WWEV Blum 02 Buch EN TEXT 14

Transcription

Proceedings
of International scientific and historical
Conference
named after academician L. Blumentrost
№2
Wissenschaftliche Welt, e.V.
2014
Scientific publication
Proceedings of International scientific and historical
Conference named after academician L. Blumentrost. № 2.
– Berlin: Wissenschaftliche Welt e. V., 2014. -132 p.
This volume presents scientific works of participants at the
International scientific and historical conference named after academician
L. Blumentrost spring session (25-28. Mai, 2014, Mühlhausen,
Thüringen, Germany).
The subject of the Conference is devoted to the history of ancient
world, Middle Ages, New and Contemporary; science, technology and
education, culture and architecture, state, germ and results of wars and
world conflicts, great historical personalities and dynasties.
The goal of the conference is to organize multi-language exchange
of scientific knowledge. Working languages of the Conference are
Russian, German and English. Realization conditions of the Conference
provide free publication of scientific works of postgraduate students.
The Proceedings is published at the same time in Russian (ISSN
2307-7360 print, ISSN 2307-7379 on-line), German (ISSN 2307-7387
print, ISSN 2307-7395 on-line) and English (ISSN 2307-7344 print, ISSN
2307-7352 on-line) and can be accessed freely through Internet at the site
of the Conference www.ikbl.org.
© Authors of articles, 2014
© Science and production institution
“Federal information system” (dummy), 2014
© Wissenschaftliche Welt, e.V. (preparation), 2014
Publisher:
Wissenschaftliche Welt, e.V.
Geibelstraβe 42, 26721, Emden, Deutschland
Printed in Germany
ISSN 2307-7344 (print)
ISSN 2307-7352 (on-line)
Contents
Organizing Committee of the Conference
5
Editorial Board of periodical "Proceedings of
International Scientific and Historic Conference named
after academician L. Blumentrost"
7
1.
Bykovskaya G.A., Miroshnichenko E.A.
Regional policy priorities development applying to
national minorities
9
2.
Dushkova N.A.
Personnel maintenance of new industrialisation of
Russia: experience of the past and the present
15
3.
Fedorov K.V.
The struggle for the independence of the court in russia
and the judicial reform of 1864
24
4.
Khairutdinov R.R.
The Outstanding Universal Value of the Bolgar
Historical and Archaeological Complex, a unique
cultural and natural heritage of the Republic of
Tatarstan
29
5.
Kolesnikova M.E.
The Main Periods of the North Caucasus Studies from
the Second Half of the 18th Century to the Early the 19th
Century
33
6.
Kortunov A.I., Ivanov V.A., Protsenko A.S.
The Policy of the Russian Governance to Settle the
Territorial Disputes between the Ural Cossacks and the
Kazakhs ("the Bukeyev Kirghiz") in the 40-70s of the
XIX Сentury
38
3
7.
Lizunova I.V.
Regional publishing space at the beginning of the XXI
century: ways of development
46
8.
Mazaeva T.A.
Stone towers of Chechnya. To a question of
architectural form interpretation
52
9.
Sarpova O.V.
Attitude to labour in West European and Old Russian
medieval cultures
76
10.
Venidiktova E.A.
The problem of dating and creation of the union
between Argos and Corinth in the period of the
Corinthian War (395-386 B.C.)
83
11.
Vorobjeva L.V.
Engineering education as worldmodeling structure (on a
material of E.I. Zamyatin’s novels)
88
12.
Yudina E.V., Schadeberg R.
Die Ärztedynastie Blumentrosts in Russland
92
Information about the authors
4
127
Organizing Committee of the Conference
Stadt Mühlhausen/Thüringen (Germany)
(general partner)
Scientific Institution
“Academy of Historical Science”
(institutional arrangements)
Gnezdilov Vladimir Alekseevich
(co-financing)
Moscow Aviation Institute
(National Research Universuty)
(co-financing and host)
Research and Manufacturing Institution
“Federative Information System”
(making-up)
Wissenschaftliche Welt e.V.
(publisher)
Chairmen
Sholl Eugeny I.
President of Scientific Institution
“Academy of Historical Science”
Members
Dr. Bruns Johannes
Oberbürgermeister Stadt Mühlhausen/Thüringen (Germany)
5
Gnezdilov Vladimir A.
Honoured Designer of Russian Federation,
Founder of LLC "Mir Desing"
Shevtsov Viacheslav A.
Vice-rector for research and development
Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University)
Lidyaeva Natalia I.
Deputy Director General
of "Scientific-Production Association
'Federative Information System'"
Bögel Ludmila
Deputy Director
of Publishing House
Verain «Wissenschaftliche Welt»
6
Editorial Board
of periodical "Proceedings of International
Scientific and Historic Conference
named after academician L. Blumentrost"
Scientific degree, rank
Chaiman
Bykovskaya
Galina
Alekseevna
doctor of history, professor
Dean of Faculty of Liberal
Education, Head of the Department
of History and Political Science at
Voronezh State University of
Engineering Technologies
Members
Aleksandrov
Dmitry
Nikolaevitch
Glaziev
Vladimir
Nikolaevitch
Dushkova
Natalya
Aleksandrovna
Makedonskaya
Vera
Aleksandrovna
Filonenko
Sergey
Ivanovitch
Fursov
Academician, member of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of
Russia
Head of the Department of History
at Voronezh State University
and Political Science at Voronezh
State Technological University
Director of Cultural and Historical
Center at Moscow Institute of
Physics and Engineering
Pro-rector on International
Relations of Voronezh State
Agricultural University
7
Vladimir
Nikolaevitch
Sabirova
Daniya
Kiyamovna
Ulianova
Svetlana
Borisovna
Serebryanskaya
Galilna
Vladimirovna
Utkin
Anatoly
Ivanovitch
Zemtsov
Boris
Nikolaevitch
of Russia at Voronezh State
Teachers' Training University
Director of the Institute of Social
Technologies, Head of the
Department of History and Public
Relations at Kazan National
Research University named after
Tupolev – KAI
at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical
University
Professor at the Department of
History at Nizhny Novgorod
Architectural-and-Constructional
University
at the Institute of Advanced
Training within Moscow State
University named after M.V.
Lomonosov
at Moscow State Technological
University named after N.E.
Bauman
8
Bykovskaya G.A., Miroshnichenko E.A.
Regional policy priorities development
applying to national minorities
Russia is one of the world's largest multi-ethnic state
formations, in which, according to the national census in 2010, live
almost 200 nationalities. Therefore, the national policy for Russia
is a priority. The problem of national minorities is common not
only in Russia, but also has its manifestations in all multinational
states, including Germany.
There is no definition of national minority in today's
international and domestic law[1]. However, at the doctrinal level,
they are generally recognized as ethnic communities, which are
composed of state citizens, living in it constantly, differing from
the rest of the state population on their national characteristics
(culture, language, religion, customs), united by a common name
and identity and striving for self-identification.
International legal instruments about national minorities (in
particular, Document of the Copenhagen Meeting on the Human
Dimension of the CSCE (1990) [2], the Declaration about the
Persons’ Rights Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and
Linguistic Minorities [3] (1992), the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages (1992) [4], the Framework
Convention for the National Minorities Protection (1995) [5], are
being developed according to the Russian law. It should be noted
that most agreements about national minorities contained points
that the obligations of States to their national minorities take
precedence over any laws and regulations which conflict with these
obligations, what provided a legal case in causes.
The process of national revival in Russia began in the
early 1990s, it revealed in the creation of national and cultural
organizations - communities and autonomies. They help to develop
the formation of civil society and democracy in modern Russia.
Communities and autonomies play leading role in social issues at
the regional level. A major focus of their work is the formation of
tolerant behaviour of younger generation. Meanwhile, the impact
of national and cultural associations for social and economic life
9
depends on their cooperation with federal executive bodies, as well
as with local authorities.
There is a legal framework designed to ensure protection
of the national minorities rights in the Russian Federation. Among
the main there can be called the Law of the Russian Federation on
the 25.10.1991 № 1807-1 «About the languages of the Russian
Federation people", the Federal Law on the 19.05.1995, № 82-FZ
"About Public Associations", the Law of the Russian Federation on
the 17.06.1996 № 74-FZ "About the ethno-cultural autonomy"; the
Law of the Russian Federation on the 30.04.1999, № 82-FZ "About
Guarantees of Indigenous People Rights of the Russian
Federation." The National Security Concept of the Russian
Federation is one of the fundamental laws in the field of ethnic
relation. It is long-term and defines the main objectives, strategic
and operational objectives of domestic and foreign policy. National
interests are provided by government institutes realizing its
functions, including cooperation with the existing Constitution and
Russian Federation laws, public organizations.
At the regional level, a number of regulations governing the
national policy of the Federation has adopted in Voronezh region.
The Advisory Council on Interreligious Affairs was created in the
regional Duma on the 30.05.1996 № 102, the Council has been
established for cooperation with religious faiths in Voronezh
Regional Duma on the 27.09.2001 № 0178-III-OD. Then both the
councils have been converted into Interfaith Advisory Council at
the regional Duma by the Board in 2005. This Council has a
prominent role in the formation of tolerance in the region. It aims
at creating the atmosphere of peace and harmony between
diasporas and faiths. The council deals with all situations that could
lead to conflict between the diasporas and confessions, and take
appropriate steps to localize causes of disagreement [6].
The Decree of Voronezh region Governor "about the
establishment of the National Chamber at Voronezh Region
Governor " [7] was adopted in 2010, which defines the legal status,
powers, authority, formation, organization of the National Chamber
of Commerce and other items.
In early 2013 Voronezh region Governor A.V. Gordeev met
with the representatives of Governor National Chamber of
Voronezh region [8]. The experience of the National Chamber of
10
the first convocation showed its relevance. The Chamber has body
coordinating implementation of a uniform national policy in
Voronezh region, a discussion forum to discuss the region's full
range of issues related to inter-ethnic dialogue. "Round tables",
conferences and meetings organized by the Chamber, contributed
to the elimination of inter-ethnic conflicts, build trust and
understanding between the nations of Voronezh region.
The results of the National Chamber activity became the
basis for a number of decisions of the legislative and executive
authorities, aimed at implementing the strategic objectives of the
state national policy. The example can be the response of the
Department of Education, Science and Youth Policy departmental
target program "Prevention of extremism among young people and
tolerance culture in Voronezh region (2012 - 2014 years)." The
National Chamber created eight working groups at different fields
of work. Their work is aimed at the harmonization of interethnic
relations, the strengthening of civil unity, maintenance and
integration of young people in national socio-cultural life of
Voronezh region, as well as the promotion of inter-regional,
international, inter-ethnic relations, ethnic communities and
national projects in various fields. Among the priorities are:
strengthening youth work and participation in the organization to
improve the process of labor migration. One of such events was the
second regional festival of art collectives and creators "Voronezh
multinational". The most tangible result of the national Chamber,
is that there weren’t very serious crimes motivated by racial,
national or religious hatred or enmity in the Voronezh region in
recent years.
The establishment of the regional Duma Committee on
culture and historical heritage was adopted in 2010. The programs
that are fundamental for the work of the legislative and executive
authorities of Voronezh region in the field of cultural relations
with the national associations were developed and approved.
Also in 2010, with the participation of the regional Duma
representatives and the Government of the Voronezh region, a
meeting of Internal Affairs Ministers of Ukraine and the Russian
Federation took place. Support and preservation of Ukrainian
culture is very important for Voronezh Region, because there are
significant numbers of the Ukrainians in the southern border areas
11
of the region. In 1999 an agreement "On the inter-regional
cooperation between the Lugansk region of Ukraine and Voronezh
region of Russia" was signed. Annually, the plan designed to solve
family and youth, culture and art is realised.
Russia-Ukraine events are held regularly in rural areas of the
region, and at the regional level, such as inter-regional festival of
Russia-Ukraine friendship "in a single family" take place. At the
initiative of public organizations of ethnic Ukrainian language is
taught at a boarding school in Boguchar and at school number 91,
and on the basis of municipal school number 75 there was
established an Ukrainian class, where school children are taught
their own language, literature and history [9].
Besides Ukrainian diaspora, there is a Sunday school of
Armenian diaspora. A Sunday four-year school works successfully
during 13 years. They study not only their native language,
literature, geography but history of Armenia, folk dances and
music. It should be noted that the school is attended not only by
Armenians, as well as among the students there is Russian,
Ukrainian, and other nationalities. Nowadays, the school has about
50 people of all ages from 7 to 50 years. Sunday Armenian schools
also exist in Boguchar, Semiluki and Lisky.
With the participation of legislative and executive power
representatives of Voronezh region, the scientific community in the
grant program "Historical memory of Russian people (in the
context of youth patriotic education): structure, influence,
evolution and prospects" held "round table" "Orthodox Russia:
From the Past to the Future. " The main topics were: interfaith
cooperation in the Voronezh region, humanitarian cooperation with
Luhansk region in Ukraine, Orthodox culture as a social
phenomenon.
The result of the "round table" was the adopting of the
resolution, in which the participants have identified the most
important area of public policy in the development of national
cultures - the formation of today's young people the moral law
concepts, the creation of a holistic outlook on the basis of
traditional cultural values.
In this regard, the participants of the "round table"
recommended in a policy framework to overcome the cultural and
political tensions in society lay strengthening of Russian statehood,
12
the statement of spiritual values, ethnic harmony, to offer the
Ministry of Education and Science, the Department of Culture,
Education, Science and Youth Policy of Voronezh region to
consider questions of the measures incorporation of cultural
dialogue organization, overcoming cultural and political divisions
of the Slavic peoples and the consolidation of spiritual values in the
University curriculum.
During the work of "Friendship of Nations - the Unity of
Russia" forum in the Voronezh Regional Duma there was a "round
table" "patriotism among young people", where the most debatable
questions have been raised. It was organized by the Youth
Assembly of the Russian People "We - the Russians", the
Coordinating Council of the people of the Caucasus and the
Committee for Patriotic Education and International Relations of
the Youth Parliament of Voronezh region. During the "round table"
there was adopted a resolution, which refers to the intentions of the
Youth Assembly of Russian People set up a committee on interethnic and inter-religious issues and youth policy, to develop a
regional target program of civil and patriotic education of
Voronezh region youth in the spirit of respect for the cultures and
traditions of the people living in the region, to create a common
cultural and information center for people of all diasporas.
Inter-regional conference "Formation of inter-ethnic
tolerance, prevention of xenophobia and nationalism among young
people" that took place in 2012 in Voronezh gathered about 100
experts on interethnic interaction, including representatives of 20
major regional and Russian national associations. "Round tables"
are hold within the framework of inter-regional conference in
Voronezh leading universities and municipal districts of the region,
allowed to form a platform for further discussion of international
cooperation. The conference generated a positive response at both
the regional and federal levels, particularly- in the Ministry of
Regional Development of the Russian Federation.
The important events of recent years are meetings with
representatives of the national-cultural autonomy, community and
religious organizations, with the participation of representatives of
the Voronezh Regional Duma, Voronezh City Duma, the
administration of Voronezh city.
13
Much of the work is carried out in the direction of the
regional national policies helped to avoid conflicts with human
victims, based on inter-ethnic confrontation, as it was in the mid
1900's and early 2000's.
Bibliography
1. Макаров А.В. Объединение субъектов Федерации:
этнонациональный и территориальный факторы в зеркале
права // Государственная власть и местное самоуправление. 2012. - N 2. - С. 3 - 10.
2. Международные акты о правах человека: Сборник
документов / сост. д.ю.н., проф., В.А. Карташкин, д.ю.н. Е.А.
Лукашева. - 2-е изд., доп. - М.: Изд-во НОРМА (Издательская
группа НОРМА-ИНРФРА-М), 2002. - С. 107-111.
3. Аналитический вестник. - 2010. - № 21 (407)
4. Молодой коммунар. - 2010. - № 101 (от 11.09.2010).
5. Молодой коммунар – 2008. - № 131 (от 29.11.2008).
6.
http://www.communa.ru/news/detail.php?ID=67847
Key word
National politics, tolerance, ethnic identity.
Annotation
The priorities of regional policy towards national minorities, ethnic
and cultural factors and the development of ethnic conflicts
prevention principles are analyzed in the article.
<Translated from Russian>
14
Dushkova N.A.
Personnel maintenance of new industrialisation of Russia:
experience of the past and the present
Now the world has entered a new coil of a global
competition. Also it is shown in an aggravation of economictechnological and ideologically-information rivalry, in militarypolitical opposition, in degree of growth of intellectualization of a
society, in rates of development of its qualitative characteristics,
etc.
But all the same the main thing that will define power of the
state, is its economic component, and also material welfare and
spiritual unity of the people.
In these conditions before our country there is an uneasy
problem - it is necessary to restore simultaneously industrial
potential and to carry out the new industrialisation, allowing to
pass to the sixth technological way. Otherwise it is possible to
remain for ever as a raw appendage of the advanced countries of
the world. And though recently the situation in economy of Russia
has become complicated, from stagnation it is necessary to leave
exclusive nevertheless on a way of new industrialisation and the
innovative policy.
In this connection questions of personnel maintenance of
economy appear in all their variety. For us are necessary not only
scientists and the engineers operating difficult technological
processes, but also in the big weight workers of a different skill
level.
However problems in the given direction recently has
collected much. And this with the fact that for our country the
weakest link in economy, in innovative activity always was and
there is a person. Backlog from the developed industrial countries
on a skill level of workers has reached already critical size - 15-25
years. And this rupture continues to increase.
The difficult situation remains in a domestic scientific
complex. The share of the workers who are carrying out researches
and workings out in an aggregate number of the population of
Russia has decreased for last 20 years in 2,5 times and makes now
only 0,52 % (in 1990 - 1,3 %).
15
Many the negative moments have collected and in sphere of
higher education which urged to prepare experts for all branches of
an economy of the country, and also shots for schools of thought.
For last three decades there was a warp of a professional training
towards the humanities that finally has caused a severe shortage of
engineering specialities, so necessary now in the conditions of
revival and development of industrial potential.
Is even worse business with preparation of working trades is.
The former system of training to working trades is destroyed, and
new is not created. Therefore qualified workers - in deficiency. It
would Seem, for last 8 years a share of the workers occupied
mainly with physical work, in economy has risen to 49 %, and
personnel hunger of working trades exists. It is caused by that
people of work are required not simply, namely qualified workers,
in conditions when manufacture modernisation has begun. At the
enterprises began to establish the difficult equipment, frequently
not only machine tools, and the whole processing centres. For them
specially trained workers are required. And the retraining and
improvement of professional skill system does not work. Besides,
work propagation at all does not operate. The negative influence
has rendered manufacture curling in the nineties the last century, a
delay and salary nonpayment. People, leaving factories, began to
be engaged in so-called "shuttle" activity.
As a result now the low motivation to work at a considerable
part of youth and unfairly high expectations concerning working
conditions and salary level is observed. In spite of the fact that on
all country there are no workers on such specialities as the turner,
the mechanic, the mason, the assembler, the welder, etc. with quite
worthy salary, wishing to occupy vacancies are not present. The
youth does not go on factories as considers it not prestigious. Not
casually, in July, 2013 In Leipzig in the world competition among
representatives of working trades the modular Russian Federation
among commands from 47 countries has occupied only 44 place
[1].
Thus, becomes obvious that the main economic problem of
Russia not only and is not so much today in a lack of investments
"in general", how many in a concrete lack of investments into the
person. It has already led to quickly progressing intellectual and
physical disqualification of labour. It is a little more - and no
16
capital investments any more will help manufacture, because the
people, capable to master the new technics and modern
technologies at world level, simply does not remain.
And nevertheless to break a situation in personnel selection
nevertheless it is possible. Despite many difficulties, in Russia still
remains considerable (10-12 % from world level) scientific
potential. At constant leak of shots at us nevertheless on ten
thousand persons it is necessary 37 scientists and engineers - as
much, how many in the USA, and in 1,5 times more than in
Germany [2]. Have remained at us both working dynasties, and
workers of high qualification.
All it should become a basis for formation of the new
personnel selection which is meeting the requirements of modern
economy. Important value will have also past experience though it
has been saved up in other social and economic conditions.
Similar we have tested something in 30th years ХХ century
at industrialisation realisation. Solving a problem of radical
technical reconstruction of all branches of a national economy, the
country has faced a personnel problem. And then the slogan «the
Shots which have seized technics has been put forward, solve all!».
It was a question not of tens and hundreds thousand, and about
millions the people, capable to actuate and completely to use the
new technics in the industry, on transport, in agriculture, in army everywhere where it arrived. Realisation of the given slogan has
demanded efforts of all people. In all areas of a national economy
movement of the advanced workers for revision of out-of-date
technical norms was developed, movement for development of new
technics was developed, there was a whole system of training of
shots and increase of their qualification.
Visually it is possible to show it on an example of Central
Black Earth area which of agrarian region fast rates turned to the
agrarian-industrial. Here, in the conditions of the overwhelming
majority of the agricultural population, all constructed industrial
enterprises have been provided by necessary shots.
For this purpose in CChO the wide network of establishments
of technical training of workers has been created. It has been
presented by schools of a factory apprenticeship, mugs of a
technical minimum, establishments of individual training, and also
schools on liquidation of semi-illiteracy [3].
17
Work even more became more active after the concrete
program of modernisation of system of the technical training,
confirmed by country directing bodies has been developed.
According to it on training of workers to address with the difficult
technical equipment considerable money resources have been
allocated. Only in 1929 Central Black Earth area have received 2,5
million roubles on preparation of qualified workers, masters and
engineers, and in two years - 6,5 million more [4].
Besides state financing, training payment has been assigned
and to workers who bought loans of technical study. They
represented the bonds got by the population, often under
compulsion.
Huge work was spent on liquidation of full and partial
illiteracy. In 1929 by a network of circles of an educational
program it has been captured 260 thousand persons, and the next
year quantity trained in them has exceeded 1,3 million.
As to schools FZU they were, as a rule, three types. The first
- prepared controllers. Assistants to masters, etc. the Second mechanics, turners, milling-machine operators. The third - working
mass trades. It is known that only in 1930-1931 in such schools
across the Central Chernozem region has arrived 28,5 thousand
persons [5].
Often educational institutions, courses, schools and even high
schools were created directly at the enterprises, or functioned not
constantly, and is temporary, for performance of specific targets.
The mechanisation Institute, food-processing industry Institute,
Institute of land management and others [6] were such high
schools, for example.
The example of the Voronezh factory of a name Dzerzhinsky
is rather indicative. On it in 1930 has been organised, so-called
educational industrial complex. In 1931 2594 persons there were
trained. The industrial complex included three steps. The first prepared qualified workers, heads of groups, foremen of shops and
departments of factories. The given step corresponded to school
FZU level. The second step of industrial complex let out masters,
inspectors of products, technical norm setters, technicians of
departments and shops, opischik steam locomotives, masters and
their assistants. It was equated to railway technical school. The
third, higher step, prepared engineers-organizers and production
18
workers of a narrow speciality (managing departments, mechanics
