded from contradictions in Russian law. Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission had succeeded in developing an algorithm of its relations with the clergy, during the World War I, under the conditions of the general crisis of the Russian State and society, the Synod attempted to withdraw religious monuments from the public control.The new objectives and expansion of the geography of researches of IAC demanded a new staff of the Commission. That approval was received in 1888 and 1902. The membership of the Commission included Alexander Spitsyn (1858–1931), Nikolay Veselovsky (1848–1918), Vasily Latyshev (1855–1921), Boris Farmakovsky (1870–1928) and others. Alexey Bobrinskoy actively used his right of appointment of corresponding members and honorary members of the Commission. Among the corresponding members appointed in 1886–1917 were Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906), Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Samokvasov (1843–1911), Innokenty Lopatin (1839–1909), Alexander Bertier-Delagard (1842–1920), Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky (1863–1919), Yulian Kulakovsky (1855–1919), Nikolay Pantusov (1849–1909), Valentin Zhukovsky (1858–1919), Vladimir Malmberg (1860–1921), Sergey Zhebelev (1867–1941), Emil Roesler (?–?), Alexey Markov (1858–1920), Nikolay Marr (1864–1934), Mstislav Farmakovsky (1873–1946), Alexander Malein (1869–1938) and others. There was yet another category of assistants of the Commission — supernumerary members. They included Nikolay Pokrovsky (1848–1917) — an expert on Christian archaeology and Orthodox art, Vladimir Antonovich (1834–1908), Bohdan Khanenko (1849–1917), Ernst von Stern (1859–1924), Mikhail Rostovtsev (1870–1952), Alexey Shirinsky-Shikhmatov (1862–1930), Feodor Braun (1862–1942), Nikolay Bulychev (1852–1919) et al.In 1909, the 50th anniversary of the Commission and 25th anniversary of the activities of its chairman Alexey Bobrinskoy became something like summing up of the results of the works of IAC. The special role of the Commission is noteworthy regarding the studies of Scythian and Greek and Roman antiquities. The commission excavated about fifty 'Royal' kurgans containing rich Scythian burials from which the artistic gold objects are housed now in the Special Treasury of the State Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg. Studies of Bosporan sites were continued: the Commission was in charge of the Kerch Museum of Antiquities which directed the archaeological excavations in this region. The museum was headed by Alexander Lyutsenko (1807–1884), Stepan Verebryusov (1819–1884), Fedor Gross (1822–1897), Karl Dumberg (1862–1931) and Vladislav Shkorpil (1853–1918). Funerary catacombs, important Classical, Jewish and Christian antiquities were here discovered. Since 1888, according to an order of Emperor Alexander III, IAC was entrusted with the direction of researches in the area of the Tauric Chersonesos and its surroundings. Karol Kościuszko-Waluszyński (1847–1907) was appointed the head of the excavations in Chersonesos. During the later years, the excavations were directed by Robert Loeper (1865–1918) and Leonid Moiseev (1882–1946). Under the direction of the Archaeological Commission, living blocks, buildings and necropolis dated to the Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods had been discovered and investigated, as well as several dozens of Christian churches and basilicas. In 1902, the systematic excavations of Olbia began under the direction of Boris Farmakovsky, and in 1904 – the archaeological researches of Berezan Island began under the direction of Ernst von Stern. An expansive project came to be that of excavations in 1908–1914 of one of the first medieval stone church of Eastern Europe — the Church of the Tithe in Kyiv conducted under the direction of Dmitry Mileev. During the period of 1890–1914, the Commission was financing altogether up to twenty expeditions annually throughout more than fifteen provinces and regions of Russian Empire. It must be noted however that the level of understanding of archaeological evidence gained remained behind its accumulation. In the field of the archaeology of the Stone Age, the studies of the Commission revealed several important Neolithic sites of Eastern Europe. In 1905, Alexander Spitsyn discovered a Paleolithic site at Borshevo, Voronezh region. The same researcher also wrote in 1915 a synthetic and generalizing work on the Russian Paleolithic where he had summarized the results of archaeology of the Early Stone Age in Eastern Europe and comprehensively characterized the sites of Caucasus and Siberia. Nevertheless, it must be noted here that the major researches on the Stone Age were carried out the sphere of activities of the Commission.During investigations of archaeological sites of Siberia separated by thousands kilometers from the scientific centers of European Russia, the Commission maintained close relations with local archaeologists and ethnologists directing their efforts and licensing their excavations. At the funds and on the instructions of the Commission, the archaeological sites of Siberia were studied since the 1860s by Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Klements (1848–1914), Alexander Adrianov (1854–1920) and other scholars.Members of the Commission participated personally in investigations of antiquities of the Caucasus and Ciscaucasia. In 1887, Dmitriy Bakradze (1826–1890) proposed a program of archaeological exploration of the area of