In the article, we trace some aspects of development of eventivity and narrativity in Medieval and early Modern Era travel literature. Dissecting episodes of Sir Thomas Smithes Voiage and Entertainment in Rushia (1605), A Travel of Anonimous Citizen of Suzdal to The Council of Florence (15th century), Russian Primary Chronicle (12th century), and The Tale of Peter and Fevronia (1540s), we demonstrate a shift of anarrative elements such as show, performative, and declarative into narration by retelling and re-framing of initial ‘history’. Due to the process, a travel report is substituted by a new work of literature where author’s aesthetic vision dominates even though narration is quite weak and theatricality plays a significant role.
Opened in 2013, the Federal Military Memorial Cemetery near Moscow is Russia’s new national cemetery. Providing for the interment of political as well as military leaders, it is to supplant the Kremlin Wall as the country’s prime burial site. Initially modeled after the Arlington National Cemetery and designed as a landscaped park, the site was eventually built as a monumental complex dominated by bronze statues. Plans to let common soldiers be buried here next to decorated heroes were abandoned. This article analyzes the rival designs and the conflict surrounding the site’s construction. It also proposes a typology of national cemeteries. More than Arlington, the Federal Military Memorial Cemetery resembles heroes‘ cemeteries in countries influenced by the ideas of revolutionary liberation struggles and socialist realism.
روسیه از کشورهای باسابقه در رشتۀ ادبیات تطبیقی است. از دستاوردهای نظریتطبیقگران روس میتوان به نظریۀ بوطیقای تاریخیِ وسلوفسکی اشاره کرد. ادبیات تطبیقی، که از قرن نوزدهم در این کشور آغاز شده بود، پابهپای دیگر کشورهای صاحبنام در این رشته پیش میرفت، اما بهتدریج با آن کشورها فاصله پیدا کرد. ریشۀ این عقبماندگی را میتوان در ادبیات سیاستزدۀ این کشور جست. هرچند ادبیات تطبیقی شوروی توجه تطبیقگران را از تأثیر به شباهت متمایل ساخت، تفاوت بنیادینی با اندیشۀ حاکم بر مکتب فرانسه نداشت؛ ازاینرو، دوران شکوفایی ادبیات تطبیقی شوروی را میتوان دوران گذار از مکتب فرانسوی به مکتب امریکایی دانست. تطبیقگری که بر مبنای دستاوردهای ادبیات تطبیقی روسیه، شباهت دو پدیدۀ ادبی را بهعنوان موضوع پژوهش برمیگزیند، باید با هشیاری و آگاهی کافی از شرایط تاریخی و اجتماعی و فرهنگی و سیاسی پدیدههای مورد بررسی، از افتادن پژوهش در دام سطحینگری جلوگیری کند
Collective monograph in Russian edited by Anna Skotnicka and Janusz Świeży
This is the abstract of a paper presented at the 9th European Shakespeare Research Association Congress, July 27–30, 2017, University of Gdańsk, Poland (Panel 10: “National Repositories of Shakespeare Translations: (Dis)assembling the Black Box”).
In 2008 Mikhail Epstein suggested a new discipline, sciptorics, that would bring back the subject of writing hastily effaced by the poststructuralist concept of the “death of the author”. In scriptorics, the act of writing gains an anthropological and personalised dimension. The scriptor’s mode of existence consists in “leaving traces” by literally inscribing oneself into the world in a paradoxical manner through selfexpression and self-erasure. Epstein’s idea reflects that of Mikhail Shishkin’s literary work in which “writing by traces” is not only a recurrent motif but also a conscious narrative strategy. The paper focuses on Shishkin’s book of essays written in German: Auf den Spuren von Byron und Tolstoi (In the Steps of Byron and Tolstoy, 2002). Its autobiographical protagonist sets out on a walking tour following his predecessors’ paths from Lake Geneva to the Bernese Alps. The book whose genre is defined by the author as a “literary walk” includes a wide range of archival material, historical sources, autobiographical details, quotes, poems, memoirs, and abstract reflections. It can and probably should be considered together with Shishkin’s previous “literaryhistorical guidebook” Russian Switzerland (1999) — in both cases the topographical focus inevitably shifts from Switzerland to Russia and its history, and, above all, its literature. Moving across borders of languages and cultures, space and time, Shishkin’s heterogeneous travelogue transforms the exploration of the Swiss/Russian chronotope into a two-fold aesthetic act: of reading and reproducing his predeccesors’ texts, on the one hand, and of generating his own narrative on the other. At the crossroads of seemingly mutually exclusive categories such as writing and copying, fictional and factual, self-loss and self-discovery, authenticity and plagiarism, speaking and translating, the subject of writing reappears in the new status of a scriptor.
