21 research outputs found
Circus of Tsarevich Aleksei Mikhailovich
No full textThe article focuses on the «German potekhi» (entertaiments), played in the Muscovite court during
the 1630s. These entertainments resembled circus performances. They were based on rope acrobatics. The
principal changes leading to a new phenomenon in the Russian court culture appeared in the turn of 1634 and
1635. From this time a small acrobatic troupe began to develop, the backbone was formed with two German
artist and five of their Russian pupils. The development of the «German entertaiments» was connected with
the youth of Tsarevich Aleksei Mikhailovich. First he looked at poteshniki (entertainers), then apprenticed
three of his nakry players to the foreign artists, dressed them together with himself, his younger brother and
the stolniks in the German comic costume. This period ended because of the tragic events in the life of the
royal family in 1639: in January died Tsarevich Ivan, five years old, and in March died newborn Tsarevich
Vasilii. To this the Empress’s health deteriorated. At the end of mourning the «German entertaiments» were
not renewed. The author concludes in pointing out the similarity of «German entertaiments» from 1630s
with the performances that were played at the court of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich in early 1672: no German
actors on stage were professionals; the people close to Aleksei Mikhailovich played a significant role in the
organization of the performances; the shows were based on the plastic actions that were understood without
the help of an interpreter; the Tsar and his sons was shown for the audience. These performances have become
an important preparatory step to the production of the first theatrical performance ― The Play of Artaxerxes
(Ahasuerus; Artakserksovo deistvo).We gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the National
Endowment for the Humanities for this article (project number RZ-51635-13). Any views, findings,
or conclusions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the National
Endowment for the Humanities
Freedom in the novel The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky
No full textCilj je ovoga završnog rada prikaz slobode u romanu „Braća Karamazovi“ Fjodora Mihajloviča Dostojevskog. Na početku je riječ o samom autoru koji je jedan od najvećih svjetskih pisaca svih vremena i njegovu stvaralaštvu. Kroz prikaz slobode istražuje se kako pojedini filozofi poimaju slobodu, ali i kako je sloboda za Dostojevskog središnja tema koja je povezana s temom o zlu. Za dobro i zlo smatra se da su djeca slobode, čovjek je slobodan da se opredijeli za određeni izbor. Kada ne bi bilo izbora, ne bi bilo ni slobode. Sloboda može biti negativna i pozitivna. Ako se sloboda doživljava kao teret, obveza, nemogućnost da se nosimo s našim izborima, onda je sloboda negativna. S druge strane, pozitivna sloboda je svjesno prihvaćanje svojih izbora i odluka, takva sloboda je usmjerena prema određenim vrijednostima, u sebi uključuje poznavanje dobra. Ivan Karamazov predstavnik je negativne strane slobode jer ga takva sloboda vodi u zlo i zločin. Njegov brat, Aljoša Karamazov, svjestan je činjenice da je sloboda nužna za dostojanstvo čovjeka te postupa u skladu s tim, usmjeren je prema vrijednostima koje vode u dobro. Upravo kroz razgovor njih dvojice koji predstavljaju suprotnosti, pokreće se tema o patnjama, slobodi i Bogu.The aim of this thesis is to present the concept of freedom in the novel The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. First, the discussion focuses on the author himself, one of the greatest writers of all time, and his body of work. Through the portrayal of freedom, it is explored how certain philosophers perceive freedom, and how for Dostoevsky, freedom is a central theme closely tied to the theme of evil. Good and evil are considered to be the offspring of freedom, as people are free to make their own choices. Without choice, there would be no freedom. Freedom can be seen as negative and positive. Freedom understood as a burden, obligation, the inability to deal with our choices, represents the negative concept of freedom. On the other hand, the positive concept of freedom is the conscius acceptance of one’s choices and decisions. This type of freedom is directed towards certain values and includes the knowledge of good. Ivan Karamazov can be considered a representative of the negative view of freedom, as this kind of freedom leads him to evil and crime. His brother, Alyosha Karamazov, is aware that freedom is necessary for human dignity and acts accordingly, directing himself toward values that lead to good. It is throught the conversation between these two, who represent opposites, that the topic of suffering, freedom, and God are brought into discussion
Freedom in the novel The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky
