Suchergebnisse

Освещается недостаточно изученный вопрос о вкладе сибирских купцов в развитие культуры и образования, конкретизируются сведения об организационной и финансовой поддержке Императорского Томского университета со стороны крупнейших сибирских предпринимателей З.М. Цибульского, А.М. Сибирякова, М.К. Сидорова, купеческой семьи Кузнецовых и др. Рассматривается благотворительная деятельность купцов, направленная на формирование книжных и музейных фондов в Томском университете, выясняется влияние университета на повышение образовательного уровня сибирского купечества. ; The main objective of this article is to describe the role of merchants in the formation and development of the first higher educational institution in Siberia Imperial Tomsk University. Merchants represented a very small part of the urban population, not more than 1.5-2 %, they still dominated in the economic and social development of the Siberian society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It should be emphasized that government officials and intellectuals often showed a negative attitude to merchants. For example, the main organizer of Tomsk University Professor V.M. Florinskiy wrote that all power was in the capitals of merchants, but the University was above their understanding. However, this article allows disproving his statement. Siberian merchants contributed large sums to the needs of the University in Tomsk. There is an evidence that 814 thousand rubles was spent on the construction and arrangement of the University by its opening in 1888. At that time, merchant donations amounted to 310 thousand rubles. The largest contributor for the University needs was Tomsk merchant Z.M. Tsibulskiy. In total, he donated over 158 thousand rubles to the University. The Russian Government was very grateful to him and awarded the Order of St. Vladimir, third degree, to him. Tsibulskiy was also first in Tomsk to be awarded the title "The honorary citizen of the city of Tomsk" in 1878. In addition to construction costs, merchant money was used for educational needs, for equipment of laboratories and classrooms. Merchants contributed to the formation of the scholarship fund for students as well. The merchant support of research in the Imperial Tomsk University was of great importance. Merchants sponsored research expeditions of university professors, donated for purchasing book collections. For example, A.M. Sibiryakov's donation paid for the famous poet Zhukovsky's book collection. Merchant M.K. Sidorov helped to buy the collection of "Tobolsk antiquities", and that collection was the first in the Archaeological Museum at the University. Krasnoyarsk merchants I.P. Kuznetsov and G.P. Safiyanov donated large collections on archeology and ethnography. These collections still represent the main value of the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography of Tomsk State University. The great interest of merchants to the University showed in the fact that their children studied in the University. The article notes that such Imperial Tomsk University graduates from merchants as N. Sherlaimov, N. Patrushev, V. Prasolov, N. Piskunov, M. Zelenevskaya, G. Patushinskiy, A. Mariupolskiy played a prominent role in the life of Siberia. The article concludes that the relationship of Imperial Tomsk University and merchants satisfied their mutual interests, made a great contribution to the socio-cultural integration of various strata of Siberian society.

Статья посвящена важной проблеме социальной истории изучению процессов социализации женского населения, результатов и социальных последствий вхождения женщин в традиционно мужские роли. Слабая степень изученности темы обусловила территориальные и хронологические рамки исследования. Обращение к истории крестьянок Томско-Нарымского Приобья в первые послереволюционные десятилетия позволяет конкретизировать женский опыт переживания кардинальных социальных изменений с опорой на комплексный подход и свежие исторические источники. Важнейшим фактором женской социализации в России стала Революция 1917 г. и послереволюционные преобразования. Формировалась законодательная основа женского равноправия, одновременно допускались серьезные ограничения гражданских прав женщин-крестьянок. Первый спонтанный опыт усвоения мужских ролей был получен женщинами-крестьянками в военнореволюционное время, когда они были вынуждены выполнять мужские работы по хозяйству. Вовлечение крестьянок в общественную сферу происходило целенаправленно по решению партийно-государственного руководства. Женщины-крестьянки избирались в Советы, становились председателями сельсоветов, на равных с мужчинами участвовали в колхозном производстве в ущерб заботам о семье, детях, домашнем хозяйстве. В процессе усвоения мужских ролей действовали «механизмы поощрения и наказания». Женщины-активистки подвергались, порой, преследованиям в семье, со стороны сельского или районного руководства. Ширилась пропаганда трудовых достижений крестьянок. В пропагандистские кампании вовлекались даже дочери раскулаченных крестьян, высланных в Нарымский округ. Одна из них, Надежда Ступак, была принята в комсомол, заведовала животноводческой фермой. Формировался культурно-психологический облик выдвиженок на руководящую работу, передовых колхозниц. Новые социальные роли способствовали самоутверждению женщин-крестьянок, подготавливали их к испытаниям Великой Отечественной войны. Но двойные нагрузки в домашнем и общественном производстве приводили к повышенной изнашиваемости женского организма, оказывали негативное влияние на