Sukhumi, and in 1889 IAC carried out description and photographing of objects of Georgian Christian art from sacristies of churches and monasteries in Georgia. Since 1892, Nikolay Marr conducted longstanding investigations of the ancient Armenian capital Ani, medieval towns, fortresses and churches (Dvin, Akhtamar). Simultaneously, the explorations of sites of the Bronze and Middle Ages (dolmens, the Maikop kurgan and the Koban culture) were carried out through the efforts of Nikolay Veselovsky and Emil Roesler.The initiative of studies of architectural and archaeological monuments in Central Asia also mainly belongs to IAC. In 1900s–1915, IAC just kept under control the works in this region, gathered and distributed local collections and stray finds through museums. Photographing of architectural, ethnographic and historical monuments was conducted. The first archaeological excavations are connected with the names of Nikolay Pantusov who investigated in 1860s–1890s Christian Nestorian cemeteries near the Syr-Darya River, and Nikolay Veselovsky who continued archaeological and architectural researches since 1884 until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1890 and 1896, Valentin Zhukovsky observed several archaeological sites. In the 1880s, Alexey Bobrinskoy and Vladimir Antonovich developed a program of interdisciplinary research in the field Slavic and medieval archaeology on the territory of Ukraine. Excavations of kurgans were started in the Dnieper River region, Bielorus' and Novgorod region. At Gnezdovo near Smolensk, the Commission organized in 1890s-1900s excavations of kurgans and the settlement which initiated researches in the Viking Age in Eastern Europe. The systematization of mediaeval Slavic archaeology was proposed by Alexander Spitsyn. Of note is the IAC's contribution to studies of mediaeval archaeological sites of Eastern Europe. These included the Malaya Pereshchepina hoard found in 1912 — the supposed funerary complex of Khan Kubrat, excavations of the settlement of Mayatskoe conducted by Nikolay Makarenko (1877–1938) in 1908–1909, sites of Ugro-Finnish and Baltic tribes — Lyadinsky and Lyutsinsky necropolis investigated in 1889–1891 by Evdokim Romanov (1855–1922), Vladimir Sizov (1840–1904), Vladimir Yastrebov (1855–1899) et al. The archaeology of the region of Perm of the 8th-9th centuries and sites of the Vyatka region also were included in the sphere of interests of IAC, inter alia due to the fact that a very rich collection of local archaeological materials belonged to Sergey Stroganov. Alexander Spitsyn proposed the first archaeological periodization of the Perm and Kama regions local history and distinguished a number of local archaeological cultures. By 1917, the Commission was a serious academic institution both in the branch of architectural and archaeological researches. It became the organizing centre of Russian archaeology actively collaborating with public structures and planning new directions of researches. It is exactly inside the academic community rather than at the communistic authority after the October 1917 that the idea sprang up to transform the Commission into the "Academy of Archaeological Sciences" in order to focus efforts of its members exclusively onto the scientific sphere. In October of 1918, Anatoly Lunacharsky (1875–1933) approves the new regulations of the Russian State Archaeological Commission. Nikolay Marr became its chairman whereas Alexey Bobrinskoy had to emigrate. On April 19, 1919, the decree on the foundation of the Russian Academy for the History of Material Culture was signed by the chairman of the Bolsheviks government Vladimir Ulyanov. In the early August, elections to the new Academy took place. The Academy was housed in the Marble Palace in Petrograd. We should regard August 7, 1919, as the first day of the Academy for the History of Material Culture and the last day of the history of the Archaeological Commission.On the basis of the Imperial Archaeological Commission and Academy for the History of Material Culture the modern archaeological institutions of Russia have emerged. The practices established by the Commission were put into the foundation of the present-day regulation of archaeological researches and the system of protection of archaeological sites. The experience of the Commission undoubtedly indicates that the protection of the cultural heritage may be effective only in the case where it is carried out within an academic system. The protection and restoration of historical monuments must be subdued to scientific goals and architectural researches. The role of IAC manifested in the establishing national archaeological and site protection systems of the European and Asiatic countries which once constituted the Russian Empire. The editorial activities of IAC have been reflected in 65 titles of periodicals and nonperiodicals: Reports of IAC, Proceedings of IAC, and Materials on the Archaeology of Russia etc. Nikodim Kondakov's publication "Russian Hoards" (1896) and Yakov Smirnov's "Oriental Silver" (1909) are special contributions to the Art history. The materials of IAC kept in the Manuscript and Photographic departments of Scientific archives of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg (9,030 files and over 100,000 photographic imprints and negatives) conceal unique possibilities for future scientific discoveries and constitute an invaluable contribution of the Commission to studies and preservation of archaeological and cultural heritage of the World.
