Suchergebnisse

This article considers the history of the unrealised project of the establishment of "free mining towns" in Russia (in the Urals) in the first half of the nineteenth century. Only free people were to live and work in such towns. In 1802, the outstanding mining figure A. S. Yartsov filed a note addressed to Emperor Alexander I, in which he proposed several measures to improve the domestic mining industry. The creation of mining towns inspired by European Bergstдdte was one of these measures. A special committee on the reform of the mining part was established under the influence of Yartsov's note.In 1804, the French architect Claude-Nicolas Ledoux published a treatise L'Architecture considérée sous le rapport de l'art, des mœurs et de la legislation (Architecture Considered in Relation to Art, Morals, and Legislation) in Paris. The work was preceded by a dedication to the Russian emperor. The project of the ideal mining city of Chaux was presented in the publication. With the help of architectural forms, Ledoux dreamed of creating an ideal environment for the moral development of people. Could the French architect have known that at the very same time in St Petersburg work was being carried out for a legal justification of the establishment of "free cities" in Russia, a country where serfdom was still a reality? This assumption does not look improbable.A special committee prepared a draft of new mining legislation, which was approved by Alexander I on July 13, 1806. Ekaterinburg received the status of a mining city on May 1, 1807. However, afterwards the emperor lost interest in liberal projects. Ekaterinburg remained the only mining city in Russia. The content of the concept of a "free mining city" also changed: the dream of free labour was replaced by the idea of independence of such a city from the governor's power. ; В статье рассматривается история нереализованного проекта «вольных горных городов» в России (на Урале) в первой половине XIX в. Предполагалось, что в таких городах будут жить и работать только ...

In 1835, auditor L. F. Yaroshevitsky discovered many unaccounted precious and semi-precious stones in the apartment of Ya. V. Kokovin, the commander of the Ekaterinburg Lapidary Factory. Among them was a large emerald, which, according to the auditor, "almost surpassed the dignity of the emerald in the crown of Julius Caesar". The stones were packed in boxes, sealed, and sent to St Petersburg. After the boxes were opened in the capital, it turned out that the specified emerald had disappeared without a trace. The search for the gem remained fruitless. In the Essays on the History of Stone published in 1961 by academic A. E. Fersman, L. A. Perovsky, the vice-president of the Appanage Department and owner of a large collection of minerals was claimed to have stolen the emerald. For the sake of substantiating this version, the text of L. F. Yaroshevitsky's report was distorted. Under the name of the "Emerald of Kokovin", another Ural mineral got into the collection of the Fersman Mineralogical Museum of the Russian Academy of Sciences. There is also no certainty that the author of the version was A. E. Fersman himself, because the academic died in 1945, leaving the second volume of Essays unfinished. The authority of academic A. E. Fersman and the popularity of his Essays (last reprinted in 2003) still contribute to the replication of the unfounded version of L. A. Perovsky's stealing the "Emerald of Kokovin". The purpose of this article is to justify the name of the "zealous lover of mineralogy", as the famous German mineralogist prof. Gustav Rose called Lev Perovsky.

This article considers the history of the unrealised project of the establishment of "free mining towns" in Russia (in the Urals) in the first half of the nineteenth century. Only free people were to live and work in such towns. In 1802, the outstanding mining figure A. S. Yartsov filed a note addressed to Emperor Alexander I, in which he proposed several measures to improve the domestic mining industry. The creation of mining towns inspired by European Bergstдdte was one of these measures. A special committee on the reform of the mining part was established under the influence of Yartsov's note. In 1804, the French architect Claude-Nicolas Ledoux published a treatise L'Architecture considérée sous le rapport de l'art, des mœurs et de la legislation (Architecture Considered in Relation to Art, Morals, and Legislation) in Paris. The work was preceded by a dedication to the Russian emperor. The project of the ideal mining city of Chaux was presented in the publication. With the help of architectural forms, Ledoux dreamed of creating an ideal environment for the moral development of people. Could the French architect have known that at the very same time in St Petersburg work was being carried out for a legal justification of the establishment of "free cities" in Russia, a country where serfdom was still a reality? This assumption does not look improbable. A special committee prepared a draft of new mining legislation, which was approved by Alexander I on July 13, 1806. Ekaterinburg received the status of a mining city on May 1, 1807. However, afterwards the emperor lost interest in liberal projects. Ekaterinburg remained the only mining city in Russia. The content of the concept of a "free mining city" also changed: the dream of free labour was replaced by the idea of independence of such a city from the governor's power.

The review is devoted to scientific and historical-journalistic works of the late Soviet and post-Soviet periods which formulate the original versions of the events of the Interregnum of 1825 and the revolt of the Decembrists. The elimination of the ideological framework of Soviet studies of the Decembrists emancipated scholarly research and made it possible to put forward previously impossible concepts and hypotheses. On the other hand, the same circumstance contributed to the emergence of conspiracy theories and other quasi-scientific or not at all scientific versions that are not based on the necessary sources, but appeal to a wide range of readers. As a result, modern literature has developed a contradictory variety of conceptual models of different levels and quality claiming to explain the events of 1825. This review offers an experience of understanding the existing range of concepts, versions and hypotheses in post-soviet historiography. It focuses on the main discussion topics: about the circle of contenders to the throne (whether it was limited to Grand Dukes or included the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna); about the position and role of the Governor-General of the capital Miloradovich and the existence of a general opposition or a conspiracy of generals who supported the transfer of the throne to Grand Duke Constantine; about the role of the secret society of the Decembrists and the officer conspiracy initiated by him in the Guards Corps; about other influential political actors (the Russian–American Company, the "German party", etc.) presumably opposing the accession of Grand Duke Nicholas.

The title of this book has a double meaning: on the one hand, it deals with two very different societies both of which made iron in the early modern period. On the other hand, iron "made" these societies: the needs of iron production and the resistance to these demands from local peasant communities gave the societies a special kind of cohesion and rationality. This volume presents the findings of a joint team of Swedish and Russian scholars examining the social organization of work in early modern iron industry and their respective societies. The comparison was carried out against the backdrop of the international discussion on proto-industrialization, its prerequisites and consequences. There has, however, been a certain bias in much of that debate, the focus being mainly on Western Europe, particularly on Britain, and on textile trades. This book offers an important contribution to the debate in that it widens the perspective by discussing Northern and Eastern Europe and by studying the iron industry. More particularly it examines actual production processes, the organization of work, social conflict, questions of ownership and its evolution, as well as the diffusion and organization of technical knowledge. The comparative approach is consistently applied throughout, with each chapter closely integrating the results relating to the two selected geographical areas, thus showing ways of solving some of the problems arising from comparative history