11 research outputs found
The Annalistic Writing in Novgorod ca. 1200
No full textThe paper is concerned with the analysis of textual differences between the Elder and the Younger versions of the First Novgorodian Chronicle. The author shows that several groups of differences are concentrated in the same part of the text: in the annals for the 12th century. They increase toward the end of the century, are the most numerous in the annals for the 1190s, and never cross the edge of the annals for 1199/1200. This chronological boundary is very impressive and cannot be incidental. The differences in question are both supplementary readings of the Elder Version (notes on some events absent in the Younger Version, more detailed datings, etc.) and of the Younger Version (additional details on some events of the 1190s). The author shows that all these differences must be attributed to an editor active soon after 1199 (the Elder Version reflecting the state of the text before this editorial episode, and the Younger version reflecting the results of it). This conclusion enables the author to challenge Alexey Gippius’ (1997) and Alan Timberlake’s (2000) theories on the relationship of the texts in question, and to suggest a new, somewhat simpler theory
Annalistic Writing and the Development of Written Culture (Novgorod of the 11th and the First Half of the 12th Centuries)
No full textThe author studies key moments in the history of early Novgorodian annalistic writing in the context of other written practices in Novgorod. The first, very brief annalistic notes were made by clerics of the St. Sophia Cathedral in the middle of the 11th century, at the time when, in Novgorod, writing was becoming part of the everyday life of clerics as well as of the lay elite and the administration. The first systematic historical works (an annalistic compilation and a collection of lists) appear in the 1090s, when we see the spread of book production beyond St. Sophia and the start of the mass usage of princely seals. The beginning of the systematic keeping of annalistic records in the 1110s was probably stimulated by the creation and the revisions of the Primary Chronicle in Kiev but, at the same time, it is around 1117 that the posadnik’s seal appears, and this reflects a shift in the political balance in Novgorod. The 1130s were the time when the earliest extant documents granting lands, incomes, and privileges to church institutions were issued, and some other innovations in written culture also took place at around that time. In 1132 the annals previously kept for the prince passed to the control of the archbishop. Their content changed and official accusations relating to the behavior of princes began to be included. Thus, it was in the 1130s that the rights, privileges, and mutual positions of the actors in Novgorodian politics started to be fixed in writing
What Events Were Reported by the Old Rus' Chroniclers?
No full textThe article is dedicated to a detailed study of a selected series of events reported by Rus’ chroniclers from the eleventh to the early fourteenth centuries.1* Items of information contained in the Primary Chronicle, as well as in the Laurentian, Hypatian (to 1200) and First Novgorodian (to 1352) Chronicles are catalogued, classified and analysed as a means of reflecting on guidelines that the chroniclers might have followed. Firstly, remarks on different kinds of events are counted in each chronicle and the percentages compared; this gives a general impression of the interests of the Old Rus’ chroniclers. Secondly, the distribution of four kinds of remarks (events in princely families, changes of ecclesiastical hierarchs, the building of churches, natural phenomena and disasters) is studied in connection with the history of the texts. In general, the analysis corroborates Mark Aleshkovsky’s point that recording these ‘non-political’ events is typical of the annalists who describe the present or recent past (those who wrote on the distant past dealt mostly with political events). But in some cases the situation seems more complicated: the repertoire of events reported in a chronicle could depend on the personal attitudes of annalists or their patrons, as well on the activity of a later compiler or reviser.ei saavutettav
Рубеж XII–XIII вв. в новгородском летописании
No full textThe paper is concerned with the analysis of textual differences between the Elder and the Younger versions of the First Novgorodian Chronicle. The author shows that several groups of differences are concentrated in the same part of the text: in the annals for the 12th century. They increase toward the end of the century, are the most numerous in the annals for the 1190s, and never cross the edge of the annals for 1199/1200. This chronological boundary is very impressive and cannot be incidental. The differences in question are both supplementary readings of the Elder Version (notes on some events absent in the Younger Version, more detailed datings, etc.) and of the Younger Version (additional details on some events of the 1190s). The author shows that all these differences must be attributed to an editor active soon after 1199 (the Elder Version reflecting the state of the text before this editorial episode, and the Younger version reflecting the results of it). This conclusion enables the author to challenge Alexey Gippius’ (1997) and Alan Timberlake’s (2000) theories on the relationship of the texts in question, and to suggest a new, somewhat simpler theory.В статье рассматриваются разночтения между старшим и младшим изводами Новгородской I летописи. Их систематический анализ показывает, что разночтения нескольких типов концентрируются в тексте за XII в., нарастая по мере приближения к его окончанию. Особенно много их в статьях 1190-х годов. Речь идет о более пространных чтениях как старшего извода (до пол ни тельные известия, более подробные датировки и др.), так и младшего (до полнительные детали в статьях 1190-х годов). При этом разночтения указанных групп никогда не переходят границу статей 1199–1200 гг. Автор показывает, что данные разночтения следует атрибутировать редактору, работавшему после1199 г., причем в Новгородской I летописи старшего извода до нас дошел старый вариант текста, в младшем изводе — результат деятельности этого редактора. Это позволяет объяснить соотношение текстов двух изводов Новгородской I летописи несколько проще, чем это предлагается в работах А. А. Гиппиуса (1997) и А. Тимберлейка (2000)
Летописание и развитие письменной культуры (Новгород, XI – первая половина XII в.)
