Tractus Aevorum #2 by Niki

Established in 2014

Volume 1 (2). Fall 2014

THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE JOURNAL Advisory board

Editorial team Editor-in-Chief Vladimir A. Shapovalov, Doctor of Science (History), Professor of Russian History; Vice-Rector (Belgorod National Research University) Editors Emily B. Baran, PhD (History), Assistant Professor of East European History (Middle Tennessee State University) Nikolai N. Bolgov, Doctor of Science (History), Professor of Ancient and Medieval History (Belgorod National Research University) Ivan T. Shatokhin, Candidate of Science (History), Professor of Russian History (Belgorod National Research University) Managing Editor Victoria V. Vasilenko, Candidate of Science (History), Assistant Professor of Contemporary History (Belgorod National Research University)

Andrei V. Golovnev (Ekaterinburg, Russia) Doctor of Science (History); Corresponding member, Russian Academy of Sciences; Senior Researcher, Institute of History and Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences (Ural Branch) Mikhail M. Kazanski (Paris, France), Dr. hab. (Archaeology); Research Director, French National Center for Scientific Research Andrei V. Korobkov (Murfreesboro, USA), PhD (Political Science), Professor of Political Science, Middle Tennessee State University Evgeniy A. Molev (Nizhny Novgorod, Russia), Doctor of Science (History); Chair of the Archaeology, Museology and Art History Department, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod Natalia L. Pushkareva (Moscow, Russia), Doctor of Science (History), Head of the Division for Ethnic and Gender Studies, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences Vit Smetana (Prague, Czech Republic), PhD (History); Senior Researcher, Institute of Contemporary History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Sergei B. Sorochan (Kharkov, Ukraine), Doctor of Science (History); Chair of the Department of Ancient and Medieval History, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University Elena A. Vishlenkova (Moscow, Russia), Doctor of Science (History), Deputy Director of the A. Poletaev Institute for Theoretical and Historical Studies in the Humanities, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”

Established by: Belgorod National Research University (BelSU) in cooperation with Middle Tennessee State University. Publisher: The Publishing House “Belgorod” of Belgorod National Research University. The certificate of registration as a mass medium in Russia: Эл № ФС77-55791 issued October 28, 2013. The articles and other materials of the journal are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The views expressed in the articles and other materials of the journal are entirely the authors` own. УДК is a Russian abbreviation for the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), a bibliographic and library classification which is widely used in Russia. E-mail: vasilenko_v@bsu.edu.ru Russian-language absctracts edited by Marina V. Androsova. Layout by Victoria V. Vasilenko, Nina A. Gaponenko. Passed for printing 17.10.2014. Format 70108/16. Typeface Bookman Old Style, Arial. Printer`s sheets 9,45. Order 267.  Belgorod National Research University / Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет, 2014

CONTENTS / СОДЕРЖАНИЕ TRANSITIONAL EPOCHS / ПЕРЕХОДНЫЕ ЭПОХИ Choi Chatterjee (Los Angeles), Karen Petrone (Lexington). Transnational Feminisms: Gender and Historical Knowledge in postSoviet Russia (Part 2) E. I. Yakushkina (Voronezh). Russian Women in Public: From Organized Activism through Democratic Euphoria to New Political Models

Чой Чаттержи (Лос-Анджелес), Карен Петрон (Лексингтон). Транснациональный феминизм: гендер и историческое знание в постсоветской России (Часть 2) Е. И. Якушкина (Воронеж). Женский активизм в России: от организованных форм, через демократическую эйфорию к стратегии малых дел

153

167

EMPIRES & PERIPHERIES / ИМПЕРИИ И ПЕРИФЕРИИ N. N. Bolgov (Belgorod). Themistius and His Works in the Context of Cultural Continuity Tassilo Schmitt (Bremen). «Germanen” und römische Politik E. V. Litovchenko (Belgorod). The Cultural Space of Imperial Provinces as a Factor in Preserving Roman Identity in Late Antiquity

Н. Н. Болгов (Белгород). Фемистий и его работы к контексте культурного континуитета Тассило Шмитт (Бремен). «Германцы» и политика Рима Е. В. Литовченко (Белгород). Культурное пространство имперских провинций как фактор консервации римской идентичности в позднеантичную эпоху

175 185

197

BORDERLANDS / ПОГРАНИЧЬЕ V. A. Shapovalov (Belgorod). “Sometimes Martha Attacked Rural Settlements and Gentry Estates:” From the History of the Noble Banditry in the XVIII – First Half of the XIX Centuries (Based on Belgorod and Kursk Regional Materials) A. I. Papkov (Belgorod). The Dnieper-Don Forest-steppe as an Ethno-contact Zone: Russia, the Crimean Khanate and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

В. А. Шаповалов (Белгород). «Иногда Марфа нападала на селения и на помещичьи усадьбы»: из истории дворянского разбоя ХVIII – первой половины ХIХ вв. (на материалах Белгородской и Курской губерний) А. И. Папков (Белгород). Днепро-Донская лесостепь как этноконтактная зона: Россия, Крымское ханство и Речь Посполитая

204

213

IN LIMITE / SINE LIMITIBUS Jenny Jansson (Uppsala), Maria Jansson (Stockholm). Borderland Stories: Life at the Russian Border A. Iu. Andreev (Moscow), S. I. Posokhov (Khar`kov). The Results of an International Research Project “Ubi universitas, ibi Europa”

Йенни Янссон (Упсала), Мария Янссон (Стокгольм). Истории пограничья: жизнь на российской границе А. Ю. Андреев (Москва), С. И. Посохов (Харьков). Результаты реализации международного исследовательского проекта “Ubi universitas, ibi Europa”

234

239

SCHOLARLY EVENTS / НАУЧНЫЕ СОБЫТИЯ E. A. Vishlenkova (Moscow). Picturing Empires: Photography and Social Changes in the 19th Century Multiethnic Environment Adrianne K. Jacobs (Chapel Hill). Cuisine, Culture, and Politics in Russia and Eastern Europe: The Food for Thought Symposium N. N. Bolgov (Belgorod). IV International Scholarly Conference “Kondakov`s Readings” M. I. Dorokhov (Belgorod). VII Young Scholars` Conference “Classical and Byzantine Tradition” Information about authors

Е. А. Вишленкова (Москва). Изображая империи: фотография и социальные изменения в полиэтническом контексте XIX века Эдриан К. Джекобс (Чапел-Хилл). Кулинарное искусство, культура и политика в России и Восточной Европе: пища для размышлений Н. Н. Болгов (Белгород). IV международная научная конференция «Кондаковские чтения» М. И. Дорохов (Белгород). VII научная конференция молодых исследователей «Классическая и византийская традиция» Сведения об авторах

Information for contributors

Информация для авторов

245

248 251

254 256 258

Choi Chatterjee, Karen Petrone. Transnational Feminisms …

TRANSITIONAL EPOCHS

TRANSNATIONAL FEMINISMS: GENDER AND HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA (Part 2) Choi Chatterjee, Karen Petrone California State University, Los Angeles University of Kentucky, Lexington

Чой Чаттержи, Карен Петрон Калифорнийский государственный университет, Лос-Анджелес Университет Кентукки, Лексингтон

Abstract. In this essay, Choi Chatterjee and Karen Petrone examine how feminist and gender theories traveled between Russia and the West after the fall of the Soviet Union by featuring the careers of two eminent scholars: Natalia Pushkareva and Tatiana Barchunova. They chronicle the parallel development of feminism in the Soviet Union and in the English-speaking world, and then discuss the development of gender studies programs and women‟s activism in Russia after 1991. Using the intellectual biographies of Barchunova and Pushkareva, the authors show Western ideas about feminism meshed with Russian ones in post-Soviet gender and women‟s studies. While post-Soviet pressures push toward the de-politicization of the field, both Barchunova and Pushkareva maintain a critical edge in their scholarship, supporting and promoting women‟s activism, raising awareness of Russian women‟s issues past and present, and advancing feminist theory. Keywords: feminist and gender theories, Russia, transnational feminism, women`s activism. E-mails: cchatte[at]exchange.calstatela.edu; petrone[at]email.uky.edu Copyright: © 2014 Chatterjee and Petrone. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited.