демографическое поведение. Томские крестьянки по-прежнему уступали мужчинам по уровню грамотности, по степени социальной активности. ; The article deals with an important issue of social history that is the research into historical processes of female socialization, the results and social consequences of women's socializing into traditional male roles. Little knowledge about the topic accounts for the territorial and chronological scope of the study. The study of peasant women of Tomsk-Narym region in the first post-revolutionary decades allows us to specify female experience during social changes. The integrated methodology and new historical sources constituted a good basis for this work. An essential factor in female socialization was the Revolution of 1917 and the postrevolutionary transformation. A statutory framework for women's equality was formed, and there were severe restrictions of civil rights of rural women as well. The first spontaneous experience of male roles peasant women acquired in the revolutionary period, when they were forced to do men's housework. Rural women were purposefully made involved in public affairs based on the decisions by the Communist Party and the Soviet leadership. Peasant women were elected to Soviets (councils); they became Chairwomen of village Soviets. On an equal footing with men peasant women worked in kolkhozes (collective farms), and so they were limited in their ability to care for their families, children, and households. 'Mechanisms of encouragement and punishment' were put in place for them to adopt men's roles. Women activists would often get harassed by their family, village or district leaders. At the same time the promotion of rural labor achievements was reinforced. Even the daughters of kulaks, exiled peasants of Narym, were involved in political campaigns. One of them, Nadezhda Stupak, was admitted to the Komsomol (Communist Youth League) and was placed in charge of a livestock farm. The cultural and psychological profile of female activists (vydvizhenki) aspiring to leadership and of leading collective farmers was being formed at the time. New social roles helped rural women establish themselves and get prepared for the hardships of the Great Patriotic War. However, the double burden bothat home and at work led to increased physical exhaustion of women and had a negative impact on demographic behaviour. Tomsk peasant women were still inferior to men in terms of literacy and social activity.

Впервые в исследовательской литературе освещается многообразная музееведческая деятельность Г.Н. Потанина. Определяются факторы, способствующие приобщению исследователя к музейному делу, выясняется его понимание музея как комплекса культурных ценностей. Характеризуются конкретные результаты его участия в комплектовании, фондовой и экспозиционной работе музеев Иркутска, Омска, Кяхты, Томска, Минусинска. Начато выявление музейного наследия Г.Н. Потанина, требующее дальнейших действий. ; Scientific heritage of G.N. Potanin includes museology works, and, we believe, they require a special study. Potanin's interest in museums grew on the basis of his interest in the investigation of nature and the historical past. Preparation of herbaria, reading N.M. Karamzin's works, dealing with P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, and then the big expeditions through China and Mongolia led him to the museum science. G.N. Potanin understood that museums preserve commemorative subjects of nature and history, give an opportunity to study and popularize them. Potanin sent his expedition materials to many museums in Siberia: in Irkutsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Kyakhta and Minusinsk. Some results of his collections are still preserved in these museums. As a staff member of the Irkutsk museum, he developed programs of museum material collecting, participated in the preparation and publication of catalogs. He organized an exhibition of Buddhist culture subjects, first in the history of the Irkutsk museum. The exhibition had a great success among visitors. As a fellow-curator in the Museum of Applied Knowledge at the Charity Society for Elementary Education in Tomsk, Potanin managed to obtain funding from the Tomsk City Council and renewed the museum's equipment and collections. Thanks to G.N. Potanin, the Tomsk museum opened its doors to visitors and worked for about three years. The Museum of Applied Knowledge stopped its work in 1906 because the authorities banned the activities of the Charity Society for Elementary Education. Nevertheless, G.N. Potanin worked on describing a collection of Buddhist culture in the Archaeological Museum of the Imperial Tomsk University. However, in 1910, his work was forbidden for political reasons. G.N. Potanin was involved in the establishment of the Siberian Science and Art Museum in Tomsk in 1911. He participated in the planning of museum construction, arranging for the collection and storage of museum objects. Still, the provincial authorities dismissed him from the Museum. G.N. Potanin did not lose interest in the museum science until the last months of his life. He thought about giving his private collections to public custody. As a matter of fact, his scientific heritage was scattered over Siberian museums and libraries. Now it is time to clarify the structure and placing of Potanin's collections. Inventory of his museum heritage can provide new knowledge about Siberian museums and museums of Russia in whole. It will show Potanin's contribution to Siberian culture on a large scale.