No full textThe author studies key moments in the history of early Novgorodian annalistic writing in the context of other written practices in Novgorod. The first, very brief annalistic notes were made by clerics of the St. Sophia Cathedral in the middle of the 11th century, at the time when, in Novgorod, writing was becoming part of the everyday life of clerics as well as of the lay elite and the administration. The first systematic historical works (an annalistic compilation and a collection of lists) appear in the 1090s, when we see the spread of book production beyond St. Sophia and the start of the mass usage of princely seals. The beginning of the systematic keeping of annalistic records in the 1110s was probably stimulated by the creation and the revisions of the Primary Chronicle in Kiev but, at the same time, it is around 1117 that the posadnik’s seal appears, and this reflects a shift in the political balance in Novgorod. The 1130s were the time when the earliest extant documents granting lands, incomes, and privileges to church institutions were issued, and some other innovations in written culture also took place at around that time. In 1132 the annals previously kept for the prince passed to the control of the archbishop. Their content changed and official accusations relating to the behavior of princes began to be included. Thus, it was in the 1130s that the rights, privileges, and mutual positions of the actors in Novgorodian politics started to be fixed in writing.В статье анализируются ключевые моменты ранней истории новгородского летописания в контексте других процессов в новгородской письменной культуре. Первые, очень краткие летописные записи были сделаны клириками Софийского собора в середине XI в. — в период, когда письмо начинает становиться частью повседневности как клириков, так и светской элиты и администрации. Первые систематические исторические сочинения — летописный свод и перечни-обзоры — предположительно были созданы в 1090‑е гг.; в это же время мы видим распространение книгописания за пределы софийского клира и начало массового использования вислой печати. В 1110‑х гг. началось ведение летописи из года в год, что, вероятно, связано с созданием и переработками в эти годы в Киеве “Повести временных лет”, и также совпадает по времени с началом использования посадничьей печати: всё это отражает изменение баланса политических сил в Новгороде. К 1130-м гг. относятся древнейшие сохранившиеся документы, гарантирующие владения, доходы и привилегии церковных институтов; тогда же происходят новые изменения в использовании печати. В 1132 г. летопись переходит из рук князя в руки архиепископа, ее содержание несколько меняется, и в ней начинают отражаться официальные обвинения Новгорода своим князьям. Создается впечатление, что 1130‑е гг. — это время, когда в Новгороде на письме начинают фиксироваться права, привилегии и взаимные позиции различных участников политического процесса
Jezierski W., Hermanson L., ed., “Imagined Communities on the Baltic Rim, from the Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries,” Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016. 394 p.
No full text
The discursive construction of schizophrenia as a problem of self in relationship
No full textPeople with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are thought to experience a „loss‟ of self, theoretically assumed to be the direct result of their "disease‟ or mental illness. This investigation proposes that constructions and reconstructions of self-identity and the relationships surrounding these sense-making activities are an ongoing process and result in a multitude of alternate versions of self. Using discursive and conversational analyses, this study examined detailed responses to questions of self from nine people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and the four support workers who assisted them at a local social support service centre. Diagnosed participants tended to rationalise and „normalise‟ their behaviours and experiences in order to present a socially acceptable self-identity. Support staff accounts of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were interwoven with medically discursive diagnostic criteria and behavioural characteristics. Once a label had been attached to the person, the process of reconstructing the self had to incorporate the pervasive, disabling associations attached to their diagnosis, where the only acceptable version of self was discursively medical. People receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a compromised sense of self-identity and thus, their diagnosis becomes the defining characteristics of their self – an identity classification
‘Daring to peek over the wall’: A qualitative exploration of the concept of remission in the process of recovery for people with schizophrenia
No full textRemission is synonymous within cancer care and with other physical disorders, but less known and utilised in relation to people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Following work by Andreasen et al (2005) the idea of remission in schizophrenia became more widely utilised as symptomatic remission and was employed as an outcome measure primarily addressing medication efficacy. Whilst remission may or may not be a useful concept, the language, perception and social construction of remission for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia is also of high importance. To date, there has not been any published material with respect to consultation with service users who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia regarding their personal interpretations and possible concern of the concept of remission. This study explores and conceptualises the possible introduction of the concept of remission into the process of recovery for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Therefore raising the question; “Is remission a useful concept to facilitate transition back into primary care for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia?