of the factory, responsible persons on technical safety etc.). The
third step corresponded to railway technical college [7].
Study in such form tried as it is possible to connect with
manufacture problems more closely. And to the workers, having
training corresponding preparation, some privileges gave. So, for
example, to the workers studying at factory of a name Dzerzhinsky,
kept average earnings, gave additional day of rest, reduced to an
hour the working day, guaranteed work only in the first change,
allocated first of all permits in sanatoria and rest houses. At the
same time for study and strictly asked. Admissions of employment
were equated to industrial infringements and had corresponding
consequences: a neopayment of preferential days and hours,
deprivation of grants, etc.
Besides the specified establishments of technical training of
workers, engineers and managers of the enterprises, existed also
рабфаки, called were to prepare a proletarian contingent for receipt
in high schools. On them were accepted as the persons who have
already passed the lowest steps of training, and semiliterate
entrants. In this connection shortly examination tests at reception
on рабфаки have been replaced by examination arriving already in
the course of training [8].
The program on technical training of workers in the Central
Chernozem region, as well as on all country was consistently
carried out. Certainly, at all it, there were many problems and
difficulties. Not all arriving in the educational institutions
mentioned above successfully finished them. The skill level and
teaching structure was not high enough. Not always completely
trainees have been provided by the educational literature, there
were no premises etc.
And nevertheless the wide network of establishments of
technical training in territory of the Central Chernozem region has
been created. It has provided the enterprises of region with the
shots, capable to solve the problems put by the state on industrial
development. That is they have justified the purpose of the creation
[9].
The Voronezh region was especially allocated in this respect.
To the middle of 30th years ХХ century it became one of the most
developed industrial territories in CChR. 1024 industrial
19
enterprises, total of workers on which exceeded 110 thousand
persons Here operated. It in 6-7 times more, than in 1913 [10].
For achievement of such jerk the considerable money
resources allocated from the budget of the country, and also
obsession and enthusiasm of weights had crucial importance. In
30th years has development udarnichestvo, Stakhanov movement,
movement of multimachine operators, etc. If in 1931 of competing
workers there were only 35,5 % from their total number across the
Central Chernozem region by 1934 udarnichestvom, and also by
other kinds of socialist competition have been captured about 2/3
working regions. As to light industry there this indicator has
changed from 71,1 % to 89,9 % [11].
Stakhanov movement has especially widely extended:
Stakhanov days, five-day weeks, decades. Labour productivity at
the competing increased from 145 % to 246 %. But on occasion even to 300 % [12].
Unprecedented industrial growth, that forced industrialisation
of 30th years ХХ the century which fruits we use till now has been
as a result reached on all country. Also there was it possible thanks
to a state firm position - huge respect for the working person. And
though sometimes it was expressed преувеличенно or is primitive,
but it - was. And it was felt, since there was such public
atmosphere.
Now, of course, in our country - other conditions, other
possibilities. But the purpose is put forward similar - to provide
new industrialisation by necessary shots.
As before, considerable means be required. However hardly
it is necessary to count that the similar measure will be quite
sufficient. Last experience testifies that if and it is possible to
provide with the big financial injections break in any direction of
managing in due course the effect from it is lost. Really, in 30th
years it was possible to carry out by means of large financial assets
industrialisation and to put into practice the unprecedented program
of preparation scientific, technical and personnel. However
subsequently results are not become adequate to capital
investments. For example, from the middle 60 to the middle of
80th years expenses on a science then still have increased in the
USSR more than in 3 times, number of research assistants has
doubled. At the same time quantity of annually created samples of
20
new types of cars, the equipment, devices and devices it was
reduced.
Having 1,5 million science officers, i.e. the fourth part of all
science officers of the world and twice more than in the USA,
allocating for a science of the national income of 5 % (the USA,
Japan, Germany, Great Britain, France - 2-3 %), we tested backlog
in this area.
Similar discrepancy has been caused by low efficiency of
research sector of economy. The spent checks of activity of branch
scientific institutes showed that at times 60 % from them at all did
not give out scientific production.
Thus, hardly it is necessary to repeat past errors. Certainly,
without the state support not to manage, but it should be combined
with economic stimulus, assume business financing within the
limits of state-private partnership.
Problems of personnel maintenance of new industrialisation
demand modernisation of all education system. At the same time
there was a necessity and for revival of some forms of a
professional training which have positively proved in the past, but
for the unknown reasons have been curtailed or reduced. It is a
question of training to working trades at the enterprises, about
technical training colleges, etc. it is expedient to make active
propagation of prestige of a working trade, to help the enterprises
to develop the mechanism of formation of the positive image as the
employer, to involve youth on the enterprises by means of their
presentation in educational institutions etc.
Something in this respect is already undertaken. For example,
the state competition of working trades is founded in 2012, the rank
of the Hero of work is entered, it is offered to create the register of
the employers doing the investments into shots, in 2013 on Baikal
has passed the International forum «Engineers of the future», have
started development of system of vocational guidance etc. there
were no without attention educational institutions, and also high
schools which prepare experts for manufacture. All carried out
transformations here are aimed at training and education
improvement of quality.
At all it and presently not to do without enthusiasm of
weights that allows to develop innovation, technical creativity of
workers and engineers, gives rise to useful rivalry. And in this
21
respect the idea uniting people for the sake of achievement of an
overall aim can help. This problem just also puzzles now a
management of our country.
Besides, formation of new personnel selection is impossible
without changes in social structure of a society. It is necessary to
mean that anyway, but the quantity of workers constantly
decreases. While deficiency in labour is not present. But shortage
of labour can arise, as it is predicted by experts if in time not to
undertake corresponding measures.
The certain part of people is involved in the new spheres of
employment connected with computer and information technology.
It is so-called «a creative class».
Moreover, in the country there were many businessmen, at
the majority of them the social status is still very unstable.
Unlike last century, social changes occur today
spontaneously. However there is a sense to stimulate going positive
changes, to help them corresponding measures with economy,
political and legislative spheres, and also to eliminate
consequences of changes negative, such as negative demographic
dynamics, a warp as a part of labour towards workers of physical
work etc.
And, nevertheless, what grandiose problems would not face
the country, and as though quickly it would not be desirable them
to realise, use repressive management methods in no event it is
impossible. Unacceptably economic failures to write off on
separate employees, dismissing them or opening criminal cases as
it was in the past. Are not necessary now both imaginary results,
and doubtful leaders, and formal forms of activization of workers
of manufacture. And the more so are not admissible human a
victim.
New personnel selection carefully developed and
scientifically well-founded will allow to prepare real soil not only
for transfer of the Russian industry from a survival condition in a
development condition, but also will allow to carry out new
industrialisation of the country.
22
Bibliography
1. Gurdin K. The Olympic record of working class / K.Gurdin
//Arguments of week. 2013. № 28. With. 6.
2. Formation of new economic system//the Russian economic
magazine. 2000. № 4. With. 6.
3. GAOPIVO (the State archive of political history of the
Voronezh region). F.2. Оp.1. D. 205. L. 26.
4. GAOPIVO. F. 842 Op. 4. D. 217. Ll - 13-14.
5. Klimov И.М. From history of formation of working class of
the Central Chernozem region / I.M.Klimov. Voronezh: The
Voronezh state university, 1977. With. 27.
6. GAOPIVO. F. 2. Оp. 1. D. 1617. Ll.-73-83.
7. GAOPIVO. F. 2. Оp. 1. D. 1617. L. 103.
8. GAOPIVO. F. The River-1636. Оp. 1. D. 155. Л.1.
9. GAOPIVO. F. 2. Оp. 1. D. 1617. L. 65.
10. GAOPIVO. F. 2. Оp. 1. D. 2285. L. 35.
11. GAOPIVO. F. 199. Оp. 1. D. 476. L. 87 about.
12. GAOPIVO. F. 3. Оp. 1. D. 894. L. 10.
Key words
Industrialisation, shots, a policy, qualification, past lessons,
scientists, experts, motivation of work
Annotation
In article questions of a condition and prospect of
development of scientific and technical personnel potential in
Russia in the conditions of modern modernisation of economy are
considered. Thus on an example of Central Black Earth region it is
shown, what lessons are necessary for taking from past experience
at carrying out of industrialisation of 30th years of the XX-th
century
23
Fedorov K.V.
The struggle for the independence of the court in russia and the
judicial reform of 1864
In 2014, Russia will celebrate the 150th anniversary of the
Judicial Reform of 1864. The reform takes an important place in
the history of Russia and the great reforms of the mid-nineteenth
century. First, the Judicial Reform was the most progressive among
the reforms of Alexander II. It was even ahead of its time. Second,
many of problems that sought to solve the reformers 150 years ago
remain relevant in today's Russia. One of such problem is the
provision of real independence of the court.
The old pre-reform of the court was completely dependent on
the administration. According to apt expression of the Minister of
Internal Affairs S. Lanskoy, "the administration rode on justice".
One can cite many examples of bureaucratic arbitrariness. Once,
someone complained on Moscow commercial court to the
Governor-General of St. Petersburg Prince A.A. Suvorov. Without
thinking twice, Suvorov ordered the arrest of all members of the
court and released them only after the intervention of the Minister
of internal Affairs. Infrequently, a significant court case in St.
Petersburg was not accompanied by the intrusion of the authorities,
and often their direct orders. In province the situation was about the
same. Once, in Arkhangelsk the Chairperson of the Trial Chamber
had to flee from the Governor, who decided to "teach" him with a
stick (1) .
Representatives of the enlightened bureaucracy addressed for
the separation of the court from the administration. The first
Professor of Law in Russia S.E. Desnitsky (1740-1789) presented
to Catherine II the project, which argued that "the judicial power"
should be absolutely independent (2) . In the basis of conversion
plans of M.M. Speransky (1772-1839), the principles of legality
and the separation of powers took place. In "Introduction to the
Code of state laws", the judicial power of the Emperor was limited
to the act of approval (3) . Member of the State Council Admiral
N.S Mordvinov performed for the separation of powers. In 1827
year, he wrote to V.P. Kochubey: "...Legislative, Judicial and
Executive branches of power should be separated in the exercises
24
and their actions. One should not be the responsibility of another"
(4) . A.N. Radischev, N.M. Muravyev, N.I. Turgenev, A.I. Herzen,
N.P. Ogarev, and representatives of the revolutionary populism
criticized the pre-reform judicial system. N.P. Ogarev wrote:
"courts departments patronize for robbery and they rob, governors
patronize pillage and plunder, to interfere in the activities of the
judicial places, moreover, that the separation between
administrative and judicial authorities are highly uncertain " (5) .
Start of practical preparation of judicial reform is the summer
of 1857 year. Chief-steward of the II Department of the Imperial
Chancellery D.N. Bludov supervised the initial work. His first
notes were very careful and inconsistent. However, it was soon
realized that limitation to half-measures would not succeed. The
suggestions on the separation of the judiciary from the
administrative, reducing the judiciary, introduction of orality and
publicity of process of court, the adversarial trial process, the
creation of the advocacy, suspension police from the production of
the investigation were proposed.
In 1860 year, D.N. Bludov presented to the State Council the
draft of the new process of court to which he made a detailed note
with overview of the history of the Russian court. He made in it the
conclusion about the necessity of the separation of the court from
"administrative authorities" (6) . However, the intention to
introduce the independence of the court provoked fierce resistance
reactionaries, headed by the Minister of Justice V.N. Panin. V.N.
Panin sharply objected to a complete separation of the court
administration, withdrawal of preliminary investigation of the
police jurisdiction, and the introduction of a guilty start and trial by
jury.
After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, it was impossible to
delay with the reform. It was necessary to neutralize its opponents.
February 18, 1860 Alexander II tactfully demissed from the
management the Ministry of Justice Panin, which greatly weakened
the opposition of the Judicial Reform. In the autumn of 1861,
Alexander II ordered to convey the preparation of legal statutes
"with assigned to her lawyers" in the State Chancellery. This meant
that the supervision of the work on the new Court Statutes passed
from D.N. Bludov to progressive configured S.I. Zarudny.
25
From January to April 1862, intensive work occurred in the
State Chancellery, in which the best Russian lawyers S.I. Zarudny,
D.A. Rovinsky, N.A. Butskovski, N.I. Stoyanovskii, K.P.
Pobedonostsev, A.M. Plavsky participated. The work results in 6
documents, the most important of which were: 1) "On the basic
principles of civil process of court", 2) "On the basic principles of
criminal process of court", 3) "On the basic principles of the
judicial system". They are contained new principles of justice,
which formed the basis of the Judicial Statutes of 1864. In
accordance with the highest order of April 9, they were placed for
consideration by the united departments of criminal and civil State
Council.
From April to July 1862, 16 meetings of the united
departments took place. During discussions of the criminal process
of court, reactionaries gave battle on the issue of the separation of
the judiciary authorities from the administrative one. V.N. Panin
with the support of the Prince of Oldenburg suggested that there
may be cases when for the protection of public order and security,
it will be possible to arrest to imprisonment, the restraint house, the
castle by an administrative order, without referring the case to the
court. Realizing the inevitability of change, V.N. Panin continued
to cling to the past. It was a rare case when his proposal was
approved, was the inclusion in the Charter of the criminal
proceedings provisions on the representation of some sentences on
the Highest approval, although most members of the General
Assembly was against him (7) .
General meeting of the State Council considered the "The
main principles" in three meetings, on August 27, September 3 and
September 4 of 1862. Almost all of their provisions were adopted
unanimously. Suddenly, V.N. Panin himself gave the protection of
the jury. September 29, Alexander II approved "The main
principles". Preparation of new Legal Statutes entered into its final
phase (8) .
November 20 of 1864, Alexander II signed the new Legal
Statutes, which proclaimed the principles of justice only by the
courts, the independence of the court from the administration, the
irremovability of judges. According to the eminent lawyer A.F.
Koni, these Statutes were "the fruit of the sublime work, imbued
with the consciousness of responsibility compilers them before
26
Russia" (9) . The independence of the court was enshrined in
articles 1, 2, 9, 10 of the Charter of civil proceedings and in articles
1 to 5, 12 and 13 of the Charter of criminal process of court (10) .
However, the representatives of revolutionary opposition
criticized the reform. They argued that a number of qualifications
and exceptions, the government helped to keep the administration
influence on the court. First, this was expressed in fact that all
judges except magistrates were appointed by the administrative.
Second, the governors can control the election of magistrates by
excluding from the lists of candidates of political suspects. "Where
is the independence of the judiciary, – exclaims N.P. Ogarev, –
when at the root of the judicial selection interfere administrative
Governor's power" (11) .
On the other hand, the principle of independence of the court
was subjected to severe criticism by conservative part of the
Russian political elite. Special discontent caused the trial of Vera
Zasulich 1878. The Murder of Alexander II on March 1 of 1881,
and the ascension to the throne Alexander III was the beginning of
the period of counter-reforms.
A strong blow at the independence of the court struck the
"Regulations on measures for the protection of public order" on
August 14, 1881. On May 20 of 1885, the law in fact committed
with the irremovability of judges was published. The Law on
Zemsky Chiefs July 27 of 1889 crowned the judicial counterreform. Its reactionary orientation was so obvious that the
overwhelming majority of members of the State Council voted
against it. But the Emperor Alexander III sided with the minority
(12) .
Finally, even this fact did not mean the complete elimination
of achievements of Judicial Reform of 1864. This occurred only as
a result of the revolution of 1917 and the coming the Bolsheviks to
the power.
Bibliography
1. Hessen I.V. Judicial reform. Saint-Petersburg, 1905, p.1213.
2. Azarkin N.M. History of legal thought in Russia: Course of
lectures. M, 1999, p.178.
27
3. Tomsinov V.A. Speransky. At the service of the law. Moscow,
2013, pp. 138-139.
4. Dzhanshiev G.A. Framework of judicial reform. Moscow,
1891, p. 60.
5. Vilensky B.V. Judicial reform and counter-reform in Russia.
Saratov, 1969, p.92.
6. Dzhanshiev G.A. Framework of judicial reform, p.60.
7. Judicial reform, Ed. N.V. Davydov and N.N. Polanski. Vol.
1. Saint-Petersburg, 1915, p.312; ibid pp. 329-332.
8. Dzhanshiev G.A. Epoch of great reforms. Vol.2.
Moscow,2008, p. 30.
9. Koni A.F. Fathers and children judicial reform.
Moscow,2003, p. 33.
10. Vilensky B.V. Judicial reform and counter-reform in
Russia, p. 335.
11. “Kolokol”, 1862, November 15, p. 1240.
12. Vilensky B.V. Judicial reform and counter-reform in
Russia, pp. 339-344.
28
Khairutdinov R.R.
The Outstanding Universal Value of the Bolgar Historical and
Archaeological Complex, a unique cultural and natural
heritage of the Republic of Tatarstan
The Bolgar Historic and Archaeological Complex (Republic
of Tatarstan) is a unique site of world importance the outstanding
universal value of which was recognized by the decision of the
37th Council of the Committee of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (2013).
Bolgar settlement together with the ramparts and graffs is
located in the European part of Russia on the left bank of the Volga
River 40 km south of its confluence with the Kama on the edge of
the original Volga terrace. In the east it is adjacent to the modern
town of Bolgar, the administrative centre of Spassky district of
Tatarstan.
The town of Bolgar was founded on the headland spit of the
high Volga terrace. It was well fortified naturally and artificially,
the view of the Volga was good. The distinct outline of the
settlement comprises several lines of fortifications built at different
times. The authentic ruins of the fortifications surrounding the
town have been preserved thus forming an integral historical and
cultural landscape of the settlement. By the middle of the 14th
century the fortified part of the settlement had reached a
considerable size. At present the area of the Bolgar Complex is 443
hectares.
An important confirmation of the desire of the state to
preserve the integrity of the site was the decision to expand the
boundaries of the buffer zone of the Complex, to incorporate the
older settlements excavated on the first river island, and the
expansion of the Complex to the north for the sake of the panorama
of the Volga River. Currently, the Buffer Zone of the Complex
occupies an area of 12,101 hectares. This does not only allow to
fully cover the entire territory of Bolgar settlement, the adjacent
historic areas, all their elements and values, and unique scenery
spots and perspectives, but also to exclude any large multistory
construction here as well as the interference with the visual
historical perception of the site.
29
The Bolgar Historic and Archaeological Complex is an
outstanding example of geopolitical and historical changes in
Eurasia in the 10th – early 21st centuries. It played a key role in the
formation of states and civilizations, the spread of Islam and
Orthodoxy, interaction of customs and cultural traditions of the
modern Tatars and other peoples of Eurasia. For over 15 centuries
this site has had stable influence on the development of
architecture, technology, monumental and decorative art, urban
planning, and spiritual culture of Eurasia.
Over the period from the 10th century till the 21st century in
Bolgar a long process of historical development was not only fixed
but also took place. It formed the very essence of national, regional
and local identity as an integral part of modern life of Tatarstan,
and Russia thus characterising its outstanding universal value. The
terms “universal cultural value” and “the outstanding universal
cultural value” were introduced without the definition by the
“Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage” adopted in Paris on November 16, 1972 at the 17th
Session of the General Conference of UNESCO. [1]
The historical, archaeological and architectural heritage of
Bolgar, the collective memory of the ancestors of modern Tatar
people - the second largest nation in the Russian Federation, the
sacredness and successive development of Muslim and Orthodox
culture is indispensable and provides a basis for the conservation
and development of the area.
An important specific feature of Bolgar and its culture is the
spirit of the place, its character and the quality of the area where
Islam was adopted which defined the choice of the state, the people
and most importantly had an outstanding and symbolic meaning. In
922, the Embassy of Baghdad Caliphate, having travelled for over
2.5 thousand km, reached Bolgar. The secretary of the Embassy,
Ahmed Ibn Fadlan, left fascinating notes of the journey which was
exceptional in itself. As a result, the Bolgars officially and out of
free will accepted Islam. The Islamic faith was spread further to the
north, far away from the centre of Islamic civilization. Bolgar is the
oldest and northernmost Muslim enclave of peace. The very fact of
penetration of Islam that far to the north is a universal event.
Located at an unimaginable at the time distance away from the
centres of Islamic civilization, very quickly Bolgar became one of
30
the outstanding examples of the medieval Muslim culture of the
Renaissance. To date this has determined the nature of faith,
customs, traditions, social norms and moral life, culture and
spirituality in this geo-cultural region.
The Embassy of Baghdad Caliphate contributed not only to
the formal adoption of Islam but also to the diplomatic recognition
of Volga Bolgar as a Muslim state. The ethno-confessional
situation that defined for many centuries the identity reflected in all
the aspects of life - economy, culture, science, education, and
spiritual life, changed quickly in the Volga-Ural area. Ahmad Ibn
Fadlan’s travel notes is a masterpiece of the medieval Muslim
literature in the genre of “Rizal” as reflected in numerous
publications in Tatar, Russian, German, French, English and other
languages, works of art, world cinema and other spheres of culture.
The unique identity of the cultural heritage of Bolgar is
based on the fruitful mutual influence of local, Turkic, Eastern,
European and Russian traditions. These stylistic features in the
architecture of the Bolgar Historic and Archaeological Complex
interacted with one another and reflect the diverse effects over a
long period of time.
The monuments of Bolgar are a good example of a creative
and favourable use of various construction traditions that were
skilfully adapted by the Bolgar architects to the local conditions.
Their ideas embodied in stone - mosques, minarets, mausoleums
and baths, did not only play an important role in the appearance of
Bolgar but also significantly influenced the urban culture of the
Kazan Khanate, and later the Russian state [2].
The Bolgar Historic and Archaeological Complex is the
world's northernmost monument of Islamic architecture and the
only complex in the world where the architectural and
archaeological monuments of the Golden Horde civilization have
been preserved. The Cathedral Mosque, the Eastern and Northern
Mausoleums, the Khan's Tomb, the Minor Minaret, the Black and
the White Chambers, the Khan's Palace - these and other
monuments are the Bolgar pearls, a proof of the uniqueness of the
medieval town life expressed not only in the variety of architecture
but also in town planning.
It must be emphasized that the historical landscape of
Bolgar settlement is an excellent example of a millennium-long
31
conservation of medieval monuments, fortification constructions,
religious and public monumental buildings, artisan quarters,
residential areas, cemeteries, and town improvement facilities in
their intact state. The settlement also includes a village founded in
the 18th century and the Assumption Church.
These various authentic monuments as well as the cultural
layer of the settlement do not only clearly demonstrate the unique
location of Bolgar in the scale of Eastern Europe but also open up
the enormous potential to generate new knowledge about the
historical processes in the vast Eurasian continent. The awareness
of the uniqueness and value of Bolgar is reflected in numerous
medieval Eastern and European chronicles, manuscripts of the 17th,
18th centuries and the documents of subsequent eras.
Bibliography
1. UNESCO International Regulations. Moscow: Logos, 1993.
pp. 290 - 302.
2. Valeev R.M Outstanding Universal Value of the Kazan
Kremlin as a World Heritage Site // - Kazan. Journal “Herald of
Kazan State University of Culture and Art”. Number 1, 2013, pp.
18-23.
Key words
Cultural heritage sites, outstanding universal value, Republic of
Tatarstan, Bolgars, conservation, to turn a site into a museum,
UNESCO.
32
Kolesnikova M.E.