No full textCilj je ovoga završnog rada prikaz slobode u romanu „Braća Karamazovi“ Fjodora Mihajloviča Dostojevskog. Na početku je riječ o samom autoru koji je jedan od najvećih svjetskih pisaca svih vremena i njegovu stvaralaštvu. Kroz prikaz slobode istražuje se kako pojedini filozofi poimaju slobodu, ali i kako je sloboda za Dostojevskog središnja tema koja je povezana s temom o zlu. Za dobro i zlo smatra se da su djeca slobode, čovjek je slobodan da se opredijeli za određeni izbor. Kada ne bi bilo izbora, ne bi bilo ni slobode. Sloboda može biti negativna i pozitivna. Ako se sloboda doživljava kao teret, obveza, nemogućnost da se nosimo s našim izborima, onda je sloboda negativna. S druge strane, pozitivna sloboda je svjesno prihvaćanje svojih izbora i odluka, takva sloboda je usmjerena prema određenim vrijednostima, u sebi uključuje poznavanje dobra. Ivan Karamazov predstavnik je negativne strane slobode jer ga takva sloboda vodi u zlo i zločin. Njegov brat, Aljoša Karamazov, svjestan je činjenice da je sloboda nužna za dostojanstvo čovjeka te postupa u skladu s tim, usmjeren je prema vrijednostima koje vode u dobro. Upravo kroz razgovor njih dvojice koji predstavljaju suprotnosti, pokreće se tema o patnjama, slobodi i Bogu.The aim of this thesis is to present the concept of freedom in the novel The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. First, the discussion focuses on the author himself, one of the greatest writers of all time, and his body of work. Through the portrayal of freedom, it is explored how certain philosophers perceive freedom, and how for Dostoevsky, freedom is a central theme closely tied to the theme of evil. Good and evil are considered to be the offspring of freedom, as people are free to make their own choices. Without choice, there would be no freedom. Freedom can be seen as negative and positive. Freedom understood as a burden, obligation, the inability to deal with our choices, represents the negative concept of freedom. On the other hand, the positive concept of freedom is the conscius acceptance of one’s choices and decisions. This type of freedom is directed towards certain values and includes the knowledge of good. Ivan Karamazov can be considered a representative of the negative view of freedom, as this kind of freedom leads him to evil and crime. His brother, Alyosha Karamazov, is aware that freedom is necessary for human dignity and acts accordingly, directing himself toward values that lead to good. It is throught the conversation between these two, who represent opposites, that the topic of suffering, freedom, and God are brought into discussion
Ivan Mikhailovich Maisky: the Tortuous Fate of a Man and a Diplomat
No full textВ статье рассмотрены основные моменты незаурядной жизни и деятельности известного советского дипломата И. М. Майского, занимавшего в свое время (1932–1947 гг.) посты посла СССР в Великобритании и заместителя министра иностранных дел. Автор критически подходит к оценке уже известных фактов судьбы дипломата и его профессиональной службы, значительная часть которых пришлась на эпоху правления И. В. Сталина. Дается авторская оценка качества воспоминаний И. М. Майского, который, по мнению автора, не мог по соображениям цензуры и самоцензуры быть до конца честным и объективным.The article examines the main points of the extraordinary life and work of the famous Soviet diplomat I.M. Maisky, who at one time (1932–1947) held the posts of USSR Ambassador to Great Britain and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. The author takes a critical approach to assessing the already known facts of the fate of the diplomat and his professional service, a significant part of which occurred during the reign of I. V. Stalin. The author's assessment of the quality of I. M.’s memoirs is given. Maisky, who, according to the author, could not, for reasons of censorship and self-censorship, be completely honest and objective
Ivan Musin-Pushkin, Boyar and Count: His Notebook and New Sources
No full textThe article was submitted on 05.05.2019.The name of Ivan Alekseevich Musin-Pushkin, the only senator who outlived Peter I, is very well known: it is most frequently mentioned in connection with his management of the Monastery Prikaz and publishing in the country’s two capitals. Additionally, there is an unusual myth that he was an illegitimate son of Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich. The existing historiography focuses on his kinship with Patriarch Joachim. Because of this, the reasons why a stolnik born into a family with no noble rank climbed the career ladder until he became a boyar, count, and senator were perceived one-sidedly. Attention to Musin- Pushkin’s tenure as governor of Astrakhan makes the author question the priority of kinship and blood relationships when climbing the social