Статья посвящена рассмотрению семантики религиозно-мифологического мотива Молитвы/Мольбы в современной татарской литературе (конца XX - начала XXI века) на татарском и русском языках как отражения верований тюркских народов в целом и татар в частности. В центре исследования находится мифопоэтика произведений современных авторов (М. Магдеев, Р. Мухамадиев, Ф. Гильми, М. Валеев, Н. Гиматдинова, Ф. Байрамова), продолжающих традицию обращения к религиозным мотивам и образам в творческом наследии классической татарской литературы (Кул Гали, С. Сараи, Мухаммедьяр, Г. Тукай, Г. Исхаки и др.). Своеобразие современного обращения к мотивам Молитвы и Мольбы представляется не только в изображении религиозной обрядовой практики («намаз», «дуа», «салават», «зикр», «никях» и др.), но и в выражении различных чувств, эмоций и состояний человека (надежда, восхищение, хвальба, благодарность, покаяние и др.). Кроме того, мифологический мотив Молитвы - важный, обогащающий художественное произведение элемент как изображения культурно-религиозной жизни народа, его истории, так и исторической памяти, связи поколений. Результаты проведенного анализа применимы в теоретических работах по религиозной символике в словесности, а также во время учебных занятий при изучении системы образов художественного текста. The article is devoted to the semantics of the religious and mythological motif of prayer/supplication in modern Tatar literature (the end of the 20th century - beginning of the 21st century) in Tatar and Russian as the reflection of the beliefs of the Turkic peoples in general and the Tatars in particular. The research focuses on the mythopoetics of the works of modern authors (M. Magdeev, R. Mukhamadiev,F. Gilmi, M. Valeev, N. Gimatdinova, F. Bayramov), who continue the tradition of addressing religious motifs and images in the creative heritage of classical Tatar literature (Kul Gali, S. Sarai, Mukhammedyar, etc.). The peculiarity of the modern appeal to the motifs of Prayer and Supplication is represented not only in the depiction of religious ritual practice ("namaz", "dua", "salavat", "zikr", "nikyah", etc.), but also in the expression of various feelings, emotions and human states (hope, admiration, praise, gratitude, repentance, etc.). In addition, the mythological motif of Prayer is an important, enriching element of both the image of the cultural and religious life of the people, its history, and historical memory, the connection of generations. The results of the analysis are applicable in theoretical works on religious symbolism in literature, as well as during training sessions when studying the system of images of a literary text.