The Main Periods of the North Caucasus Studies
from the Second Half of the 18th Century to the Early the 19th
Century
The historiography of the North Caucasus Study is the unit of
the Caucasus Study, which was started in processes of the Russian
colonization of this region in the second half the 18thcentury. The
research of the potential of this territory and the North Caucasian
society was complicated the mountainous people from the
metropolitan centers of science as well as the specific socioeconomic, military, political and socio-cultural conditions of this
region.
There were three interrelated ways of the North Caucasus
researching which could been conventionally denoted as
"governmental", "scientific" and "non-governmental".
The governmental way was represented by activities of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Military Department and other
state institutions and structures (the military-scientific expeditions,
the provincial and the local statistical Committees, etc.). The
scientific way was represented by the studies of the Academy of
Sciences, the Archaeological Commission, the Archaeological
Institute of the Caucasian Archaeographic Commission. The nongovernmental way was represented various scientific societies, as
the metropolitan, and the provincial.
The government way was dominant. It was due to the official
policy of incorporation of the North Caucasus in the Russian
imperial system, whereby the priorities of scientific research
investigations were determined primarily by the interests of the
Russian authorities.
There were three main periods of the formation and the
development of domestic Caucasiology as the unit of the Russian
History:
– the first period was from the second half of the 18th century to
the beginning of the 19th century;
– the second period was in the first half of the 19th century;
– the third period was from the first half of the 19th century to
the beginning of the 20th century.
33
The North Caucasus studies were due process of
incorporation of this territory to the Russian state system. This
circumstance impacted to the development of the historical
knowledge and the research, the expansion of the metropolitan and
the provincial scientific centers to research the North Caucasus.
There were provincial and local historians, which had differed by
varying degrees of their activity in these centers.
From the second half of the 18th century to the beginning of
the 19th century the North Caucasus policy of Russia was very
intensive and in that period the accumulation of information about
the North Caucasus ethnicities started; the first multidisciplinary
academic expeditions were carried out and the North Caucasus
historiographical tradition was developed. The historians fulfilled
the authorities’ order because the methodology of their studies was
encyclopedic principles. They sought to gather as much
information about the new region to coincide with the practical
needs of the state: the scope and objectives of the North Caucasus
studies were closely related to the official policy.
The beginning of the North Caucasus study had due to the
activities of the Russian Academy of Sciences and its
multidisciplinary expeditions, during which the various
information of the North Caucasus history and culture was
collected and the Caucasiology problems were determined. Those
expeditions were one of the elements of "scientific" way. The
specialists in various branches of scientific knowledge
(geographers, geologists, historians, ethnographers, linguists,
economists, etc. ) were participants of those expeditions because
each of them was complex and multi-purposes. There were J.A.
Hildenshtedt, S.-G. Gmelin, I.P. Falk, P.-S. Pallas, G.Y. Klaproth,
I.F. Parrot, M.F. Engelhard, E.I. Eichwald, A.D. Nordman who had
the most significant contribution to the North Caucasus studies [1].
The second stage was the "peaceful" and "power" periods in
the Russian colonization of the North Caucasus. The historical
books about the North Caucasus were published in the first half of
the 19th century. There were descriptions, reports and travel notes,
written by participants of the North Caucasus expeditions. Mainly
military personnel and officials were among them, because there
were many military- topographical, military statistics descriptions.
Thus, the Russian Military took part to the North Caucasus studies.
34
Military scientific expeditions (for ex, General Emanuel’
expedition to Elbrus and the Upper Kuban in 1829) and mission
were one of the elements of the "government" way of the
organization of research in the North Caucasus and a kind of
cultural integration in the 19th century. The North Caucasian
intelligentsia, educators and public figures S.B. Nogmov, Giray
Khan, Gazi Giray, M. Kodzokov, B. Aidemirov, S.-B. Abaev were
the former militaries.
The third period was from the half of the 19th century to the
beginning of the 20th century. In that time Russia continued the
development of new the North Caucasus territory and the
authorities were still interested in scientific information about this
region. The metropolitan researches were very active in that period.
But not only they. The provincial researches were active too. There
were the North Caucasus statistical committees, Stavropol
provincial scientific and Archives Commission of the North
Caucasus scientific societies, which researched the North
Caucasus.
The "non-government" societies had a special significance at
this stage of the North Caucasus studies. The local administration
supported these studies financially because the regional socialpolitical situation was choose and now the provincial intelligentsia
and military were very active in historical, archeological and
ethnographic researches.
The main centers of the North Caucasus researches were
largest scientific societies in Russia: the Russian Geographical
Society and its Caucasian Department; the Society of the Natural
Science Fancier of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of
Moscow University and its Ethnography Department; the Moscow
Archaeological Society. All of them were the important centers of
the North Caucasus researches.
Their structure, the specific activity and its contacts with the
provincial research centers, its research programs, as well as
research methods revived the scientific interest to the historical
past of the region, consolidated the local research efforts and
further development of the North Caucasus historiographical
tradition. Inspired by the metropolitan researches the
Archaeological Commission combined the research, the preserving
and restoration-correlation functions. The researches of North
35
Caucasus statistical committees – the Stavropol province, the Terek
province, the Kuban province and Dagestan – were very important.
Their activities had helped to expand the source base of historical
research and to recreate the historical processes and events that
have occurred in the North Caucasus since ancient times to the
early 20th century. The North Caucasian statistical committees were
the first research centers that united the provincial intellectuals –
archaeologists, ethnologists, historians.
The activity of the metropolitan and the local research centers
since the second half of the 19th to the early the 20th century
contributed to found a number of the North Caucasus scientific
societies. Those centers became a kind of "growth points" for a
formation of an intellectual space (the Stavropol diocesan Church
Archaeological Society, the Kuban Society of the Regional Studies,
the Society of Fancier of the Cossack antiquities. Areas of their
activities were archaeological, ethnographic and historical
researches; preserving of ancient monuments; museums, education
and publishing. They were independent regional historical centers,
which had some organizational and financial resources. The
research issues of these centers were determined with the
specificity of local identity. Researches of these societies became
the basis for further studies and the fundamental works of the
North Caucasus the history of subsequent generations in the 20th
century.
Now then, the North Caucasian historiographical tradition
was created the academic and the military expeditions, their
participants accumulated the information about people of the North
Caucasus. The creation of the provincial scientific societies
consolidated the intellectual resources of academic and military
researchers and the fanciers as in the province and the
metropolitan. At least a whole stratum of historians, who
researched the North Caucasus. The researchers perceive the
Caucasus as the single historical and cultural region. The
characteristic features of the North Caucasus historiographical
tradition, as well as domestic Caucasiology, were the generally
humanist tradition; the multidisciplinarity and the integration of the
methods of the macro-region studies; the humanitarian focus of the
researches; the comprehensive analysis of all available regional
historical sources.
36
Bibliography
1. Lavrov LI. For the 250-th anniversary of academic
Caucasian studies in Russia // Caucasian ethnographic collection.
Мoscow, 1976. Vol. VI. P. 7.
Key words
History of Science, Caucasian studies, historiography,
historiographical tradition, the Russian Empire, the Northern
Caucasus, expedition, travelers, scientific society; statistical
committee.
37
Kortunov A.I., Ivanov V.A., Protsenko A.S.
The Policy of the Russian Governance to Settle the Territorial
Disputes between the Ural Cossacks and the Kazakhs ("the
Bukeyev Kirghiz") in the 40-70s of the XIX Сentury
One of the poorly studied issues on the history of the Urals
in the Russian and foreign historiography remains the Cossack
colonization of the region. The published historical sources
indicate that the active resettlement of the Yaik Cossacks on the
right bank of the Yaik, from the mouth to the middle reaches of the
river, began in the XVIII century. In the first half of the XVIII
century there arose a system of defensive lines. At all convenient
points they built fortifications to repel invasions from the Kirghiz
steppes. At the same time the middle part of military lands
remained empty. The movement along the line lasted for about
sixty years, but at the beginning of the XIX century it comes to an
end due to extinction of mass raids from the steppe. As a result, the
economic development of the Ural Cossacks begins.
Inner lands started to be filled with people, outposts and
umets (settlements) were built, there appeared public and private
farms. This movement from the outer line to the Volga River had
two main reasons: the development of other sectors of the
economy, besides fishing, and the desire to protect their lands from
immigrants’ intrusion. Since fishing could no longer feed the everincreasing mass of the Yaik Cossacks, part of them turned to arable
farming and animal husbandry. In the places of husbandry
development the Cossacks began to create separate winterings and
farms.
However, the steppes to the west and the east of the Ural
River had been long a territory of nomadic Turkic tribes. In the era
of the Golden Horde, here, in the mountains of Mugodzhary, there
was a border between Batu Khan’s and his younger brother
Shiban’s uluses. In summer Nomads of the eastern part of Ulus
Batu (the Sary-Kipchaks ) dispersed along the steppe rivers, while
in winter they lived in the vicinity of the lake Shalkar and the lower
reaches of the Great and the Small Uzen Rivers, on the shores of
the Sary Kamysh lakes. It is here that most of the nomadic mounds
of the XIII-XIV centuries are localized. In the XV-XVI centuries
38
this territory belonged to the Great Nogai Horde , with its capital in
the town of Saraichik in the lower reaches of the Ural River.
In the XVII and early XVIII centuries, along the right bank
of the Ural River (the Yaik) from the mouth of the Ilek river to the
mouth of the Ural River there appeared stationary settlements of
the Ural (Yaik) Cossacks, creating an obstacle to the free
movement of nomads in the steppe. The river became the western
border of the nomadic camps of the Kazakhs (Kirghiz-Kaysaks) of
the Junior Juz [1; 2]. Since the boundary was not recognized by the
nomads, between them and the Russian settlers, who considered
the land “empty”, there were constant disputes and clashes [3].
The situation worsened after the Bukeyev, or the Inner
Horde separated from the Junior Juz in 1801 and was given lands
between the Urals and Akhtuba [4; 5]. Now the bukeevtsy, who
had lacked pastures and watering, started wandering legally around
the Uzen Rivers and Kamysh-Samarsky lakes. In response, in 1815
the Ural Military Office established three observation posts on the
Small Uzen, later renamed into the pickets (Verbovsky , Talovskiy
and Abinsky (or Obinsky ) ) [6]. By the beginning of the 30s of the
XIX century, along the lower Small Uzen two more outposts were
formed – Mokrinskiy and Glinyansky. The total Cossack
population of the outposts was 563 people of both sexes in 114
farmyards [7].
By the middle of the XIX century the conflict developed
into an open confrontation. In the 1840s, an attempt was made to
separate Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky sites. AdjutantGeneral Perovsky considered it necessary not only to keep the
Cossacks in these limits, but even add 1220000 acres on both sides
of the Urals to their former possessions. It was supposed to draw a
border between the Cossacks’ lands and the Bukeyev Horde from
the southwest and the west so that: 1) the Small and the Great Uzen
Rivers might become a natural boundary between the Kazakhs and
Cossacks; 2) Kamysh-Samarsky lakes with their shore pastures
were to be divdied so that the part of them, formed by the Small
Uzen River, might be given to the Kazakhs, and the part formed by
the Great Uzen – to the Cossacks [8].
A specially established board studied the problem
comprehensively. In 1845, it made a final conclusion, indicating
the impossibility of divestiture of a significant part of the Cossack
39
lands in the disputed areas, "For all these reasons, the lands of
Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky sites are not only
unnecessary for the host as providing its animal husbandry in the
present and the future, but without them, at least without significant
parts thereof, the host, with the proven need for the development of
its husbandry, according to the opinion of the special board, can
not manage, and so divestiture of these sites from the host will
have adverse consequences for the latter..."[7].
In the same 1845, the Military Council found no reasons to
reduce the limits of ownership of the Ural host: "Reducing the
Cossack lands, although proposed by the Orenburg Military
Governor in one respect, would be contrary to his own
acknowledgement of shortage, already perceived by Cossacks, of
the land allowance, according to his predecessors' opininon and the
revealed needs of the host. Therefore the Military Council ...
considered: the border of all the land of the Ural host should be
appointed and approved for ever in the following way: ... the west
one between the Kamysh-Samara Lakes and the Uzen Rivers
should be laid along the estates of Adjutant-General Perovsky and
his predecessors..."[8].
The issue seemed to have been resolved, but the Bukeyev
Kazakhs ignored the established boundaries and continued to come
to the disputed territory due to lack of fodder. The Orenburg
military governor board reacted to it with understanding. Thus, the
found in the archives order of the governor V.A. Obruchev allowed
the Kazakhs to graze their cattle in winter on the banks of the Uzen
Rivers and Kamysh-Samarsky lakes within the lands of the Ural
Cossack host free of charge [9].
It was when Perovsky was the Governor-General that
special Commission already suggested (according to the prior
conclusion of the Military Council) splitting this disputed area
equally between the parties in order to provide the Ural Cossacks
with the lower part and the Kyrgyz of the Bukeyev Horde with its
upper part. When considering these options, the Governor-General
fully agreed with them and having supported them with the new
evidence, presented his review in May 1856 [10].
It is worth noting that according to the statistics by the
beginning of 1860s the Cossack population of Mezhdu-Uzensky
and Kamysh-Samarsky sites was small. On the left bank of the
40
Small Uzen there was Karakalpatskoe settlement as well as
Talovskiy, Verbovsky, Abinsky, Mokrinskiy and Glyniany
outposts. On the Great Uzen and in the Kamysh-Samarsky Lakes
area there was Borodin farm, Slamihin farm, Uspa-Dzhulsky farm
and Muhorsky post. The total population here was equal to 1374
people of both sexes (687 males and 687 females) [11].
The fate of the disputed land was finally resolved on
February 12, 1865: "According to the highest statement of the
Committee of Ministers the 35-year-long dispute between the
Kirghiz and the Cossacks of the Ural host over the area between
the Great and the Small Uzen Rivers was resolved. This decision
was made in 1865-1866 by the special Board that planned the
border between the two parties" [12].
The work on delimitation launched on July 20, 1865 from
Berezovsky cordon was brought to Sakrylsky Lake. After that the
planning stopped due to unclear understanding of the conclusions
of the Committee of Ministers on the delimitation of the area
between Sakrylsky and Kamysh-Samarsky lakes. In autumn the
Board stopped the work and was called by the Orenburg GovernorGeneral N.A. Kryzhanovskii to Orenburg. Having explained the
precise meaning of the conclusion of the Committee of Ministers,
the Governor-General offered the Board to resume the work in the
spring of 1866 [13].
Upon completion of delimitation of Mezhdu-Uzensky and
Kamysh-Samarsky areas the Orenburg Governor-General noted
that the work of the special Board based on not quite correct
principles and therefore denied its conclusions informing the
Minister of the Military and the Interior. The main reason of the
Governor-General’s opinion was the assertion that the Kirghiz as a
nomadic people should be given the largest possible amount of
land and the Cossacks as fishermen should be given the most of the
water supply of Mezhdu-Uzensky area [14].
Formally, the work was continued, but now according to a
new draft of the Orenburg Governor-General. As a result, on
March 29, 1871 there appeared a highly approved decision of the
State Council "On delimitation of the land between the Ural
Cossack host and the Bukeyev Kirghiz". "Having considered the
proposal of the Minister of Military on the division of the land
between the Ural Cossack host and the Bukeyev Kirghiz, the State
41
Council, at the Department of State Economy and at the General
Assembly, decided to put the border between the Ural Cossack host
and the Bukeyev Kirghiz according to the line planned by the
Orenburg Governor-General, Adjutant-General Kryzhanovsky..."
[15].
On the basis of this document the Mezhdu-Uzensky area
comprising 1024383 dessiatinas (dessiatina is a measure of land
equal to 2.7 acres) was divided between the Ural Cossacks and the
Kirghiz Inner Horde (the Cossacks were given 130529 dessiatinas
i.e. about 13 % of the disputed territory). It was found necessary to
give the area occupied by the Kirghiz on the Great Uzen to the
Cossacks, but as the immediate compulsion of the Kirghiz to move
with their winter huts could be accompanied by bad consequences
for them, it was decided to leave the Kirghiz there for three years.
Composed of officials of both concerned parties the Board under
the chairmanship of the official appointed by the Governor-General
decided to leave 2787 tents on the Cossack lands and provide them
with 104,481 dessiatinas of land [16].
Thus, the struggle for the use of the land on the MezhduUzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky areas between the Ural Cossacks
and the Bukeyev Kirghiz (the Kazakhs) lasted for more than fifty
years. It was the beginning of the XIX century when the first
Cossack outposts started being constructed on the Small Uzen that
were intended to protect the Mezhdu-Uzensky and later KamyshSamarsky area from the newly formed the Bukeyev Kyrgyz (Inner)
Horde and other nomads.
The government needed to resolve land disputes that arose
and that were to end with fair delimitation of these areas. However,
the first attempts of this work did not remove all the contradictions.
Therefore, in the 40s of the XIX century a special Board on the
separation of two disputed areas was created. After a thorough
study of the issue the Board concluded that much of the land of the
Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky areas was necessary for
the Ural Cossack host to enlarge the military capital and to provide
qualified performance of their military duties. Although the
approximate boundary line of the Ural host and the Bukeyev Horde
for the disputed land was identified by V.A. Perovsky, the military
governor of Orenburg, the disputes still continued later. The new
42
boundary line between the Ural Cossack host and the Bukeyev
Horde was finally established only after 1865.
In preparing the draft of the new border the opinion of the
Orenburg Governor-General N. Kryzhanowsky was considered,
who claimed that most of these areas should be given to the
Kirghiz of the Bukeyev Horde that might suffer substantial
economic losses without these lands, while the Ural Cossacks
should get only those areas where they perform active economic
activity.
The work was continued, but according to the new draft of
the Orenburg Governor-General. As a result, on March 29, 1871
there appeared a highly approved decision of the State Council "On
delimitation of the land between the Ural Cossack host and the
Bukeyev Kirghiz". On the basis of this document the disputed areas
that comprised 1024383 dessiatinas were divided between the Ural
Cossacks and the Kirghiz of the Inner Horde. At the same time the
local Cossacks received only 130529 dessiatinas, that is about 13%
of the total area.
Bibliography
1. Rychkov P.I. Topografija Orenburgskaja. Chast' pervaja. –
S-Pb.: Izdatel'stvo Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1762. P. 135136.
2. Georgi I.G. Opisanie vseh obitajushhih v Rossijskom
gosudarstve narodov. – S-Pb.: Izdatel'stvo Imperatorskoj Akademii
Nauk, 1799. P. 121.
3. Materialy dlja geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye
oficerami General'nogo Shtaba. Ural'skoe kazach'e vojsko. Chast'
1. Sostavil General'nogo Shtaba poruchik A. Rjabinin. – S-Pb.:
Tipografija Je. Vejmara, 1866. P. 104-105.
4. Aristov N.A. Zametki ob jetnicheskom sostave tjurkskih
plemen i narodnostej i svedenija ob ih chislennosti // Zhivaja
starina. Vypusk III i IV. – S-Pb.: Tipografija Imperatorskogo
Russkogo geograficheskogo obshhestva, 1896. P. 385.
5. Polnoe Sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj Imperii Sobranie 1.
Tom XXX. № 23164. – S.-Pb.: Tipografija II Otdelenija
sobstvennoj E. I. V. Kanceljarii, 1830. P. 435.
43
6. Ural'skoe kazach'e vojsko. Statisticheskoe opisanie v 2-h
tomah. Sostavil N. Borodin. Tom I. – Ural'sk: Tipografija
Ural'skogo kazach'ego vojska, 1891. P. 24-25.
7. Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj istoricheskij arhiv. Fond 853.
Opis' 1. Delo 38. List 1-41.
Opis' 81. Delo 136a. List 251-251.
Opis' 82. Delo 8. List 1.
11. Materialy dlja geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye
oficerami General'nogo Shtaba. Ural'skoe kazach'e vojsko. Chast'
2. Prilozhenija. Sostavil General'nogo Shtaba poruchik A.
Rjabinin. – S-Pb.: Tipografija Je. Vejmara, 1866. P. 101.
12. Gosudarstvennyj arhiv Rossijskoj Federacii. Fond 678.
15. Polnoe Sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj Imperii. Sobranie 2.
Tom XLVI. Otdelenie 1. № 49413. – S-Pb.: Tipografija II
Otdelenija sobstvennoj E. I. V. Kanceljarii, 1874. P. 275.
Key words
The Ural Cossacks, the Bukeyev Horde, Mezhdu-Uzensky disputed
area, Kamysh-Samarsky disputed area, delimitation.
Annotation
The article examines the process of delimitation between
Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky sites of the Volga and
Ural region in 40-70-ies of the XIX century. Particular attention is
paid to the activities of the government for resolving land conflicts
in these areas between the Ural Cossacks and the Bukeyev Kirghiz.
44
***
The study was performed in the framework of the basic part
of the State assignment for the research work of the Ministry of
Education and Science (2014-2016). The Subject of the research:
"Nomads of the Golden Horde in the XIII-XV centuries and Ural
Cossacks in the XVI-XIX centuries: the problems of ethnic and
socio-cultural continuity " (Project № 2936)
<Translation from Russian Iksanova R.M.>
45
Lizunova I.V.
Regional publishing space at the beginning of the XXI century:
ways of development
The Russian book market in early XXI century, entereing a
period of relatively stable and gradual development, is
characterized by:
– the dominance of the publishing activity of private
business;
– intense competition between publishers;
– expansion of information potential publishing environment
while maintaining significant differences of publishing
opportunities in regions which differ among themselves by
geographical, social, economic, investment and innovation
conditions, human, printing and financial resources, available
social-cultural traditions;
– search for new sale channels of published products – along
with traditional forms of book distribution through wholesale and
retail units it was developed various kinds of special sales: through
non-book shops, associations, book clubs, Internat, remotely etc.;
– segmentation of the book market related with
differerentiation and niche formation of certain groups of readers
and others.
A modern regional publishing space has been formed in
Siberia and the Far East at the beginning of the XXI century. It was
characterized by the following features:
– functioning of large publishing centers, expansion of
geography of book production and distribution;
– existing social-cultural and publishing traditions;
– entrepreneurial activity of publishers and sponsors;
– attention of the local authorities to this public sphere [1];
– state target support of publishing books in languages of
indigenous peoples of Siberia, the Far East and the Far North;
– priorities in output of socially valuable literature: local
history, scientific and popular works on history, philology and
folklore of the peoples living in the region, the best works of local
artists, young writers and poets, children, adolescents and youth
literature, national literature, etc.
46
The main base of the publishing space in post-Soviet Siberia
remains Novosibirsk, developed centers are Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk,
Omsk, Tomsk, Tyumen. Leadership positions in publishing belong
to Khabarovsk and Vladivostok at the Far East.
At the beginning of the XXI century publishing activity in
the region has become much more active. However, there is still a
high concentration of the largest book business in the center of the
country - more than a half of all publishers, especially in the capital
cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Moscow accounts more than
60% in the total number of book titles manufacture and more than
80 % in terms of circulation of all published books and booklets in
Russia (see Fig. 1).
2011
2008
Shares by number of issued
publications
Shares by circulation
Other regions;
11%
Other regions;
31%
Moscow;
61%
Saint
Petersburg;
5%
Saint
Petersburg;
8%
Moscow;
84%
Other regions;
11%
Other regions;
36%
Moscow;
56%
Saint
Petersburg;
8%
Saint
Petersburg;
4%
Moscow;
85%
Figure 1. Shares of regions in the geography
of the Russian publishing
Monocentrism of the book market directly influences on the