ladder. The author refutes the legend about the count’s kinship with the tsar, which was created by 19th-century journalists. Musin-Pushkin’s marriage to Joachim’s niece was concluded a month before the death of the patriarch and could not considerably influence the promotion of Musin-Pushkin. The article is supplemented by archival documents and the count’s letters, which help understand the communication channels of the St Petersburg dignitary and his circle of relations. The author also provides five previously unpublished documents from the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts and the count’s testament. The article also contains a highly unique source, Musin-Pushkin’s Notebook of Correspondence for the first half of 1715, which mentions the journeys undertaken by the tsar and the count between May and June 1715.Имя единственного пережившего Петра I бессменного сенатора первого состава Ивана Алексеевича Мусина-Пушкина хорошо известно и чаще упоминается по поводу его заведования Монастырским приказом и издательским делом в столицах. Необычен миф о его происхождении как незаконнорожденного сына царя Алексея Михайловича. В историографии делается акцент на его родственную связь с патриархом Иоакимом. Поэтому ранее односторонне воспринимались причины, по которым рядовой стольник из незнатной фамилии поднялся по чиновной лестнице до боярства, получил титул графа и должность сенатора. Внимание к деятельности Мусина-Пушкина во время пребывания на посту воеводы в Астрахани ставит под вопрос представления о приоритете свойства и родства для повышения социального статуса. В статье аргументируется опровержение легенды о «царском родстве» будущего графа, созданной публицистами XIX в. Брак Мусина-Пушкина с племянницей патриарха Иоакима состоялся за месяц до смерти святейшего и не мог значительно повлиять на продвижение к высшим служебным и чиновным ступеням. Публикуемые в приложении архивные документы и письма графа помогают понять каналы коммуникации видного петровского сподвижника, круг его родственников. Впервые публикуются пять документов из коллекции РГАДА и завещание (духовная) графа. Один из самых уникальных источников – «Записная тетрадь переписки» И. А. Мусина-Пушкина за первую половину 1715 г., в которой упомянуты перемещения царя и графа за май-июнь 1715 г
The Epoch and Personality of Peter the Great in Nikolay Charykov’s Research
No full textThe article reviews the academic contribution of Russian historian and diplomat Nikolay Charykov (1855-1930) to our understanding of the reforms by Peter the Great. In his research, Nikolay Charykov argues that the reforms did not result in a radical break with previous Russia's historical path. He stresses that the cultivation of scientific knowledge and labor skills necessary for modernization started in Russia long before Peter the Great because Russia was part of a European system even before Peter the Great. For example, the author points to Ivan III's marriage to Zoe Palaiologina (Sophia Palaiologina); the employment of captive Livonians by Ivan IV; sending Russian youth to study at Western European universities; Boris Godunov's plans to form a European league of Christian sovereigns. Nikolay Charykov focuses in his studies on the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, pointing to his plans to increase the involvement of Westerners in various spheres of life in Russia. Moreover, Nikolay Charykov shows that the personality of the future Emperor was formed under the influence of Russia's increasing interaction with European countries. He concludes that the development of Russia before Peter led to Peter's reforms. He saw the struggle between Sophia and Peter as an interpersonal struggle for power, which in no way violated the primary trend of Russia's development. Peter's reforms became a logical and natural consequence of the previous processes. The merit of Peter was that he successfully continued the previously started transformations by adding to them his character and thinking, which led to the birth of the Russian Empire
On ceremonial arms of Russian sovereigns’ pilgrimages in the last quarter of the 17th century
No full textThe article studies the changes in the set of ceremonial arms used at the royal court in the second half of the 17th century. The Smolensk campaign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1654-1656) was the starting point of active changes in the court ceremonial. The subsequent period brings tumultuous changes in ceremonial practice of the Russian court: at this time, the most spectacular and exotic elements of arms and equipment are borrowed from both the West and the East. Two-handed swords showed up in the hands of Tsar’s ceremonial guards, winged horsemen met foreign legations, hundreds of colored kuyaks, round shields, “snake spears”, Kalmyk caps, etc. were used in large-scale events.