Рассматриваются исторические труды Н.М. Карамзина, раскрывается основополагающий вклад историка в изучение музейного дела в России. Впервые в литературе обосновывается выработка Н.М. Карамзиным методологии изучения русской истории как основы предметно-музееведческого подхода, характеризуется тематика его исторических разысканий, обеспечившая впоследствии формирование таких музееведческих дисциплин, как история музейного дела, история материальной культуры, памятники культурного наследия. ; This article discusses the understudied problem of the historiography of Russian museum studies. The historiography sources are the scientific works of Russian historian N.M. Karamzin, highly evaluated by many researchers, from V.O. Klyuchevsky and K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin to S.O. Schmidt and M.Yu. Lotman. However, researchers never turned their attention to the museology nature of N.M. Karamzin''s works, while Karamzin himself wrote that he searched for "thoughts in the monuments" and desired "to unite into a system" everything created in centuries. He developed a special method of history study, which ensured the visualization of the historical process. Subsequently this method determined the formation of the museum-object, or museology, approach. According to modern museologists, Karamzin made a representation of the monuments of the past and reached extraordinary expressiveness and persuasiveness of historical narration. Using his own methodology, Karamzin revived the pictures of the military-political history of Russia. The museology method Karamzin developed found its most successful use in the study of the history of everyday life. N.M. Karamzin laid the basis of the academic discipline now known as the history of material culture. He gave detailed descriptions of Russian costumes, characterized the origin of the book culture, the technology novelties of the 15th and 16th centuries. N.M. Karamzin was the first Russian researcher who wrote about the intangible heritage; he described many customs and traditions of the Russian people. First of all, he noted the memorial and sacral value of Russian monuments and cases of museumifi-cation of some monuments. N.M. Karamzin was the first to describe the different forms of museum storage and collections; he made museum valuables equal to other cultural achievements: literature, philosophy, theater. However, Karamzin did not have enough time to describe the museum studies in Russia completely. Nevertheless, it is Karamzin who was at the root of museology, and he predetermined other Russian historians'' interest in museum studies.