degree of publishing products richness in Siberia and the Far East,
primarily by local production.
Meanwhile the most part of published book titles and their
circulation falls on Siberia in the structure of the regional
publishing space. 73% of published books was the share of the
Siberian Federal District (SFD) in 2001–2009, while the share of
the Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD) was only 26.3%. With
47
respect to circulation the pattern of book publishing was the
following: Siberia produced 77.3 % of the total regional editions of
books and booklets, and the Far East – only 22.7%. (see Fig. 2, 3)
[2].
100
80
60
40
20
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
SFD
74,8
75,3
74,9
76,7
76,7
80,6
81,1
75,8
81,6
FEFD
25,2
24,7
25,1
23,3
23,3
19,4
18,9
24,4
18,4
Figure 2. Production of books and booklets by titles in the
Siberian and Far Eastern Federal Districts in 2001–2010., % of
the total production of books and booklets in Russia
*SFD – Siberian Federal District, FEFD – Far Eastern
Federal District
It’s notable the assessment of the book market development
level in Siberia and the Far East by local experts: "The Siberian
publishing market is a phenomenon of a cultural rather than
economic order. Deprived of the state support and opportunities to
compete with the capital players on equal terms, the most Siberian
publishers are struggling to make ends meet. Today the bookstore
boom is marked in Russia. If by 2000 the turnover of domestic
bookselling was about $1 billion, then in 2005, according to
various estimates, this amount reached the mark of $1.7 to $2
billion. However, regional, including Siberian book publishing,
remains on the periphery of this explosion as before, trying to
survive and dodge on tiny and very specific segments of the book
market" [3].
48
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
SFD
0,4
0,5
0,4
0,4
0,5
0,7
0,8
1,5
0,7
FEFD
0,1
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,5
0,1
Figure 3. Production of books and booklets on circulations in the
Siberian and Far Eastern Federal Districts in 2001–2010., % of
the production of books and booklets in Russia
Let us give the thoughts of publishing enterprises leaders on
regional publishing indicators such as a number of publications and
their circulation: "According to the statistics of the Russian Book
Chamber, the total volume of products printed by Siberian
publishers on the number of titles was 5802 units – shared 5.7% of
the Russia's total annual volume of printed products. There are tiny
amounts of production and only one relatively large publishing
house in the entire region – a paradoxical situation sui generis
considering the fact of existing a sufficient powerful printing base
in Novosibirsk (capital of Siberia is the third after Moscow and St.
Petersburg by a number of printing houses), and remembering that
bookselling network "Top book", the Russian book market leader,
is also in the native land" [3].
Experts call the reasons for which, in their opinion, the
Siberian book publishing is in decline. First of all, all printing
facilities, the sources of printing materials, financial and human
resources are in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Consequently, it’s
much easier and more profitable to publish books in the center of
the country for the central publishing houses than beyond the Urals
for regional publishers. In addition, the negative role plays the
49
irregular and inflexible system of state financial support of regional
publishers.
Besides to the mentioned above factors hindering the
development of Siberian and Far Eastern book market one more
can be called, namely the market limitation. Except to low
bandwidth of modern bookstores, it can be noted disinterestedness
of major bookselling companies in acquisition and promotion of
small individual publications of Siberian companies. This, in turn,
is a serious problem for many regional publishers, which do not
have both own book-driving networks and the opportunities of
outlet not only to the national book market, but even to the local
one.
Experts conclude that in comparison with the 1980's, when
volumes of fiction were higher than in the whole of the USSR, the
profitability of modern small regional publishers of a similar
universal profile is extremely low, it remains at the level of
elementary self-sufficiency.
Generally for regional book publishing few attractive and
unoccupied thematic segments of the market remains. They are
local history, the fields of regional knowledge and interests:
history, economy, nature, geography and local literary and artistic
phenomena. Within the framework of regional issues many
territorial and regional publishing centers of Siberia and the Far
East are implemented: PH "Sova", PH "Istoricheskoe nasledie
Sibiri", " Infolio" in Novosibirsk, "Sibirica" in Tomsk, publishing
houses "Bukva", "Klaretianum" in Krasnoyarsk, "Mandry i K" in
Tyumen, "Nasledie. Dialog-Sibir’" in Omsk, publishing and
printing company "Kuzbass" in Kemerovo, PH "Priamurskie
vedomosti" and "Chastnaya kollektsiya" in Khabarovsk ,
publishing office "Russky ostrov" in Vladivostok, etc.
Formation of a multidimensional and diverse regional
publishing space depends on many factors. First of all, thematic
niches of regional publishers “sparsely inhabited a vast region" are
much narrower than the central publishers [4]. Consequently, the
abilities for maneuver, both economic, financial, human resources
and printing and book-driving capacity are also low. Moreover,
under conditions of growing economic and cultural attraction of the
center on the background of intensifying competition in the
publishing sphere the provincial book publishers have to choose
50
further ways of development: to identify and to take free specific
market segments; to monitor readers' needs and to publish books in
accordance with them; or to lose the independence and functioning
due to financial support of the local ruling elite, entrepreneurs and
sponsors, turning into actors of a certain regionally powerful order.
Bibliography
1. Volkova V. N. Modern Siberian cities as centers of book
publishing // The 4th Makushin reading. Novosibirsk, 1997. P. 191–
195. In Russ.
2. Printing in the Russian Federation in 2000–2010. Moscow:
Russ. book chamber, 2001–2011. In Russ.
3. Goldberg S. Stay alive. Siberian publishing market analysis
//
Publisher
Sapronov.
URL:
http://www.sapronovbook.ru/public/143-ostatsja-v-zhivykh.-analiz-sibirskogorynka.html. In Russ.
4. Posadskov A. L. What determines the independent
publishers: some sore spots of regional book publishing // Regional
book publishing in Russia. Moscow, 2008. P. 122–126. In Russ.
Key words
Publishing space, books, Siberia, the Far East, printing house,
publisher, publishing organization, publishing industry, publishing
business, regional book printing, book market, reform, modernity.
51
Mazaeva T.A.
Stone towers of Chechnya.
To a question of architectural form interpretation
Stone constructions were built in Chechnya at the
foreseeable ancient history. Among them, the most common and
well-known are the towers. Tower architecture of Chechnya has
always attracted keen interest both travelers and researchers.
Among them are A.P. Berger, A.P. Ippolitov, V.F.Miller,
E.I.Krupnov, S.Ts. Umarov etc.
Tower in the village
Upper Lamey
Shatoy
Tsa –Kale
The first architecturally aligned section of tower with the
accompanying sketches was published in 1928. It belonged to the
painter and ethnographer I.P. Shcheblykin. We can read about the
impression that tower built in Chechnya and Ingushetia fired on
I.P. Shcheblykin: “The form is perfectly simple and austere. With
amazing harmony, proportion and quite a high altitude, they are
stable and durable. We are struck by the skill of builders, their style
and ability to resolve so gorgeous and translate into real shape their
ideas and imagination "[Shcheblykin 1928: 17
52
In 1956, on the initiative of Eugeny Ignatievitch Krupnov,
who headed the North Caucasian archaeological expedition to
study the monuments of local architecture, a special Mountain
(Argun) group was created, which had to describe the
corresponding construction, measure them, sketch and photograph.
These researches were headed by V.I. Markovin, who devoted to
this work 10 years (1956-1966).
In this researches, we will rely on materials of the most
authoritative researchers Nakh tower architecture, and publications
of recent years, which summarize all previous experience of
studying these monuments. These authors are the following:
- V.I.Markovin, who in the last fundamental monograph
“The North Caucasus. Essays on Ancient and Medieval History
and Culture”, published in 2003 in conjunction with
R.M.Munchaev, in the chapter on medieval Nakh architecture,
summarized the current state of academic research on these unique
monuments;
- Lecha Ilyasov, who conducted great research on Chechen
tower architecture and published two monographs “Shadows of
Eternity" and "The Culture of the Chechen people” in 2004 and
2009.
- D.Yu. Chahkiev, who published two volumes in 2003 and
2009. There were published though very fragmentary, but still very
53
valuable for any researcher, “archaeological map” of a number of
monuments of medieval Nakh architecture.
The main forms and functions of Nakh towers were
identified in these studies. According to these authors, residential,
semi-combat and combat towers were built in Chechnya. Semicombat and combat towers were used as defensive structures and
also served as escort and signal posts.
The subject of our analysis are the most advanced in this
series both from an aesthetic point of view and the level of
architectural excellence and building techniques - the so-called
“Combat” towers. Here is a description of these towers:
V.I. Markovin:
«Battle tower were erected ... near residential buildings,
but often in the most inaccessible places - on rocky cliffs, steep
slopes above the rivers and at places that occupies strategically
important points - at the junction of roads at the entrance to the
gorge. There are towers attached to the rocks niches (near the
villages Nihaloy, Ushkaloy, Mutsaroy etc.). They are built without
a foundation ... but their basement is always composed of most
massive stones, sometimes exceeding the height of a man. Their
masonry ... always have cornerstones. The area of a basement is
5x5 m; 4x4 m, it strongly narrows upwards (to 4x4 m, 3x3 m) ...
Reaching a height of 20 meters or more, if they seems to be
directed to the sky, this feeling is reinforced by strictly symmetrical
arrangement of apertures on the vertical axis and by their
harmonious pyramidal-ledged completion. Tower harmony is also
emphasized by a rounded stone spire, which ends the pyramid of a
roof. Magnificent proportions of “balconies” “mashikuli” also
contributes to it. They are brought forward on consoles at four
sides at the very top of the tower and lancet shaped apertures are
always visible behind them .....
Nakh towers are always richly decorated: it is a kind of
“rods” of a narrow girdle of jutting rocks, lines of stones set
obliquely or on the edge, segments of notched masonry “with one
stone missed”, give a bright light and shadow game "[Markovin,
Munchayev 2003: 282-283].
Some refinements introduces L.Ilyasov in his description:
“..... they have a quite big height (up to 25 m), a relatively
small basement area (5x5 m), a fairly large taper angle upwards ...
54
mashikuli were basically of the same type, representing lined
balconies of stone slabs that were attached to the two, three or
more consoles, had no bottom. There were large shooting apertures
in the tower walls on the mashikuli side. From these apertures
defenders of tower could fight against besiegers. There were holes
in the walls - loopholes and observational gap on all floors of the
tower ... many towers with pyramidal and stepped roof had
doorways on all floors, which decreased in proportion to the
narrowing of the tower” [Ilyasov 2009: 225]....
Virtually all combat towers described by D.Chahkiev
“.... outside walls were abundantly treated with light
yellow colour plaster” [Chahkiev 2009: 8].
Our first thesis concerning so-called “combat” stone towers
of Chechnya, which are traditionally belonged to defensive
structures, is in the fact, that they are not exactly defensive.
In order to substantiate this statement let us refer to the
structure of tower and its functional, or namely, defensive
capabilities. Tower architecture is quite a widespread phenomenon
in the world architecture. Starting from ancient times, towers either
embedded in walls or stand alone as medieval donzhons in Europe,
were used for defensive purposes. The most important conditions
for their use for defense purposes were the following:
- ability to concentrate inside the tower food and water
sufficient to withstand a siege;
- presence of an underground passage, which generally has
access to a water source and simultaneously used to escape in case
of destruction;
- ability to hide at least for members of one family, which
at the time consisted of 10 or more people;
- ability to concentrate inside the tower arsenal of weapons
sufficient to combat;
- successful defense of tower, possibly for a long time,
taken into account the strength and the means for attack in the
arsenal of enemy at the moment.
“Battle” towers in Chechnya do not match none of these
conditions.
1. These authors argue that food supplies were concentrated
in the stone bags-sections on the ground floor.
55
V.I. Markovin wrote: “Four-five-storey vainakh towers
had cellars in which they store purveyance and kept captives,
which were expecting decision of his fate in special
stone”bags” [Markovin, Munchayev 2003:283].
Our reference:
In most towers the first floor has no interior space, it
was filled with stones and soil, and even if such a space exists,
one can get into it only came down from the second floor.
Stone bag – section
In the so-called bags-compartments Chechens could store
grain, flour, corn, dried meat, but it was hardly possible for several
reasons:
- Bags-sections are quite large in size and filling them with
food at enemy approaching is unreasonable and quite dangerous.
So, it was necessary to keep some minimal food rations
permanently. It was also very problematic, because dampness and
small rodents would lead to spoilage, and their stock would have to
be constantly updated. This should be done by lifting it beforehand
to the second floor and then moving it down to the first floor,
which resembles in itself a “Sisyphean task”. And finally, even if
in the beginning of a siege in these bags-sections the necessary
supplies of flour, meat and other products would have been, there
were no place to cook them, for there is no hint a hearth presence
in the towers. Of course, in case of danger precipitated could bring
already cooked food with them, but it could not be so much, that
56
there was the need to move it dawn to the first floor and load it in
raw bags-sections.
According to existing version, captives were kept in bagssections.
It also seems to be unlikely. The internal space of the first
floor is so small that could accommodate almost huddled together
5-7 captives. It is impossible neither to sleep nor to meet the
natural needs; the food should have been down through the second
floor, taking away the scraps in each case, that would otherwise rot
in confined spaces.
Attitude to prisoners was special in Chechnya. This is
indicated by the data of folklore and numerous contemporaries who
visited Chechnya. A decent captive soldier was given either
freedom (the most striking example is the story of Prince Bagration
), or offered to stay and live among the Chechens (the legend of the
Kabardian prince Tazite). Other prisoners were released for
ransom. Before receiving this ransom prisoners lived in the
Chechen families, where they were supposed to work on a par with
the owners, but they also obtained life satisfaction on a par with the
hosts. Mountains of Chechnya were too severe and the possibility
of escape from the Chechen village was so dangerous that there
was no need to put the prisoner in the beauty- tower, thereby
significantly complicating his keep. In addition, the Chechen
ethical standards also did not allow just to keep a healthy man, he
necessarily had to work for his food.
All of the above evidence in favor of the fact that the first
floor of the tower had not been adapted neither for food stocks, nor
for detention of prisoners.
2. As for the underground passage leading to the water
source and allowing to leave the tower, none of construction,
described in the scientific literature, has such a passage..
3. Could Chechen family, consisting usually of three
generations, hide in a tower and not only hide, but also to defend
themselves? It can be assumed that the family, numbering 10 or
more people could stay on the 3rd and 4th floors, for, as the
researchers say, cattle was kept on the second floor during the
siege. However, tower could neither to withstand a siege, nor to
protect people hidden in it.
Markovin wrote about the defense of tower::
57
«A shooter could fight of flintlock or archery standing on a
top of mashikuli walls”. Stones, boiling water etc. could be
thrown dawn the bottom, since mashikuli had no floor» ”.
[Markovin, Munchayev 2003: 283]..
Our reference:
Firearms appeared in the Caucasus only in the late XVI century the
early XVII century, and became widespread only in the late XVIII
century. In the monograph about Caucasian weapons we can read:
«Armament of Caucasian highlanders have long been consisted of
defensive armor, helmet and bracers and of offensive weapons - a
bow and arrows, spears, darts, swords and daggers. Firearms
spread in the XVIII century and for some time a bow and arrow,
gun and defensive armor coexisted.»
[http://www.spektr.info/articles/zanyatiya/16].
Strictly scientific dating of Chechen towers is not exist.
According to the tradition established by the first explorers of these
facilities since the XIX century, towers are dated from the XI-XIII
centuries and till the early XVIII century. In the second half of the
eighteenth century, these stone structures have not been built. Thus,
the defense of towers could be held only with a bow and arrows.
Besides, defenders could dump on enemy stones and pour hot tar.
Ilyasov writes:
- «…top floor was intended for firing, shooters located at
apertures which held at gunpoint approaches to the tower. Archery
was conducted over the balcony, which covered the shooter ……
Narrowing tower upward allowed defenders to throw to
stones by besiegers, the direction of their fall was unpredictable
due to ricochet and Inflicts unexpected damage. If the enemy
approached the tower close, then they poured boiling water through
mashikuli, boiling tar” [Ilyasov 2009: 227]
Our reference:
- The area of the first floor by the outer perimeter is usually
5x5 or 4x4 m, as we move up it becomes narrower and to the fifthsixth floor reaches by the outer perimeter, as V.I. Markovin
indicates, 4x4 or 3x3 meters. Interior space, given the thickness of
the walls (95cm from the bottom to the top 45-50 cm) at the 4th
floor and above has dimensions of 2.5 x 2.5 m and 2x2 m.
Climbing to the top floor of tower was significantly
hampered, in the absence of stone stairs, climbing was possible
58
only by nicks on the wooden beam. This implies that the supply of
arms should be lifted in advance and in sufficient amount.
Wooden stars
It was almost impossible to do for several reasons:
- to pour tar, throw stones, and archery were possible only
from the top floor, where the defenders are protected by
mashikulis. Constrained space on this floor, which had in addition
wood flooring, did not allow concentrating here large rocks,
boiling tar, which had no place to boil, and fighting archers with
their ammunition
- it was also impossible to bring means of tower defense
during a fight because the approaches to it were not protected, and
there were no underground tunnels.
- keep stocks of arrows, stones, and boiling tar in the tower
at the time was too expensive and it was hardly possible.
The so-called loopholes in towers were also not suitable for
defense, and not by accident in the monograph of Ilyasov we read:
«……There were many loopholes and inspection holes in
the walls of tower on each floor, they were often very difficult to
59
distinguish from each other. Such loopholes could not be used for
archery, although it is also doubtful to use most of them in firing
from firearm” [Ilyasov 2009: 227-228].
Besides, loophole serve for shooting in a given direction,
i.e. assumes approach of enemy from the one side while the tower
was open from all sides.
The distance from which it was possible to shoot an arrow
from a bow is 40-50 meters. In case if the archer shot over
mashikuli, from the height of 18-20 meters and above, this is the
distance, which is particularly difficult to sweep.
None of the “archaeological maps” of “combat” towers
made by D. Chahkiev, mention finds in the form of arrowheads, as
well as no wall of extant towers have traces of spilled tar, although
given the slope of tower and the fact that it was hot, tar was bound
to leave such a trace. The researchers also never mention blockages
of stones found near the towers.
It is also very important that the towers were highly
vulnerable to fire. Kindled arrow, hitting the inside of a tower, with
its wooden floors and stair beams, would immediately led to a fire
and there were no means to extinguish it. Smoke from a fire
kindled at the outer walls of tower, also threatened the lives of
those who hid there.
We can add to the above the following:
The researched towers are truly often located in hard-to
reach areas, on steep slopes and cliffs, but this is not the rule. Many
towers have been built on the plain, in the center of villages; they
were usually part of the castle complex that is located inside the
ramparts, surrounded by 5-7 residential towers.
As follows from the scientific literature “combat” towers
were built with particular intensity during and after the Mongol
invasion and military expansion Timur. It is known that the
Mongols widely have used Chinese rams, power of which could
destroy easily much more powerful walls surrounding cities of
Khorezm, and in 1239 the Mongols took Derbent, had easily
destroyed its walls and towers during the storming. In 1395 Timur
destroyed and burned Derbent. There is no doubt that none of the
so-called “combat” Chechen towers could withstand this power,
the more, their location often makes them excellent targets for
battering rams.
60
And finally, this tower defense contradicts conventional
military tactics that Chechens adhered in its reliably observable
history. The Chechens almost never build stationary defensive
structures, and in general rarely resorted to defensive combat
tactics. During the Caucasian War, Shamil built the fortresses, but
in most cases they do not decided the outcome of battle. In the case
of obvious superiority of enemy Chechens went to the mountains
and suddenly attacked, ambushing and taking advantage of the
mountainous terrain. “Only feeling mountains by back and relying
on them Chechen was fearless in battle”, - a famous poet in
Chechnya Apti Bisultanov writes in one of his poems.
Thus, all of the above leads us to believe that the so-called
“combat” tower of Chechnya could not to withstand a siege, even
short-lived, and protect people hidden in it.
With what purpose Chechens persistently built these towers
for centuries, protected them and without thinking of so large costs
for that time, restored them in the case of destruction?
In our opinion, the so-called “combat” Chechen towers are
actually places of worship dedicated to the supreme god of the
pagan pantheon of Chechens - the sun god Dela. As with many
ancient temples, rituals took place here not inside, but outside, near
the walls of the towers.
To uncover this thesis we need to touch pre-Islamic beliefs
of the Chechens. Knowledge about these beliefs stores folk
memory even today; furthermore, separate elements of pagan cults
exist in Chechen culture even today in the form of some relics. For
example, sun oath was widespread until recently in Chechnya.
Researches on this topic are also well represented in the
scientific literature. According to scientists (S.-M. Khasiev,
Z.Madaeva, etc.) in the pre-Islamic period, we have very coherent
picture of the world in the spiritual culture of Chechens, with its
cosmogony , mythology and the pantheon of gods headed by a triad
- the god of the sun and light Dela, the god of thunder and lightning
Sela and the goddess of fertility Tusholi. The material evidence of
ancient religious practices of Chechens have also come to us - it is
about the megaliths, the sculptured images of the fertility goddess
Tusholi, the sanctuary-seling, dedicated to the god of thunder and
lightning Sela, which were put in places of thunderbolt. As it has
61
already been mentioned, the folk memory stores knowledge of their
true purpose even today.
Statue of the goddess Tusholi
Sanctuary-Seling in the
village Oshni
Certainly, the supreme god of the pagan pantheon of
Chechens - god of the sun and light Dela had its temples-shrines
too, which are, in the fact, the so called “combat" towers, namely
tower with a pyramidal-stepped roof. Their construction demanded
a huge effort but, nevertheless, they were widespread in medieval
Chechnya.
And further, one would like to continue argumentation in
favor of this version and its development.
To the provisions contained above, that these towers are not
designed for fighting and not adapted for any effective defense, can
be added the following:
1.
Almost all investigated towers have solar signs on their
walls. Large solid stones with solar signs are found in the
walls of more recent residential towers, at the same time, it can
be often seen that builders tried to knock signs of an alien
religion from stones (for residential buildings in Itum-Khale ),
apparently taken from the demolished older buildings.
62
Petroglyphs on the walls of the towers
2.
3.
Internal walls of the towers are completely covered with a
thick layer of soot. This is not traces of fire, but namely soot
from the flames constantly supported, likely in luminaires with
burning oil.
There are two types of holes within the walls of the towers.
The first are usually small-sized and resemble recesses. They
have such a construction that lighted candle posed here does
not extinguish. The second are wider apertures which have the
form of ventilation shaft and apparently they are exactly
shafts.
63
Vent
Niches for lamps
One can only admire the skill of tower builders, who had
created a construction where in a rather cramped space on scattered
by the walls niches the fire could be kept without fear that it will
fade from the wind or lack of oxygen. It is hard to say today how
lights standing in a recess looked like, but even the very limited
archaeological survey, conducted at the walls of the towers gave
samples of the so-called “cup” stones, which, in our view ,
erroneously been identified as tools for the gunpowder
64
manufacturing. Such “cup” stones are well known to the ancient
archaeological materials and they served as lamps with burning oil.
4.
Exterior walls of towers were covered with light yellow (sun
symbol) plaster and strictly focused on parts of the world, i.e.
the east-west direction is very clearly observed here, namely
the sunrise-sunset. Last floor of the tower with its unique roof,
wide windows, arches and mashikuli on four sides at the time
of sunrise and sunset create a striking on beauty effect - a kind
of “cradle” in which light is born and where returns to
extinguish.
5.
Мы We meet towers both on ledges, or almost fused to the
mountain range, then suddenly on the open plains. The
scientific literature explains it by the desire to make them
