ロシア史研究
Online ISSN : 2189-986X
Print ISSN : 0386-9229
ISSN-L : 0386-9229
検索
詳細検索
OR
閲覧
検索
104 巻
選択された号の論文の19件中1～19を表示しています
すべての抄録を表示する
    • |<
    • <
    • 1
    • >
    • >|
論文
  • 編集者たちからみたピョートル一世の出版改革とその諸問題
    印刷新聞『ヴェードモスチВедомости』と編集・出版活動をもとに
    林 健太
    原稿種別: 論文
    2020 年 104 巻 p. 3-24
    発行日: 2020/04/30
    公開日: 2024/03/31
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18985/roshiashikenkyu.104.0_3
    ジャーナル フリー
    抄録を表示する抄録を非表示にする
    Для реализиции своей модернизаторской программы Петру I было необходимо поднять уровень практических научных знаний – например, математики и военного искусства – в стране, что невозможно было сделать без развития светского издательского дела. В этих условиях он решил поставить существующие в России типографии под государственный контроль. Символом этой реформы издательской деятельности стал выход в 1703 г. газеты «Ведомости». На основе анализа деятельности редакторов этой газеты – Ф. П. Поликарпова-Орлова, М. П. Аврамова и Б. И. Волкова, – автор данной статьи пришел к выводу, что смена редакторов оказывала существенное влияние на частоту выпуска и содержания газеты. Как правило, содержание газеты зависело от личных связей редакторов с отдельными приказами и военными чинами, хорошо осведомлёнными с иностранной ситуацией и ходом Северной войны. При этом, упомянутые редакторы были поставлены, так сказать, между молотом и наковальней: едва справляясь с трудностями издательских дел, с одной стороны, они вынуждены были удовлетворять неуемные прихоти Петра, с другой. Письма редакторов свидетельствуют о различных материальных и управленческих трудностях, с которыми они сталкивались ежедневно. Весьма симптоматично, что в своих письмах редакторы, занимавшиеся самой различной побочной работой по поручению царя, совсем не касаются таких вопросов как продажа газет или возможное расширение читательской аудитории.
    抄録全体を表示
    PDF形式でダウンロード (1121K)
  • ロシア出身のユダヤ系移民によるアナーキズム運動
    「人の移動」と思想・運動の形成
    田中 ひかる
    原稿種別: 論文
    2020 年 104 巻 p. 25-53
    発行日: 2020/04/30
    公開日: 2024/03/31
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18985/roshiashikenkyu.104.0_25
    ジャーナル フリー
    抄録を表示する抄録を非表示にする
    This paper proposes the hypothesis that the experience of migration is an important factor in making an individual an anarchist. Some scholars have advocated that anarchism emerged in some of the least industrialized countries, such as Russia, Spain, and Italy. However, there were also people who became anarchists after their immigration from non-industrialized to more industrialized countries. Some studies have stated that the social situation of the countries to which they migrated made them anarchists. However, this does not explain why some immigrants became anarchists, and others became social democrats, communists, or nationalists. Their motives to choose anarchism could be constructed through various experiences, not only after they immigrated, but also before they even decided to leave their country. Supposing the impact of these experiences on their decision to become anarchists, this paper examines the experiences of some Jewish people who became anarchists after they immigrated from Russia to the United States at the end of the 19th century until the eve of World War I. After analyzing their experiences, I deduce some of the factors that might have possibly made them anarchists: the free and private gathering space; encounters with the various people whom they could meet only in United States, but not in Russia, conversations with them in everyday life; encounters with other attractive anarchists; and their recognition of the similarity of oppression faced in the United States and Russia, by comparing the harsh persecution against anarchists in the land of “freedom” and “democracy” with the land of tyranny. Then, I analyze their personal memories of the time period in Russia before their immigration. There were some Jewish women and men who immigrated to escape from their traditional Jewish marriages or family constraints, which they called “prison” or “hell;” there were also some men who quit their religious education because they could never believe in Judaism. On acquiring such an antiauthoritarian mindset, they found anarchism to be the best school of movement in the United States. This also explains why they could actively participate in events like the “Yom Kippur Ball,” which was organized by Jewish immigrant anarchists in order to denounce the religion in general. Thus, by examining their memories and the Jewish anarchist movement, I propose my hypothesis that their experiences during the process of migration from Russia to the United States were the factors that made these individuals anarchists.
    抄録全体を表示
    PDF形式でダウンロード (1192K)
  • モスクワ八〇〇周年記念祭（一九四七年）と戦後スターリン期のソ連社会
    松本 祐生子
    原稿種別: 論文
    2020 年 104 巻 p. 54-74
    発行日: 2020/04/30
    公開日: 2024/03/31
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18985/roshiashikenkyu.104.0_54
    ジャーナル フリー
    抄録を表示する抄録を非表示にする
      В статье рассматривается вопрос, как зародилась и была воплощена в жизнь идея празднования 800-летия Москвы, отмечавшееся в советской столице в 1947 г. Во время Великой Отечественной войны Москва и многие другие города Советского Союза были в запустении, и по всей стране царили разруха и голод. Решив широко отметить данный юбилей, Советское руководство стремилось продемонстрировать свою легитимность и восстановить доверие в глазах народа. Несмотря на некоторые жалобы со стороны населения на нелегкие социальные условия, многие активно приняли участие в празденствах, получив редкую возможность прикоснуться к благам городской культуры.
