Suchergebnisse

Abstract
In the 1860s, the first zoos appeared in the Romanov empire. This article deals with the reasons for their establishment by looking into the early history of St Petersburg's zoo, which has not been explicitly discussed in the historiography. By situating its history in the global context, it argues that, on the one hand, St Petersburg's zoo was founded because the city's officials wanted to enhance the fame of the capital of their empire in the globalizing world of the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the founder of the zoo had other motivations and was principally driven by mercantile considerations. Thus, St Petersburg's zoological garden is presented as one of the important social spaces and points of reference of the Romanov empire's capital, which could bring fame and fortune to the zoo's owners and the city in which it was located.

AbstractThis article examines the first published ethnographic map of Ukraine, which appeared in Lviv in 1861. While carefully analyzing new archival and published sources from both the Habsburg and Romanov empires, it puts this map into the wider context of a contemporary Ukrainian national movement. I argue that Russian Ukrainian activists of 1860s were unquestionably interested in the extent of Ukrainian national territory and had handwritten maps of Ukrainian national territory in their possession. Contrary to the conventional narratives that the 1861 map was drawn in Lviv by Mykhailo Kossak, I argue instead that the map could have been produced by the Russian Ukrainian activist, Mykhailo Levchenko, and was later transferred to Galicia for publication. Stipulating the need to account for sources from both the Romanov and Habsburg empires—studying both cartographic and textual sources—I argue that similar studies should necessarily be located at the juncture of history of cartography and the intellectual history of mental mapping. Only such approach will provide an undistorted picture of a process of national territorialization.

Ukrainian parliamentarism and constitutionalism have a long history. Its brightest episode occurred 100 years ago, in 1917–1921, when the Ukrainian activists tried to cope with the breakup of the Romanov Empire by suggesting various projects of its reconstruction. In this article, I argue that the history of these projects began at least half a century earlier, when a young professor of history at Kiev University, Mykhailo Drahomanov, started to reflect upon future reorganization of the Russian Empire into a parliamentary state. Being an ardent advocate of turning the empire into a representative democracy, Drahomanov still felt uneasy about unapologetic support of parliamentarism. Having embraced Proudhonian idea of anarchy or self-government, he realized that the existence of parliament was not a universal cure for all political ills of the Russian Empire, especially for the main one—extreme state centralization. Hence, his views of political reconstruction of the empire did not necessarily mean transforming it into the Russian Republic. It seems that a reasonable and reasoned monarch, who could turn the empire into a federal state with a wide local self-government, would totally fulfill Drahomanov's ideas of future Russia. His enormous influence upon the pre-war Ukrainian intellectuals explains why only few of them seriously discussed an idea of Ukrainian state independence in 1917.

SUMMARY:
The author argues that, with very few exceptions, the history of Ukraine of the nineteenth century, written in any language, still largely presents a tabula rasa. Key topics remain unexplored by scholars, including the history of concepts used at the time – a sine qua non for any sustained analysis of the cultural sphere. There is no cohort of universally recognized authorities on the history of the late imperial period in Ukrainian lands that is comparable with the group of highly reputed experts on the Early Modern period, for example. The author concludes that the question posed by Mark von Hagen in his 1995 seminal article "Does Ukraine Have a History?" remains open when it comes to the nineteenth century. The twenty years of immense opportunities that have passed since 1995 seem to have been largely wasted on petty bustle and the wars over history and memorial politics.
РезюМе:
Автор статьи считает, что, за немногими исключениями, международная историография Украины периода XIX в. представляет собой пустынный степной пейзаж. Неисследованными остаются наиболее важные сюжеты, включая историю понятий, использовавшихся в то время, без чего невозможно полноценное изучение культурной сферы. Не сформировалась и когорта общепризнанных авторитетов по истории украинских земель позднеимперского периода, сравнимая, к примеру, с лидерами в области изучения раннего Нового времени. Автор приходит к выводу, что вопрос, поставленный Марком фон Хагеном в его основополагающей статье 1995 г. "Имеет ли Украина историю?", остается открытым – по крайней мере, в отношении истории XIX в. Двадцать лет беспрецедентных возможностей, прошедших после 1995 г., кажутся растраченными зря на мелочные разбирательства и войны по поводу политики исторической памяти.

This collection of essays addresses the challenge of modern nationalism to the tsarist Russian Empire. First appearing on the empire's western periphery this challenge, was most prevalent in twelve provinces extending from Ukrainian lands in the south to the Baltic provinces in the north, as well as to the Kingdom of Poland. At issue is whether the late Russian Empire entered World War I as a multiethnic state with many of its age-old mechanisms run by a multiethnic elite, or as a Russian state predominantly managed by ethnic Russians. The tsarist vision of prioritizing loyalty among all subjects over privileging ethnic Russians and discriminating against non-Russians faced a fundamental problem: as soon as the opportunity presented itself, non-Russians would increase their demands and become increasingly separatist. The authors found that although the imperial government did not really identify with popular Russian nationalism, it sometimes ended up implementing policies promoted by Russian nationalist proponents. Matters addressed include native language education, interconfessional rivalry, the "Jewish question," the origins of mass tourism in the western provinces, as well as the emergence of Russian nationalist attitudes in the aftermath of the first Russian revolution