153

ТРАНСНАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ ФЕМИНИЗМ: ГЕНДЕР И ИСТОРИЧЕСКОЕ ЗНАНИЕ В ПОСТСОВЕТСКОЙ РОССИИ (Часть 2) Аннотация. В данном эссе Чой Чаттержи и Карен Петрон рассматривают то, как феминистские и гендерные теории «путешествуют» между Россией и Западом после распада Советского Союза на примере карьер двух известных ученых: Наталии Пушкаревой и Татьяны Барчуновой. Авторы характеризуют параллельное развитие феминизма в Советском Союзе и англо-говорящем мире, затем анализируют развитие программ гендерных исследований и женский активизм в России после 1991 г. С помощью интеллектуальных биографий Барчуновой и Пушкаревой Чаттержи и Петрон показывают то, как западные идеи о феминизме сплетались с российскими в постсоветских гендерных и женских исследованиях. Хотя постсоветские обстоятельства побуждают к деполитизации этих направлений, и Барчунова, и Пушкарева сохраняют критицизм в исследованиях, поддерживая и продвигая женский активизм, повышая осведомленность о женских проблемах в прошлом и настоящем и развивая феминистскую теорию. Ключевые слова: феминистские и гендерные теории, Россия, транснациональный феминизм, женский активизм. Tatiana Vladimirovna Barchunova, a faculty member in the Department of Philosophy at Novosibirsk State University, exemplifies the new breed of gender experts on Russian campuses. Her career and persona showcase both the strong continuity of the Soviet intellectual order and the new orientation of post-Soviet intelligentsia.1 An accomplished linguist, Barchunova is fluent in English as well as several other European languages. Her command of the feminist theoretical corpus is exemplary, even though she does not find all feminist writings useful. In fact, she feels that Western scholars such as Sheila Fitzpatrick and Nancy Ries, who do not explicitly deal with gender, are more successful in describing the Soviet experience. Barchunova believes that much of the Western analysis of media representations of women and of women and globalization is particularly lacking in insight, and that a superficial use of postmodern discourse prevents complex analyses (Barchunova 2009). Barchunova partly attributes her feminist orientation to the influence of her mother, a literary critic who in the early 1990s coedited the reprint edition of Feoktist Berezovskii‟s 1929 novel, Women’s Paths. Berezovskii, a The authors gratefully acknowledge that the information in the following section is culled from personal correspondence with Dr. Barchunova. 1

154

Choi Chatterjee, Karen Petrone. Transnational Feminisms … Siberian of Polish descent, wrote this novel at the height of the early Soviet women‟s movement in the 1920s, but the novel was not reprinted after 1934 (Berezovskii 1993). These circumstances demonstrate the intellectual connections and continuities between the burgeoning feminism of the late Soviet period and early Soviet traditions of women‟s emancipation that had been inhibited in the Stalin years. Indeed, the transnational feminism of the 1990s had roots in the transnational feminism that had bloomed more than a century earlier. Barchunova came to Western feminism through a fairly traditional route in Soviet academia. In 1988 she bought a book on gender and science by Evelyn Fox Keller, a mathematical biologist, for 5 rubles and 66 kopecks at a state-subsidized bookstore (Fox Keller 1985). As a graduate student at the Institute of History, Philology, and Philosophy at Novosibirsk State University, she had access to an excellent library. While researching her dissertation on the development of social sciences and models of language, she became interested in the history and philosophy of science. Her university subscribed to various American and English journals on the subject, and her advisor asked her to review the then current discussions in the field. She soon discovered a conversation on “woman‟s styles of thought” and was intrigued by the concept. Reading further in the subject, Barchunova wrote and presented a paper entitled “Feminism and the Style of Modern Culture” at a 1989 Novosibirsk conference on “The Human Factor and Scientific Progress.” Although the paper was not particularly well received by an audience suspicious of feminism in academia, she subsequently coauthored an article on the subject that appeared in an edited volume on philosophy (Antipov 1991). A survey of Barchunova‟s curriculum vitae reveals that some Russian academic feminists have wide intellectual interests and play a variety of roles in the formation of postsocialist civil society. Along with their production of specialized research, they are engaged in a series of strategic activities to highlight persistent patterns of gender discrimination in academia in particular, and in society at large. Knowledge of critical theory, especially pertaining to the Western canon, is considered currency of great value and can be parlayed at various venues at the local, national, and international level. Barchunova has written numerous academic essays on the subject of gender, developed courses on gender theory at her university, received many prestigious grants, and traveled abroad to attend conferences and conduct research. At the same time, she has translated numerous Western texts into Russian. These include texts on feminist theories, textbooks at the secondary level, and commentaries on the Bible by Protestant theologians. She has served as a gender consultant for various NGOs as well as state-run organizations at the provincial and municipal level. In 1999 Barchunova started a privately-funded library on gender and women‟s studies, the Resource Center for Humanitarian Education. The library now contains almost 1500 books and articles on philosophy, sociology, anthropology, history, religion, law, and human rights. Russian feminists have consistently supported the 155

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 proliferation of information beyond the borders of state-controlled sites and have been the most ardent promoters of transnationalism in research and education (Zdravomyslova and Temkina 2007). Barchunova‟s scholarly work points to the important fact that transnational feminist scholarship not only has to overcome political obstacles but also logistical ones. In a 2006 article entitled “A Library of Our Own? Feminist Translations from English into Russian,” Barchunova assesses the quality of translations of Western gender theory into Russian and in many cases found them to be inadequate (Barchunova 2006). Due to time pressures and some translators‟ lack of skill, certain aspects of complex gender theory were rendered nearly incomprehensible in the Russian translations. Some mistakes came from mistranslations of idiomatic language that introduced unpredictable (and sometimes comical) meanings into the texts. Other mistranslations appeared to be more deliberate (Barchunova 2006, 140–42). One translation of a major feminist theorist, Nancy Fraser, seemed systematically to omit references to the interrelation of race and gender, thus fundamentally altering the analytical thrust of the text. Thus the transnational conversation among feminists is, in part, predicated on mutable and unstable theoretical bases especially as key Western concepts are radically transformed during the course of their transnational travels. While, of course, all theory is altered as others interpret it (Said 1983, 226–47), the circumstances described by Barchunova suggest the possibility of a particularly wide divergence between what was intended by Western gender theorists and what is understood by Russian scholars and students using translations. Currently we can discern some points of tension within academic feminist discourse in Russia. There are those who worry that critical theory has been deliberately shorn of its radical activism and analyses of power to suit the political circumstances of post-Soviet Russia, or that it has been cynically and superficially adopted in order to gain access to Western funding (Ushakin 2000, 34–39). Thus Elena Zdravomyslova and Anna Temkina argue that while women‟s studies was a product of social and political feminist movements in the West, in post-Soviet civil society feminist discourses emerged solely as a means of intellectual critique, without formal links to mass organizations and political groups (Zdravomyslova and Temkina 1999). Barchunova, in a widely cited article, criticizes researchers who prefer to use the term “gender asymmetry” rather than speak openly about gender inequality and discrimination in Russian society (Barchunova 2003). Barchunova also refers to several published works on gender that reduce gender to biological sex and often inadvertently reproduce the gender asymmetry that they purport to critique. She fears that because of the relatively marginal status of gender and women‟s studies in the Russian academy, some researchers are afraid to challenge each other‟s work openly, not wanting to jeopardize their fragile epistemological enterprise within academia. According to Barchunova, “the initial impetus of gender theory as a critical theory is undermined by the specific conditions of its emergence in the Russian-speaking world” (Barchunova 2003, 10). 156

Choi Chatterjee, Karen Petrone. Transnational Feminisms … Barchunova is right in so far as the category of gender is often used by post-Soviet academics to describe the complementary roles of men and women in Russian society that legitimize the traditional gender order, rather than to criticize vastly unequal power relations inherent in the social and political structures, or to analyze the normative discourses that radically condition the explorations of self and subjectivity. The philosopher Olga Voronina has called this approach the “lozhnaia teoriia gendera,” or the false theory of gender (Voronina 2001/2002, 57). At the same time, Barchunova‟s career demonstrates that while intellectuals in the post-Soviet era are currently unable to coordinate large-scale social movements such as those that challenged the gender status quo in the West, nonetheless there is great receptivity within academic circles to the trenchant social commentary emerging from within women‟s studies. The careers of individuals analyzed in this essay demonstrate that there are some outspoken scholars in contemporary Russia who are committed to fostering open debate and critical discussion, the sine qua non of any oppositional social movement. While some Russian-speaking scholars worry about the inadequate understanding of Western critical theory and the depoliticization of its radical content, others are concerned about the heedless importation of Western theories. Natalia Pushkareva, pragmatist extraordinaire, believes that the profligate importation of Western theories often leads to simplifications, schematization, and the undue privileging of those scholars who have mastered the Western canon. She is particularly concerned about the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots in the scholarly community, between those who speak “gender” and those who do “old-fashioned” women‟s history. She feels that these inequalities have been deeply exacerbated by the influx of Western funding to select centers, institutions, and individuals. In the section that follows, we will analyze the career and scholarly works of Natalia Pushkareva from three intertwined and overlapping angles: her position as the preeminent historian of Russian women, her role as a builder of institutions and academic communities, and her self-identity as a nationalist who is committed to expanding the spaces and networks of Russian civil society based on a feminist understanding of the nationalist past. Post-Soviet Feminism: Scholarship as Nation-Building? Natalia Pushkareva is considered to be one of the best-known practitioners of women‟s history in Russia today, and has an unparalleled familiarity with Russian sources on women‟s history from the tenth century to the present. She has published prolifically and widely on various aspects of women‟s history, which, due in part to her untiring efforts, is now a recognized subject in history departments in Russia. History as a discipline in both the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia has been notoriously indifferent to documenting the activities, experiences, and voices of women, as even a cursory examination of eminent Russian journals such as Otechestvennaia istoriia and Voprosy istorii reveals (Repina 2006). An advocate of Rankean empiricism, Pushkareva bases her analysis on prodigious research and the 157