inaccessible. However, in the case of fighting, most likely no
one would “start to attack” them, the besiegers would just
bypass the potential self-destroyers, leaving several soldiers
for the siege. In our opinion, the place for the towers were
chosen trying to adapt these “houses of the sun” to fix sunrise
and sunset as accurately as possible.
6.
It is significant that after the XVIII century throughout in
Chechnya Islam was adopted and constructing of towers with
pyramidal roof-speed was being ceased , although residential
65
and watch towers continued being built up until the end of the
XIX century. "Pagan" symbols i.e. solar signs from these
towers were being actively scraped off that solar symbols and
began to use these facilities for other purposes.
7.
Finally, in our view the important fact is that in the vast
folklore heritage of the Chechens there were no mention of the
siege and capture of so-called "battle" tower ("bIouv
yakkhina").
Bekhaylinskaya Tower
Village Nikaroy
The next point in the chain of our reasoning is the question
whether the form of Chechen towers has analogs in the world
architecture? It turned out that has! Stone towers of Chechnya with
pyramidal-stepped roof strikingly remind obelisks.
66
Tower in the
village
Khaibakh
Obelisk of
senusret i at
Heliopolis
Obelisk of
Pharaoh
Tuthmosis
Obelisk of
Queen
Hatshepsut
The form of obelisk is well known in the world architecture, in
particular worldwide fame have obelisks of ancient Egypt.
Preserved Egyptian obelisks belong to the era of the new kingdom
and symbolize frozen sunbeam. However, the shape of the obelisk
as a cult building appeared long before, in the era of the ancient
kingdom, i.e. in III millennium BC.
Here is what is written about these structures in the
monograph “Art of the Ancient Orient”: “to the most remarkable ...
sun temples of the pharaohs of V dynasty…belongs Niusirra
temple at Abydos. A central place in this ensemble was assigned to
a stone obelisk, which served as a main object of the solar cult. His
needle covered with gilt copper, reflected the sun's rays”.
[Afanasiev Lukonin, Pomerantseva 1976:223-231].
The encyclopedia of symbols on the obelisk says:
«Obelisk is a symbol that was supposed to embody
the power of light inherent god Ra. In the Ancient Kingdom
obelisks, played the role of main cult images, according to
one of the myths, symbolized the sacred stone Ben-Ben, on
which Sun rose, born of the watery chaos. Pyramidal tops
of columns, covered with copper or gold, was considered
67
the seat of the solar deity at noon "[Encyclopedia 2005
characters].
According to Egyptian legend in the world creation, the
first rays of the sun dropped to the Benben stone, standing in the
city On (Greek Heliopolis). Recognized as the first demonstration
of Atum-Khepri god, he is considered the first of the sacred stone
pillars and identified with the first hill. Later he was associated
with the cult of the bird Benu (Greek Phoenix) – Ba of god Ra,
living at the Benbene. The prototype of sacred bird Benu in ancient
Egypt was considered heron, which was a symbol of the rising sun
of the morning.
Thus, a striking resemblance to the obelisk gives us the
possibility to suppose that the stone tower with a pyramidal roofspeed are also places of worship associated with the solar deity,
which in the Chechen ethno-cultural environment was the supreme
deity of the pagan pantheon - god Dela.
It should be noted that along with the obvious similarities
with Egyptian obelisks, the Chechen towers have a significant
difference from them. The Chechens are not solid stone monoliths,
as in Egypt, and constructions with interior space, however, which
is absolutely not functional.
The reason of it is probably in following: in Egypt and
natural resources (quarries) and human resources (huge reserve of
slave labor), and peculiarities of the landscape (flat land and desert)
allowed to carve the obelisk in the quarry in the form of a monolith
and deliver it to the place of position. In Chechnya, in the
mountains, in the absence of such a vast pool of slave labor - it
would be impossible, and because obelisks were erected using
internal forests, in connection with it, and there was virtually no
functional interior space. There is also another hypothesis. Perhaps
the Chechen tower- obelisk is much more archaic form of obelisks
than Egyptian monuments. This issue requires a further study,
although today we can make some observations.
The latest sensation in Egyptology was the discovery by the
French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin the presence in the bowels of
the pyramid ramps, i.e. actually internal "forests", indicating that
there is no solid masonry and inside the pyramid there is the same
as in the Chechen towers not functional, associated with
technology of construction interior space.
68
The unique architecture of the Chechen towers- obelisks
finds analogies not only in the ancient Egyptian culture. In
Lebanon in Dzhebeyl city, as scientists believe, there is
very ancient but insufficiently nowadays explored the Temple of
the Obelisks. This insufficiently explored temple is located in the
city with a world-wide fame as the city Dzhebeyl - is an ancient
Phoenician city of the Byblos. And, it is interesting, that the
Byblos, from ancient times, was in close contact with Egypt. Even
in the III millennium BC. Export of Phoenician goods to Egypt was
done mainly through the Byblos. From Byblos to Egypt it was
exported the valuable cedar of Lebanon, from which sarcophagus
and other items were produced that were very important to the
Egyptians, for mortuary cult. Egyptian kings of XVIII dynasty
made the Byblos their main stronghold on the coast, and Egyptian
culture took deep roots here.
Temple of obelisks in Byblos
As you can see, three very distant from each other locus
cultures have unique religious buildings of the same or, at least,
very close form. Is there a relationship between them?
Connection, and most direct, exists between the city-state
of the Byblos and Ancient Egypt. Moreover, the temple of Byblos
obelisks and Egyptian obelisks arose in the bosom of one culture.
In the case of towers - obelisks in Chechnya, in our opinion, there
69
is no direct connection, but almost certainly, a connection
mediated.
The origins of Egyptian culture go back to IV-III
millennium BC. This was the time when the culture of Egypt
phenomenally arose immediately in all its forms and types of
images. The fact of absence of these culture usual stages of cultural
genesis stressed by all Egyptologists, but still there is no
intelligibly definitive explanation for it - there are a number of
scientists appealing to extraterrestrial origins of this culture. Our
point of view is that this phenomenon is quite understandable by
Earth history.
At the end of III and in the beginning of IV millennium BC,
in the Early Bronze Age on the territory of the Caucasus and
adjacent areas of the Middle East (eastern Turkey and northwestern
Iran) extends the Kura-Araxes archaeological culture. Important
place in the overall number of monuments Kura-Araxes culture
occupy the Early Bronze settlements and burial structures of
Dagestan and Chechnya.
Assessing the historical and archaeological monuments in
Chechnya identified and published by members of the North
Caucasian expedition V.I.Markovin writes: « Defenite continuity
of the historical process starts to be traced from the end of IV
millennium BC, when, according to M.G. Gadzhiyev, in the northeastern part of the Caucasus there arise the world famous
monuments of the Kura-Araxes culture. This is the time when it is
possible to trace a certain continuity and development of the
ancient population that lived in the mountains and in the plane of
the modern region of the Vainakh1 country» [Markovin 2010: 25].
Thus, Markovin, like much of the scientists caucasiologists believes that the Kura-Araxes culture of the Early
Bronze Age reflects the ancient ethnic substrate of the Caucasus,
moreover, he specifically points out that it is precisely from this
culture one can trace the ethnogenesis of Nakhs-Chechens
The attempt to install a language belonging of Kura-Araxes
culture native speakers has led researchers, including such eminent
scientists as I. Dyakonov and S.Starostin to the following
1
Under this name since the 30-ies of XX century the Chechens and the
Ingush, related to them by language and culture, were united
70
conclusion: "At the moment we think that relationship between the
hurrian-urartian and East Caucasian languages can be considered
proven ..." [Dyakonov, Starostin 1988: 204].
This kind of research has been summed up in the
monograph of Markovin and Munchaeva: « Currently, a number of
scientists believe that the tribes of the Kura-Araxes culture were
carriers of the hurrian-urartian language. One can seriously think
that hurrian-urartian language (or, more precisely, one of the
languages of this group) in antiquity was extended to the Northeast
Caucasus. No wonder, therefore, that the languages of the peoples
of the given Caucasus region, in the so-called nakh-dagestan
languages it can be traced striking connection with the hurrianurartian language. Such connections could be in this era, during the
development of the Kura-Araxes culture carriers of which probably
really spoke hurrian-urartian language…» [Markovin V.I.,
Munchayev 2003: 50].
So we have very important information for our research
work:
1. modern Chechens are heirs of Kura-Araxes Culture
2. Kura-Araxes culture carriers were hurrian speakers that is
confirmed by preserved proximity of modern EastCaucasian languages to the ancient hurrian language.
The author of the book «Ancient people Hurrians Gernot
Wilhelm reported that the penetration of the Hurrians from the
Caucasus to the Middle East continued from the middle of the IV
millennium BC. By the beginning of the II millennium they settled
permanently in the south of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, North
Mesopotamia and in the foothills of the Zagros. This nation was
not only a full-fledged citizen of the Fertile Crescent - its culture
became a buffer between the cultures of western and eastern
Mediterranean and acquires the features of both [Wilhelm 1992].
It is not much is known of hurrians culture and for the most part,
by Hittite and Egyptian sources. However, even these meager
information contain information on the towers. It is known that
typical hurrians housing was a tiered residential tower - dimtu. In
the lower tier which were kept cattle, and in the upper one lived
families [Civilization of the Ancient East in 2005: 1331].
Describing one of the roads that ran through the territory of
the Hurrians residence by the Tiger river of Upper Mesopotamia to
71
the tin mines of western and southern Afghanistan, G.G.Giorgadze
in his work «The Hittites and Hurrians on ancient hittites texts»
wrote: «... the road was here from the east through the mountain»
gates Fatkhu and crossing the city led to Marie on the Euphrates.
Here, presumably on the east coast, on the terrace Hamrin was
standing the tower city Unabshe "[Giorgadze 1969: 71].
О значимости хурритской культуры в мировой истории
известный археолог и исследователь Л.Вулли пишет так:
Completely assimilated sumerian tradition by themselves,
they handed them over to the Hittites; and thanks, almost
exclusively, to the Hittites the Hurrians learned the art of writing
and adopted the cuneiform writing invented by the Sumerians. The
hurrians may not have invented, but at least they have spread far
beyond the region and in this state maintained the highest
civilization, which people at the time reached "[Woolley 1986: 37]
The great ancient city - Babylon was one of the centers of
«the highest civilization» of antiquity and the achievements of
which the Hurrians «spread far beyond the region». It is said in the
Catholic Encyclopedia «The striking fact is that most Babylonian
cities had ... tower-temples» and further... «Is it possible (in the
light of the above said) Babylon was the inventor of religious
towers? »
Let us summarize:
The Hurrians as authors and Kura-Araxes culture carriers
stand at the origins of ethno genesis and cultural genesis of the
Chechens.
An extensive areal of distribution of the Hurrians, starting
from the early Bronze Age , is , in our opinion , a hotbed of the
culture, archaic forms of which are the Chechens as separate
artifacts, particularly towers - obelisks, preserved to this day. On
the territory of only one citadel Vaserkel, in the cult center of the of
mountainous Chechnya - Maysti, on the high rocky cliffs,
preserved the ruins of more than 20 towers.
Of course, the given arguments in favor of religious
purpose of the Chechen towers - obelisks suppose the further
research. There many questions among which is elaboration of
towers dating. However, there is obviously «no fighting ...» and «...
no defensive» nature of these structures, today, with high
probability, let us talk about their religious affiliation.
72
Confirmation of this is the fact that in the vast Chechens folklore
heritage there was no mention of the siege and capture of the
«battle» tower «b1ouv yakkhina».
Bibliography
1. Afanasiev V., Lukonin V., Pomerantseva N.M. The art of
the Ancient East. L. The art, 1976.
2. Berzhe А.P. Chechnya and the Chechen people, Tiflis, 1859
3. Wilkhelm G., the Hurrians - ancient people, М., Science,
GRVL, 1992.
4. Vulli L. Л. Forgotten tsardom, «Science», Moscow, 1986.
5. Giorgadze G.G. Hittites and the Hurrians on ancient hittites
texts. Journal of Ancient History, № 1, 1969.
6. Djakonov I.M., Starostin S.A. The Hurrian-Urartian and the
East Caucasian languages. M., Science, 1988.
7. Ilyasov L. The culture of the Chechen people. History and
modernity. М. 2009.
8. Ippolitov A.P. Ethnographic essays of Argun District / /
Proc. information about the Caucasian highlanders; Issue 1. Tiflis, 1868.
9. Kroupnov E.I. The ancient history of the North Caucasus.
M.1960
10. Markovin V.I. Archaeological aspect in the study of ethno
genesis of vainakh. //Chechen archive. Grozny, 2010 Issue III.
11. Markovin V.I., Munchayev R.M. The North Caucasus.
Essays on ancient and medieval history and culture. Moscow,
2003.
12. Miller V.F. Terskiy region: Archaeological tours / /
Materials on the archeology of the Caucasus. - Vol.1, M., 1888
13. Umarov S.Ts. Architecture of the late medieval mountain
Chechen-Ingushetia. / / Monuments of the fatherland, Moscow,
1975
14. Civilization of Mesopotamia and its neighboring countries
in the II millennium BC.: Civilizations of the Ancient East. M.,
Directmedia Publishing, 2005.
15. Chahkiev D.Yu Antiquities of mountainous Ingushetia.
Nalchik, 2009.
73
16. Shcheblykin I.P. Art of Ingush in artefacts // Proceedings of
the Ingush Research Institute of Regional Studies; No.1,
Vladikavkaz, 1928.
17. Encyclopedia of characters. Moscow-St. 2005
18. http://www.spektr.info/articles/zanyatiya/16
Illustrations
1. Village Upper Lamey
2. Shatoysky tower
3. Stone tower (cut, plans of 2nd floors, details)
pic. of I.P. Shcheblykin, 1927
4. Bekhaylinskaya tower
5. Staircase
6. Stone bags section
7. Recess for lamps
9. Vent
10. The village Tsa- khale
13. Statue of the goddess Tusholi
14. Sanctuary in the village Oshni.
15-16. Petroglyphs on the walls of the towers
17. Window arched stone with petroglyphs
18. Cup stone
19. Temple obelisks in Byblos
20. Tower in the village Khaibakh
21. Obelisk of Senusret I at Heliopolis
22. Ancient Egypt. Obelisk of Pharaoh Tuthmosis.
23. Sunrise
24. Targimskaya revine
Key words
Chechens , nakhs, stone architecture, medieval, tower ,
fortification, sanctuary, temple, an obelisk, a pagan pantheon,
ethno genesis, the Kura-Araxes culture, the Hurrians .
74
Annotation
Stone structures that scientists traditionally referred to the Middle
Ages preserved in a sufficiently large number in the mountains of
Chechnya. We are talking about the towers, elevated and
underground vaults, shrines and temples. These monuments have
been little studied, their purpose, as well as dating, mostly
indicative and have no scientific reasoning. In the article it is given
the author version of functional belonging and history of one of the
types of stone structures in Chechnya, namely towers with
pyramidal speed roofs.
75
Sarpova O.V.
Attitude to labour in West European and Old Russian
medieval cultures
The public in Russia is widely discussing the problem of
national identity revealing the origins and meanings characteristic
of Russian culture. According to the concept of O. Spengler
cultures differ in "totality of the sensory expression of soul in
gestures and labour" [1]. Attitude to labour is an essential feature
of the national mentality, the basis of society which is needed to be
used as a spiritual support. Mental characteristics develop over a
long period of time and depend on material and socio-cultural
environment.
Therefore, to identify attitude to labour it is necessary to
turn to the historical past, in particular to the era of the Middle
Ages, to take into account the spiritual foundations and the natural
conditions of social development. Besides, revealing cultural
identity comes more clearly when comparing it with other cultures.
During the Golden Age of medieval time European and
Russian cultures had common spiritual foundation in Christianity.
Although there was division in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the
basic attitudes to labour were the same. In the period of early
Christianity they were expressed in the Bible, in the writings of
Church Fathers: St. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Maximus the
Confessor, and others.
Christianity shows man’s dual nature: on the one hand, the
man is a sinful being; on the other hand, he is the image and
likeness of God. Due to this dual nature, attitude to labour is
contradictory. In prehistoric times labour was an inherent human
need; physical manifestation of the labor process was filled with
creativity but lacked in compulsion. In man’s terrestrial existence
labour was contradictory. On the one hand, the sinfulness of the
man makes labour a heavy duty, the means of survival. On the
other hand, through labour the man expresses his divine nature,
participating in creation. Labour helps the man construct his social
world since other people use fruits of his labour. Besides, labour
for the sake of other people can become the embodiment of love
76
for his neighbour - the greatest virtue of Christianity. Thus, labour
plays an important role in man’s education and socialization.
Through labour the man knows opposites, good and evil. In
general, Christianity justifies labour. Even when performing a duty
the man realizes the divine will and expiates his sins.
However, the reality of European civilization in the Middle
Ages was different.
J. Le Goff, one of the most outstanding experts for
medieval mentality in the world, notes that there was a hierarchy of
professions in the public conscience when almost all occupations
were characterized as forbidden or dishonest, that is without
honour, and the workmen were despised by society.
Criteria of dishonesty were different. Firstly, "very active
remains of taboos preserved in medieval minds of primitive
societies» [2] on blood, dung, etc. Thus, the work of butchers,
surgeons, pharmacists who used bloodletting was condemned. The
professions of textile workers, miners or dishwashers were called
disgusting.
Secondly, the Christian prohibitions on trade, "which
cannot be done without committing a deadly sin” [3] For example,
condemnation of gluttony led to conviction of cooks’ work.
Some professions were particularly condemned. For
example, the profession of a soldier was condemned for bloodshed,
killing innocents and greed becoming apparent when capturing
booties - army livelihood. Merchants did not produce anything;
they sold God’s time; they were self-interested; they had to do with
money that was not accepted by society which lived by subsistence
economy.
There were also restrictions depending on person, time or
place. A cleric was not allowed to practice law, work at night or
work in a bad place.
In other words, nearly all labour activities were
condemned. As a result, there was a "tendency to condemn any
worldly occupation (negotium), and on the contrary, to encourage
idleness (otium), implying belief in providence" [4].
Nevertheless, by the 14th century justification of professions
occurred through division of labour and market relations. But the
new contradiction appeared: "physical labor became the new
border between respect and contempt. Reformation ... changed
77
little in this issue "[5]. In other words, there was a vertical
hierarchy of professions: "those who did not work with their own
hands” occupied a higher position [6], namely: the aristocracy,
clergy, bourgeoisie and intellectuals.
Thus, in reality the labour activity of population did not get
proper respect in the West European medieval society.
Different attitude to labour developed in Old Russian
society. Old Russian sources clearly indicate honour of labor.
In his "Pouchenye" (Instructions) Vladimir Monomakh
emphasized the importance of compliance with Christian virtues
and insisted on personal involvement in labour activities.
Monomakh indicated that he "saw himself ", he "did himself" [7]
that ought to be done by his servant; day and night, in the heat and
cold, on war and hunt he did not allow himself to have a rest. After
Monomakh, a ruler having the opportunity to be surrounded by
servants should not delegate his responsibilities to them. "Do not
be lazy in your home, but watch after everything; do not rely on a
tiun or a boy ... "[8].
Monomakh indicated that God created him being "able to
perform any labour activity» [9]. When enumerating a significant
number of his deeds (83 marches - a difficult job; moreover hunting, farm management and other activities), Monomakh notes:
"Having read the charter try to do all sorts of good deeds,
glorifying God with his saints" [10].
For Monomakh labour activity is a good deed which
nobody should be afraid of. "Youths, do not be afraid of death, a
war or beast, it's in the Men as God sends you" [11].
Active participation in economic and administrative
activities left no room for laziness and idleness which Monomakh
condemned. "Laziness is the mother of all sins: who knows
something, will forget it, and who does not know, will not learn…
My blessed father and all good men did so" [12]. Anyone who
wanted to be kind and good must work. In a life filled with work
there was no place for uproarious feasts and fun. "Food and drink
must be without great noise ..." [13].
Monomakh called for learning something, but not just
work, "and if you do not know how, learn how to ..." [14].
According to Monomakh many skills give "honour" to people; it
defines the dignity of a person respected by others. We must
78
consider that the rules of "honour" were higher for the upper
classes and valued more than life itself.
Thus, Vladimir Monomakh linked "honour", "labour" and
morality in a single knot. For him there was nothing “dishonest” in
labour. Labour and many skills were the "honour" of a noble man.
In his "Domostroy" Sylvester generated the image of the
ideal life where labour plays the major role.
Every member of a family must work tirelessly. "In
households and everywhere every man, a host and a hostess , a son
and a daughter, servants , men and women, and every artisan and
apprentices, old and young, must work" [15]. The hostess "makes
everything with her hands ... she will contribute to her wealth ...
she stretches out her hands for work ... The hostess is kind and
hardworking ... " [16]. She never has a rest. "Whether her husband
comes or a guest – she must always do needlework” and have
conversations about domestic chores or some new needlework. The
hostess should "know any needlework” to teach the servants what
she knows" [17].
Despite the fact that "Domostroy" describes the rich man's
household where there is plenty of everything, considerable
attention is paid to “economy” and practical prudence.
According to "Domostroy ", economy is not simply
storage or warehousing - it is preservation. Preservation means
introducing personality in this process which shows itself in
significant daily and hourly extra labour. To preserve utensils,
clothing or various household items, you need to perform simple
operations (repair, darn, clean, put in places). You need to consider
the use of things according to their intended purpose distinguishing
holidays and weekdays. It is also necessary to organize
housekeeping to ensure that resources are spent efficiently. This
job is routine, and only those who understand its importance for the
economy are able to see the sense in it and do it honestly.
Hosts and servants are involved in all kinds of labour. The
book repeatedly mentions labour as "righteous" and "blessed" that
you need to prepare for: "clean yourself from any defilement,
wash your hands and pray in order to start any work” [18].
In other words, after Prince Vladimir Monomakh and
Sylvester, a native of Novgorod, labour is good and virtue. Both
79
authors separated by centuries showed respect for labour
characteristic for Old Russian society.
F. Braudel considers that there are three main levels of
everyday life in history: short-term, and that is why "deceptive"
[19], microhistory, i.e. longer cycles associated with the rhythms of
economic life. The third level is the most significant. F. Braudel
classifies it as "long-haul" structures, the "foundation of historical
events ... the center of gravity around which everything revolves"
[20]. This structure provides the mentality of society where attitude
to labour is the most important.
Life in ancient and medieval societies of Western Europe
and Russia was different due to different natural conditions.
Russian historians of the past and present (S.M. Solovyev, V.
Klyuchevsky, L. Milov) and European researchers (R. Pipes) hold
this view point. S.M. Solovyev pointed out that Russian people in
contrast to European nations had no such major conditions for
optimal development as "a favorable climate, soil fertility,
numerous population in the vast and diverse country which make it
possible to divide labour, to trade extensively, to communicate
continuously with different localities or to make large cities
prosperous"[21] .
How did Old Russian society manage to offset the harsh
conditions of existence?
The French philosopher A. Bergson shows the historical
process as a result of infinite interaction between the material
world and spiritual sets of people: "Everything proceeds as if a
matter has penetrated a wide stream of consciousness” [22].
Emergence and development of civilization depends on the degree
of interaction. "In reality, life is movement, materiality is the
inverse movement ... The second of these flows is against the first ,
but the first one still gets something from the second: therefore,
modus vivendi, which is the organization, arises between them"
[23]. Diversity of civilizations and their achievements is a
consequence of collision between life and matter, human and
natural environment. After I.I. Blauberg, where a man had to spend
too much strength for mere survival, movement of life impulse
slowed down, i.e. “intense became extensive" [24].
However, Old Russian society did survive; it developed
quite successfully, overcoming difficulties and creating their own
80
culture. Old Russian state participated in the historical processes of
the time: centralization, expansion of its territory and others.
In the author’s opinion, one of the reasons for such
development was particular attitude to labour not characteristic for
Western Europe. Conjugation of material and spiritual life became
apparent in attitude to labour. Old Russian society did not shun
discourses on morality or perceive it as a speculative sphere, but as
