The wave of Leontev renaissance in Russia since Perestroika is a very interesting phenomena. Some scholars look up to Leontev as a prophet and foreseer who showed with keen insight the "Russian way" for his descendants lost in the whirlpool of epochal system change. This article rejects such an estimation of Leontev, but tries to analyze his view on cultural pluralism and the idea of cultural uniqueness of Russia. Leontev's thought of cultural pluralism was closely related with his characteristic aesthetricism He defined beauty as "diversity in unity." What matters for beauty is not the inner idea but the outer diversity and variety. In order to be beautiful, any being should contain different and unequal components. Leontev disliked most of all an aggregate of standardized and equal things. A culture should include different and unequal things; and the world should consist of different shapes of culture. In his discourse on the cycle of cultural development which foreruns Spengler's thought on stages (birth, growth, illness and death) of culture. Leontev insisted that a culture passes through three stages of development: In the first stage things are not differentiated and all the same; in the second and developed stage things become differentiated and unequal; the third stage is that of second simplification when all things show the same and standardized shapes again as when things are decaying and dying. Leontev identified equality with sameness and standardization. Thus a society where the principles of equality and democracy rule was in his view in the state of degeneration and decay. Traditional societies with non-egalitarian estate system were much healthier and more beautiful than an egalitarian democratic society. With its equalized mediocre petit-bourgeois style of life and gray industrial cities Western Europe was just in such a state, whereas Russia was keeping the traditional estate system including serfdom and presented a more beautiful type of society with colorful and various shapes of human life. In order to keep the beauty of Russian culture Leontev rejected democratization and reforms of Russian society and wanted to "freeze the society" so that his country could maintain autocracy and the estate system. Leontev thus insisted most stubbornly the necessity to preserve the cultural originality and uniqueness of a society. He contrasted the Russian culture to that of Western Europe in behalf of the former. In this sense he stood near to Muscovite Slavophiles of the 1840s and Pan-Slavists like Danilevsky. For Leontev however the blood tie of the Slavic peoples was not important. What mattered was a cultural tie. According to him the Russian culture was built on Byzantinism characterized by 1) autocracy, 2) Orthodoxy and 3) renunciation of secular utopianism. Thus Leontev had a special feeling of solidarity for the Orthodox Christians and emphasized the importance of the unity of all Orthodox. Hence his negative reaction to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church which strived for and gained independence from the Constantinople Patriarchate ( Greek Church). He saw in it the religious disunity of Orthodox Christians. In this context he wished that Russia would seize and own Constantinople (Istanbul). According to Leontev it would mean "the unity of political Russia and ecclesiastical Greece." This would enable the church unity of all Orthodox and the victory of the Eastern Church over the Western. This was for him the historical mission of Russia. Though he disliked political nationalism on the ground that it was a form of egalitarianism and liberalism, his wish for seize of Constantinople made no difference from the political nationalism of Pan-Slavism type. Thus a champion of the cultural independence of Russia became-though only in a limited sense-an advocate of aggressive expansionism. It was nonetheless beyond doubt

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

Исследователи давно считают, что в придворных политических проблемах на рубеже XV-XVI веков участвовали <<новгородские еретики>>. Эти проблемы представляли собой: 1)династическую борьбу за престол преемника великого князя Ивана III(1462-1505); 2)опалу выдающихся князей. По мнению некоторых исследователей, <<новгородские еретики>> стали причиной обращения к ереси Елены Степановны, матери внука Ивана III, Дмитрия Ивановича и князей Семена Ряполовского и Ивана и Василия Патрикеевых. Тот факт, что эти личности исчезли с исторической арены почти в одно время, усиливает вышеупомянутое предположение. Однако анализ исторических источников позволяет нам считатъ его неверным. Занимаясь проблемой <<новгородских еретиков>>, автор статьи думает следующее: Во-первых, нет основания считать,что дьяк великого князя Ивана III федор Курицын и Елена Степановна являлись еретиками и имели отношение к <<новгородским еретикам>>, уже осужденным на московском соборе 1490 г. Подозрение и новгородского архиепископа Геннадия (1485-1504), и Ивана III на них на <<новгородских еретиков>>, являлось способом оправдания расправы над ними. Именно по этой причине Генналий называл федора Курицына еретиком. Он видел в федоре даже руководителя еретиков, а Иосиф Волоцкий получил такое представление от Геннадия. Что касается Елены Степановны, то ее в ереси подозревал сам Иван III. Есть достаточно оснований утверждать, что Иван III, который раньше назначил Дмитрия Ивановича своим преемником, передумал и арествовал его и его мать для того, чтобы отдать престол князю Василию Ивановичу, второму кандидату на звание великого князя Московското государства. Во-вторых, нет основания думать, что опала князей Семена Ряполовского и Ивана и Василия Патрикеевых была связана с <<новгородскими еретиками>>. Что касается связей между князями, Федором Курицыном и Еленой Степановной то автор не отрицает их возможной связи, однако, не согласен с тем, что у них была солидарность как религиозная или политическая партия.