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 patient collection, collation, and analysis of historical sources. Her history of Russian women in Kievan Rus` has been issued in numerous editions, and more recently she has published widely on various aspects of private life in Russian history.2 In 1999, based on research published previously in two seminal texts, she wrote a monograph intended for western audiences entitled Women in Russian History: From the Tenth Century to the Present (Pushkareva 1997a; 1989; 1996). This book, a product of international collaboration, was edited and translated by Eve Levin, a senior American scholar who specializes in the history of gender and sexuality in premodern Russia and the Balkans. Pushkareva and Levin met when they were both graduate students working under the supervision of academician Valentin Lavrentievich Ianin. Their scholarly friendship blossomed when they both “realized that [they] had somehow reached similar conclusions concerning the status of women in medieval Russia” (Idem 1997a, xiv). In their unusual collaboration, Levin and Pushkareva together challenge dominant historiographies and cross Cold War boundaries (Levin 2003). Pushkareva‟s unique text is a tour de force with few comparable works in Russian or any other language. Based on her rich compilation of historical, literary, ethnographic, and archaeological evidence, the scholar, in a series of chronological chapters, painstakingly builds her central argument that, contrary to the received wisdom about the oppression and seclusion of Russian women, women have always been an integral part of Russian history and have played vital roles in politics, society, and culture. She paints vivid pictures of a gallery of powerful and politically astute female rulers who worked untiringly to strengthen the lineages of the state in Kievan Rus`. At the same time, she does not neglect the everyday life of women from the lower classes. She includes interesting ethnographic materials pertaining to daily life practices, as well as information on legislation about the regulation of sexuality and family, and the adjudication of property. Moreover, through a careful analysis of voluminous data on land deeds and charters, she proves conclusively that women owned and could dispose of property during this early period. The book is deeply polemical in both intent and content in so far as it argues against a corpus of earlier Western and Russian historical accounts that have represented medieval and early modern Russian women as unseen, unheard, and subject to overwhelming patriarchal subordination, domination, and often outright seclusion 3. In subsequent parts of the book, Pushkareva examines the roles of women in later periods of Russian history from Muscovy to the onset of the Bolshevik revolution. The section on the nineteenth century is particularly interesting because she substantially rewrites Soviet historiography that Pushkareva 1997b; 2002a. In her histories of private life and sexuality, Pushkareva also highlights the theme of women‟s independence and range of choices. 3 Pushkareva most clearly formulates her critiques of various historiographical traditions in her 1989 work, Zhenshchiny drevnei Rusi (Pushkareva 1989, 177–211). 2

158

Choi Chatterjee, Karen Petrone. Transnational Feminisms … had only narrated the activities of revolutionary women such as Vera Figner and Alexandra Kollontai, and had relegated the feminist efforts of women from higher social classes to the “dustbin of history.” Using ideologically reverse tactics, she condenses the contribution of revolutionary women to a few pages, and instead elaborates on the activities of salon hostesses, women writers, philanthropists, and advocates of access to higher education and equal rights in the long nineteenth century. In a subsequent article, she reexamines the roles of these women from the standpoint of the new and favorable perceptions of the history of the prerevolutionary period in postSoviet Russia today (Pushkareva 2002b). In an inclusive vision of the Russian nation, she argues that, unlike Western feminists who pursued a woman-centered agenda exclusively, nineteenth-century Russian feminists were interested in furthering the rights of both men and women as well as those of the lower orders of society. Moreover, unlike Western philanthropists who trained women of the lower classes to be good wives and mothers, Russian feminists wanted to make women economically independent, and in order to accomplish this, they set up communitarian work artels. 4 These practices were consonant with the long-inherited traditions that had created Russian women‟s rights to both movable and immovable property. While the activities of some of these early Russian feminists have been documented by Western historians, one must remember that for the broad Russian reading public, stories about nineteenth-century women writers, equal rights advocates, professionals, and philanthropists are essentially new.5 Pushkareva‟s publications form the foundations for a woman-centered narrative of a Russian past that is peopled by wise and pragmatic women. This kind of scholarship is especially important as very few history textbooks in Russia at both the secondary and undergraduate level either mention women or analyze their achievements. The capacity for self-sacrifice, spiritual strength in the face of great adversity, and constructive community-building efforts of Russian feminists in the nineteenth century in many ways parallel the efforts of women‟s organizations in contemporary Russia. By unearthing the activities of these nineteenth-century women, she also uncovers the lost history of pragmatic reformism and constructive nationbuilding in the Russian past. If history in the modern age has been one of the primary tools of nationalism in both capitalist and socialist societies, then Pushkareva is one of its ablest practitioners. By foregrounding the activities of these particular women who achieved their ends through patient collaboration and compromise rather than radicalism, she is also smuggling in her covert feminist agenda of creating a genealogy of women‟s activism, However, as both Barbara Engel and Richard Stites have shown, these community enterprises, contrary to literary representations in Chernyshevsky‟s novel, What is to be Done, were often unable to survive the initial enthusiasm of their founders. See citation below. 5 Stites 1978; Edmondson 1984; Johanson 1987; Goscilo and Holmgren 1996; Lindenmeyr 1996; Ruane 1994. See also I. I. Iukina‟s excellent volume, Russkii feminism kak vyzov sovremennosti (Iukina 2007). 4

159

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 different from the discredited versions of Soviet revolutionary feminism. By creating an alternative cast of heroines to supplant the revolutionary pantheon, she offers narrative therapy and textual succor to Russians recovering from the multiple traumas and deep wounds inflicted by a century of war, revolution, and forced modernization. As she writes in the epilogue to her text, “Women‟s active role in society and business, which has developed so markedly in our time, has its roots in the distant past. Contemp orary women have the opportunity to draw inspiration from their history and traditions, and with good sense and strength of will, they will forever endure” (Pushkareva 1997a, 266). Pushkareva hopes to infuse both a woman-centered as well as a feminist subtext into the Russian search for a “usable past.” Similar to her nineteenth-century feminist precursors, Pushkareva has combined extensive scholarship with exemplary academic activism and community outreach in her public career as a historian. 6 She is the founding member of the prestigious Moscow Center for Gender Studies, established at the Institute for Population Studies in Moscow in 1989 before the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the assistance of Western funding, the Center has organized important conferences of scholars and activists from Russia, Ukraine, and the West. The Center has also convened summer schools for scholars, university teachers, and graduate students from across the country in order to acquaint them with research and theories in the fields of women‟s and gender studies. These summer schools have made it possible for scholars and students to forge links at the national level and engage in collaborative research projects (Khotkina 2002). She also has been a consistent advocate of an intellectual equivalent of the nineteenth-century Populist crusade of “Going to the People.” She is concerned about the lack of publication of historical monographs and feels that edited volumes and historiographical essays have to be supplemented by serious research in women‟s history. She believes that the best way to increase the production of serious historical research in women‟s issues is by increasing intellectual contacts among historians at various universities, especially in the provinces, through conferences and summer schools. Reversing the Soviet institutional hierarchy that continually privileged the center over the provinces, she on several occasions has asserted that the best work in women‟s history is being done at provincial universities (Pushkareva 1998). She also advocates that her colleagues write clearly and simply so that traditional historians working with older methodologies can understand the new disciplinary impetus emerging from gender studies (Idem 2006). Pushkareva is also the founding member and president of the recently formed interregional organization, Russian Association for Researchers in Women‟s History (RАИЖИ), whose aims and goals are somewhat similar to the Association for Women in Slavic Studies (AWSS). RАИЖИ has sponsored conferences on women‟s studies at provincial universities in Yaroslavl‟ and Tver‟ among others in order to reach out to local activists and scholars. 6

160

Choi Chatterjee, Karen Petrone. Transnational Feminisms … Conclusion: The Nation within Transnational Feminism In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Russian feminist movement was subsumed by two strong political currents: the Social Democratic movement that was overtly critical of what it deemed to be bourgeois feminist efforts, and the Populist and Socialist-Revolutionary movements that used women in a variety of ways within their radical circles, but did not articulate an explicitly feminist agenda. Despite the efforts of dedicated but covert feminists such as Aleksandra Kollontai and Inessa Armand, the feminist movement suffered somewhat of a setback with the victory of the Bolsheviks in 1917. Although women received numerous benefits under the socialist regime, they were constructed as recipients, beneficiaries, active carriers of revolutionary ideology, and exemplary symbols of the modernity of the regime. To a large extent, the Soviet government continued the nineteenth-century exhortations of self-sacrifice, self-abnegation, and dissolution of the self in the larger community. Women continued to be objects representing “terrible perfection,” metaphors for social renewal, and sites of contested state discourses. At the same time, as the current generation of gender experts in post-Soviet Russia demonstrates, Soviet ideology did have the potential to empower women, and, more importantly, various Soviet practices engendered powerful notions of feminist subjectivity, agency, and selfhood. Today Pushkareva warns that the proliferation of various theories and definitions of gender threatens to subsume Russian women‟s history. According to her, there are those who use the term gender hoping that its neutral connotations will allay fears and suspicions that feminism continues to raise among university administrations and the broader Russian public. 7 Then there are others who do “women‟s history,” often a code for those who have a hidden feminist agenda. Given the fetishization of critical theory within elite academic circles in the CIS, these practitioners of “women‟s history” are often considered to be backward. However, as Pushkareva has noted on numerous occasions, it is impossible to do gender without women‟s history, as both are deeply feminist enterprises (Pushkareva 2001). It is important to remember that without the establishment of the category of women‟s subjectivity, the construction of the history of female selfhood, and the institutional success of feminist movements, the deep insights that the application of the deconstructionist theories of gender have yielded would not have been possible. Ultimately the broader intent of gender theory and most of its advocates is to enlarge the sphere of feminist politics, mainstream the findings from women‟s history into public memory and consciousness, and construct a new, more inclusive epistemology. Motivated by a desire to facilitate a familiarity with critical theory among other Russian scholars, Pushkareva recently published a concise See Irina Korovushkina‟s fine essay on the subject, “Paradox of Gender: Writing History in Post-Communist Russia 1987-1998” (Korovushkina 1999). 7