concrete practical recommendations for behavior in everyday life.
Unlike West European society where "earthly" and "heavenly"
were delimited, they joined in early Rus. This organic conjugation
was necessary. Severe climatic conditions demanded enormous
human efforts, i.e. spiritual support was needed for constant labour
activities. Material and spiritual meanings and purposes of life
were equally important. They gave stamina and the ability to
overcome difficulties. In other words, "in Russian culture morality
and spirituality were a part of material culture; they preserved and
ennobled it not allowing the material sphere to become the
dominant force that determines the image of people" [25].
Bibliography
1. Spengler O., Decline of the West. V.1 - Moscow, 1993.
P.344.
2. Le Goff J., Other Middle Ages: Time, work and culture of the
West.- Yekaterinburg: Ural publ. University Press, 2000. P. 64.
3. See 2. P. 65.
4. See 2. P. 66.
5. See 2. P.75.
6. See 2. P.75
7. Instructions for Vladimir Monomakh’s Children / Collection
(Collected works of Ancient Russian literature). Moscow:
Khudozh. lit.,1969. P.163
8. See 7. P.155.
9. See 7. P.163.
10. See 7. P. 163.
11. See 7. P.163.
12. See 7. P.155.
13. See 7. P.149.
14. See 7. P.155.
81
15. Domostroy. Moscow, Nauka, 1994. P.18.
16. See 15. P.18.
17. See 15. P.24.
18. See 15. P.18.
19. Braudel F., History and social sciences. Historical
duration. // Philosophy and methodology of history. - Moscow:
Nauka, 1977. P. 124.
20. See 19. P.127.
21. Solovyev S.M., Works. Book VII. History of Russia since
ancient times. V. XIII. Moscow: Mysl’, 1991. P.25.
22. . Bergson A., Creative Evolution. - Moscow: CANON press Kuchkovo pole, 1998. P.142.
23. See 22. P. 246-247.
24. Blauberg I.I., Introduction //. Bergson A., Creative
Evolution. - Moscow: CANON - press Kuchkovo pole, 1998. P.18.
25. Sarpova O.V., Spiritual and material values: the problem of
their relation / Academic Gazette of TGAMEUP № 2(24). Tyumen:
Tyumen State Academy of World Economics, Management and
Law, 2013. P.251.
Key words
Labour, honest and dishonest professions, West European and Old
Russian medieval cultures, Christianity, morality and mentality
Annotation
West European and Old Russian medieval cultures have the
same religious foundations in Christianity. Different mental
attitudes to labour developed in these societies under the influence
of different climatic conditions. West European medieval society
positioned its attitude to labour through a hierarchy of professions
in which the vast majority of activities was outside social esteem.
On the contrary, Old Russian society positioned labour as good and
virtue. Conjugation of moral principles and practical activities
allowed Old Russian society to exist and develop in severe climatic
conditions.
82
Venidiktova E.A.
The problem of dating and creation of the union between
Argos and Corinth in the period of the Corinthian War
(395-386 B.C.)
In V-IV B.C. Greek polises were involved in constant war
conflicts (Peloponnesian, Corinthian War and so on). Argos polis
also actively participated in interpolis relations. Despite the fact
that Argives at the end of V century B.C. returned to their position
of neutrality, already in IV century B.C. they had renewed active
policy, directed on rivalry with Sparta.
Thus, during the war of Sparta with Persia in 399 - 394 B.C.,
Persians supplied financial support to leading political figures in
Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos in order that they incited their
citizens to act against Sparta (Xen. Hell. III, 5, 1–2; Paus. III, 9, 4).
Pausanias (III, 9, 8) named some Cylon and Sodam as political
figures in Argos in 396 - 395 B.C., but details of their activity are
not known. In the subsequent battles of Nemea and Koroneia in
394 B.C. Argives conducted warfare actively against
Lacedaemonians, but met with failures (Xen. Hell. IV, 2, 17, 22; 3,
15, 17–18). According to Xenophon, starting from that time, from
one side fought Athenians, Boeotians, Argives and their allies,
having Corinth as a strong point, and from the other side Lacedaemonians with their allies, based in Sicyon (Xen. Hell. IV,
4, 1).
Defeats in two battles had to alarm enemies of Sparta in Greek
polises, as they perfectly understood that if they failed to eliminate
peace supporters, their states again would be under the threat of
danger to come under the influence of Laconia. That's exactly why
they organized mess in Corinth in 392 B.C. resulting from which
Corinth was annexed to Argos State (Xen. Hell. IV, 4, 2–14).
The major difficulty is caused by the question of dating of
Corinth accession to Argos, as controversy about it putting in
special chronological context has already appeared at ancient
authors.
As per Xenophon, the earliest dating of Argos union with
Corinth, established after the mess in Corinth, is 392 B.C. From the
83
report of Diodorus, it follows that Corinth accession to Argos
happened not right after dramatic events in Corinth (Diod. XIV,
86), but only three years later, i.e. in 389 B.C., after inflicting
defeat by Iphicrates to Spartan mora. Andocides's speech also
allows to suppose that in 392 B.C. Corinth has not existed as
independent state yet [1, 2, 3]. Besides, from the report of Plutarch
(Ages. 21) it follows that in 390 B.C. Corinth has already belonged
to Argos.
There are several points of view in historiography about this
question. Some research people (C. Taplin, D. Kagan) suppose,
that Corinth accession to Argos State was in 392 B.C., basing on
Xenophon's report [4, 5]. Other research people (G. Greffith,
C. Hamilton) think that subjection of Corinth to Argos was in an
evolutionary way [6, 7]. The first step, according to the named
research people, is 392 B.C. when isopoliteía was concluded
between Argos and Corinth; the final stage of accession is
considered 389 B.C. when Corinth finally passed under the control
of Argos [8].
The most probable is that Corinth accession to Argos State
occurred by two stages. The first stage is 392 B.C. Thus, Xenophon
describing the events preceding Corinthian War, reports that
resulting from the mess in Corinth in 392 B.C. that polis was
annexed to Argos State (Xen. Hell. IV, 4, 2-4). In C. Taplin’s
opinion, there are no reasons to doubt that the union of two polises
happened exactly in 392 B.C. [5], what seems not quite convincing.
Thus, according to Xenophon, during the embassy in Persia in 392
B.C. representatives from Argos and Corinth were present and this
allows to assume that Corinth in that period was an independent
state (Xen. Hell. IV, 8, 13). Besides, from Andocides's speech
follows that Corinth in 392/1 B.C. existed as independent state
(Andoc. III, 41). Fairly consider C. Hamilton and G. Griffith that in
392 B.C. isopoliteía was just established [9, 10]. According to
Xenophon, Argives were not happy with peaceful conditions of
Antalcidas, proposed by Tiribazus, because they thought that at
such peace treaty they lost any possibility to possess Corinth as a
part of Argos State (Xen. Hell. IV, 8, 15). That suggests that up to
this time some political agreement between Corinth and Argos has
already existed. Confirmation to this judgement we can also find in
Andocides's speech, in which it is told that in case of victory over
84
Lacedaemonians the Corinthians's region would became the
property of Argos (Andoc. III, 26). One more argument that
between Argos and Corinth was some mutual preliminary
agreement, are reports of Xenophon and Plutarch, according to
which Argives had already celebrated the Isthmian Games in 390
B.C., as Corinth then was a part of Argos State (Xen. Hell. IV, 5, 1;
Plut. Ages. 21). Pausanias also mentioned that, but unlike
Xenophon and Plutarch, Periegetes noted that Argives celebrated
the Isthmian Games not alone, but together with Corinthians, but at
that it is not told about accession of Corinth to Argos (Paus. IV, 10,
1). That's why quite true is explanation of G. Griffith, that the
Isthmian Games holding by Argives in 390 B.C. became possible
due to the fact that they had rights on that [1]. In M. Whitby's
opinion, the case with the Isthmian Games is the act of isopoliteía
or means that the limited form of union has been already achieved
[11].
And, finally, total Corinth's accession to Argos State happened
in 389 B.C. what became obvious from the reports of Xenophon
and Diodorus, who connected that act with Iphicrates's expatriation
from Corinth after inflicting defeat to Spartan mora in 390 B.C.
and his mission in Hellespont, which was in 388 B.C. (Xen. Hell.
IV, 8, 34; Diod. XIV, 86, 92, 1). After that, according to Xenophon
(Xen. Hell. IV, 4, 14), great marches of both war parties stopped,
all these states had to be content that guarded their fortresses,
sending garrisons: ones to Corinth, others to Sicyon. But, on that
military collisions of Argos with Sparta did not stopped, as Sparta
worried about existing situation in Corinth; that's why already in
391 B.C. Lacedaemonians having paid attention that Argives easily
obtained results of their land and war only made them happy, had
undertaken a march on Argives under the command of king
Agesilaus.
Spartan king, having devastated their country, invaded Corinth
region and seized the walls, which were built by Athenians (Xen.
Hell. IV, 4, 19). Next year when in Corinth were Argives for
offering sacrifices to Poseidon, Lacedaemonians again invaded
Corinth region in order that Corinth exiles could execute offering
sacrifices and participate in competitions in honour of Poseidon.
After that Agesilaus with army left Corinth, and Argives with
Corinthians celebrated the Isthmian Games (Xen. Hell. IV, 5, 1–2;
85
Paus. III, 10, 1; Plut. Ages. 21). Then in 389 B.C. Lacedaemonians
under the command of another king Agesipolis again undertook the
march on Argos, news about which worried Argives. That's why
they sent two ambassadores with statement about armistice,
referring to the beginning of holidays’ months. Despite that
Agesipolis rejected their proposition; there was no military
collision, as Lacedaemonians were soon given evil presages (Xen.
Hell. IV, 7, 2–7). Such behaviour of Argives can be explained that
in given period their state was shaken by unremitting collisions of
supporters of oligarchical regime with democrats. Besides, soon
Persian king Artaxerxes II became an ally of Lacedaemonians, and
the march on Argos was announced in Sparta. Hell. V, 1, 29).
That's exactly why Argives became inclining to peace, which was
concluded in 387 B.C., having marked the end of the Corinthian
War (Diod. XI, 5.1; Plut. Artax. 23). Immediately after the
conclusion of Antalcidas peace, Lacedaemonians announced
Corinthians and Argives that they would turned their arms against
them, the first ones if they did not forced Argives to leave Corinth,
the second ones if they did not do that themselves. That's why
Argives were forced to withdraw garrison from Corinth as a result
of which that polis again became independent (Xen. Hell. V, 1, 34,
36).
Bibliography
1. Griffith G.T. The Union of Corinth and Argos (392–386 BC)
// Historia. Bd. 1, Ht. 2, 1950. P. 249.
2. Tuplin C.J. The Date of the Union of Corinth and Argos // –
Oxford: The Classical Quarterly. Vol. 32, № 1, 1982. P. 79.
3. Whitby M. The Union of Corinth and Argos: A
Reconsideration // Historia. Bd. 33, Ht. 3, 1984. P. 301.
4. Kagan D. Corinthian Politics and the Revolution of 392 //
Historia. Bd. 11, Ht. 4, 1962. P. 454.
5. Tuplin C.J. The Date of the Union of Corinth and Argos // –
Oxford: The Classical Quarterly. Vol. 32, № 1, 1982. P. 76.
// Historia. Bd. 1, Ht. 2, 1950. P. 246.
7. Hamilton C.D. The Politics of Revolution in Corinth, 395–
386 B.C. // Historia. Bd. 21, Ht. 1, 1972. P. 30.
86
8. Cartlеdge P. Sparta and Laconia. A regional history 1300 to
362 BC. London, 2002. P. 241.
// Historia. Bd. 1, Ht. 2, 1950. P. 236-256.
10. Hamilton C.D. The Politics of Revolution in Corinth, 395386 B.C. // Historia. Bd. 21, Ht. 1, 1972. P. 31.
11. Whitby M. The Union of Corinth and Argos: A
Reconsideration // Historia. Bd. 33, Ht. 3, 1984. P. 298.
Key words
Argos, Corinth, isopoliteía, Isthmian Games, union, war
87
Vorobjeva L.V.
Engineering education as worldmodeling structure
(on a material of E.I. Zamyatin’s novels)
Education of the person, his activity influences the
personality, approves the majority of psychologists.
It is
considered that activity is the main prism through which the person
perceives, estimates reality and other people.
The city as a difficult, continuously changing product of
human activity drew to itself attention of researchers. Developing
methodology of functioning of text structures, the literary criticism
relies on achievements in the field of linguistics where the concept
"text" began to be used much earlier. Fundamental in studying of
such phenomenon as "text", there were Yu. M. Lotman [1], V. N.
Toporov [2], M. M. Bakhtin's works [3].
Change of a scientific paradigm, influence of ideology of F.
Bacon [4] causes interest of the Russian culture to Britain. In
Knowledge, in Science F. Bacon saw the powerful instrument of
progressive social changes. Modernization of the London space
pushes writers to look for a modern language at the city
description. The technification of London, which is roughly
proceeding in the XX century, leads to those writers at creation of
an image of city space use the modernist principles and receptions.
At the beginning of the XX century the modernism
becomes a certain new outlook which is guided by identity and
scientific knowledge. M. M. Fedorova [5] connects modernism
development with Scientific Revolution. London as the center of a
scientific, rationalistic method of knowledge becomes an
embodiment of ideology of a modernism.
Thus, we understand a modernism as a common cultural
current, ideology of the end of the XIX-XX century, focused on the
Present, that is recognizing a priority modern over the traditional.
It is possible to tell, the modernism is "the present project" as Yu.
Habermas [6] speaks about it.
The description of space of the city within modernist
poetics is brightly submitted in E. I. Zamyatin's creativity.
It is essentially important that E. I. Zamyatin by training the
engineer-ship builder. He graduated from shipbuilding faculty of
88
the Petersburg Polytechnic institute, was left at chair of ship
architecture, was engaged in teaching at shipbuilding faculty, wrote
scientific articles. At the same time Zamyatin is engaged in literary
creativity. During World War I Zamyatin lived in England and was
observing construction of ice breakers in Armstrong, on Uitvors's
shipyards in Newcastle. Zamyatin was one of the chief Russian
experts in construction of ice breakers, on its account construction
of six such ships (including the Lenin ice breaker). In 1919-1922
years at the Petersburg House of arts Zamyatin gives lectures on
"Equipment of art prose". Whether technical education affected a
worldmodeling of art space of Zamyatin? Zamyatin's numerous
feature materials in which he analyzes the creativity and creativity
of the contemporaries help to answer this question, brings up
questions of a condition of literature of the beginning of the XX
century as in Russia, and in the West.
Conceptually significant for Zamyatin's creativity there is a
concept "experiment" as a necessary condition for work of the
writer. Such laboratory, experiment for the writer is his work of art
in which the talent of the author as the writer and his engineering
education as methodology become the instrument of work.
Zamyatin is confident in existence of the uniform beginning in
science and in art, in his opinion, they are uniform in essence. In
the article "About Literature, Revolution, Entropy and about the
Other" Zamyatin claims that "the Science and Art are identical in
world design «…". Various forms are only in distinction of
coordinates" [7].
For Zamyatin's consciousness replacement of Euclidean
model of the world by essentially new model of the world of
Einstein, and not only in science, but also in literature too is
characteristic. Creating the works, Zamyatin projects them as
drawings of the ice breakers:
the image, motive, the word,
rhythmics, syntax is significant details of his prose. Purity of each
element is pledge of successful operation of all mechanism. For
Zamyatin engineering and exact work with the word is basic.
Zamyatin focuses attention that the image has to become integrated
and extend on all things from beginning to end.
According to Zamyatin, the text has to stop being flat,
"Euclidean", each word has to be "loaded". Such vision of creative
89
process is reflection of the modernist principles of modeling of
space.
Zamyatin creates images of heroes, "loading" them with
multilayered meanings. Thanks to "not plane" heroes extend
various connotations to space surrounding them. Such multistage
construction creates difficult integrated images. The new scientific
paradigm is actively used in the art text and allows to model space
of London.
Engineering education helps Zamyatin to rise over the text,
to see and analyze as the text "becomes", to dismember a work of
art on elements and to create essentially new form which is filled
with the new contents. Relying on Zamyatin's journalism, and also
analyzing his art heritage, it is possible to claim that technical,
engineering education becomes conceptually significant in
formation of the language identity of Zamyatin. Zamyatin's works
are harmonious interaction of engineering education and the writer,
the creator, the artist.
Bibliography
1. Lotman J.M. Vnutri mysljatschich mirov: Tschek – Tekst –
Semiosfera – Istorija. M., 1996. – 447 S.
2. Toporov V.N. Peterburgskij tekst russkoj liletarury.:
Iskusstvo - SPB, 2003. – 616 S.
3. Bachtin M.M. Problema teksta v lingvistike, filologii i drugix
gumanitarnyx
naukax.
Opyt
filosovskogo
analiza/M.M.Bachtin//Bachtin M.M. Esteika slovsnogo tvorchestva
– M.: Iskusstvo, 1979.-S.281-307
4. Lechte J. Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers. From
Structuralism to Postmodernity. London and N.Y.: Routledge,
1994.
5. Fedorova M.M. Modernizm I antimodernizm vo francuyskoj
politicheskoj mysli XIX veka. M., 1997.-204 S.
6. Habermas J. Modern - nezavershennyj proekt // Voprosy
filosofii- 1992. № 4. – S. 40-41
7. Samjatin E.I. Ja bojus: Literaturnaja kritika. Publicistika.
Vospominanija./A.J. Galushkina, M.J. Ljubimova, V.A. Keldysh.
M., 1999. – S. 96
90
Key words
Engineering education,
structuralism, modernism.
experiment,
entropy,
city
text,
Annotation
Article is devoted to the analysis of the London text of the
Russian culture of the first half of the XX century on a material of
creativity of E. I. Zamyatin. For the first time the image of the city
is considered through the prism of engineering educations of the
writer. London as the center of a scientific, rationalistic method of
knowledge becomes an embodiment of ideology of a modernism
that gives the chance to speak about multilevel system of
perception of the city within the Russian mentality. In article is
shown how the capital of the western civilization is acquired by the
Russian consciousness and becomes included in the all-Russian
literary and cultural context.
<Translation Ksenia Jakobitz-Ivanova>
91
Yudina E.V., Schadeberg R.
Die Ärztedynastie Blumentrosts in Russland
2012 jährte sich der Geburtstag von Laurentius Blumentrost
dem Jüngeren [d. J.] zum 320. Mal (1692-1755). Lavrentij
Lavrentjevich Blumentrost, so sein Name in Russland, war erster
Präsident der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Leibarzt
Peter des Großen sowie Leiter der kaiserlichen Bibliothek und
Kunstkammer. Aber wo lagen seine familiären Wurzeln?
Der rege kulturelle und wirtschaftliche Austausch zwischen
Deutschland und Russland dauert bereits seit Jahrhunderten an.
Deutsche prägten die Geschichte Russlands auf allen Gebieten
ganz deutlich mit. Sie trugen zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft
und Kunst ihrer zweiten Heimat bei, waren hochrangige
Militärleute und Spitzenpolitiker. Zahlreiche Deutsche sind in die
Geschichte der Medizin in Russland eingegangen.
Die ersten deutschen Ärzte und Apotheker wirkten am
russischen Hof schon im 15. Jahrhundert. Die Leibärzte des
Großfürsten Wassili III. waren Dr. med. Nikolaj Bülow und
Teophiles, beide aus Lübeck.
Was bewog die ausländischen Ärzte, nach Russland zu
gehen? Sie wurden großzügig bezahlt, genossen beträchtliches
Ansehen und mehr Freiheit und Unabhängigkeit als in der Heimat.
Viele machten eine steile berufliche Karriere und wurden
wohlhabend. Bekanntlich waren die deutschen Leibärzte des
russischen Regenten und späteren Zaren Boris Godunow besonders
privilegiert (so C. Fiedler aus Königsberg, vordem Leibarzt des
preußischen Königs und der französischen Königin, die Doktoren
D. Vasmer und H. Schröder aus Lübeck, J. Hilschenius aus Riga
u.a.). Einige von ihnen wurden zu engen Freunden und Ratgebern
des Zaren. Aber nach Godunows Tod zerstörte und plünderte der
wütende Mob ihre Häuser.
Im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert leisteten deutsche Mediziner
einen großen Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Gesundheitswesens in
Russland. Viele Dokumente zeugen davon, dass das Apothekenamt
am kaiserlichen Hof schon Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts entstand.
Die wenigen Ärzte ausländischer Herkunft befassten sich
hauptsächlich mit der Gesundheit des Zaren und seiner Familie
92
sowie anderer hoher Würdenträger. Im Laufe des 17. Jahrhunderts
kamen zu dieser Aufgabe auch immer mehr militärmedizinische
Aufgaben hinzu.
Der bedeutendste Vertreter unter den ausländischen Ärzten
war Laurentius Blumentrost der Ältere [d. Ä.] aus Mühlhausen in
Thüringen (1619-1705). Er und seine drei Söhne, Laurentius
Christian, Johann Deodatus und Laurentius [d. J.], beeinflussten
fast ein Jahrhundert lang das russische Gesundheitswesen
maßgeblich.
Laurentius Blumenntrost [d. Ä.]
Über die Vorfahren des Laurentius Blumentrost [d. Ä.] und
seine ersten Lebensjahre gibt es widersprüchliche Quellenangaben.
Eine wichtige Quelle ist ein im Archiv der Franckeschen
Stiftungen in Halle vorliegendes Dokument mit dem Titel
„Personalia“.51 Es ist unmittelbar nach dem Tod von Laurentius [d.
Ä.] in Moskau verfasst worden. Viele der darin enthaltenen
Aussagen werden auch durch andere Quellen gestützt, deshalb ist
davon auszugehen, dass die Angaben authentisch sind und der
Verfasser Laurentius [d. Ä.] sehr nahe gestanden hat und über sein
Leben sehr gut Bescheid wusste. Danach lebten seine Eltern in
Bothenheilingen. Sein Vater Wolfgang war dort Landsasse. Seine
Mutter Dorothea, geb. Geisien, stammte aus dem Dorf Schönstedt
bei Bad Langensalza. Am 29. Oktober 1619 wurde Laurentius [d.
Ä.] in Bothenheilingen geboren.51
Einige Quellen geben an, dass ihn sein Vater selbst in
Latein, Griechisch, christlicher Religion, Geschichte und
Dichtkunst unterrichtete.
1640 wurde Laurentius [d. Ä.] an der Universität Helmstedt
immatrikuliert.11 Er studierte dort Theologie sowie Medizin.4,5 Im
gleichen Jahr ging er wieder nach Braunschweig, um als
Hauslehrer zu arbeiten. Er unterrichtete dort die Kinder des Arztes
Victor Gregorii.4 Hier machte er auch seine ersten praktischen
Erfahrungen als angehender Mediziner.
Von 1644 bis 1646 studierte er in Jena Philosophie und
erlangte dort die Würde eines Magisters.2 Ein Jahr später führte er
sein Medizinstudium in Leipzig fort.5 Er wechselte dann wiederum
93
nach Jena.4 Dort schloss er auch sein Medizinstudium im Jahre
1648 mit einer Dissertation über den Skorbut (De scorbuto“) ab.3,12
Nach seinem Studium ließ er sich zunächst als Licentiat in
Braunschweig nieder, wo er am 29.08.1648 Anna Maria Gregorii
geb. Donat, die Witwe des verstorbenen Arztes Victor Gregorii,
heiratete.3,4 Sie brachte sieben Kinder in die Ehe mit ein.51 Ab
1649 war Laurentius [d. Ä.] als Stadtphysikus in Sangerhausen
angestellt. 4
Am 12. März 1652 übersandte er seine Dissertation „De
scorbuto“ mit einem in Latein verfassten Begleitschreiben an den
Mühlhäuser Rat. Er bat um eine Anstellung, die ihm auch gewährt
wurde.2 Bereits im April nahm er seine Tätigkeit als Medicus und
zweiter Physikus mit einem Jahresgehalt von 50 Gulden auf.10, 14
Schon ein Jahr später wurde ihm von der Stadt Burg bei
Magdeburg angeboten, die dortige Stelle des Stadtphysikus bei
gleichzeitiger Verdopplung seines Gehaltes zu übernehmen. Seine
„Probelektion“ vor dem Senat von Burg hatte er bereits abgelegt
und mit Bravur bestanden. Seine diesbezügliche Eingabe beim
Mühlhäuser Rat vom 14.09.1653 fand jedoch kein Wohlwollen, er
erhielt den erbetenen Abschied nicht. Der Rat sah sich jedoch
genötigt, Laurentius [d. Ä.] eine erhebliche Gehaltszulage zu
gewähren und ihm und seiner Familie das unentgeltliche
Bürgerrecht einzuräumen.10
Laurentius [d. Ä.] musste als Stadtphysikus auch ihm
unangenehme Aufgaben erledigen, so etwa bei dem in den Jahren
1659 und 1660 gegen die Frau Anna Führ stattfindenden
Hexenprozess. U. a. soll sie dem Bürger Nickol Braunschweiger
eine Krankheit angezaubert haben. Laurentius [d. Ä.] wurde in
seiner Eigenschaft als Stadtphysikus durch das Gericht beauftragt,
den Fall zu begutachten. Dieses ärztliche Gutachten ist am 30.
Dezember 1659 ausgestellt worden. Aus dem Schriftstück kann
man entnehmen, dass es Laurentius [d. Ä.] spürbar unangenehm
war zu entscheiden, ob die Krankheit des Patienten auf Hexerei
zurückzuführen war oder nicht. Er kam deshalb zu folgendem
sibyllinischen Urteil: Ob das von ihm diagnostizierte
Krankheitsbild durch einen „schlechten Geist“ [d. h. Zauberei]
hervorgerufen wurde „kann ich meines Teils weder bejahen noch
verneinen, sondern stelle es vielmehr anderen Verständigeren, die
94
den Kopf auf dem rechten Fleck haben, anheim, darüber zu
urteilen.“58
Im Jahre 1661 wurde Laurentius [d. Ä.] Bürgermeister von
Mühlhausen (Mitratsfreund und „Praeses consitorii“).10,15
Zwischenzeitlich wurde er von Herzog Ernst dem Frommen auch
zum Landphysikus des Herzogtums Sachsen-Gotha berufen.5, 14
Außerdem stand er im Dienste seines ehemaliger Landesherrn
(Bothenheilingen gehörte zur Grafschaft Schwarzburg), dem
Grafen Ludwig Günther von Schwarzburg.4,5 Laurentius [d. Ä.]
war nunmehr im mitteldeutschen Raum ein bekannter und
geachteter Mediziner, was auch im Jahre 1667 mit der
Veröffentlichung seines 272 Seiten umfassenden Werkes
„Pharmacotheca domestica et portatilis - Das ist: Haus- und ReisApotheken/ in welcher Die vornembste Chymische und etzliche
andere Artzneyen/ so durch vielfältige Erfahrung bewehrt ...
beschrieben werden - mit angehengten kurtzen Anmerckungen“
zum Ausdruck kommt.14 Eine zweite, erweiterte Auflage erschien
im Jahre 1716.8 Zu seinem Bekanntenkreis gehörte u. a. Johann
Francke, der Vater des bedeutenden Theologen und Pädagogen
August Hermann Francke, dem späteren Begründer des Hallenser
Waisenhauses.4
Die Fähigkeiten des Mediziners Laurentius Blumentrost [d.
Ä.] fanden bald europaweite Beachtung. Als der russische Zar
Alexei Michailowitsch auf der Suche nach einem neuen Leibarzt
war, wurde ihm u. a. auch Laurentius [d. Ä.] empfohlen (nach
einigen Quellen soll sich der in russischen Diensten stehende
General Nikolaus Baumann4, 14, nach anderen Quellen der
Generalleutnant Boldmack5 für Laurentius [d. Ä.] eingesetzt
haben). Außer Frage steht jedoch, dass sein in Moskau als Pastor
der evangelischen Gemeinde tätige Stiefsohn Johann Gottfried
Gregorii vom Können seines Stiefvaters berichtet hat, ihm hat
letztendlich Laurentius [d. Ä.] seine Berufung an den Zarenhof zu
verdanken.
Im Frühjahr des Jahres 1667 wurde Johann Gottfried
Gregorii vom Zaren beauftragt, seinen Stiefvater als Leibarzt nach
Moskau einzuladen.
Gregorii
wurden
ein
„Vocationsschreiben“
(Berufungsschreiben), welches am 12.03.1667 in Moskau
95
ausgestellt wurde,14, 15 und ein „Zarischer Sicherheitsbrief“
übergeben.5
Mitte Dezember 1667 traf Gregorii in Mühlhausen ein. Am
