Suchergebnisse

There are talking about the Chernihiv Provincial Noble Assembly and its participation through the commissioners in the congresses of the All-Russian United Nobility. The purpose of the article is to find out the number of participants in each of the 12 congresses in 1906-1916 years, to clarify their position in the discussion and decision-making on cardinal issues of political life of the state. It was noticed in which of them the Chernihiv nobles did not share the positions of the permanent council of the united nobility and there were clarified the reasons of it. The research methodology is based on the general scientific principles of historicism using the methods of social history. It has been established that 22 people took part in the work of the All-Russian Congresses of the United Nobility. There were the groups of aristocrats, landowners and landless nobles among them. All of them were local public persons, headed zemstvo institutions, actively introducing self-government at the county and provincial levels. Six of them were deputies of the State Duma and two were members of the State Council. The rest were in public service in local governments, with the exception of Olexander Rachinsky, who in 1915-1917 held the position of deputy Minister of Education. They supported the leading idea of the congresses: the preservation of autocracy, demonstrated the loyalty and devotion of the Romanov dynasty as a guarantee of their own stability and the traditional form of government. Since in the discussion of reforms by the government P.A. Stolypin initiative was seized by senior dignitaries from government circles and authorized by the nobles of the central Russian provinces, while Chernihiv took an apolitical, expectant position and did not show much activity. Instead, they initiated amendments to the statute of the united nobility, which, in their opinion, should have defended the interests of the provincial nobility, and less - to take into account party disputes.

The article deals with the noble guardianship, an estate institution founded by Catherine II, which successfully existed until 1917. The purpose is to describe its main functions and find out how the modernization measures of the state influenced its activities in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The research methodology is based on the general principles of scientificity and historicism using the methods of social history. The supreme power endowed the noble guardianship with elements of class self-government, including the elective principle of the formation of the cadre, control over the reporting of its activities, as well as the decision-making by the county noble corporation and its participation in the introduction of guardianship or termination of its operation and the maintenance of the institution at its own expense. At the same time, guardianship became a flexible means of state control over the position of the property of the privileged class. The state strived to ensure that estates with the loss or illness of the owner remained in the family and under the control of the guardianship and the noble corporation, supporting its members, providing funds for the upbringing and education of young nobles, potential military men and officials. It activated the nobility meetings in order to discipline the owners of the estate not to waste it, not to squander, as well as to stop the cruelty of the landlords to exploit the peasantry, because it continued to remain the main taxpayer and source of supply of soldiers for the army. In the second half of the XIX – early XX centuries guardianship intensified, which is explained by attempts to use them to preserve property during the transition of society to market relations. Losing its dominant position, the nobility used its opportunities for self-preservation, to protect their property, and the state – to reduce the class identity and to collect funds from indebted owners, regulating the repayment of loans.

The article discusses the conditions which galvanized the intellectual community in Kyiv prior to the 1863 January Uprising (aka Polish Insurrection of 1863-64). It analyzes local press coverage of the language debate, and delves into the worldviews of its participants, including Mykhailo Maksymovych, Mykhailo Iuzefovych, Mykola Kostomarov, Ksenofont Hovors'kyi, and others. It identifies how and why the results of this debate influenced the issuance of the 1863 Valuev Directive, which banned the use of the Ukrainian language in print.