161

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 and clearly written introduction to some of the major philosophical approaches to gender in various disciplines such as sociology, ethnography, and history (Idem 2007). Reading through her elegant exposition, one is struck by not only her mastery of the Western canon, but also by the fact that the “canon” with its inclusions and exclusions is often constructed from outside by reading audiences. While no text can hope to be entirely comprehensive, it is noteworthy that she has chosen to ignore the critical theories pertaining to race, ethnicity, postcolonialism, transnationalism, and their imbrication in the elaboration of gender regimes. 8 Despite the considerable differences between the conditions of post-Soviet Russia and those of other developing countries such as India, there are certain similarities with respect to the creation and consumption of historical knowledge in both postSoviet and postcolonial societies (Chari and Verdery 2009; Rogers 2010; Oushakine 2002). In both cases historical texts have to speak to two separate audiences: the sensibilities of a national elite whose fortunes are closely tied to the legitimacy of the nation-state, as well as the intellectual criteria of a transnational intelligentsia, often located in the West. Scholars are often torn between satisfying the demands of the Western academy and Western donors, and mediating the demands of their home institutions and those generated by national political establishments. In contemporary Russia history is a highly politicized subject and despite intermittent liberalization in the political climate, it still requires considerable personal bravery to practice history as social and political critique. The material rewards of the historical profession in Russia are considerably less than those enjoyed by scholars in the West, and one often runs the risks of incurring serious repercussions because of one‟s political views. In addition to the significant material and political limitations, historians also have to deal with ideological constraints that make it difficult to articulate ideas critical of the nation, or even to voice transnational sensibilities. Serguei Oushakine has characterized the widespread resurgence of nationalist and Russo-centric sentiments in contemporary Russia as the “patriotism of despair,” and has analyzed the creation of ethnic identity over the course of the last two decades. Rather than dismiss Russian preoccupations with nationalism and ethnic self-identity as incipient fascism or further evidence of unreflective ethnocentrism, Oushakine argues that the emphases on ethnos as a source of primal identity have to be read as symbolic strategies in the face of widespread trauma engendered by the collapse of the Soviet Union (Oushakine 2009; Chatterjee 1993). The exhaustion of leftist ideology as a definitive source of meaning has created a certain suspicion toward internationalism or transnationalism, even though the Putin administration looks to the ideology of Eurasianism as a potent instrument in its

Bhaba 1994; Pratt 1992; Said 1978; Chakrabarty 2000; White 1978; Mbembe 2001; Ashcroft et al. 2005. 8

162

Choi Chatterjee, Karen Petrone. Transnational Feminisms … foreign policy. Feminist scholars in Russia have to work within this ideological force field where the nation is represented as a suffering woman, redemption is viewed through discourses of fertile motherhood, and national betrayal is personified in the figure of the transnational prostitute (Borenstein 2008). Pushkareva has successfully managed to insert a feminist dimension into Russian visions of civil society by creating an unforgettable version of the national past replete with strong heroines who participated in a range of cultural, social, and political activities that enlarged both the public sphere and civil society. Her feminist and woman-centered historiography also works as a powerful antidote to contemporary trends in Russian popular culture that either glamorize the sexual objectification of women, or call for the relegation of women to domesticity and reproduction in an attempt to recuperate both the traumatized nation and endangered masculinity. This exploratory essay, the first in a series stemming from our ongoing research on the development of gender studies as a discipline in the postsocialist context, has raised two important issues. First, how do imported theories inadvertently create academic hierarchies, and how has this knowledge transfer affected different forms of gender scholarship in the post-Soviet academy? Second and most importantly, how do we negotiate the demands of the nation as well as the norms and expectations of the transnational scholarly community? As we have argued in this essay, Western knowledge and funding have fostered the proliferation of gender studies but constrained the larger application of feminist knowledge in Russian academic and political circles. At the same time it should be noted that scholars in the West are also struggling to unsettle the privileged status of the nation-state as the primary site of historical knowledge and teaching, and they are searching for global connections and authentic interdependencies that dig deeper than facile comparisons between the reified “East” and the “West.” The field of transnational history is in its infancy, and often it is the serendipity of shared imperial pasts that help in the creation of transnational alliances in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, as is evident by the intellectual traffic between Anglophone scholars in Asia, England, and the US. Similarly Russians scholars are successfully collaborating with centers for gender studies in Lithuania, Ukraine, Finland, and Kazakhstan, a legacy of both the Soviet empire and Marxist feminist internationalism. Collaborations with colleagues in Eastern and Western Europe and in North America have also been a notable development, and joint research ventures that include dual language publications such as Tractus Aevorum continue to increase at a rapid rate in the twenty-first century.9 These interactions beSee, for example, a recent collaborative project funded by the Institute of Advanced Studies in Paris to look at witchcraft and popular religious practices in early modern Poland, Ukraine, and Russia, entitled “The Center and Periphery in the Religious History of Eastern Europe at the Dawn of Modern Times.” The scholars in this project include Elena Smilianskaia (Russian State 9

163

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 tween “the East” and “the West” as real or imagined categories are complex both in terms of power relationships and the formation of scholarly and national identities. We hope that this essay will stimulate further transnational dialogue and self-reflexivity among the participants. REFERENCES 1. Antipov, G. A., ed. 1991. Vechnye filosofskie problemy: sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Perpetual Problems of Philosophy: A Collection of Essays]. Novosibirsk: Nauka publ., Sibirskoe otd-nie. 2. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, eds. 2005. The PostColonial Studies Reader, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. 3. Barchunova, Tatiana. 2009. Response to authors‟ survey on the development of gender studies in Russia, February 2. 4. Barchunova, Tatiana. 2006. “A Library of our Own? Feminist Translations From English in Russian.” In A Canon of Our Own? Kanonkritik und Kanonbildung in den Gender Studies, edited by Marlen Bidwell-Steiner and Karin S. Wozonig, 133–147. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag. 5. Barchunova, T. V. 2003. “The Selfish Gender, or the Reproduction of Gender Asymmetry in Gender Studies.” Studies in East European Thought 55: 3–25. 6. Berezovskii, Feoktist. 1993. Bab’i tropy: roman [Women`s Paths: a Novel]. Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe knizhnoe izd-vo. 7. Bhaba, Homi. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. 8. Borenstein, Eliot. 2008. Overkill: Sex and Violence in Contemporary Russian Popular Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 9. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.Chari, Sharad, and Catherine Verdery. 2009. “Thinking Between the Posts: Postcolonialism, Postsocialism, and Ethnography after the Cold War.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 51 (1): 6–39. 11.Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 12.Edmondson, Linda Harriet. 1984. Feminism in Russia, 1900-1917. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 13.Fox Keller, Evelyn. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press. 14.Goscilo, Helena, and Beth Holmgren, eds. 1996. Russia. Women. Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 15.Iukina, I. I. 2007. Russkii feminism kak vyzov sovremennosti [Russian Feminism as a Contemporary Challenge]. St. Peterburg: Aleteiia. 16.Johanson, Christine. 1987. Women’s Struggle for Higher Education in Russia, 1855-1900. Kingston: McGill-Queen‟s University Press.

Humanities University, Moscow); Katerina Dysa (Mohyla Academy, Ukraine); Urszula Ciernak (Jan Dlugosz University, Poland); Aleksandr Lavrov (University of Paris VIII - Saint Denis); Valerie A. Kivelson (University of Michigan); and Christine D. Worobec (Northern Illinois University). We thank Christine D. Worobec for information on this project.

164

Choi Chatterjee, Karen Petrone. Transnational Feminisms … 17.Khotkina, Zoia. 2002. “Ten Years of Gender Studies in Russia.” Russian Social Science Review 43 (4): 4–12. 18.Lindenmeyr, Adele. 1996. Poverty is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial Russia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 19.Korovushkina, Irina. 1999. “Paradox of Gender: Writing History in PostCommunist Russia 1987-1998.” Gender and History 11 (3): 569–82. 20.Mbembe, Achille. 2001. On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press. 21.Rogers, Douglas. 2010. “Postsocialisms Unbound: Connections, Critiques, Comparisons.” Slavic Review 69 (1): 1–15. 22.Oushakine, Serguei. 2009. The Patriotism of Despair: Nation, War, and Loss in Russia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 23.Oushakine, Serguei. 2002. O muzhe(N)stvennosti: sbornik statei [About the Manhood: a Collection of Essays]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 24.[Oushakin] Ushakin, S. A. 2000. “„Gender‟ (Haprokat): poleznaia kategoriia dlia nauchnoi kar‟ery? [„Gender‟ (For Hire): A Useful Category for Research Career?” In Gendernaia istoriia: pro et contra, edited by M. G. Murav‟eva, 34-39. St. Peterburg: Nestor. 25.Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperial Eyes. Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge. 26.Pushkareva, Natalia. 2007. Gendernaia teoriia i istoricheskoe znanie [Gender Theory and Historical Knowledge]. St. Petersburg: Aleteiia. 27.Pushkareva, Natalia. 2006. “Gendernye issledovaniia v istorii i etnologii: poka tol‟ko „voobrazhaemoe‟? [Gender Studies in History and Ethnology: Still only „Imagined‟?]” Gendernye issledovanniia 15: 165–73. Accessed on June 25, 2008. www.gender.univer.kharkov/ua/gurnal/15. 28.Pushkareva, N. L. 2002a. “A se grekhi zlye, smertnye…”: Russkaia seksual’naia i eroticheskaia kul’tura X-XVII vekov [“These are Sins, Deadly and Unforgivable…:” The Russian Sexual and Erotic Culture from the 10 th to 17th Centuries]. Moscow: Ladomir. 29.Pushkareva, N. L. 2002b. “„Derzkie i bespokoiinye‟ (zhenskaia istoriia Rossii 1801-1905 gg.: formy sotsial‟noi aktivnosti) [„Bold and Restless‟ (Women`s History of Russia from 1801 to 1905: the Forms of Social Activity)]” Otechestvennaia istoriia 6 (6): 52–65. 30.Pushkareva, N. L. 2001. “Istoriia, itogi i perspektivy institutsializatsii women‟s and gender studies v rossiiskoi istoricheskoi nauke [The History, Results and Perspectives of the Institutionalization of Women`s and Gender Studies in the Russian Historical Science].” Gendernaia istoriia, 21-30. 31.Pushkareva, N. L. 1998. “Gendernye issledovaniia: rozhdenie, stanovlenie, metody i perspektivy [Gender Studies: Origins, Development, Methods and Perspectives].” Voprosy istorii 6: 76–86. 32.Pushkareva, N. L. 1997a. Women in Russian History: From the Tenth to the Twentieth Century, trans. and ed. by Eve Levin. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe. 33.Pushkareva, N. L. 1997b. Chastnaia zhizn’ russkoi zhenshchiny: Nevesta, zhena, liubovnitsa (X-nachalo XIX vv) [The Private Life of a Russian Woman: Bride, Wife, Lover (From the 10th to the Early 19th cent.). Moscow: Ladomir. 34.Pushkareva, N. L. 1996. Zhenshchiny Rossii i Evropy na poroge novogo vremeni [Women in Russia and Europe at the Turn of the Modern Age]. Moscow: Institut etnologii i antropologii RAN. 35.Pushkareva, N. L. 1989. Zhenshchiny drevnei Rusi [Women of the Ancient Rus`]. Moscow: Mysl‟.