View full abstract

The aim of this paper is to study the reform process of the Imperial University Statute in the middle of the 1 9th century, focusing on the symbiotic relationship between the Ministry of Public Instruction (MNP) and the professorate. The central principle of this reform was the autonomy of the professorate for which the University Statute of 1 804 was cited as precedent. Along with verifying this, this paper examines the following three points: (1) the reform of the universities in 1 863 was done on the condition that the government, which preferred specialized education, acknowledge general education as an important state policy. (2) The MNP was willing to encourage corporative activity of the professorate through various corporative rights and status incentives, in order to push their general education policy. (3) The professorate, in turn, requested, and was granted, a guarantee of the corporative rights and status to heighten their dignity as a corporation for promoting "civic education." This manifestation of the autonomy of the professorate, as examined through the above 3 points, meant state affirmation of the corporative rights of the professorate, rather than independence of universities from governmental control. As a result, the new statute raised the status of the professorate, and served as the basis for subsequent development of Russian universities.

View full abstract

It seems that the 1987 reform, which centered on the Law on State Enterprises under Perestroika, was an important turning point in Russian history; as up to this point, the Soviet Union had been attempting gradual reforms represented in the system of state orders (Goszahaz). The 1987 reform is important from two perspectives. First, the reform attempted to introduce market elements into the economic system and secondly, it also attempted to grant enterprises more autonomy. State orders were obligatory for enterprises, but it was planned that the contents and volume of state orders would be reduced gradually. Subsequently, market elements would be introduced into the economic system and grant enterprises more autonomy. However, because of so many flaws and problems, the system of state orders did not play an important role in replacing Soviet style centralized resource distribution by wholesale trade. Furthermore, since the majority of state orders weren't reduced on schedule, enterprises were never granted planned autonomies. This system brought confusion to the supply system, and as a consequence of reducing the majority of state orders by the Temporary Resolution, the supply system began to disintegrate and was replaced by centralized-resource allocation through barter deals under insufficient wholesale trade.

View full abstract

The purpose of this paper is to survey the archaeological studies of Novgorod. The Russian Primary Chronicle says that Novgorod was built by the middle of the 9th century. But past excavations in Novgorod have not found the cultural layer of this period yet. On the other hand, it is recently proved that there were a large number of settlements in the environs of Novgorod in the 9th century, when the social and political center of this area was Gorodishche. The three nuclei of habitation in Novgorod were formed only in the middle of the 10th century. These facts contradict V. L. Ianin and M. Kh. Aleshkovskii's theory which has been generally accepted for the last few decades. In the 1990s E. N. Nosov argued that when a citadel was built in Novgorod in the middle of the 11th century, it was named Novgorod (the new citadel) in contrast with Gorodishche (the old citadel). V. L. Ianin has already accepted the absence of Novgorod in the 9th century and virtually recanted his own views. We expect that further excavations of the three nuclei of habitation in Novgorod will explain the origin of Novgorod.

View full abstract

В январе 1957 г. был восстановлен ряд автономных территорий народв, мародов, подвергшихся депортации в 1943-1944 гг. Это было результатом сложных исторических процессов, начало которым положил секретный докла Н.С. Хрущева о культе личности на ХХ-м съезде КПСС (февраль 1956 г.). Однако, согда остался неразрешённым ряд вопросов, касающийся народов, не упомянутых в докладе. В отношении крымских татар, немцев и корейцев - не только игнорировалась идея предоставления автономии, но вообще даже не дозволялось возвращение в прежние районы проживания. Цель настоящей работы - выяснить, что явилось помехой для реабилитации последних, в частности, имея в виду успешные опыты восстановления автономий в слчае с рядом народностей Северного Кавказа. Особое внимание автор уделяет трём ключевым моментам - во-первых, принципам, которыми руководствовалась центральная власть; во-вторых, отношению к приёму некогда депортированных в регионе, где предполагалось восстановление автономии; наконец, в-третьих, тенденциям стихийных движений в среде соответствующей народности.

View full abstract