16. Dezember übergab Laurentius [d. Ä.] das Vocationsschreiben
des Zaren und sein Demissionsschreiben dem Rat.16 In diesem
Entlassungsgesuch führt er u. a. an, dass der Rat berücksichtigen
möge, dass er früher ansehnliche, auch fürstliche Anträge
abgelehnt habe. Jetzt aber glaube er, Gottes Willen nicht
widerstreben zu dürfen. Der mittlerweile 48jährige war fest
entschlossen, nach Moskau zu reisen.
Die Familie feierte ihr letztes gemeinsames Weihnachtsfest
in der Heimat. Dass die Trennung für immer sein würde, war wohl
zu diesem Zeitpunkt niemandem bewusst. Am 29.12.1667 erhielt
Blumentrost ein Geleitschreiben des Rates und einen „Paßport“ für
sich und seine Mitreisenden ausgehändigt.17, 18 Seine Frau Anna
Maria und sein ältester Sohn Johann Friedrich blieben in
Mühlhausen zurück. Für sie wurde auf Bitten von Laurentius [d.
Ä.] durch den Rat ein gerichtlicher Vormund bestellt.2
Gleich Anfang Januar erfolgte die Abreise. Unter den
Reisenden waren neben seinem Stiefsohn Johann Gottfried
Gregorii u. a. auch sein 13jähriger Sohn Laurentius Christian, seine
10jährige Tochter Elisabeth und die 36jährige Stieftochter Johanna
Dorothea, die wohl die Aufgaben der daheimgebliebenen Mutter
übernehmen sollte, sowie 10 Dienstboten.2 Zunächst begab man
sich nach Gotha, wo man sich von Herzog Ernst I. verabschiedete,
war doch Laurentius [d. Ä.] auch Landmedicus des Herzogtums
Sachsen-Gotha. Herzog Ernst I. übergab bei dieser Gelegenheit 200
Taler für die Förderung des Kirchen- und Schulwesens der
evangelischen Gemeinde in Moskau. Er sicherte zu, auch zukünftig
die dortige Schule finanziell unterstützen zu wollen.
Bei einem Zwischenaufenthalt in Leipzig wurde für die Kinder ein
Hauslehrer namens Laurentius Rinhuber gewonnen.2, 4 Rinhuber
war Medizinstudent und bereit, mit nach Moskau zu reisen. Die
Reise führte weiter über Dresden, wo Laurentius [d. Ä.] und
Johann Gottfried Gregorii am 21. Januar 1668 bei Kurfürst Johann
Georg II. von Sachsen vorsprachen. Auf Veranlassung des
Kurfürsten erhielt Laurentius [d. Ä.] ein am 22. Januar
ausgestelltes Empfehlungsschreiben.5 Gegenüber Johann Gottfried
96
Gregorii machte der Kurfürst die Zusage, 1000 Taler für die
Förderung der evangelischen Kirchengemeinde in Moskau
bereitzustellen. Es war beabsichtigt, diese Summe über eine
landesweite Sammlung, die in den Kirchen des Kurfürstentums
Sachsen erfolgen sollte, einzunehmen.2, 14
Die nächste Station war Berlin. Hier traf man mit dem
brandenburgischen Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm zusammen. Auch
dieser gab die Zusage, die evangelische Kirchengemeinde in
Moskau mit 1000 Talern zu unterstützen, das zugesagte Geld sollte
über Kollekten in den Kirchen des Kurfürstentums Brandenburg
gesammelt werden.2, 14
Die Reise führte nun entlang der Ostseeküste über Stettin,
Danzig, die Frische Nehrung, Pillau, Königsberg, die Kurische
Nehrung, Memel, Kurland und Livland zur russischen Grenze bei
Pskow, das man am 02./12. Mai 1668 erreichte2, 14 (Zeitangaben:
Julianischer Kalender/Gregorianischer Kalender). Die zuständigen
Behörden in Pskow hatten bereits den Befehl des Zaren erhalten,
die Reisegruppe in Empfang zu nehmen und auf schnellstem Weg
nach Moskau zu bringen.5
Hier angekommen, meldete sich
Laurentius [d. Ä.] bei der dortigen Gesandtschaftsbehörde am 24.
Mai/03. Juni 1668.5,14 Er übereichte die Empfehlungsschreiben des
Kurfürsten von Sachsen, des Grafen von Schwarzburg, des Rates
der Freien Reichsstadt Mühlhausen sowie von Medizinprofessoren
aus Jülich. Einen Monat später, am 26. Juni/6. Juli, wurde er dem
Zaren Alexei Michailowitsch
vorgestellt. und mit reichen
Geschenken überschüttet: Zobelpelze, Silbergeschirr, feine Tücher,
Schmucksachen und Geld. Laurentius [d. Ä.] erhielt nunmehr ein
jährliches Salär von insgesamt 730 Rubel.5
Anfangs bestand seitens des kaiserlichen Hofes gegenüber
Laurentius [d. Ä.] ein gewisses Misstrauen, denn jeder neue Arzt
stand damals unter Verdacht, ein Spion oder ein Giftmischer zu
sein. Der Leibarzt war nämlich in die intimsten Lebenssphären des
Zaren und seiner Familie eingeweiht und wurde notgedrungen zu
einer Vertrauensperson, zu einem engen Freund und Ratgeber. Oft
spielte er auch bei politischen Fragen eine entscheidende Rolle. Die
Nähe zum Herrscher bedingte seine besondere Stellung und Rolle
in der Gesellschaft. Alle suchten Kontakt zu Leibärzten, auch
Gegner des Zaren. Jeder Leibarzt war der ständigen Gefahr
ausgesetzt, verleumdet, angeklagt und im schlimmsten Fall
97
hingerichtet zu werden. Auch Laurentius [d. Ä.] blieben diese
Erfahrungen nicht erspart.
Johann Gottfried Grigorii (1631-1675), Stiefsohn von Laurentius
Blumentrost [d. Ä.], aus Merseburg stammend, lutherischer Pastor
und Dichter in Moskaus „deutscher Vorstadt“, Gründer des ersten
Theaters in Russland 1672 (aus "Tausend Jahre Nachbarschaft.
Russland und die Deutschen" von A. Eisfeld, S. 245)
Blumentrosts Situation wurde in der ersten Zeit seines
Aufenthaltes dadurch erschwert, dass sein Stiefsohn Johann
Gottfried Gregorii, der Pastor der lutherischen Gemeinde war,
schon bald in Ungnade des Zaren fiel, weil er angeblich Aussagen
zu Ungunsten Russlands bzw. der Zarenfamilie gemacht haben
soll. Außerdem war Gregorii in Streitigkeiten innerhalb der
deutschen Gemeinde in Moskau verwickelt, bei denen es um
Spenden aus Deutschland ging. Diese Vorgänge warfen auch ein
98
negatives Licht auf Laurentius [d. Ä.]. Eigentlich sollte dieser
regelmäßig Berichte über Gemeindeangelegenheiten an den
sächsischen Kurfürsten schreiben, er schrieb ihm aber nur einmal
und beantwortete nicht einmal dessen Briefe. Tat er das aus
Solidarität zu seinem Stiefsohn Gregorii oder möglicherweise aus
Angst, der Spionage beschuldigt zu werden?
Einige Zeit durfte Laurentius [d. Ä.]
kein hohes
medizinisches Amt bekleiden. Trotz seines Doktortitels und aller
Empfehlungen musste er sich einer erniedrigenden Examinierung
seiner Qualifikation unterwerfen. Noch im Jahre 1672 wurde er
wegen einer Anzeige aus der Apothekenbehörde entlassen, aber
bereits ein wenig später wieder bei der zwischenzeitlich neu
organisierten Apothekenbehörde eingestellt und zum Archiater
(leitender Hofarzt) ernannt, d. h. er war nunmehr für die
Angelegenheiten der gesamten staatlichen Medizin zuständig. In
dieser Eigenschaft leistete er einen großen Beitrag zur Entwicklung
des
Apothekenwesens
und
zur
Reorganisierung
der
Apothekerbehörde (russisch „Aptekarski prikas"), die damals eine
Verwaltungsstelle für das Gesundheitswesen darstellte und sich
später zur Medizinkanzlei und dann zum Medizinkollegium
entwickelte.26, 27
Blumentrosts Lage verbesserte sich merklich, als sein
Stiefsohn Johann Gottfried Gregorii, der auch in der Kirchenschule
unterrichtete, wieder zum Günstling des Zaren wurde, indem er auf
dessen Befehl
seine Theaterstücke zu biblischen Themen
inszenierte und somit Begründer des ersten russischen Hoftheaters
wurde.
Bereits nach wenigen Jahren seines Wirkens hatte Laurentius
[d. Ä.] einen guten Ruf in Moskau. Er genoss nicht nur als
praktizierender Arzt dank seiner medizinischen Erfahrungen und
seiner Gelehrsamkeit ein großes Ansehen, sondern auch dank
seiner Herzensgüte: Er verwendete sein Geld, um Bedürftigen zu
helfen, kaufte auf dem Markt Leibeigene und gab ihnen die
Freiheit, lehrte kostenlos arme Leute oder bekehrte Tataren und
Türken zum Christentum. Er sprach und schrieb Griechisch und
Lateinisch, war ein ausgezeichneter Philologe, widmete sich der
Poesie und schrieb Gedichte, darunter Epigramme. Im Alltag war
er bescheiden, gütig, anspruchslos und großzügig. Er war ein
guter Familienvater, unterrichtete selbst seine Kinder, sorgte für
99
ihre Bildung und humanistische Erziehung. Zu den Hauslehrern
gehörten u.a. Laurentius Rinhuber und Werner Pause, ein Dichter
sowie Übersetzer der altrussischen Chroniken. 58
Laurentius [d. Ä.] und seine Familie gehörten der neuen
lutherischen Gemeinde an. Er war Mitglied des Kirchenrates,
später dessen Vorsteher und als solcher entwarf Laurentius [d. Ä.]
eine neue Kirchenordnung, die aber nie in Kraft trat.
Am russischen Hof war Laurentius [d. Ä.] Leibarzt von drei
Zaren (Alexej, Fedor, Peter I), er war bis zu seinem Tode im hohen
Alter tätig. Er
behandelte
auch
die Angehörigen der
Zarenfamilie. Überliefert sind zahlreiche Belege seiner ärztlichen
Tätigkeit, darunter Diagnosen und Rezepte. Blumentrosts Rezepte
wurden in jeder Familie sorgfältig aufbewahrt und wurden von
Generation zu Generation weitergegeben. So ist bis zum heutigen
Tage in Russland „Blumentrosts Salbe“ zur Behandlung von
Gelenkbeschwerden sehr populär.
Im Jahre 1682 wurden die Hofärzte der Vergiftung des Zaren
Fedor beschuldigt, zwei von ihnen wurden von Aufständischen
grausam ermordet. Laurentius [d. Ä.] blieb nur dank der Prinzessin
Sofia am Leben, die ihn in ihrem Zimmer versteckt hatte.5, 6
Laurentius [d. Ä.] war eine bedeutende Persönlichkeit im
Russland des 17. Jahrhunderts. Als Philosoph und Frühaufklärer
vertrat er humanistische Ideen, begeisterte sich für den Pietismus
und das Weltreformprogramm. Die Pietisten träumten von der
Universalkirche, von der Vereinigung aller Christen zu einem
harmonischen multikulturellen Ganzen. Man sah den Weg dazu in
der Aufklärung und der Entwicklung von kulturellen und
wirtschaftlichen Kontakten. Russland sollte als Missionsland eine
wichtige Rolle dabei spielen.
Die ersten Kontakte zwischen den Pietisten aus Halle und
Russland knüpfte H. W. Ludolf (1655-1712), der als Diplomat
nach Russland reiste. Er gewann den Leibarzt des Zaren, Dr.
Laurentius Blumentrost [d. Ä.], für den Pietismus.
Laurentius [d. Ä.] stand in engem Kontakt mit dem
Theologieprofessor August Herrmann Francke, dem Leiter der
pietistischen Bewegung und Gründer der Franckeschen Stiftungen
in Halle, und machte auch Peter I. mit dessen Philosophie bekannt.
Aufgeschlossen für alles Neue, zeigte der Zar großes Interesse für
die Tätigkeit der 1695 entstandenen Frankeschen Stiftungen und
100
hoffte, dass diese ihm bei der Verwirklichung seiner
Bildungsprojekte und beim Ausbau wirtschaftlicher und
wissenschaftlicher Kontakte zu Deutschland behilflich sein
würden. Tatsächlich strömten Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts viele
deutsche Pädagogen und Theologen aus Halle nach Russland und
wirkten in ausländischen und russischen Adelsfamilien als
Kindererzieher und Lehrer. Sie beeinflussten auch die Entstehung
der ersten öffentlichen Schulen und die Entwicklung des russischen
Bildungswesens im Allgemeinen. So entstanden in Russland auch
Waisenhäuser nach Franckes Vorbild.28
Laurentius [d. Ä.] war Förderer der Pietisten. Als Ältester des
Kirchenrates der Neuen Deutschen Lutherischen Gemeinde in
Moskau setzte er durch, dass J. S. Scharschmidt, mit dem das
Wirken der Pietisten in Russland begann, zum Prediger der Neuen
Deutschen Gemeinde, und Johann Werner Pause aus Thüringen im
Jahre 1702 zum Leiter des Akademischen Glück-Gymnasiums
gewählt wurden.
Das berühmte Moskauer Akademische Gymnasium wurde
von Ernst Glück aus Sachsen-Anhalt gegründet. Er war Anhänger
des Pietismus, Theologe und
Pädagoge und geriet
als
Kriegsgefangener während des Großen Nordischen Krieges nach
Moskau. Durch die Vermittlung seiner Adoptivtochter Marta
Skawronskaja, Liebhaberin und künftige Gemahlin Peterы I. und
spätere Kaiserin Katarina I., wurde er befreit. Am GlückGymnasium lernte später auch Laurentius Blumentrost [d. J.].
Nach dem Tod seiner ersten Frau Anna Maria in Mühlhausen
heiratete Laurentius [d. Ä.] am 15.02/26.02.1672 die aus Hamburg
stammende Cäcilia Beermann, geb. Röver. Cäcilia starb am 05.
März 1677 in Moskau.4 1678 heiratete er Anna Gosen (eine
Tochter des kurländischen Kaufmanns Johann Gosen).
Hochgeehrt, umgeben von seinen Kindern und Enkeln, starb
er am 23. Oktober 1705 „sechs Tage vor seinem Geburtstag“ zu
Moskau im Alter von 86 Jahren und wurde auf dem deutschen
Friedhof begraben.51
Wie in Russland üblich, führte auch Laurentius [d. Ä.] einen
Vatersnamen. In vielen Quellen steht Lawrentij Alferjewitsch. Es
konnte nicht festgestellt werden, woher dieser Vatersname stammt.
Sehr wahrscheinlich beruht dieser Vatersname auf einen
Übertragungsfehler eines seiner frühen deutschen Biografen.
101
Blumentrost wohnte mit seiner Familie zuerst in der deutschen
Sloboda (deutsche Vorstadt in Moskau), spätestens seit 1690 in
seinem großen und schönen Haus in der Straße Mjasnitzkaja. In
diesem Haus wurde im Jahre 1692 sein jüngster Sohn geboren. In
dieser Straße, welche vom Kreml in die deutsche Siedlung führte,
siedelten
ausschließlich
sehr
wohlhabende
Bürger.
Erstaunlicherweise ist das Gebäude erhalten geblieben. Neben
diesem gehörten Laurentius [d. Ä.] noch weitere Häuser und
Grundstücke in Moskau.
Das Haus von Laurentius Blumentrost [d. Ä.] in der Majsnitzkaja
Str. 40 (Block 4) in Moskau, welches für ihn um das Jahr 1690
gebaut wurde (Foto: Daria Poskachey, Moskau)
Das Apothekenamt, in dem Laurentius [d. Ä.] als Archiater
tätig war, befand sich ursprünglich im Kreml (nur ein kleiner Rest
von dem ehemaligen Gebäude des Apothekenamtes steht noch
heute). Auf der Wiese neben der Kreml-Mauer (heute AlexanderGarten) war zu Blumentrosts Zeiten der Apotheken-Garten mit
102
Heilkräutern angelegt worden. Mit der Gründung des neuen
Apothekenamtes befanden sich seit 1672 die Dienstgebäude in
einem anderen Stadtbezirk, aber immer noch in der Nähe des
Kremls. Ein Gebäude des Apothekenamtes (das ehemalige
Refektorium) ist bis heute erhalten geblieben und gehört seit 2012
dem Architektur-Museum (heutige Adresse: Wosdwischenka, Haus
5). Im Erdgeschoß war ein Speiseraum, im Obergeschoß wurden
im 17. Jahrhundert Kräuter getrocknet. Im Kellergeschoß lagerten
Honig, Getränke u. a. m. Die heutige Ausstellung veranschaulicht
die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Medizin in Russland.
Sein ältester Sohn, Johann Friedrich Blumentrost, ist
wahrscheinlich in den Jahren wurde im Jahre 1674 wird er in
Mühlhausen zum zweiten Physikus ernannt. Zu einem späteren
Zeitpunkt wird er erster Stadtphysikus.2,10 Seine medizinischen
Fähigkeiten erlangten eine gewisse Berühmtheit.Im Jahre 1676
reist er nach Moskau zu seinem Vater. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt ist die
Grund der Reise ist die Klärung der Eigentumsverhältnisse an den
Mühlhäuser Besitztümern.
Wosdwishenka 5 ,ehemals Aptekarskij Prikas (heute Museum für
Architektur, Foto: Swetlana Kuroptewa)
103
Laurentius Christian Blumentrost
Als zweiter Sohn aus erster Ehe wurde am 01.01.1655
Laurentius Blumentrost, später als Laurentius Christian
Blumentrost bekannt, in der Marienkirche zu Mühlhauen getauft.9
104
Er reiste im Jahre 1668 mit seinem Vater nach Moskau. Dieser
unterrichtete ihn in Griechisch, Latein und Medizin. Einer seiner
Lehrer war Blumentrosts Medizinassistent Laurentius Rinhuber,
der später im diplomatischen Dienst stand sowie Übersetzer und
Schriftsteller war; bekannt wurde dieser durch sein Buch „Relation
Du Voyage En Russie Fait En 1684“.29, 30 Seine Berichte über das
Leben in Russland werden heute noch als historisch wertvoll
angesehen.
Laurentius
Christian
besuchte
später
die
Gemeindeschule in Moskau und lernte dort bei seinem Stiefbruder
Johann Gottfried Gregorii.
Zar Alexej Michailowitsch, Vater Peters I., zwar überaus
fromm und hielt treu an altrussischen Traditionen fest, aber
dennoch war er aufgeschlossen für alles Neue. Als Kind spielte er
mit allerlei deutschen mechanischen Spielzeugen, zeigte Interesse
für Sprachen, hatte Neigung zur Philosophie und dichterisches
Talent, wovon seine Gedichte und Schriften in Prosa zeugen, die
im Staatsarchiv in Moskau aufbewahrt werden. Anlässlich der
Geburt seines Sohnes Peter am 30. Mai /9. Juni 1672 beauftragte
Zar Alexej Michajlowitsch Johann Gottfried Gregorii, der ab und
zu mit seinen Schülern seine eigenen Theaterstücke für die
deutsche Gemeinde inszenierte, ein Theater zu gründen. Die ersten
Schauspieler waren vor allem Schüler der
deutschen
Kirchenschule, darunter Laurentius Christian Blumentrost. Das
erste Theaterstück „Esther und Ahasvärus“ wurde von Gregorii
und Rinhuber zunächst in deutscher Sprache geschrieben und
anschließend zum Teil in Versen, zum Teil in Prosa ins Russische
übersetzt. Die erste Aufführung fand am 17. Oktober 1672 in
Anwesenheit des Zaren, seiner Familie und der Hofleute statt und
dauerte 10 Stunden. Der Erfolg war außerordentlich. Die
Aufführung wurde mehrfach wiederholt. Laurentius Christian
spielte die Rolle des Mardochei mit großem Erfolg und war auch
Sprecher des „Prologus und Epilogus“. Im Prolog wurde dem
Zaren der Schutz der Deutschen empfohlen: „Sollte unser Mühsal,
o Zar, Euch gefallen, dann wendet Euern Gnadenstrahl nicht nach
Persien, des Artaxerxes Schutzbefohlenen (d.h. die Juden – Verf.)
mögen Ihnen als Deutsche erscheinen.“ Es sei bemerkt, dass die
deutschen Bediensteten sich dabei nicht als Untertan begriffen,
sondern als freie Bürger. 50
105
Neben Rinhuber, der mit den Teilnehmern die Rollen
eingeübt hatte, war Laurentius Christian außerdem Leiter der
Schülergruppe und wurde nach der Aufführung Zar Alexej
Michajlowitsch vorgestellt und von ihm belohnt. Der Zar war
begeistert, und Gregorii bekam für diese Aufführung ein hohes
Honorar: 40 Zobelpelze zu je 100 Rubel und 2 zu je 8 Rubel.30
Zwei Druckexemplare des Stückes „Esther und Ahasvärus“,
das
lange Zeit als verloren galt, wurden 1954 in den
Stadtbibliotheken in Wologda und in Lyon gefunden und 1957 in
Altslawisch sowie in Paris in Deutsch und Russisch
herausgegeben. Auf Initiative des Mitgliedes der Moskauer
lutherischen Gemeinde Vladimir Pudow wurde das Stück von
Gregorii in die gegenwärtige Sprache übersetzt und anlässlich der
Veranstaltungen „2000 Jahre Christentum“ am 31.01 2000 in
einem Moskauer Theater aufgeführt.
Laurentius Christian nahm an zahlreichen weiteren
Aufführungen dieses ersten russischen Hoftheaters teil. Übrigens
befand sich später dieses Hoftheater im Kreml über dem
Apothekenamt.
Von 1680 bis 1683 studierte Laurentius Christian Medizin in
Leiden, an der Sorbonne in Paris und in Jena. Seit 1685 war er im
russischen Staatsdienst als Arzt für die Töchter des Zaren tätig.4 In
den Handschriften der Apothekerbehörde gibt es die Vermerke,
dass er im Jahre 1687 den Fürsten J. Urussow behandelt habe und
im Jahre 1692 sein jährliches Gehalt 460 Rubel betrug.5 Im Jahre
1705 war er Älterling der protestantischen Kirchengemeinde in
Moskau. Sein letzter nachweisbarer Krankenbericht stammt vom
13. Oktober 1707. Mindestens bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt arbeitete er
als Arzt für die Apothekenbehörde.4
Christian Laurentius war spätestens seit 1693 mit einer Frau
namens Anna verheiratet und hatte Kinder.4 Anna wird nochmals
bei der Taufe eines Enkels seines Stiefbruders Johann Gottfried
Gregorii im Jahre 1704 genannt.14 Unklar bleibt jedoch, wie viel
Kinder Christian Laurentius hatte sowie wann und wo er verstarb.
106
Johann Gottlob Deodatus Blumentrost
Johann Gottlob Deodatus Blumentrost, in Russland genannt
Ivan Lavrentjewitsch/Iwan Bogdanowitsch, wurde in Moskau
geboren. Sein Geburtsjahr wird in den Quellen unterschiedlich
angegeben: 1672, 1676, 1678, 1679, 1680. Der lateinische Name
Deodatus heißt «von Gott geschenkt». Daher der russische Name
„Bogdan“ mit gleicher Bedeutung, der
üblicherweise als
Vatersname „Bogdanowitsch“ neben „Lavrentjewitsch“ gebraucht
wurde. In manchen russischen Quellen steht statt Deodat bzw.
Deodatus Theodor.31
Im Jahre 1698 wurde Deodatus zum Studium nach
Deutschland geschickt. Das Staatsarchiv in Moskau besitzt den
Brief von seinem Vater Laurentius [d. Ä.] vom 18. Januar 1698 mit
der Bitte, seinem Sohn das Studium in Deutschland zu erlauben.5, 32
Es gibt noch eine weitere Bestätigung für das Jahr 1698: Erst 1697
wurde der Königsberger Vertrag unterzeichnet, nach dem u. a.
russische Studenten an der Albertine studieren durften.
Wenn man vom Geburtsdatum 1672 ausgeht, so wäre
Deodatus im Jahre 1698 26 Jahre alt gewesen. Viel zu spät für
einen begabten Jungen, das Studium aufzunehmen! Auch das Jahr
1676 scheint aus demselben Grund zweifelhaft, zumal alle Quellen
darin übereinstimmen, dass Deodatus ein Sohn von Anna Gosen
gewesen ist, die Laurentius [d. Ä.] jedoch erst 1678 heiratete.
Außerdem wird in manchen Quellen mitgeteilt, dass Deodatus mit
19 Jahren ins Ausland verreist ist. Sehr wahrscheinlich ist Deodat
demzufolge in den Jahren 1678 oder 1679 geboren worden. Die
undeutlich geschriebenen
Ziffern 8 bzw. 9 konnten
fälschlicherweise als 2 identifiziert werden. In der „Geschichte der
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften“ von P. Pekarski, die
als eine zuverlässige Quelle gilt, ist das Jahr 1679 als Geburtsjahr
von Deodatus aufgeführt.49 Andere Quellen geben als konkretes
Geburtsdatum den 05.08./15.08.1678 an.4, 35
Als russischer Student studierte Deodatus seit 1698 auf
staatliche Kosten in Königsberg. Auf Verfügung Peters I. schrieb
er im Jahre 1700 in Königsberg seine „Abhandlung über die Praxis
des Feldarztes und seine medizinische Aufsichtspflicht im
Moskauer Heer“, die im gleichen Jahr auch veröffentlicht wurde.
Die 2. Auflage erschien im Jahre 1703. Ein Original befindet sich
107
in der Dresdner Bibliothek.14 Dieses in Latein verfasste Werk
(Originaltitel „Medicus castrensis exercitui Moscovitarum
praefectus“) mit 39 Kapiteln auf 80 kleinformatigen Seiten war die
erste Veröffentlichung zum Thema Feldchirurgie in Russland.5, 14
Die Kapitel 28-34 sind von besonderem Wert, denn sie enthalten
praktische Hinweise zur Behandlung von Wunden sowie auf
verschiedene Arzneien und Rezepte. Lehrreich ist auch das Kapitel
35, in dem Deodatus den Ärzten und Chirurgen wertvolle
allgemeine Ratschläge gibt. Lange Zeit galt das Buch in Russland
als verschollen und wurde erst Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts in der
Öffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg entdeckt. In den 50er
Jahren des 20.Jh. wurde die Schrift von dem Medizinhistoriker G.
Jakowlew sorgfältig ausgewertet.
Deodatus setzte sein Studium ab 1701 in Halle (dortige
Immatrikulation am 04.01.1701)34 und Leyden fort und
promovierte 1702 in Halle
mit einer Dissertation über
Pulsmessung („Pulsum theoria et praxis“)14 Als Doktor der
Medizin noch im gleichen Jahr nach Russland zurückgekehrt,
diente er einige Zeit als Militärarzt und begleitete mehrmals Zar
Peter I. auf seinen Feldzügen, später als dessen Leibarzt auch auf
Reisen ins Ausland. Sein Gehalt betrug anfangs 300 Rubel
jährlich.4
Im Jahre 1712 wurde das neugegründete Petersburg zur
russischen Hauptstadt. Neben allen Verwaltungen übersiedelte
auch das Apothekenamt nach Petersburg und befand sich einige
Zeit auf dem Gelände der Peter-Pauls-Festung, später in der
deutschen Siedlung an der Ecke der Großen Deutschen Straße
(heute Millionnaja 4/1) und einer Gasse. Die Gasse trägt noch
heute den alten Namen - Aptekarskij (Apothekengasse).
Auf Befehl von Peter I. wurde im Jahre 1714 auf einer Insel
der erste Apothekengarten in Petersburg angelegt, wozu Deodatus
einen beachtlichen Beitrag leistete. Die Insel wurde daraufhin
„Aptekarskij“ genannt. Aus dem Apothekengarten, in dem zuerst
vorwiegend Heilkräuter und seltene Pflanzen gezüchtet wurden,
entwickelte sich im 19. Jahrhundert der berühmte Botanische
Garten.
1714 heiratete Deodatus zunächst Agatha (Tochter des
Moskauer Bankiers Paul Westhof, Witwe des Hofarztes Gottfried
Klemm und des Kaufmanns Johann Rudolph Poppe). Nach ihrem
108
Tod heiratete er 1747 Charlotte Magdalene Struve (1717 in Jena
geboren - 1756 in Petersburg, nach anderen Quellen 1759 in Narva
gestorben, Tochter eines Professors für Recht aus Kiel und Witwe
des Leibarztes Ernst Gotthold Struve). Noch im gleichen Jahre
wurde seine Tochter Maria Elisabeth geboren.35 Diese heiratete
später Gottfried Ephraim von Opitz.55
Im Jahre 1718 wurde Deodatus zum Archiater ernannt. In
diesem Amt erstellte er ein Projekt für medizinische Reformen und
leitete umfangreiche Neuerungen ein. Auf seinen Vorschlag hin
und dank seiner Bemühungen wurde im Jahre 1721 die
Medizinkanzlei errichtet, deren Aufgabe darin bestand, die
Aufsicht über die Spitäler und Apotheken, die Zulassung und
Tätigkeit der Ärzte sowie die Überwachung von Arzneien und
medizinischen Maßnahmen während der Epidemien auszuüben.33
In diesen Jahren wurden 10 Spitäler und rund 500 Lazarette in
Russland eingerichtet.
Im Jahre 1722 wurde er zum Staatsrat und zum Präsidenten
der Medizinkanzlei ernannt. Er behielt dieses Amt bis 1731 inne.
1728 gründete er auch eine Ambulanz für Arme bei der
Hofapotheke in Moskau. Das war gewissermaßen die erste
Poliklinik in Russland. 6
In Petersbug wohnte Deodatus nicht weit von der
Medizinkanzlei in der Millionnaja Str. (heute Haus 22, umgebaut)
in der Nähe des Winterpalais von Peter I. (heute befindet sich an
dieser Stelle das Ermitagetheater).
Unter Zar Peter I. wurde Deodatus reichlich belohnt,
ausgezeichnet und befördert. 1716 war er Besitzer von 58
Anwesen. 1719 betrug sein Jahresgehalt 3000 Rubel. Der Zar
schenkte ihm sein mit Diamanten besetztes Porträt, das Deodatus
am Halsbande trug, sowie das Gut Gatschina. Dieses Gut war
zwischen 1718-1732 im Besitz von Deodatus. Neben seinem
Sommerhaus ließ er den ersten regulären Apothekengarten
anlegen.36
Nach dem Tode Peters I. und Katharina I. begannen unter
Kaiserin
Anna
Intrigen
gegen
ihn:
Ihm
wurden
Unregelmäßigkeiten in der Hofapotheke zur Last gelegt, und 1730
wurde er aus allen seinen Ämtern verdrängt. Die Ländereien in
Gatschina gingen in Staatsbesitz über. 1731 zog er nach Moskau,
während eines Brandes verlor er auch sein gesamtes dortiges
109
Vermögen. Von allen Anwesen blieb ihm nur das Gut Kummolowo
bei Petersburg (5 Dörfer, 18 Hektar). In Kummolowo wurde von
ihm eine Branntweinbrennerei errichtet und in künstlich angelegten
Teichen wurden Forellen gezüchtet. Die Ruine des Herrenhauses
steht noch heute. Die Teiche sind zugewachsen. Das Dorf ist
unbewohnt. Das Grundstück steht zum Verkauf. In der Sowjetzeit
war im Dorf ein Fliegerregiment stationiert.
Millionnaja 22 in der Nähe des Winterpalais. Hier wohnten
Deodatus und Laurentius [d. J.] (Foto: Elena Yudina)
Nach seinem Tod gehörte das Gut seiner Tochter Marie
Elisabeth (russisch Мария Ивановна), welche zunächst mit
Gottfried Ephraim von Opitz verehelicht war und nach dessen Tod
Friedrich Johann von Gersdorf heiratete und im Jahre 1775
verstarb. 125 Jahre wohnten dort Vertreter dieser Familie.37, 38
110
Haus in Kummolowo (Foto: Elena Yudina)
In den Jahren 1748-1749 war Deodatus stellvertretender
Präsident des Kirchenkonvents der Petrikirche in Petersburg,
beruflich war er nicht mehr tätig und starb 1756 in Petersburg. In
einigen Quellen wird als Todestag der 11.3./22.03.1756
angegeben.35 Er wurde neben seinem Bruder Laurentius dem
Jüngeren auf dem Friedhof an der Simpsonkirche begraben. In den
Grabstein wurde folgender Satz in Latein eingemeißelt: „Memoria
generis et sanguinus Blumentrostiadiem prorsus deleta“ (Das
Gedächtnis an die blut- und nahverwandten Blumentrosts ist
erloschen). Das Grab ist nicht mehr vorhanden.39
Die Grabinschrift nimmt nur Bezug auf die männliche Linie
der Blumentrosts, die mit Deodatus erloschen ist. Er hinterließ
aber Nachkommen: seine Tochter Marie Elisabeth Gersdorf, ihre
Kinder und Enkel.
(Robert) Laurentius Blumentrost der Jüngere
Der hervorragendste Vertreter der Familie Blumentrost Robert Laurentius/Lorenz Blumentrost - ist 1692 als der jüngste
111
Sohn von Laurentius Blumentrost d. Ä. und Anna Gosen in
Moskau geboren worden. In manchen Quellen wird als
Geburtsdatum der 29.10./10.11 angegeben, es handelt sich hierbei
möglicherweise um eine Verwechslung mit dem Geburtstag von
Laurentius [d. Ä.].2
Laurentius [d. J.] bekam eine vortreffliche Ausbildung. Seine
Hauslehrer waren bedeutende Gelehrte der damaligen Zeit und
Freunde der Familie: außer L. Rinhuber auch J. W. Pause
(Philosoph, Dichter und Übersetzer, persönlich bekannt mit Peter
I.) und J. S. Scharschmidt (Theologe, Informator, Pietist). In
Griechisch, Latein und Medizin wurde er von seinem Vater
unterrichtet, später besuchte er das Glück-Gymnasium in