165

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 36.Levin, Eve. 2003. “Friends and Colleagues.” In Adventures in Russian Historical Research: Reminiscences of American Scholars from the Cold War to the Present, edited by Samuel H. Baron and Cathy A. Frierson, 177–89. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe. 37.Repina, Lorina. 2006. “Gender Studies in Russian Historiography in the Nineteen-nineties and Early Twenty-first Century.” Historical Research 79 (204): 270–86. 38.Ruane, Christine. 1994. Gender, Class, and the Professionalization of Russian City Teachers, 1860-1914. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 39.Said, Edward W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. 40.Stites, Richard. 1978. The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism and Bolshevism, 1860-1930 Princeton: Princeton University Press. 41.Voronina, Olga. 2001/2002. “Socio-Cultural Determinants of the Development of Gender Theory in Russia and the West.” Russian Studies in History 40 (3): 52–69. 42.White, Hayden. 1978. Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 43.Zdravomyslova, Elena, and Anna Temkina. 2007. “Avtonomizatsiia gendernykh issledovanie v transnatsional‟nom prostranstve: feministkie praktiki [The Autonomization of the Gender Studies in Transnational Space: the Feminist Practices].” Gendernye issledovaniia 15. Accessed on June 25, 2008. www.gender.univer.kharkov.ua/jurnal/15. 44.Said, Edward W. 1983. “Traveling Theory.” In Idem. The World, the Text, and the Critic, 226–47. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 45.Zdravomyslova, E. A., and A. A. Temkina. 1999. “Issledovaniia zhenschin i gendernye issledovaniia na Zapade i v Rossii [The Women`s Studies in the West and in Russia].” Оbschestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ 6: 177–185.

166

E. I. Yakushkina. Russian Women in Public … RUSSIAN WOMEN IN PUBLIC: FROM ORGANIZED ACTIVISM THROUGH DEMOCRATIC EUPHORIA TO THE STRATEGY OF SMALL DEEDS E. I. Yakushkina Voronezh State University

Е. И. Якушкина Воронежский государственный университет

Abstract. The article provides an overview of the forms of organized women‟s activism in Russia from its origins until the present day. This includes definitions of different types of women‟s organizations, their role in women‟s socialization in Russia, the dynamics of their development, as well as an analysis of the influence of the Western women‟s movement on the origins of women‟s NGOs. Special attention is also given to the new forms of women‟s organizations in modern Russia, their goals, and their working strategies. Keywords: women‟s activism, political socialization, zhenotdely (women‟s departments of the Communist Party), zhensovety (women‟s councils), Committee of Soviet Women, women‟s NGOs, independent women‟s movement, third sector. E-mail: eyakushkina[at]yahoo.com Copyright: © 2014 Yakushkina. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. УДК 316,4:331.582.3

ЖЕНСКИЙ АКТИВИЗМ В РОССИИ: ОТ ОРГАНИЗОВАННЫХ ФОРМ, ЧЕРЕЗ ДЕМОКРАТИЧЕСКУЮ ЭЙФОРИЮ К СТРАТЕГИИ МАЛЫХ ДЕЛ Аннотация. В статье анализируются формы женского активизма в России от его зарождения до настоящего времени, содержатся определения различных типов женских организаций, выявляются их роль в социализации женщин в России, динамика развития, а также влияние западного женского движения на зарождение и развитие женских НПО. Особое внимание уделено новым формам женских организаций в современной России, их целям и деятельности.

167

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Ключевые слова: женский активизм, политическая социализация, женотделы (отделы по работе среди женщин), женсоветы, Комитет советских женщин, женские неправительственные организации, независимое женское движение, третий сектор. Looking back at the long history of women's activism in Russia, periods of dramatic change, moments of activity, and periods of stagnation in its development all come into view. Thus far, many books and articles on women‟s activism have been written, its stages of development identified. Undoubtedly, women activists in Russia have done a lot in this area. More important, many of the ideas and concepts of gender theory have become an integral part of modern Russian society. But can we say that the women's movement today is clearly structured and legally formalized? What are the forms of the current women‟s movement in Russia? Organized women‟s activism in Russia has its own long history, shape, and traditions. It originated in the mid-nineteenth century and was based primarily on the twin ideas of mutual aid and assistance to the very poor. It should be noted that among the wide variety of women's organizations today, many of them focus on women in crisis, large families, and single mother households, which is especially typical for women's groups in the provinces. Women in Russia obtained their civil rights as a result of a long period of activism and the February Revolution of 1917. In October 1917 the Bolsheviks declared the equality of men and women in one of their first legislative acts, which took into consideration the level of women‟s activism at that time. The declaration did not guarantee equal rights, but did organize a system of social protection for women in the form of benefits and allowances, including maternity leave. This accomplishment can be considered an achievement of the Soviet system. However, in return the state required the full involvement of women in social production. Working outside the home undoubtedly promoted the economic independence and self-confidence of Soviet women. The formation of a Party department that addressed women‟s needs, known as zhenotdely (women‟s departments of the Communist Party) allowed women to become involved in socialist ideology. V. I. Lenin established zhenotdely in 1919 during the Civil War in order to train women to work in the new society and to involve women in the new political system. Zhenotdel‟s primary goal was to transmit Party propaganda, recruit women, and enable women‟s political socialization. At the same time, zhenotdely helped women to cope with the principles of a new society and integrated women into a new reality. They demanded more social services for poor women, especially single mothers and their children. Moreover, one of the organization‟s main objectives was to assist

168

E. I. Yakushkina. Russian Women in Public … women and serve as an advocate for women‟s interests. Zhenotdely worked to improve health care services for women and children, develop daycare facilities for working mothers, and address issues of discrimination in the workplace. It was Stalin who terminated zhenotdely as a national organization in 19301. In the context of rapid industrialization initiated by Stalin‟s First Five-Year Plan in 1929, there was little interest in developing special social and health services for women; all resources had to be directed toward industrial growth. The Central Committee of the Communist Party concluded that there were sufficient women in soviet, trade-union, plant, and factory committees. In the seventy-four years of the Soviet regime, zhenotdely represent the most concerted attempt at a special agency dedicated to women‟s issues (Noonan and Nechemias 2001, 190). In 1941 a new form of women‟s organizations appeared: the AntiFascist Committee of Soviet Women. In 1956 the Committee of Soviet Women was organized out of this framework. Through these committees, women expressed their desire for peace and understanding between peoples, and their solidarity with the women of foreign countries against acts of aggression, and with advocates of democracy and social progress. Although the committees set international goals, they still provided a valuable school for women‟s political activity, intercultural communication, and an initial renewal of activities for women‟s organizations. In 1958 N. S. Khrushchev advocated zhensovety (women‟s councils) as part of his new approach to building communism. Zhensovety formed at the regional and municipal levels of administration, as well as in factories, offices, and on farms. Zhensovety encouraged women to become politically and socially active, and were an attempt to understand the life circumstances of each working woman, her interests, and her desires (Noonan and Nechemias 2001, 191). Zhensovety‟s activities continued through the years of L. I. Brezhnev's leadership, but in fact did very little. They were formal rather than active in most areas. Genia Browning, a wellknown specialist on Russian women‟s activism, writes that the lack of knowledge about these organizations reflects their lack of status at the time (Browning 1992, 98–99). The various initiatives and diversity among the organizations can be explained by the lack of a strong central directive. Where the links were formalized, the organizations varied. Sometimes ties existed with the local soviet or trade unions. Primarily, however, women‟s councils operated within the parameters defined by Party ideology (Browning 1992, 98–99). Since 1976 the authorities established two commissions: on maternal and “Postanovlenie TsK VKP(b) „О reorganizatsii apparata VKP(b)‟” [The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) Resolution „On Reorganization of the Apparatus of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks)‟.”] January 5, 1929.” Partiinoe stroitel`stvo [Party Construction] 2 (1930). Accessed September 29, 2013. http://rtonline.ru/archive_old/144/10078737/ 1