      В ходе подготовки юбилея по инициативе московской партийной организации, Моссовета и районных советов депутатов были проведены разные мероприятия: коллективы заводов готовили различные юбилейные изделия и благоустраивали город; музеи и предприятия проводили всевозможные выставки, беседы и лекции; а подмосковные колхозы отправили в столицу красные обозы с овощами и картофелем. Кроме того, в Москву прибыли делегации столиц иностранных государств, многочисленные гости из союзных республик и различных городов страны. Улицы и площади города были украшены цветами и зелеными растениями. Москвичам предоставилась возможность посмотреть несколько ярких шествий в честь юбилея на стадионе «Динамо».
      Главная цель, которую преследовали устроители этого юбилея, состояла в том, чтобы концептуально встроить только что завершившуюся войну в историческую череду «отечественных» войн, веденных Россией в своем прошлом. Примечательно, что важными знаковыми местами славы применительно к этому юбилею стали Киев и Бородино (деревня Можайского района). Так, в Москве и Киеве почти одновременно были воздвигнуты памятники легендарному основателю Москвы князю Юрию Долгорукому. В столичных средствах печати громогласно заявлялось, что Бородино, ставшее полем брани как во время Отечественной (1812 г.), так и во время Великой Отечественной войны, является неотъемлемым символом культурного развития Москвы. Такое проведение параллелей между битвами за объединение России (Московского государства) и Отечественной войной XIX в. не могло не придать новый смысл и Великой Отечественной войне. Войны, связанные с Киевом и Бородино, использовались для пропаганды того, что Москва была «колыбелью мира». По существу, подготовку празднования 800-летия Москвы можно охарактеризовать как процесс формирования памяти о войне, что позволяет нам по-новому посмотреть на место и значение другого послевоенного праздника, а именно 9 мая, дня Победы.
    抄録全体を表示
    PDF形式でダウンロード (1236K)
二〇一八年度ロシア史研究会大会
論文
  • 文化外交と冷戦
    英ソ文化協定
    ウォルドロン ピーター, 李 優大
    原稿種別: 論文
    2020 年 104 巻 p. 95-112
    発行日: 2020/04/30
    公開日: 2024/03/31
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18985/roshiashikenkyu.104.0_95
    ジャーナル フリー
    抄録を表示する抄録を非表示にする
    The “hard” diplomacy of the Cold War was accompanied by sustained cultural engagement between East and West, even at times of intense political tension. The article discusses the formal agreements made between the government of the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom between 1959 and 1987 that regulated cultural and scientific relations between the two countries. Using material from the UK’s National Archives, it analyses the motivation for initiating formal inter-governmental cultural agreements in the 1950s and discusses how the process of cultural diplomacy was sustained over the following three decades. The practical implementation of the agreements was sometimes challenging, but both sides persisted and these agreements were renewed every two years. Cultural and academic exchanges became a regular part of the relationship between the two countries during the 1960s and 1970s, with visits by leading cultural companies alongside individual contacts between academics, scientists and students. The political tensions produced by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the UK’s expulsion of 105 Soviet diplomats in 1971 had immediate impact on cultural relations, but the article argues that these effects were short-lived and that cultural diplomacy returned to normal relatively quickly. Cultural diplomacy proved to be too useful for both sides for it to be abandoned, and the article concludes that cultural relations were important in moderating the wider political tensions between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom during the Cold War.
    抄録全体を表示
    PDF形式でダウンロード (1012K)
  • ロシアと清朝の境界と条約をめぐる概念の相違
    ニコライ・イグナチエフと一八六〇年北京条約に至る折衝過程
    山添 博史
    原稿種別: 論文
    2020 年 104 巻 p. 113-128
    発行日: 2020/04/30
    公開日: 2024/03/31
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18985/roshiashikenkyu.104.0_113
    ジャーナル フリー
    抄録を表示する抄録を非表示にする
    In May 1858 the Russians believed they concluded a treaty in Aigun to change the border, but the Qing officials meant that they would allow the Russians to stay temporarily within the unchanged border. In 1859 the Qing made it clear that they had not agreed on any treaty to change a border. That did not mean the Qing dynasty refused all the treaties with foreigners: it exchanged ratification of the Treaty of Tianjin (signed in June 1858) with the Russians in April 1859, and granted them new benefits written in this Treaty, although some articles were still ignored because they did not conform to the established norms of the Qing Empire. Therefore the Qing admitted the Russian new envoy Nikolai Ignat’ev in Peking despite its rejection of the Russian demand for a new border treaty. And the Russians were sometimes allowed to communicate between Peking and the eastern coast of the Qing Empire. Thus, Ignat’ev was able to talk both to the Peking officials and the Anglo-French representatives. Only when the Anglo-French forces were about to attack Peking in October 1860, did Ignat’ev have a chance to exploit his position to talk to both warring parties, in order to conclude the Treaty of Peking with Prince Gong of the Qing. He was able to utilize the chance thanks to the Russian traditional advantages of staying in Peking, and newer diplomatic benefits following the Treaty of Tianjin.