Publishing activities of theaters in the 1920s and 1930s have not been properly studied yet by theater experts and bibliologist. Hence an object of this research is the publishing activities of Kharkiv Russian Drama State Theater while the article's subject are books and booklets published by the theater and now being kept in various libraries of Kharkiv. The purpose of this article is to characterize typology, subject area, and graphic design of the theater's publications. The theater, apart from its own stage productions, was expected to provide methodological assistance to amateur theater groups, to maintain contacts with various strata of theater-goers, and train young actors and other professionals. All these activities were reflected on many publications: advertising and informational, popular scientific, analytical, methodological. Advertising booklets were regularly published for the theater guest performances in other cities of USSR. Stage productions of the most significant classical plays (N. Gogol's Inspector-General or The Cherry Orchard by A. Chekhov) were preceded with scholarly and popular scientific publications whose purpose was to prepare the audience to the adequate perception of the play in question. The book Creational Activities in a Theater published in 1937 was devoted to problems of studying the heritage of the prominent theatrical figures of the past as well as their methods of bringing up new generation of actors. Collection of articles 'The Spring Sowing' (1934) is as a bright example of guiding amateur theaters. Towards the end of the analyzed period, on the eve of WWII, the government funding of theaters was partly cut, and Kharkiv Theater had to limit its publications with advertising booklets and performance programs. Still, the surviving items of the theater's publications allow us to come to the conclusion that its publishing activities, though interrupted by the war, used to be diverse and very interesting. Nowadays, they are an important source of studying the history of theaters in Kharkiv. ; В статье рассмотрена деятельность Харьковского государственного театрарусской драмы первого периода его существования (1933-1941), связанная свыпуском печатной продукции рекламного, научного и методического харак-тера. Автор анализирует виды этой продукции (буклеты, программы, книги),их содержание, художественное оформление и читательское предназначение,показывает, как работа издательства театра была связана с его творческой иобщественной деятельностью. ; У статті розглянуто діяльність Харківського державного театру російської драми першого періоду його існування (1933-1941 рр.), пов'язана з випуском друкованої продукції рекламного, наукового та методичного характеру. Автор аналізує види цієї продукції (буклети, програми, книги), їхній зміст, художнє оформлення й читацьке призначення, показує, як праця видавництва театру була пов'язана з його творчою та суспільною діяльністю.
Речь идет о сложной специфике научной ситуации в Центральной Европе 20–30-х гг. ХХ ст., отразившейся в деятельности русских формалистов и Пражского лингвистического кружка на фоне автономного яруса в литературоведческих исследованиях межвоенной Чехословакии, которая в итоге генерировала "русско-французско-американскую связанность". Вопрос рассматривается на примере медиевиста Сергия Вилинского, у которого в свое время учился М. Бахтин, позже вошедшего в среду чешских богемистов. Исследование опирается на архивные материалы университета им. Масарика в Брно. Освещаются неизвестные ранее подробности его научной биографии, аргументируется смена проблематики его изысканий, свидетельствующая о безусловном влиянии жизненных обстоятельств на научное творчество, о сложности самореализации ученого в новом для себя контексте. ; Йдеться про складну специфіку наукової ситуації в Центральній Європі 20–30-х рр. ХХ ст., що позначилася на діяльності російських формалістів і Празького лінгвістичного гуртка на тлі автономного ярусу в літературознавчих дослідженнях міжвоєнної Чехословаччини, яка в підсумку генерувала "російсько-французько-американську зв'язаність". Питання розглядається на прикладі медієвіста Сергія Вілінського, у якого свого часу навчався М. Бахтін та який пізніше увійшов у середовище чеських богемістів. Дослідження спирається на архівні матеріали університету ім. Масарика в Брно. Висвітлюються невідомі раніше подробиці його наукової біографії, аргументується зміна проблематики його досліджень, що свідчить про безумовний вплив життєвих обставин на наукову творчість, про складність самореалізації вченого в новому для себе контексті. ; The article treats a question about a complex feature of a scientific situation in the Central Europe of the years 20–30 of the XX-th century, reflected in the activity of Russian formalists and Prague linguistic circle on a background of the independent circle in literary criticism researches of the intermilitary Czechoslovakia which generated "Russian-French-American coherenceˮ. The question is considered on the example of medievalist Sergii Vilinskii (who teached M. Bakhtin in due time), entered afterwards in the environment of Czech bohemists, special place in his scientific activity was intended for popularization of Russian classical literary heritage, especially works of M. Saltykov-Shchedrin. The given research rested on archival materials of Masaryk University in Brno. The unknown before details of his biography are considered: his way in science, begun in Odessa, continued in St.-Petersburg, completed in the Czech Republic. Change of a problematics of his researches which testifies to unconditional influence of life circumstances on scientific work, to the complexity of self-realization of a scientist in his new context. Unlike sociological critics or Russian radical positivists – from so-called revolutionary democrats – up to populists and the psychologists of literature following traditions of Alexander Potebnja, – Vilinsky follows the A. Veselovsky's line: i.e. the line of integration of comparativistics, historical poetics and a social background.