169

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 child health as well as women‟s labor and living conditions, that operated both within the local soviets and at the level of the Supreme Soviets of each republic and the Soviet Union. Although women‟s councils lacked full autonomy under Soviet power, they possessed enormous competence: planning of enterprises and organizations for domestic needs, cultural affairs, sporting events, supervision of kindergartens, and so forth, as well as bringing women‟s issues to the general meetings of the labor collectives. The main function of women‟s councils was to monitor the implementation of labor laws for women. These organizations dealt with problems in the area of labor and industrial relations, such as increasing the share of female labor in production, the protection of women's work, and the “purely women's issues” of schooling, health care, and other family matters. Zhensovety became a viable institution of political socialization and a school of leadership for women. During the wave of perestroika in 1987, women's councils were revived. The All-Union Conference of Women in January 1987 issued a document, “Regulations of the Women‟s Councils,” which reinstated the organizations within economic enterprises and in certain locales by territory; for example a council might operate within one neighborhood of a city. The goal of women's councils at that time was to involve women in social and political activities and to change their role in managing an increasingly dynamic society and state. Their main activities included participation in developing plans to improve the labor conditions, involvement in budget planning for enterprises‟ domestic needs, cultural issues, the sports and mass sector, participation in the accounting and allotment of spaces in kindergartens, as well as bringing women‟s issues to the fore in the general meetings of labor collectives. The All-Union Conference of Women unleashed the huge hidden energies of women‟s organizations. Female congresses and conferences took place all across the country. Women's councils formed rapidly and intensively along territorial and industrial lines. In a mere eight months (i.e. by October 1987) there were 160,000 women's councils, encompassing over 1,400,000 activists in the districts, cities, counties, provinces, and autonomous republics (Pukhova 1989, 58–63). By 1989 roughly 230,000 women's councils existed (250,000 according to the other sources (Noonan and Nechemias 2001, 191)), representing approximately two million members. These organizations were integrated into the structure of the state and represented its power at the local, national, and federal level, as well as at the factories and enterprises. Women's councils paved the way for the emergence of independent women's organizations in the 1990s. The women's council of the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna initiated the first independent women's forum, held in Dubna, near Moscow, on March 9–31, 1991. Although independent women's organizations criticized

170

E. I. Yakushkina. Russian Women in Public … women's councils for their antidemocratic methods of work and for viewing women as a subject rather than an object of political reforms, it is important to recognize that women's councils helped to originate an independent women's movement in the USSR in the late 1980s. Numerous women's councils, which existed at the enterprise, district, municipal, and regional level, were transformed into independent, nongovernmental associations. At the same time, many women's councils continued to exist and to work during perestroika as the traditional form of women‟s organizations in Russia. The dramatic perestroika years, which began in 1985, had a huge impact on women's activity. The removal of state support for socially vulnerable populations, primarily children with various chronic diseases, forced women to organize themselves and overcome difficulties. This society created an environment for civil and political participation. During the transitional period in modern Russia, many independent nongovernmental women‟s organizations appeared. They were absolutely new organizations for Russia. The first independent women's groups in Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s set concrete tasks, including the defense of women‟s rights, and the establishment of crisis centers and committees of soldiers‟ mothers. Subsequent women‟s organizations addressed a wide array of issues. Even some distinctly feminist organizations emerged at this time. Women's nongovernmental activism in Russia, which gained power in the early 1990s, built on the example of the Western women‟s movement, its forms, and its methods of struggle. Modern Western feminism was shaped in the context of powerful social protest in the 1960s. Liberal and Marxist theory (and later psychoanalysis, postmodernism, environmentalism) were essential for its development. Gender theory in Europe and the United States developed in the context of liberal ideology, with an emphasis on individual freedom, law, and free enterprise, which was not the case in Russia. This complicated the adaptation of Western ideas in post-Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, the experience of Western organizations taught valuable lessons to activists of the women's movement in Russia. Intellectual and financial support from Western funds and research organizations, and direct communication with activists of the women's movement played a huge role in the formation of women‟s organizations and centers of gender research all over the country. Grants supported scholars, promoted their participation in international conferences, and enabled the development of scholarly discourse and the institutionalization of gender disciplines in higher education. Representatives of Western women‟s organizations and foreign funding agencies promoted liberal values and principles of gender equality, but on “the Western model.” In the mid-1990s a number of publications voiced the necessity of considering cultural and psychological differences between the countries in introducing liberal ideas. According to a number of the American scholars, 171

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 including J. Richter, V. Sperling, S. Henderson and others, Western help strengthened the third sector and helped activists to organize their work, but also significantly harmed the natural formation of civil society in Russia (Richter 2002, 55–72; Henderson 2000, 66; Sperling 1999; Sperling 1998). Western funding agencies‟ undeniedly major contributions to the formation of women‟s activism in our country did not promote women's movement consolidation. On the contrary, the struggle for grants isolated women‟s organizations from one another and promoted the bureaucratization of women's movement, especially in the capital cities. Today we witness the decline of nongovernmental women‟s organizations in Russia. This is primarily because there is no mechanism to ensure gender equality in our country. There are no state legal guarantees of equal rights and opportunities for men and women. Interdepartmental gender commissions in Russia have ceased to exist. No clear state policy exists concerning women, who are represented primarily in social programs that deal with family issues. Thus it appears that organizations with Western agendas have not taken root in Russian soil. I agree with well-known gender studies theorist A. Temkina that the features of our culture require us to think carefully about how we interpret the problems of gender and the status of women. Without leaving out the differences and possible incompatibility with Western experience, we rather return to the historical context, keeping in mind the seriousness of feminist themes and the acute reaction to them (Temkina 1995, 5–17). However, we can still talk about a rather broad women‟s movement in modern Russia. At this point, let us examine the forms of organizations. The first group is the women's councils. For example, in Voronezh region, the zhensovet unites roughly 150,000 women activists. A well-built, quite effective working structure of this social organization brings together all the regional to village women‟s branch councils. In their work, activists stick to the traditional forms, taking into consideration the clear structuring of the organizations, vertical links, and the work forms of the Soviet period. The other example is “Zhensovety Moskvy,” a regional organization that was founded only in 2010 and whose branches extend to every district of Moscow, every major enterprise, and even the largest universities, such as Moscow State University. Its stated purpose is traditional for women‟ councils: the active involvement of women in social work, charity, health care, assistance to families with disabled members, and close contacts with government. In light of growing state power in the country, women's councils, having a tradition of working closely with the state, have become even more active. According to researchers, a special, different, statepaternalistic variant of civil society has formed in Russia. Zhensovety that can penetrate all spheres of the social organism and mobilize citizens‟ initiative to address the significant problems are the most stable. In

172

E. I. Yakushkina. Russian Women in Public … addition, they are known to be quite socially effective: they allow for the mobilization of citizens‟ creative activity to address the really important and specific problems of society. The second group in women‟s activism today is nongovernmental women's organizations. They face the most urgent issues of the women's movement, namely overcoming the fragmentation of women's organizations, creating a single coordinating center, implementing existing programs, constructing a broad network of regional organizations, and recruiting active and influential activists to the women's NGOs. Along with traditional forms of women‟s organization such as women‟s councils, NGOs, and women‟s associations, new forms of women's activism, sometimes distant from feminist ideas, have emerged. They include Orthodox women's organizations, for example the Women's Council of the Voronezh-Borisoglebskaia Eparchy. Its main tasks are assistance and support to families of the clergy, families with several children, widows, and nursing homes. Further, it conducts meetings in hospitals and in men's and women's prisons, and provides spiritual assistance to relatives and mothers of sick children. It also engages in actions against abortions (Tkachenko 2013, 26–30). The sole characteristic that distinguishes it from secular zhensovety is its Orthodox activity, as its focus is the same targeted assistance to those in need. Additionally, we can see new models of women‟s activity, for example the merging of women‟s councils and nongovernmental organizations, and the close cooperation of Orthodox women‟s organizations with secular regional and district women's councils. Many women‟s and gender volunteer organizations and charitable organizations have appeared in recent years. As a rule, the goal of such organizations is immediate assistance or long-term projects aimed at deeprooted problems of the state. Petersburg Parents (Peterburgskie roditeli) is one such example of a gender volunteer organization.2 Its members help orphans in the maternity hospitals. They work to identify adoptive families and to protect children's rights. The current stage of the development of women's activism is characterized by “small deeds,” with a focus on very specific social problems, among them the achievement of social partnership with authorities and partners in the "third sector," and engagement with the most pressing social problems of violence, including domestic violence, sexism, assistance to women with disabled children, and others. These issues are the primary focus of all types of organizations. Although new and traditional forms of women‟s activism perform routine everyday activities, through their strategy of small deeds they perform a very

Otkazniki Peterburga. Sait Regional'nogo obshchestvennogo dvizheniia Peterburgskie roditeli [Denied Persons of Petersburg. Website of the Regional Social Movement “Petersburg Parents”] Accessed September 29, 2013. http://otkazniki-spb.ru/O_nas/Kto_my.html 2