    抄録全体を表示
    PDF形式でダウンロード (1084K)
  • 明治維新期におけるロシアのサハリン島政策
    麓 慎一
    原稿種別: 論文
    2020 年 104 巻 p. 129-149
    発行日: 2020/04/30
    公開日: 2024/03/31
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18985/roshiashikenkyu.104.0_129
    ジャーナル フリー
    抄録を表示する抄録を非表示にする
    My analysis of the negotiations between Russia and Japan around the southern Sakhalin Island in the early Meiji period, considering also their colonial activities there, drew the following conclusions. The Russian government’s ambitious policy of simultaneous colonization of both the Maritime Province and Sakhalin could not be realized due to a reduced budget. There were two reasons for the Russian government’s hasty Sakhalin policy: the Japanese migration to Sakhalin soon after the Meiji Restoration and Japan’s declaration of the invalidity of the Treaty of 1867. The Russian government tried to sever Japan’s influence on the local Ainu, but this attempt was not successful, either, because the Russians could not employ the Ainu permanently. Considering the commitment of Japan and Great Britain to Sakhalin, the Russian Foreign Ministry drafted the Memorandum on Sakhalin Island, which marked a new era of Russia’s Sakhalin policy.
    抄録全体を表示
    PDF形式でダウンロード (1100K)
  • 明治維新と大改革
    比較の可能性と西欧
    竹中 浩
    原稿種別: 論文
    2020 年 104 巻 p. 150-166
    発行日: 2020/04/30
    公開日: 2024/03/31
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18985/roshiashikenkyu.104.0_150
    ジャーナル フリー
    抄録を表示する抄録を非表示にする
      Russia and Japan found themselves in similar historical situations in the second half of the nineteenth century. Domestic and international dynamism did not allow either country to maintain their traditional styles of government. However, the western world did not provide them with the effective models they needed for their urgent system change, because the West was in the middle of their own struggles for a new style of government during the wave of democratization and nationalism. As large-scale reforms took place one after another from the 1860s until the 1880s, Russia and Japan needed to scrutinize western precedents and search for their own paths to political development. Their chosen roads stood in marked contrast with each other. This paper highlights a few aspects of this contrast.
      Japan established a constitutional monarchy in 1889, fifteen years earlier than Russia. The central government of Japan meticulously connected local governments and national parliamentary systems. Prior to the national political reform, local bodies were given corporate status and entrusted with implementing an important part of state-related functions. Ito Hirobumi, the main architect of Japanese constitutional monarchy, actively tried to help China westernize its outdated political regime by following the Japanese precedent, though the Qing dynasty was ultimately unable to avoid the Revolution of 1911.
      Russia, more skeptical of the political and administrative reliability of its people, narrowly tolerated local self-government but rejected connecting it with a central parliamentary system. Unlike Ito, Russian political leaders did not have any interest in China's political reform, partly because the shift to a constitutional monarchy was a highly controversial issue for their own country. Even now, more than one hundred years after these drastic political changes, Russia and China consciously remain detached from the western way of political thinking, in contrast to Japan. The comparison between Russia and Japan in the late nineteenth century gives us insight into the varying levels of distance between non-western countries and western political life.
    抄録全体を表示
    PDF形式でダウンロード (1110K)
研究ノート
  • 『チェコスロヴァキア日刊新聞』は日本のシベリア出兵をどのように見ていたか
    長與 進
    原稿種別: 研究ノート
    2020 年 104 巻 p. 167-180
    発行日: 2020/04/30
    公開日: 2024/03/31
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.18985/roshiashikenkyu.104.0_167
    ジャーナル フリー
    抄録を表示する抄録を非表示にする
    In this article I reconstruct the views of the Czechoslovak Daily, a newspaper published by the Czechoslovak Legion in Russia, to analyze how the Daily interpreted the Japanese Siberian expedition. I divide the stay of the Legion in Siberia, judging by international and Russian domestic situations, into three phases: 1) from the spring to the end of 1918; 2) 1919; 3) from the end of 1919 to the summer of 1920. In the first phase the Legion actively fought with the Bolshevik army. The Daily had great expectations of the Japanese army as “a reliable ally” to give them full-scale support. In the second phase, the Legion had a good relationship with the Japanese army by dividing control areas in Siberia with them. The Daily was eager to understand the policy of the Japanese government and army and the trend of public opinion in Japan. In the third phase when the political situation in Siberia dramatically destabilized, the relationship between the Legion and the Japanese army deteriorated. Despite this the Daily tried to objectively analyze Japanese policy in Siberia. After the analyses of the articles of the Daily I feel the necessity to review the conventional interpretation of the Japanese Siberian Expedition.
    抄録全体を表示
    PDF形式でダウンロード (1052K)
著者による相互書評
書評
編集後記等
    • |<
    • <
    • 1
    • >
    • >|
feedback
 Top