Tendency to innovation in this area proved to be steady. In the reign of Tsar Feodor Alexeevich, the son of Alexei Mikhailovich, we can see diversification of ceremonial arms and formation of new arms sets associated with particular ceremonial actions.
In 1679, five ceremonial koncerzs and backswords were created in Moscow Armoury Chamber which is linked with the ceremony of the Tsar’s pilgrimage to the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra. Backswords and koncerzs used to be a part of horsemen’s equipment.
Koncerz served as second blow arms intended to be used after losing the spear (among other second blow arms are sabres, backswords, chekans, etc.). We encounter similar sets of arms used by Turkish sipahi, Polish and Hungarian hussars in the 16th-17th centuries. However, there is nothing to indicate that a koncerz and a backsword formed a pair and were intended for equestrian escort in the ceremony of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra pilgrimage. Most likely, koncerz and backswords were used by pedestrian escort, as it was done, for example, during the military review at Devichye Pole in 1664, when Alexei Mikhailovich was accompanied by ten pedestrian falconers holding drawn swords with blades facing upwards.
The author studied collections of the Moscow Kremlin Museums and the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineers and Signal Corps and identified four koncerzs and one backsword blade produced for Tsars’ Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra pilgrimages and used for these purposes during the reigns of Feodor Alexeevich, Ivan Alexeevich and Peter Alexeevich.
The study made it possible to attribute these items and to establish the exact place and time of their manufacture, the craftsmen involved, and their ceremonial purpose. The article is consequent in the series of publications dedicated to the study of Russian ceremonial equipment in the 17th-18th centuries
Checkhov\u27s Ionych as Commentary on Tuurgenev\u27s Prose
No full textIn Chekhov\u27s Notebooks (Zapisnve knizhki) there is an appa enigmatic entry for August 1897 which (although it is conclusively established) may indeed point to the incep Iónych (written May 5-June 12, 1898): Ser\u27ëznvi mesh doktor vliubilsia v devushku. kotoraia ochen\u27 khorosho tan chtobv ponravitsia ei. stal uchitsia mazurkę. (Zapisnve knizhki. 1:72). In English: A serious, somewhat sacklike doctor fell in love with a young woman who danced very well, and, so that he might please her, began to learn [to dance] the mazurka. 1 The descriptive adjective meshkovatvi. sacklike, calls to mind the first chapter of Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev\u27s Rudin (1855-56), where Mikhail Mikhailovich (Lezhnëv), 2 appears before Aleksandra Pav- lovna (Lipina), 3 and after a brief conversation, departs. His name and patronymic suggest to the Russian reader a bear-like person, for in Russian folklore the bear is often given the name Mikhail (which is here reduplicated, as if to reinforce its effect) or its affectionate form, Mishko; the bear is thought to be powerful, but clumsy. And Lezhnëv is not only socially inadequate, a quality which lends him credibility, he is the novel\u27s main speaker of its author\u27s ideas, hence a deceptively awkward, but ultimately powerful personage in terms of Turgenev\u27s intent. As Mikhail Mihailych (colloquial abbreviation) leaves her, she observes: Kakoi meshok! ( What a sack! ), a sentiment echoed by the narrator, who comments: ...he really did look like a big sack of flour.