173

REFERENCES 1. Browning, Genia. 1992. "The Zhensovety Revisited." In Perestroika and Soviet Women, edited by Mary Buckley, 97–117. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2. Henderson, Sarah L. 2000. “Importing Civil Society: Foreign Aid and the Women‟s Movement in Russia.” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 8(1): 65–82. 3. Noonan, Norma C., and Carol Nechemias, eds. 2001. Encyclopedia of Russian Women's Movements. Westport, CT: Greenwood. 4. Otkazniki Peterburga. Sait Regional'nogo obshchestvennogo dvizheniia Peterburgskie roditeli [Denied Persons of Petersburg. Website of the Regional Social Movement “Petersburg Parents”] Accessed September 29, 2013. http://otkaznikispb.ru/O_nas/Kto_my.html 5. “Postanovlenie TsK VKP(b) „О reorganizatsii apparata VKP(b)‟” [The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) Resolution „On Reorganization of the Apparatus of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks)‟”]. January 5, 1929.” Partiinoe stroitel`stvo [Party Construction] 2 (1930). Accessed September 29, 2013. http://rt-online.ru/archive_old/144/10078737/ 6. Pukhova, Zoya. 1989. “Zhenskoe dvizhenie i perestroika v SSSR [The Women`s Movement and Perestroika in the USSR].” In Zhenshchiny v sovremennom mire [Women in the Modern World], edited by V. V. Liubimova, 58–63. Moscow: Nauka publ. 7. Richter, James. 2002. “Evaluating Western Assistance to Russian Women's Organizations”, in The Power and Limits of NGOs: Transnational Democracy Networks and Post-Communist Transitions, edited by Sarah Mendelson and John Glenn, 55–72. New York: Columbia University Press. 8. Sperling, Valerie. 1999. Organizing Women in Contemporary Russia: Engendering Transition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. 9. Sperling, Valerie. 1998. “Foreign Funding of Social Movements in Russia.” Program on New Approaches to Russian Security (PONARS) Policy Memo Series no. 26, Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard University. Accessed September 10, 2013. http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/policy-memospdf/pm_0026.pdf 10.Temkina, Anna. 1995. “Feminism: Zapad i Rossiia [Feminism: The West and Russia].” Russkii feministskii zhurnal "Preobrazhenie" [Russian Feminist Journal "Transfiguration"] 3: 5–17. 11.Tkachenko, Nadezhda. 2013. “Nasha deiatel`nost` – nasha propoved‟. Voronezhskii zhensovet [Our Deeds – Our Sermon. The Voronezh zhensovet].” Ya-matushka: 26–30. Accessed September 30, 2013. http://www.ya-matushka.ru/index.php/matushkino-sluzhenie/28-nashadeyatelnost-nasha-propoved-voronezhskij-zhensovet

174

N. N. Bolgov. Themistius and His Works …

EMPIRES & PERIPHERIES

THEMISTIUS AND HIS WORKS IN THE CONTEXT OF CULTURAL CONTINUITY N. N. Bolgov Belgorod National Research University

Н. Н. Болгов Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет

Abstract. This article is devoted to the general heritage of Themistius, the orator, philosopher, and rhetorician who worked in Constantinople in the second half of the fourth century. All previous works have considered only his philosophical ideas. The author pays special attention to Themistius’s orations, which are divided into political (19) and private (15). Themistius still has not been appreciated for his true value as an orator, philosopher, and especially as a rhetorician of Late Antiquity. His orations are an important historical source on political theory, the history of education, and rhetoric. Keywords: Themistius, rhetoric, Late Antiquity, philosophy, Constantinople. E-mail: bolgov[at]bsu.edu.ru Copyright: © 2014 Bolgov. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. УДК 94(37).08

ФЕМИСТИЙ И ЕГО СОЧИНЕНИЯ В КОНТЕКСТЕ КУЛЬТУРНОГО КОНТИНУИТЕТА Аннотация. В работе предложен первый в отечественной науке очерк общего наследия оратора, философа и учителя 2-й половины IV в. Фемистия, работавшего в Константинополе. До этого разрабатывались 175

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 лишь его философские идеи. Особое внимание автор статьи уделяет речам Фемистия (всего их сохранилось 34), которые делятся на политические (19) и частные (15). Фемистий еще недостаточно оценен как оратор, мыслитель и особенно как преподаватель эпохи Поздней античности. Его речи – важный исторический источник по политической теории, истории образования, риторики. Ключевые слова: Фемистий, философия, Константинополь.

риторика,

Поздняя

античность,

Themistius (317–93 AD)1 is a statesman, rhetorician, and philosopher of Late Antiquity.2 Autobiographical notes in his works (orations) establish the facts of his birth and education. Most likely he was born in the same place as his father in Paphlagonia in 317 AD. 3 Themistius’s father, Eugenius, though a landowner of average income, had received a philosophical education, studied works by Plato and Aristotle, and tried to prove the unity of their doctrines (Orat. 20 “A Funeral Oration in Honor of His Father”). He provided a good home education to his son. In one of his orations, Themistius wrote that it was not obligatory to go to Athens or Constantinople to get a good education (Orat. 27 “On the Need to Give Thought, Not to Where [We Study] but to the Men [Who Will Teach us]”). However, Themistius himself got an education first in Neokaisáreia (at that time Basil of Neokaisáreia, the father of Basil Caesarea, taught there), and then in Constantinople where his family resettled in the mid330s. Constantinople was not his native town. In his youth Themistius taught philosophy and rhetoric in different towns in Asia Minor, including Nicomedia (342-43) and Ancyra (344-47). He became well-known and, at the age of thirty (other sources claim at the age of twenty-five), was invited to Constantinople to give the speech of welcome for Roman Emperor Constantius II. Themistius became famous after this speech and in time assumed the position of court orator. From 347 to 355 Themistius opened a philosophical rhetoric school in Constantinople (Schemmel 1908), but later left teaching for the government service. Emperor Constantius II ensured his election to the Byzantine Senate in 355. At the end of the 350s, Themistius played an important role in the admission of new senators of Constantinople. During the visit of Roman Emperor in 357, he was elected representative of the empire’s eastern provinces. This event probably took place in the same year as his appointment to proconsul in Constantinople. In addition, he served as the advisor to the emperor under Constantius II (337-61), Julian, Jovian, Valens, Gratian, and Theodosius I (379-95), and as tutor to future

383, 387 and 388 are also mentioned by different authors as the years of Themistius`s death. For a dictionary entry see Solopova 2008. 3 See Themistius`s biography in Vanderspoel 1996, 31–37. 1

176

N. N. Bolgov. Themistius and His Works … emperor Arcadius. In 384 Themistius obtained the position of urban prefect in Constantinople. During the thirty years following the 350s, Themistius was a very important political and cultural figure in Constantinople. The position of princeps became the summit of Themistius’s career (Vanderspoel 1996, 71), but it did not give him real power. Themistius was also involved in Senate activities. Besides, he was a panegyrist and advisor to the emperors, and he taught the emperors’ children. Theodosius’s son, Arcadius, was left under the guardianship of Themistius for a short time when the boy’s father was in Constantinople. In the mid-350s Themistius wrote about the emperor, probably Constantius II: “He often follows my advice concerning the Council, invites me for dinners, and wants me to escort him on his trips. He accepts criticism willingly.” Themistius persuaded Constantius II to increase grain measures in Constantinople. He distributed the emperors’ donations to the town and asked emperors to recognize the privileges of Constantinople. Themistius was proud of the ten achievements he had managed on behalf of the Byzantine Senate. Themistius was a skillful rhetorician and advocated for the development of narrative forms and against the rhetorical excessiveness and sophism characteristic of Late Antiquity. Themistius’s orations (34 have survived) touch upon the problems of philosophy, state law, and the theory of rhetoric. They are notable for their simplicity, accurate logicality, and lucidity. Themistius was as well-known in Constantinople as Libanius in Antioch, but unlike Libanius, Themistius was seriously engaged in philosophy and wrote a number of popular renditions of Aristotle’s works. In addition to literature and tutoring, he was occupied with public activities and was awarded a number of the highest decorations. Themistius also taught philosophy (Meridier 1906). According to his own account (Orat. 5-6), philosophy itself does not contradict politics and the experience of some philosophers well-known for their social activities (Themistius reckoned himself among them) corroborates this fact. Theodosianus’s codex for the year 361 describes Themistius as a philosopher. Themistius respected early Greek philosophers and their belief that man is a social and political creature. He admired the practical and political philosophy of Aristotle, and penned commentaries to works by Aristotle, including concise and rather successful renditions of such works as “Prior Analytics,” “Posterior Analytics,” “On the Soul,” “Physics,” and others. The philosophical written heritage of Themistius consists of his tutorial comments to works by Aristotle.4 Three commentaries were kept in the original: “Physics,” “On the Soul,” and “Posterior Analytics.” Two more, “On the Heavens” and “Metaphysics,” were translated from Arabic into See Wallies 1900; Schenkl 1900; Todd 2003; Landauer 1902; Heinze 1899; Todd 1996; Solopova 2005; Landauer 1903; Brague 1999. See also Schroeder and Todd 1990; Blumenthal 1990. 4