This essay examines the activity of women in the Russian organized right between 1905 and 1917. It is particularly concerned with the scale of the female membership of the right-wing movement, and their connection to philanthropic and political roles. It examines the backgrounds of the women who joined the movement, the type of the activities that they became involved in, and where these women’s clubs fitted into the social mission of the Russian right in the early twentieth century. It then considers the role of women in charity activities and what this can tell us about female agency in the right-wing movement. A final aim is to assess whether these organizations mirrored more radical characteristics emerging elsewhere in the right-wing movement, or whether they were mostly building on established trends in women’s civic group formation.
От задника к квази-вещи и настоящему мясу: плоскость и трехмерность в кино 1900-1920 Бюсты-Цари Бауэра Оживление вещи в 1910-е годы: Черепки кувшина и жест спинки кресла «Душа декорации» и диковинки Бауeра в трактовке Кулешова Вещи в глубинном постранстве Освобожденная вещь в монтаже «Убрать неработающие вещи!» Столетие вещи в кино: От «малеванных» к дигитальным задникам Backdrops, Quasi-objects and Real Meat : flatness and dimension in the cinema of 1900-1920– Bauer’s Busts – Objects made alive in the 1910’s: skulls and the gesture of an armchair – «The Soul of Decorations» and Bauer’s Dikovinki as Seen by Kuleshov – Russian Deep Focus before Hollywood – The Liberation of the Thing in Montage – «Remove things which do not work!» – The Century of the Thing in Cinema: From «Painted» to Digital Backdrops
This review essay focuses on the new monograph by S. A. Smith Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017). As a leading expert in the social history of the Russian Revolution of 1917, Smith provides a comprehensive political, social, and cultural narrative of one of the central events in the global history of the twentieth century. Directed at a general readership, the book offers an excellent overview of existing Russian and Western scholarship, outlines the main course of events, introduces most important actors, and contains thought-provoking conclusions about the revolution. As seen from the title, Smith takes a longish view on the political rupture and includes a comprehensive analysis of social and political life of the Russian Empire, a brief overview of the First Russian Revolution (1905–1907) and the economic and political crisis of the First World War (1914–1918) before discussing the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Russian Civil War, and the period of the New Economic Policy (NEP). The book’s conclusion is a comprehensive essay attempting to comprehend the revolution and its consequences as a whole. As a nuanced social, political, and cultural history, Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928 outlines the Revolution of 1917 as a tectonic shift which cannot be reduced to a simple change of the elites in the Russian imperial formation. Smith’s brilliant work will be invaluable for the students of history, both in Russia and abroad, and all those who are interested in global history in general and the Russian Revolution in particular.
Three major factions in the Russian Civil War in the Far East engaged in nationalist mobilization coming up with different rhetorical tropes and images in the 1920-1922 period. The ultra-royalist faction led by Mikhail Konstantinovich Diterikhs, which in 1922 controlled the Provisional Priamur Government in Vladivostok, portrayed the Romanovs as redeemers who had ended the “dark age” of the Time of Troubles (1598–1613) and called for a new Zemskii Sobor to elect a Romanov Tsar for the sake of new redemption from the “foreign” Bolsheviks. The socialist faction of the Far Eastern Republic (FER), taken over by the Bolsheviks, focused on the grievances caused by the Romanovs’ policies and the clashes with Japan and stressed the future role of the Russians as the first nation of toilers to lead the global struggle for social justice. The popular monarchist faction, established by Grigorii Mikhailovich Semenov, tried to find a middle ground by emphasising the popular role in ending the Time of Troubles and agitating for an elected muzhik Tsar. The ultra-royalist and monarchist rhetoric failed to mobilize the people of the Far East who did not identify with the Eurocentric images of the past and rebuked the cooperation between the monarchists and Japan. The socialist claims that the Romanovs and the Japanese accounted for the degraded present proved more relevant in view of the regional historical narrative featuring a series of conflicts with East Asian states, while the economic rather than racial interpretation of the Japanese policies and the inclusive character of socialism did not alienate ethnic minorities from the socialist faction.