"Travel Journal from Moscow To Nizhny 1813" by Prince I. M. Dolgorukov as One of the First Inside Travelogues in Russian Classical Literatur
No full textВ статье анализируется неизвестный широко литературный и историко-культурный документ «Журнал путешествия из Москвы в Нижний 1813 года», составленный князем И. М. Долгоруким (1764-1823); произведение рассматривается с точки зрения его жанрово специфики, именно как травелог в контексте развития данного жанра в русской литературе и с позиции его социально-тематической специфики, отмечается критический взгляд автор на некоторые общественные явления, отмечается лирические моменты: любовь к Нижегородской земле, искренняя религиозность, преклонение пред благочестием, любование природой. Рассматривается рецепция автором быта и нравов эпохи, отмечается его демократический, чуждый кастовых предрассудков подход к восприятию социальных реалий. "Journal of a journey from Moscow to Nizhny 1813" by Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Dolgorukov as a document of the Alexander era. The article analyzes the widely unknown literary, historical and cultural document "Journal of a journey from Moscow to Nizhny 1813", composed by Prince I. M. Dolgoruky (1764¬1823); the work is considered from the standpoint of its genre specific, it is like a travelogue in the context of the development of this genre in Russian literature and its socio-thematic specificity, notes critical view of the author on some social phenomenon, celebrated lyrical moments: the love of the Nizhniy Novgorod earth, sincere religiosity, to bow before the piety, admiration of nature. Discusses the reception of the author of the life and mores of the era, noting that it is democratic, alien caste prejudice approach to the perception of social realities. In the final scientific presentation of the material coexist with asiaticism, concludes, what feelings awakens the visit to Nizhny Novgorod in the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries. In the scientific revolution introduced early unknown material
More than a Guidebook: Emotional Response and Personal Impressions about Travel to Kyiv in Travelogues of the Late 18th - Early 19th Century
No full textУ статті на прикладі подорожніх записок трьох авторів: німецького лікаря Оттона фон Гуна,
російського письменника-сентименталіста Владіміра Ізмайлова та російського князя Івана Михайловича Долгорукова, які відвідали Київ на початку ХІХ ст., розглянуто ті риси записок, що відрізняють їх від путівників, які з’являться трохи пізніше – в середині ХІХ ст. Попри деякі спільні аспекти,
як-от місця, обов’язкові для відвідання, захоплення святинями і старовиною, ці два різновиди подорожньої літератури мали і значні відмінності. Адже кожен із мандрівників мав власний порядок
денний, що визначав унікальність його маршруту. А найголовніше – подорожні записки, на відміну
від путівників, фіксували живу реакцію людей на те, що вони бачили в місті. Ця реакція залежала
від багатьох факторів: віку, характеру, особистих уподобань мандрівника. Окрім того, подорожні
записки відображали повсякденні практики міста і містян, а також особисті спостереження
і враження від них подорожнього.The author of the article considers the travelogues of three authors who visited Kyiv in the later eighteenth
and early nineteenth century: German physician Otto von Gun, Russian sentimentalist Vladimir Izmailov,
and Russian prince Ivan Mikhailovich Dolgorukov. Based on the analysis of these travelogues, the author
tries to determine some specific features that make them different from the guidebooks that appear later, in
the mid-nineteenth century. Though these two kinds of travel literature about Kyiv have some similarities,
for instance, they describe must-see sites, they express admiration concerning holy places and ancient sites,
they also have a number of differences, because each traveler had his own agenda, plans, and taste that
influenced his unique rout around the city: one used to prefer holy places or sites of historical interest, while
the other used to be interested in socialization and landscape watching. What was most important,
travelogues, unlike guidebooks, captured vivid – often emotional – reaction of people concerning what they
saw and experienced within the city. This reaction varied depending on many aspects and circumstances,
such as traveler’s age, temperament, taste and personal sympathy. Moreover, travelogues reflected everyday
practices of the city and its dwellers, as well as personal attitudes and impressions of the three authors. For
instance, von Gun was most impressed by holy places, treasures of the local churches, and picturesque
disposition of Kyiv. Vladimir Izmailov, the most verbose and emotional of the three travelers, felt exalted
about ancient spirit of the city, while rather reserved and oldest of all Ivan Dolgorukov was mostly moved
by picturesque landscapes of Kyiv