Moskau. Bereits mit 14 Jahren wurde er im November 1706 an der
medizinischen Fakultät der Universität zu Halle immatrikuliert,
später studierte er auch in Oxford und Leiden.40 In Leiden
promovierte er 1713 mit dem Thema „De secretione animali“5
zum Doktor der Medizin. Nach Aussagen von Zeitgenossen kam er
nach Begabung und Gelehrsamkeit ganz nach seinem Vater. Er
beherrschte Latein, Griechisch, Deutsch, Französisch und Russisch.
Er wurde als ein leutseliger und höflicher Mensch gerühmt.
Nach seiner Rückkehr nach Moskau 1714 ernannte ihn Peter
I. zum Leibarzt seiner Schwester Natalia. 1715 wurde Laurentius
[d. J.] beauftragt, die Symptome und den Verlauf der Krankheit
des Zaren zu beschreiben. Das Untersuchungsergebnis teilte er
weiteren angesehenen Ärzten in Europa mit, um von diesen
fachliche Ratschläge einzuholen. Als Hofarzt reiste er in den
Jahren 1715-1717 im Auftrag von Peter I. nach Europa
(Deutschland, Frankreich, England, Holland), um das
Medizinwesen kennenzulernen. Er studierte Anatomie in Paris bei
I. Duvernoy, dann in Amsterdam bei dem bekannten Gelehrten
Friedrich Ruysch. Er erlernte die Kunst, anatomische Präparate
anzufertigen.
Auf
Rat von Laurentius [d. J.]
und dank seinen
Bemühungen wurde 1717 das berühmte anatomische Kabinett F.
Ruyschs von der russischen Regierung erworben. Nur Blumentrost
wurde ins Geheimnis der Konservierung und Erhaltung der
biologischen Präparate eingeweiht. Diese Sammlung befindet sich
in der Petersburger Kunstkammer.
112
1718 starb Zar Peters Leibarzt R. Areskin, mit dem der junge
Blumentrost eng befreundet war. Areskin vermachte Laurentius [d.
J.] seinen Landsitz bei Petersburg. Auch seine Ämter gingen an
ihn über. Seit 1719 war er Leibarzt von Peter I. und seiner Familie
und gleichzeitig Leiter der kaiserlichen Bibliothek und der
Kunstkammer.
Museum "Martialwasser"
In Karelien, im Ort Olonez, wurde eisenhaltiges Wasser
entdeckt. Laurentius [d. J.] untersuchte seit 1717 als erster dessen
Eigenschaften und schrieb 1719 die ersten balneologischen
Anleitungen zur Behandlung mit Mineralwasser41 sowie die
Abhandlung „Beschreibung der Mineral-Wasser von Olonez“.42
Auf Erlass von Peter I. wurde 1719 der erste Kurort in Russland
– „Martialwasser“ – gegründet. Der Kaiser besuchte mehrmals
diesen Kurort und ließ sich mit Mineralwasser behandeln. In der
Sowjetzeit wurde der Kurort
„Martialwasser“ (russisch
«Марциальные воды“) neu eröffnet (1964). Die damals von
113
Laurentius [d. J.] erstellten Anleitungen zur Behandlung gelten
noch heute. Aus der Anfangszeit erhalten geblieben ist eine kleine
Kirche, die auf Anordnung von Peter I. im Jahre 1721 errichtet
wurde.
Die Kirche in Olonez
.
Laurentius [d. J.] stellte medizinische Hinweise für Peter I.
zusammen, dessen Gesundheit angeschlagen war. Überliefert ist
eine Belehrung für den Zaren, welche im Original in der veralteten
russischen Sprache vorliegt. 43
Die Zeitgenossen hielten Laurentius [d. J.] für eine große
Kapazität der Medizin der damaligen Zeit. Er blieb der erste
Leibarzt und Vertrauter von Peter I. bis zu dessen Tod. Als der
Kaiser im Sterben lag, tat Laurentius [d. J.] sein Bestes, um
den Zaren zu retten: Er berief alle Ärzte von St. Petersburg zu
einem Consilium ein und sendete bereits am 16. Januar 1725 die
ganze Krankengeschichte an H. Boerhaave in Leyden und Ernst
Stahl in Berlin, um von diesen einen ärztlichen Rat einzuholen.6
Im Auftrag Peters I. sollte Laurentius [d. J.] das Projekt der
Russischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste
ausarbeiten. Warum gerade er für diesen Auftrag gewählt wurde,
114
erklärt das Akademiemitglied Kunik (1860) wie folgt: „Bei allen
diesen Unternehmungen und auszuführenden Arbeiten zwischen
ihm und sämtlichen Angestellten Vermittler zu machen, mochte
dem Kaiser nicht leicht jemand besser geeignet scheinen als der
ihm ohnehin nahe stehende Blumentrost, da ihm Wolff als
Vizepräsident nicht nur zur Seite stehen, sondern, wie es scheint,
einen großen Teil der schweren Bürde auf sich nehmen sollte“.44
Erlass Peters I. über die Gründung der Akademie der
Wissenschaften
Ende 1723 ging Laurentius [d. J.] an den Entwurf des
Projekts und legte es dem Zaren schon am 08.01.1724 zur
Bestätigung vor. Innerhalb von drei Jahren korrespondierte
Laurentius [d. J.] mit vielen Gelehrten in Europa. Besonders
produktiv war sein Briefwechsel mit Prof. Chr. Wolff aus Halle.
Blumentrost hoffte ihn für das Amt des Vizepräsidenten zu
gewinnen. Aus persönlichen Gründen verzichtete Wolff am Ende
auf dieses Amt. Doch sein Beitrag zur Gründung der russischen
Akademie war erheblich. Durch seine Vermittlung gewann die
Akademie eine Reihe von begabten jungen Wissenschaftlern:
Büllfinger, Hermann, Brüder Bernoulli, Goldbach, Euler u. a.
Laurentius [d. J.] schloss mit allen Akademiemitgliedern Verträge
ab und bestimmte die Aufgaben und Gehälter. In erster Linie
wurde um deutsche Gelehrte geworben. Neun der ersten 13
Akademiemitglieder waren deutsche Gelehrte: der Botaniker und
115
Zoologe I. Buxbaum, die Mathematiker Ch. Martini und Ch.
Goldbach, die Historiker J. Kohl und G. Bayer, der Chemiker M.
Bürger, der Jurist J. Beckenstein und der Physiker und Philosoph
G. Büllfinger. Von 14 Vorlesungsreihen der Akademie der
Wissenschaften wurden zehn von Deutschen gehalten. Seit den
zwanziger Jahren des 18. Jahrhunderts leiteten deutsche Gelehrte
mehrere Expeditionen in entfernte Gebiete des Landes.
Laurentius [d. J.] kümmerte sich nicht nur um die
Angelegenheiten der Akademie, sondern auch um das Leben ihrer
Mitglieder, deren Unterkunft und Verpflegung. Davon zeugen
seine Briefe sowie die Aussagen der ersten Akademiker, die vom
Leben in St. Petersburg berichten.45 Der Historiker J. Kohl
versicherte seinem Kollegen G. Müller in einem Brief, die
Lebensbedingungen seien hier genauso gut wie in Deutschland,
die Bibliothek sei ausgezeichnet und er werde in der russischen
Hauptstadt die Gelegenheit zum Austausch mit bedeutenden
Gelehrten haben. Russland wurde für den angehenden Historiker
G. Müller zur zweiten Heimat. Er war 58 Jahre lang an der
Akademie tätig.46
Die ersten Jahre der Präsidentschaft waren sehr erfolgreich.
Laurentius [d. J.] schrieb in einem Brief an Wolff: „Obwohlen die
Akademie einen viel vornehmeren und gelehrteren Präsidenten
hätte bekommen können, so weiß ich doch nicht, ob sie einen
eifrigeren hätte finden können, welcher mit solcher Begierde als
ich vor derselben Wohlfahrt würde gestanden haben“.48
Laurentius [d. J.] setzte durch, dass Katharina I. zwei
Grundstücke auf der Wassili-Insel für die Errichtung des Gebäudes
der Kunstkammer und das nebenliegende Palais (gebaut für die
Gemahlin des Zaren Iwan V, der Mutter von Anna Ioanowna) der
Akademie sowie ein konfisziertes Palais von Baron Schafirow für
die Unterkunft der ausländischen Akademiker zur Verfügung
stellen ließ. Er musste u. a. die Bautätigkeit beaufsichtigen, die
kaiserliche Bibliothek und die Raritäten-Sammlungen Peter I.
sowie den Gottorper Globus (Sommerschloss, Sommergarten) im
neuen Gebäude unterbringen, allerlei Geräte und Instrumente im
Ausland einkaufen sowie Büchersammlungen erwerben. In einem
auf den 31. Mai 1726 datierten Brief teilt er seinen Plan mit, was
im Gebäude der Kunstkammer untergebracht werden soll: das
anatomische Institut, der Globus, die Sternwarte. Die
116
Unterbringung des riesigen Globus war ein besonders schweres
Unternehmen.
Im Jahre 1728 fand die Einweihung der
»Akademischen Kammer« statt.48 Weiterhin wurde das Palais der
Praskowja Fedorowna umgebaut. In diesem
wurden
der
Konferenzsaal, die Druckerei, das Archiv, die Buchhandlung, die
Mal- und Gravurwerkstatt sowie das geografische Departament der
Akademie untergebracht (heutzutage Zoologisches Museum).
Laurentius [d. J.] musste sich ständig um die Finanzierung
kümmern. Zwecks der Selbstfinanzierung ließ er Im Jahre 1727
die akademische Druckerei mit zwei Druckanlagen mit
lateinischer, deutscher und russischer Schrift errichten. Die
Gelehrten konnten so ihre Monografien, Lehrbücher und populärwissenschaftliche Bücher veröffentlichen. Bereits 1728 erschienen
11 Titel. Außerdem wurden Periodica gedruckt: die erste russische
Zeitung
«Ведомости» (seit
1728
«Санктпетербургские
ведомости»), Kalender, die Sammelbände „Kommentare“, welche
die Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Konferenzen enthielten, u. a.
m.
Laurentius Blumentrost [d. J.],
Lithografie von P. A. Andrejew 1837
(aus der Sammlung von Е. Е. Reithern, seit 1918 im Russischen
Museum, St. Petersburg)
117
Am besten charakterisierte die Verdienste von Laurentius [d.
J.] der Historiker P. P. Pekarski, der das vielbändige Werk „Die
Geschichte der kaiserlichen Akademie in Petersburg“ im Jahre
1870 herausgab: „L. L. Blumentrost gründete nicht nur die
Akademie, vielmehr die russische Wissenschaft selbst als ein
einheitliches, sich entwickelndes und sich produzierendes
System.“49 (Übersetzung von E. Yudina).
Der Historiker G. Müller hinterließ uns eine ausführliche
Charakteristik der Persönlichkeit von Laurentius d. J.: „Wenn man
sein Gesicht betrachtete, so war es attraktiv, sein Umgang war
höflich und freundlich. Er gab nie gegenüber den Wissenschaftlern
der Akademie zu verstehen, dass er ihnen überlegen ist oder es als
Präsident sein wird. … Als er es tatsächlich geworden war, änderte
sich sein Umgang nicht. Er war von allen geachtet und geliebt,
solange er in Petersburg war und die Akademie besuchte“.49
(Übersetzung von E.Yudina).
G. Müller erzählt als Augenzeuge, dass Laurentius d. J.
während der Sitzungen nicht vorn, sondern mal da und mal dort
saß. Es gab keinen Ehrenplatz für den Präsidenten. Er verlangte
keine Vorzüge für sich. Er sprach in den Sitzungen mit der
jeweiliger Person die Sprache, die diese beherrschte.49
Акаdemie der Wissenschaften im 18. Jh.
118
Bereits im Jahre 1736 schrieb der bekannte französische
Physiker J.J. Dortu de Meran, ein Ehrenmitglied der russischen
Akademie: „Die Petersburger Akademie hatte bereits seit ihrer
Gründung ein hervorragendes wissenschaftliches Niveau, das die
Akademien zu Paris und zu London erst mit großer Mühe nach 60
Jahren erreicht haben.“56 (Übersetzung von E. Yudina).
Manche Historiker werfen Laurentius [d. J.] vor, dass er in
den letzten Jahren seiner Präsidentschaft die Akademie
vernachlässigt hat und sein Projekt im Sinne Peters I. nicht
realisieren konnte. Diese Vorwürfe scheinen unbegründet zu sein.
Wie konnte Laurentius [d. J.], sonst tüchtig, eifrig und konsequent,
seit 1728 plötzlich untätig und gleichgültig seinem eigenen
Lebenswerk gegenüber werden? Es sei daran erinnert, dass es
besondere Gründe für sein Verhalten nach 1728 gab. Bis zum Tod
von Katharina I. Im Jahre 1728 handelte Laurentius [d. J.] immer
im Namen des Kaisers und hatte kaiserliche Protektion. Dann
änderte sich seine Lage.
Als der erste Leibarzt sollte er mit dem Hof von Peter II.
nach Moskau übersiedeln. Am 04.01.1728 unterzeichnete er eine
Verfügung, in der er seinen Stellvertreter J. Schumacher
gemeinsam mit einem jeweiligen Akademiemitglied beauftragte,
die Leitung der Akademie zu übernehmen. Zu seinen Assistenten
ernannte er drei Akademiemitglieder, die alle vier Monate einander
ablösen sollten. 49
Schon bald beschwerten sich die Gelehrten über die
Verschlechterung der Zustände in der Akademie, Intrigen nahmen
überhand, überall herrschte Unordnung und hinzu kam der
Despotismus Schumachers, der alle Mitarbeiter hochmütig
behandelte.
Unstabile politische Verhältnisse ließen viele
Gelehrte in die Heimat zurückkehren. Als erste verließen die
Akademie D. Bernoulli, G. Büllfinger und J. Hermann.
Nach dem Tod von Peter II. 1730 und der Rückkehr von
Laurentius [d. J.] nach Petersburg erschwert sich seine Lage noch
mehr. Nicht nur der Pseudoakademiker J. Schumacher intrigierte
heimlich gegen ihn, sondern die Umgebung der neuen Kaiserin
Anna Ioannowna, weil er und sein Bruder Deodatus Loyalität
gegenüber den Töchtern Peters I. bewahrten und somit zum Lager
der Gegner gehörten.
119
Seine Protektorin und Herrin war in den Jahren 1731-1733
Catharina Iwanowna, eine Schwester der Kaiserin, Herzogin von
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, deren Arzt Laurentius [d. J.] war und in
deren Palais bei Petersburg er in den Jahren ständig wohnte, so
dass er auch an den Sitzungen der Akademie nicht teilnehmen
konnte und der Mathematiker Goldbach ihn oft vertreten musste.
Ihr Tod 1733 gab seinen Feinden einen Vorwand, ihn zu stürzen.
Da vorher auch einige andere Mitglieder der Kaiserfamilie in
kurzer Zeit einer nach dem anderen starben, wurde dieser Umstand
benutzt, um Laurentius [d. J.] wegen ungenügender Qualifikation
anzuklagen und aus allen Ämtern zu entlassen. Laurentius [d. J.]
hatte keine Macht, keine Protektion und keinen Einfluss mehr.
1733 begab er sich nach Moskau zurück und lebte fünf Jahre
ohne Dienststellung als privat praktizierender Arzt. Erst 1738
wurde er durch die Fürbitte des damaligen
Archiaters Fischer
zum Chefarzt
beim Moskauer
Militärspital und Rektor der Spitalschule, die ca. 50 Schüler,
meistens Russen, zählte und Militärärzte ausbildete. Diese
Tätigkeit wurde von den Zeitgenossen hoch geschätzt. Unter
Kaiserin Elisabeth fand Laurentius [d. J.] wieder Wertschätzung.
1742 wurde er von der Kaiserin zum wirklichen Staatsrat und 1754
in Anerkennung seiner Kenntnisse und Verdienste zum Kurator
der neugegründeten Moskauer Universität ernannt, starb aber kurz
darauf am 27. März/08. April 1755 an Brustwassersucht.5, 6
Er wurde im lutherischen Teil des ältesten Friedhofs an der
Simpsonkirche in Petersburg begraben. Der Friedhof ist nicht mehr
vorhanden. Laurentius [d. J.] war mit Anna Vassiliejwna
Efremowa verheiratet und hatte mit ihr gemeinsam eine Tochter,
die ebenfalls Anna hieß. Seine Frau und seine Tochter waren
jedoch schon früher verstorben als er, so dass er keine
Nachkommen hinterließ.49
Die Gestalt des berühmten Leibarztes der Zarenfamilie fand
in mehreren literarischen Werken seinen Eingang, so u. a. im
Roman „Peter und Alexej“ und dem Theaterstück „Zarensohn
Alexej“ von D. Mereschkowskij, das in der sowjetischen Zeit auch
verfilmt wurde. Iwan Fedorowitsch Blumentrost (so heißt er im
Stück) ist als ein humaner Mensch mit fortschrittlicher Gesinnung
dargestellt. Er muss die Wunden des Zarensohns nach jeder der
zahlreichen Folterungen im Gefängnis behandeln und seine
120
Schmerzen mildern. Blumentrost tadelt Peters Grausamkeit
gegenüber seinem Sohn, kritisiert in seinen Aussagen das
rückständige Russland und sein geduldiges Volk.
Auch im 20. Jahrhundert erschienen mehrere Romane und
Erzählungen über die petrinische Zeit, in denen der Leibarzt und
Vertraute des Kaisers, nämlich Blumentrost, als positive Gestalt
vorkommt. Diese Romane und Erzählungen dienten im 21.
Jahrhundert als Vorlage für folgende Filme: „Das Vermächtnis des
Kaisers“, „Das Vermächtnis der Kaiserin“, „Der Tod des jungen
Kaisers“, „Die zweite Braut des jungen Kaisers“.
In der letzten Zeit wird in Massenmedien versucht zu
beweisen, dass Peter I. nicht eines natürlichen Todes starb, sondern
als Opfer der Europaverschwörung vergiftet wurde. In manchen
Spekulationen wird auch Laurentius [d. J.] eine negative Rolle
zugeschrieben.57
Die legendäre Gestalt des gelehrten Arztes und Begründers
der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste lebt in Russland
dennoch fort. Laurentius Blumentrost [d. J.], der letzte der
Ärztedynastie, hat auch heutzutage Verehrer, besonders unter
Medizinern. In sozialen Netzwerken findet man oft den Namen
Blumentrost als Pseudonym.
Bibliographie
1. MÖTSCH, DR. JOHANNES, Gemeinschaftliches
Hennebergisches Archiv, Sektion VI, Thüringisches Staatsarchivs
Meiningen, Bestandsnr. 410106, Nr. 425, 491, 579, Meinigen 2000
2. JORDAN, PROF. DR. REINHARD, Mühlhäuser In
Rußland, In: Mühlhäuser Anzeiger Nr. 8 bis 10/1913, Mühlhausen
in Thüringen 1913
3. STOLBERG-WERNIGERODE, OTTO ZU, Neue deutsche
Biographie, Bd. 2, Verlag Behaim – Bürkel, Berlin 1955
4. DUMSCHAT, SABINE, Ausländische Mediziner im
Moskauer Rußland, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2006
5. RICHTER, DR. WILHELM MICHAEL VON, Geschichte
der Medicin in Russland – Zweiter Theil, Moscwa 1815
6. HEINE, DR. MAXIMILIAN, Medicinisch--Historisches aus
Russland, Verlag von Eggers et Comp., St. Petersburg 1851
121
7. RAMMELMEYER, ALFRED, Aufsätze zur russischen
Literatur und Geistesgeschichte, In: Opera Slavica, Neue Folge 37,
Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2000
8. HOYER, JOHANN GEORG, Laurentii Blumentrosts Haußund Reiß- Apotheck, Leipzig 1716
9. Taufbuch der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu
Mühlhausen/Thür., Eintrag vom 01.01.1655
10. WAGNER, A., Laurentius Blumentrost, In: Thüringer
Monatshefte „Pflüger“, Jahrgang 8 S. 72 ff, Verlag der Thüringer
Monatshefte, Flarchheim 1931
11. HILLEBRAND, WERNER, Die Matrikel der Universität
Helmstedt 1636 – 1685, S. 18, Verlag August Lax, Hildesheim 1981
12. Franckesche Stiftungen zu Halle (Saale) ),
Studienzentrum August Hermann Francke, Archiv, Datenbank zu
den Einzelhandschriften in den historischen Archivabteilungen,
Blumentrost, Laurentius [d. Ä.], http://192.124.243.55/cgibin/gkdb.pl
13. Tauf- und Sterbebücher der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien
zu Mühlhausen, Eintragungen der Jahre 1653, 1655, 1657, 1658
und 1659
14. KOCH, ERNST, Die Sachsenkirche in Moskau und das
erste Theater in Rußland, In: Neues Archiv für Sächsische
Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Bd. 32, Dresden 1911
15. BRINKMANN, DR. ERNST, Mühlhäuser Bürgermeister
und Ratsherren, In: Mühlhäuser Geschichtsblätter, 28. Jahrgang
1927/1928, Mühlhausen in Thüringen 1929
16. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür, Vokation des Laurentius
Blumentrost nach Moskau an den Hof des Zaren Alexei
Michailowitsch [Abschrif], fol. 53
17. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür., Demissionschreiben von
Laurentius Blumentrost, fol. 49 ft., 16.12.1667
18. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür, Abschiedsbrief des Rates
für Laurentius Blumentrost, fol. 365 – 366, 29.12.1667
19. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür, Erteilung eines Paßports
für Laurentius Blumentrost und Johann Gottfried Gregory und die
mitreisenden Personen, fol. 364, Dezember 1667
20. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür., Kataster der Stadt
Mühlhausen 1643, 10/EE Nr. 10, 1643, Seite 376
122
21. Sterbebuch der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu
22. Sterbebuch der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu
25. BRÜCKNER, ALEXANDER, Geschichte Russlands bis
zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts, Gotha 1896
26. BÜSCHING, ANTON FRIEDRICH, Beiträge zu der
Lebensgeschichte denkwürdiger Personen in 6 Bänden, Bd. III,
Hamburg 1783/1789
27. Staatsarchiv РГАДА, Moskau Fond 150, 1668, Akt 3;
1683, Akt 6
28. TAMMER, TERESA, Pietismus und die Modernisierung
in Russland im 18. Jh. In: TABULARASA, Zeitung für Geschichte
und Kultur, № 44, Jena 2009
29. BRÜCKNER, ALEXANDER, Rinhuber. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte Rußlands im 17. Jh., In: Historische Zeitschrift. Bd. 52,
H. 2., S.193-25, München 1884
30. Laurent Rinhuber, „Relation Du Voyage En Russie Fait
En 1684", S. 30, Berlin 1883
31. Немцы в России. Энциклопедия, Москва 1999, 4 Bde,
B. I. Blumentrost. S. 218.
32. Экземплярский А. В. Блументрост, Иван Богдан //
Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона: В 86 томах
(82 т. и 4 доп.). — СПб, 1890—1907.
33. ПСЗ. Т. VI, № 3811 (Полное собрание законов ) in:
Валерий
Кобеляцкий.
Династия
Блументростов.
Гематологический научный центр российской академии
медицинских наук (27 августа 2006)
34. Franckesche Stiftungen zu Halle (Saale), Studienzentrum
August Hermann Francke,
Archiv, Datenbank zu den
Einzelhandschriften in den historischen Archivabteilungen,
Blumentrost, Johannes Deodatus, http://192.124.243.55/cgibin/gkdb.pl?x=u&t_show=x&wertreg=PER&wert=blumentrost%
2C+johannes+deodatus++-+BIOGRAFIE&reccheck=,123569
123
35. Erik-Amburger-Datenbank, Johann Deodat Blumentrost,
http://88.217.241.77/amburger/index.php?id=7622
und
36. БУРЛАКОВ A., Был в Гатчине Ботанический сад.
Ист. журн. «Гатчина сквозь столетия». 2008
37. МУРАШОВА, Н.В. и П.П. МЫСЛИНА, Дворянские
усадьбы Санкт-Петербургской губернии. Ломоносовский
район. СПб. Блиц 1999. S. 87-95
38. ПЫЛЯЕВ, М. И, Забытое прошлое окрестностей
Петербурга. СПб. «Паритет» 2008
39. САИТОВ, В.И.. Петербургский некрополь. СПб, 1912
40. Franckesche Stiftungen zu Halle (Saale), Studienzentrum
August Hermann Francke,
Archiv, Datenbank zu den
Einzelhandschriften in den historischen Archivabteilungen,
Blumentrost, Laurentius [d. J.], http://192.124.243.55/cgibin/gkdb.pl?x=u&t_show=x&wertreg=PER&wert=blumentrost%
2C+laurentius+%3C1692-1755%3E+++BIOGRAFIE&reccheck=,89032
41. Дохтурские правила как при оных водах поступать,
Handschrift. CПб, 1719 (Fragmente dieser Schrift auch bei HEINE
– Anmerkung 6)
42. Описание Олонецких вод, Handschrift. CПб, 1719
(Fragmente dieser Schrift auch bei HEINE – Anmerkung 6)
43. Aus MEDICINISCH-HISTORISGHES aus RUSSLAND,
S. 110 (vgl. Anmerkung 6), Übersetzung von E. YUDINA
44. WOLFF, CHRISTIAN., Briefe aus den Jahren 1719—
1753. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der kaiserlichen Academie der
Wissenschaften zu St. Petersburg [Hrsg. von A. Kunik], St.
Petersburg, 1860
45. WOLFF, CHRISTIAN, Blumentrosts Briefe in: Briefe von
Christian Wolff aus den Jahren 1719-1733. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der kaiserlichen Akademie. St. Petersburg 1860
46. ПЕКАРСКИЙ П.П., История императорской
Академии наук в Петербурге. СПб. 1870. B. 1. S. 310
47. BLUMENTROST, LAURENTIUS [D. J.], Briefe von
Christian Wolff aus den Jahren1719-1733. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der kaiserlichen Akademie, St. Petersburg 1860, Hier:
Brief vom 04.12.1725, Blumentrost an Ch. Wolff (Brief Nr. 119)
124
48. КАРПЕЕВ ,Э.П., Большой Готторпский глобус. СПб
2003. S. 38, 39,40
49. ПЕКАРСКИЙ, П.П. История императорской
Академии наук в Петербурге. СПб, 1870. B.. 1. S. 1-15
50. Die Deutschen und das russische Theater. In: Tausend
Jahre Nachbarschaft, Russland und die Deutschen. München,
Bruckmann [Hrs.], Stiftung Ostdeutscher Kulturrat Bonn, S. 240241
51.
Personalia
(handschriftlicher
Lebenslauf
von
Blumentrost d. Ä.), Verfasser und Jahr unbekannt (wahrscheinlich
unmittelbar nach dem Tod von Blumentrost aufgeschrieben),
Franckesche Stiftungen Halle, ,AFSt/H D 83, 840-850
Mühlhausen 1643, 10/EE Nr. 9, 1626, Bd. 2 fol. 81
Mühlhausen 1643, 10/EE Nr. 10, 1643, Bd. 3 fol. 136-137
54. EISFELD, A., Tausend Jahre Nachbarschaft. Russland
und die Deutschen, Bruckmann Verlag München 1988
55. Erik-Amburger-Datenbank, Gottfried Ephraim von Opitz,
56. ОСИПОВ, Ю.С., Академия наук в истории
российского государства, Москва, Наука, 1999
57. On-line-Bibliothek: C. Десятсков «Смерть Петра
Первого»; В. Точинов «Усмешки Клио-2“, S. 31—32
58. KAUFUNGEN, KUNZ VON, Mühlhäuser Hexenprozesse
aus den Jahren 1659 und 1660. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen
Kulturgeschichte. In: Mühlhäuser Geschichtsblätter, Jahrgang 7,
1906/1907, S. 84-119. Des Weiteren im Stadtarchiv
Mühlhausen/Thür., 10/BB 3 Nr. 2 fol. 48-48`
Schlüsselwörter
Laurentius Blumentrost, Lavrentij Lavrentjevich Blumentrost,
Präsident der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Geschichte Russlands, Geschichte der Medizin, Mühlhausen,
Thüringen, Moskau, Gottfried Gregorii, Laurentius Christian,
Laurentius Rinhuber, Johann Gottfried Gregorii, Kurfürsten
Friedrich Wilhelm, August Herrmann Francke, Peter I, Deutschen
Lutherischen Gemeinde in Moskau, Laurentius Christian
125
Blumentrost, Zar Alexej Michailowitsch, Johann Gottlob Deodatus
Blumentrost, (Robert) Laurentius Blumentrost der Jüngere, der
Petersburger Kunstkammer, Museum "Martialwasser", Russischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste, Büllfinger,
Hermann, Brüder Bernoulli, Goldbach, Euler.
Zusammenfassung
2012 jährte sich der Geburtstag von Laurentius Blumentrost
dem Jüngeren [d. J.] zum 320. Mal (1692-1755). Lavrentij
Lavrentjevich Blumentrost, so sein Name in Russland, war erster
Präsident der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Leibarzt
Peter des Großen sowie Leiter der kaiserlichen Bibliothek und
Kunstkammer. Aber wo lagen seine familiären Wurzeln?
Der rege kulturelle und wirtschaftliche Austausch zwischen
Deutschland und Russland dauert bereits seit Jahrhunderten an.
Deutsche prägten die Geschichte Russlands auf allen Gebieten
ganz deutlich mit. Sie trugen zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft
und Kunst ihrer zweiten Heimat bei, waren hochrangige
Militärleute und Spitzenpolitiker. Zahlreiche Deutsche sind in die
Geschichte der Medizin in Russland eingegangen.
126
Information about the authors
Bykovskaya
Galina A.
Professor, PhD of history, the dean of
fakultet gumanirary, Voronezh State
University of Engineering Technologies
fgoiv.vgta@mail.ru
Duskova
Natalia A.
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor,
Head of Department of History and Political
Science "Voronezh State Technical
University"
dushkova_vstu@mail.ru
Fedorov
Konstantin V.
Associated professor of “History”
department of Bauman Moscow State
Technical University, PhD in History,
associated professor
fedorov@live.ru
127
Ivanov
Vladimir A.
Head of the Chair of General History and
Cultural Heritage at M.Akmullah Bashkir
State Pedagogical University, professor,
Doctor of historical sciences
ivanov-sanych@rambler.ru
Khairutdinov
Ramil R.
Director of the Institute of International
Relations, History and Oriental Studies of
Kazan (Volga region) Federal University,
Ph.D. in History
ramilh64@mail.ru
Kolesnikova
Marina E.
Head of the Department of history of Russia
of the North-Caucasian Federal University,
doctor of Historical Sciences, professor
kolesnikovam@rambler.ru
128
Kortunov
Aljeksjej I.
An associate professor of the Chair of
Russian History at M.Akmullah Bashkir
State Pedagogical University,
Candidate of historical sciences,
kortunov@rambler.ru
Lizunova
Irina V.
Associate Professor
Siberian State Academy of Geodesy,
Ph.D.
2004liv@ngs.ru
Mazaeva
Tamara A.
The Chechen State University
364907 Grozny, 32 Sheripova St.
tamaram7@mail.ru
129
Miroshnichenko
Elena N.
Ph.D. of Pedagogic, Associating Professor
of Foreign languages Chair of fakultet
gumanirary, Voronezh State University of
Engineering Technologies
fgoiv.vgta@mail.ru
Prozjenko
Anton S.
Postgraduate student at the Chair of
Russian History at M.Akmullah Bashkir
State Pedagogical University
anton.procenko@mail.ru
Sarpova
Olga V.
Head of Department of Humanities and
Social Sciences, Tyumen State University of
Architecture and Civil Engineering, PhD in
Philosophy, Associate Professor
sarpova-ov@yandex.ru
130
Schadeberg
Rolf
Dipl.-Geograph, Fachdienstleiter bei der
Stadtverwaltung Mühlhausen,
Geschichts- und Denkmalpflegeverein
rolf.schadeberg@muehlhausen.de
Venidiktova
Elena A.
Senior teacher of the Institute of
International Relations, History and Oriental
Studies of Kazan Federal University,
candidate of historical sciences
e_venidiktova@mail.ru
Vorobjeva
Ludmila V.
Assistant professor of Russian Language
and Literature Department of Institute of
International Education and Language
Communication, Tomsk Polytechnic
University
VorobjevaL@rambler.ru
131
Yudina
Elena V.
Dipl.-Germanistin, Übersetzerin,
Verfasserin (Wörterbücher, Lehrbücher,
Beiträge über Geschichte der russischdeutschen Beziehungen Deutsche
Gesellschaft, St. Petersburg, DtutschRussisches Begegnungzentrum bei der
Petrikirche
helvasi@mail.ru
132

WWEV Blum 02 Buch EN TEXT 14

Transcription

Similar documents

Untitled - Austrian Film Commission

Press Kit

keywords 1985-1995 - Ciszterci Szent István Gimnázium

Auf sein Wort hinâ¦ - Berufungspastoral

Folie 1

MARTIN PRASKA: Wie ich die Welt verbessern werde

Wenn sich in Saudi-Arabien die Männer

Pfarrnachrichten - Pfarre St. Peter am Kammersberg

LBDG Command Car 1

Jahresfest - Diakonie Neuendettelsau