Представлен первый опыт историографического осмысления российского музееведения советского и постсоветского времени. Раскрыты обстоятельства и мотивы парадигмального слома музейной науки, осуществленного с целью подчинить музейное дело задачам «социалистического строительства». Показано поступательное движение музееведческой мысли по пути складывания комплекса научных знаний о музейном деле России. Выявлена роль А.М. Разгона, его коллег и учеников в процессе формирования и изучения российского музееведения. ; The study on the historiography of Russian museology, started in 2015, needs to continue. Knowledge of the museum history makes it possible to maintain that at the turn of the 1920-30-s the paradigm of museology changed. Categories of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy theory and practice were the basis for the new concept of museum science. It was formulated at the First All-Russia Museum Congress. Very soon, the theory was understood as instructions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government. The concept of practice was regarded as the implementation of those directives in museums. Museums were stripped of academic significance and were turned into institutions for political education. Rebirth of museology occurred in the post-World War II period. The main event in this process was the extended session of the Institute of Regional Studies and Museum Work, held in 1948. The participants of the session returned the significance of an academic discipline for museology. A.M. Razgon published an article in The Great Soviet Encyclopedia in 1974. He wrote that museology was an academic discipline which studied the origin of museums, their public functions, and questions of theory and methods of museum science. Later, in 1988, this definition was repeated in the book Muzeevedenie. Muzei istoricheskogo profilya [Museology. Museums of A Historical Profile]. The authors called museology an academic discipline. At the same time, they included independent academic disciplines (museum theory, history of museum science, museum source studies) in its structure. In fact, they reflected on museology as on a complex of academic knowledge on museum science, but did not recognize it. In the 1990s, the socio-political development of the Russian society hanged. Consequently, a new non-politicized concept of museology was required. Response to the public demand was The Russian Museum Encyclopedia (Moscow, 2001. Vol. 1-2). The authors of the Encyclopedia summed up Russian museology, identified gaps in museum knowledge. Their definition of museology, in fact, was the same as in the 1980s. Museologists of today underestimate the achievements of their predecessors. We can say there was no shift in the museology paradigm. Nevertheless, there is a clear movement towards a change of the paradigm. It is expressed in the intensive research of the museum science history, in the attention to the experience of pre-revolutionary museology, in the development of the historiography of museum science. The widening and deepening of problems, the improvement of museum study methodology identify new questions for discussion, and their solution needs a new investigation.

Рассматриваются вопросы историографии музееведения / музеологии как проблема исторической науки. На основе широкого круга историографических источников XIX первой трети XX в. прослеживается становление науки о музейном деле России, характеризуется проблематика музееведческих трудов, выявляются первые представления о музееведении как комплексе научных дисциплин и направлений. Показано, как под влиянием политических факторов в 1920-х гг. в советской России наметились изменения парадигмы музееведения. ; The study on Russian museology increasingly attracts attention from researchers in recent years. So far, however, the historiography of museology remains unexplored. This fact was noted by A.M Razgon and other museologists. The attention to the history of museum science allowed to learn that historian N.M. Karamzin first addressed museology problems in Russia. He worked out a special method of visualization and used it in his research of the history of Russia. Later this method was made a basis for the museum-focused approach. Also N.M. Karamzin was first to report to Russian readers about some Russian and European museums. I.Ye. Zabelin also greatly contributed to museology. His work on the life of Russian tsars and tsarinas in the 16th-17th centuries is still relevant. We can say that it is a model for the history of material culture as a special discipline of museology. N.M. Karamzin and I.Ye. Zabelin were followed by Russian historians and museum specialists who developed various questions on the history of some Russian museums and the museum science on the whole. There were prepared and published some museographic and archaeo-graphic works on museums. D.A. Klements, N.F. Fedorov, N.M. Mogilyanskiy, B.F. Adler formulated the first definitions of the museum as a repository of memorials of the past. Such authors as P.S. Uvarova, V.E. Rudakov, A.I. Smirnov made the grouping of Russian museums, developed the first classification, made the experience of the indoors museum activities. In the 1900s, professor of Moscow archaeological institute S.K. Kuznetsov used the concept of museology for the first time. In accordance with context that wording clearly supposed the complex character of museology. Since the first years of Soviet power in Russia, active work for a change in the museum science began. The creation of a special agency for state management of museums in Narkomat for Education promoted that work. Museum specialists K.E. Grinevitch, N.G. Mashkovtsev and their colleagues spoke up for the restructuring of the museum science in their works. They offered to act in accordance with the revolutionary ideas, connected the museum science with tasks of Socialist building. Siberian authors N.K. Auerbakh and G.I. Cheremnykh asserted the idea of the scientific nature of museums, but still admitted the needs to connect museums with institutions for political education. By the end of the 1920s, the problems of the museum science and museology studies as well were included in the system of political knowledge. The Marxism-Leninism concept was established in museology, and it characterized museums as centers of documentation and propaganda of Socialist building. It outlined the paradigm shift in museology.