177

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Hebrew. Commentaries on “Categories,” “Prior Analytics,” “On Generation and Corruption,” and “Nicomachean Ethics ” were not preserved, nor were some comments on Plato’s works mentioned by Photios (Bibl. Cod. 74, 52а19-20 Bekker). According to J. Vanderspoel, however, Photios took the information about forming the scientific library by Themistius in Constantinople under Constantius II for his commentaries on Plato’s works (Vanderspoel 1989). This library was likely founded on Themistius’s advice and his written order for Plato’s works, as well as for many other authors for this library, turned into “Themistius’s commentaries on Plato’s works” (Orat. 4). Themistius’s attitude toward Neoplatonism remains rather difficult to discern (Ballériaux 1994). The majority of renditions of Aristotle’s works were written prior to Themistius’s election to the Senate in 355, when he began his public activity. He believed that if the emperor chose a philosopher to serve the state, he should not stand in opposition. Politicians should not put their personal interests before those of the country. Politician-philosophers should not refuse public activity for the sake of esoteric metaphysics. Studying philosophy, Themistius tried to follow his father, whom he eulogized in his twentieth oration. His grandfather and father-in-law were also philosophers. Libanius considered Themistius to be one of the greatest philosophers. Gregory of Nazianzus appealed to him as a philosopher in 363 and in 369. Themistius always believed himself to be the only eminent philosopher. In his orations, he often juxtaposed himself, “the follower of Socrates,” to sophistic rhetoricians such as Himerius. Themistius often called them “windbags” and “know-it-alls,” and reproached them for improvised speeches, the benefit of which he denied. Themistius wrote that he chose philosophy that had political relevance. This position impressed Emperor Constantius II, who felt Themistius promoted philosophy for society. Themistius believed that seminars on philosophy should be attended by the masses, not by a select few. This stance caused Gregory of Nazianzus to urge people to follow Themistius’s philosophy, calling him as “the king of eloquence.” Themistius used the traditional philosophical technique of parrhesia or freedom of speech. Themistius’s ability to influence an audience allowed him to present his ideas in a convincing and engaging manner. Themistius’s authority as a philosopher and rhetorician was rather high among both contemporaries and the next generation a fact proven by the continued relevance of his ideas on public activity as well as the literary virtues of his orations. All full original variants of Themistius’s orations have survived. Modern editions include thirty-four orations, of which the twenty-third, thirty-third, and twenty-eighth orations have been partially preserved. Themistius’s work “Virtue” has been survived only in Old Syriac and “State Governance,” addressed to Julian, only in Arabic. The latter resembles an oration rather than a treatise or a letter. In the nineteenth century the

178

N. N. Bolgov. Themistius and His Works … oration “In Reply to Those Who Consider Him to Be Guilty” was found and became the addendum to the edition by W. Dindorf (Lips., 1832). Themistius’s orations have the following features: 1) public teachings presented to the court of public opinion; 2) stylistic skills to finish orations; and 3) the logic of interference in public life. The orations are usually divided into public (political)5 and private. It is not known if all of his political orations eulogized emperors. They supposedly included appeals to Jovian, Gratian, and Julian. Some of his orations were addressed to Emperor Constantius II, others to Valens, Valentinian I, and Theodosius I, and contained panegyrics and eulogies of emperors. The generally accepted designation for Themistius’s orations is “emperor praise,” which offers a more accurate description than “political praise.” Given that Themistius’s literary activity occurred during the period of active formation of Christian literature and its self-determination regarding Greek scholarship, his study of religious views is especially interesting. As a pagan, Themistius nevertheless was not Julian’s adherent and felt no animosity toward Christianity. He was a rather “flexible atheist” who managed to work closely with Christian emperors and defended religious tolerance. In the thirteenth century, Gregory Bar Hebraeus cited Themistius’s oration eulogizing Julian in his reign, in which he tried to persuade the emperor to put an end to Christian persecuction. Themistius upheld religious tolerance before the reign of Jovian and tried to prevent the persecution of Nicene Christians, appealing to Valens to show mercy after the suppression of rebellion under Procopius (364). Themistius’s oration to Emperor Jovian centered on religious tolerance and recognition of equality for all confessions. This oration is interesting in its closeness to the ethical position of the Roman Stoics and the deep belief that it is impossible to compel people to have morality against their will. Themistius underlined that since morality and emotions regarding religious devotion could not be obtained by compulsion, a policy of toleration was the most reasonable option. Those emperors who believed it possible to impose religion made people conceal their true faith for fear of punishment. Themistius considered Emperor Jovian’s law on religious freedom as the original law given by God. Themistius believed that the existence of different confessions strengthened faith and diversified life. Lastly, as Themistius stated, the most important virtue of religious freedom was the end of violent internal conflict. Initially, Themistius thought that Christianity detracted from philosophy, but later understood that what Homer and Christianity had in common could be expressed better through Christian notions, while preserving classical (pagan) values (Vanderspoel 1996, 18; Downey 1957). Unlike two other eminent ideologues of Hellenism, Libanius, the rhetorician, and Julian, the emperor, Themistius did not ignore Christianity and did not struggle against it, but rather tried to prove that 5

For analysis of Themistius`s political orations see Val`denberg 2008, 74–98.

179

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Hellenism exceeded Christianity in its cultural universalism and toleration. According to this view, Themistius tried to develop his own ideas while avoiding direct conflicts and attacks. Themistius was familiar with texts from both the Old and New Testaments. He cited the Bible three times for the confirmation of the traditional Hellenic idea about the emperor’s power (Orat. 7, 89d2 Harduin; Orat. 11, 147cl; Orat. 19,229a4). Themistius considered Paganism and Christianity as a form of popular belief far removed from true philosophy. In his oration to emperor Valens (Orat. 7), Themistius supported religious toleration and believed that it was folly to compel people to have common convictions against their own free will. Themistius’s favorite word, which he used in his orations rather often, was philanthropy; this helps to clarify his religious toleration. Themistius did not adopt Christianity, but such a famous figure as Gregory of Nazianzus was favourably disposed toward him and rated Themistius highly. He even called Themistius as “the king of eloquence” (Ep. XXIV, 1) and with this epithet he went down in the history of Late Antiquity. In contrast to Julian and Libanius, Themistius refrained from exchanging strongly-worded polemics with adherents of Christianity. Toleration was intrinsic to him and it was not without reason that he held notable public posts under all emperors irrespective of their religion. In oration 12, “To Valens On Religions,” eulogizing the emperor, Themistius considered the policy of toleration as the most reasonable option. It is significant that in spite of Themistius’s adherence to antique philosophy there are ideas alien to classical paganism in his works. For example, he considered the terrestrial life as a dungeon and the afterlife as “a happy field.” In his orations he repeatedly expressed his love of philosophy, often appealing to Plato and Socrates. Themistius’s orations lack poetical theatrics and vivid characteristics, but he was a skilled wordsmith, a talent that played no small role in his fame. Some of Themistius’s 34 orations represent appeals and panegyrics to emperors Constantius II, Valens, Valentinian, Jovian, and Theodosius. Others deal with different issues of rhetorical skill. In his orations, Themistius presents himself as an ideologue of classical Greek tradition and a supporter of its value in consolidating the Christian empire. Along with works by Julian, Themistius’s orations can be regarded as a rare example of political theory (mostly a traditional one) for Neoplatonism. The need for Themistius at the court of rather different emperors (Constantius, the Arian; Julian, the pagan; Theodosius, the orthodox believer) was unique. He continued to hold positions of influence, and in his orations counsiled emperors in humanity (philanthropy), brotherly love, and mercy. Themistius is an ideologue of enlightened monarchy. According to Themistius, an emperor’s power and philosophy are two instruments of divine care for the people (Dagron 1968). According to Themistius, a monarch (βασιλεύς, ἀυτοκράτωρ) can be compared to God as he is chosen 180

N. N. Bolgov. Themistius and His Works … by God and thus deserves to be called “born and nursed by Zeus.” The empire is the imitation (mimesis) of heaven. As opposed to the emperor himself, the institution of imperial power is divine. An emperor is the law incarnate. His humanity and good will are laudable, which makes him the opposite of a tyrant. He is born as emperor and his nature is regal. He is equal to the Sun and a guardian of souls. He brings harmony to different powers in the state. His regalness is in virtue, and not in the outward symbols of power. His justice exceeds the limitations of written law. There are four regal virtues: wisdom, mercy, truth, and justice. The ruler ought to be a philosopher. He should be humane, one of the main characteristics of a statesman. In his Oration 6, 76cd, Themistius wrote, “One who loves his brother, loves his neighbor. One who loves his neighbor loves his homeland. One who loves his homeland loves the people,” that is Themistius adopted the basic principles of the Stoic theory of affinity. Philanthropy as regal virtue and ideological substantiation of regal power is retraced in such orations as “Panegyrics” by Julian to Emperor Constantius, “On Regal Power” by Dio Chrysostom, and “On Regal Power” by Pseudo-Aristides. The general idea of this literature, which builds upon such works as “Busiris” by Isocrates, “Cyropaedia” and “Agesilaus” by Xenophon, and “The Republic” by Plato, is the affirmation of virtue as the true sanction of power. In his oration “On Friendship” (Orat. 22), Themistius criticized the traditional Greek educational system, which was based on study of Homer’s poems glorifying anger and enmity; philosophy, which taught kindness, was neglected. According to Themistius, philosophy, not poetry, should be the true foundation of a child’s upbringing (Downey 1955). Themistius’s educational program was based on two key principles: 1) the value of Greek philosophy, especially its theory of morality, allowing everyone to lead a life that promoted self-education (Downey 1957), and 2) a true state system was possible only if both the ruler and his subjects had a classical education and virtue. Themistius’s private orations deal with polemics about Christianity, cultural pragmatics (rhetorical and philosophical), autobiographical material, and philosophical discourses. He also reasoned about the nature of power, the ideal ruler, war, the benefit of philosophy, and the drawbacks of the Greek educational system (Downey 1955). Some orations were devoted to the problems of oratorical skill, in which he wanted an orator to prepare carefully, offer serious ideas, and be able to characterize a person so that the audience could identity him even if his name was not spoken. Only oration 30, a routine educational document, is out of tune with the rest of his works. Themistius is a unique example of a humanist of the Late Antiquity who combined in himself classical education, a value system, and service to Christian emperors without regard to world views. He was a rarity in the period of the final struggle between Christianity and paganism in the late fourth century. Thus, in some instances, Themistius anticipated the later 181

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 “last pagans” of Byzantium in the fifth and sixth centuries (Pamprepius, Illus and Zosimus), who preserved their paganism in their private life. Themistius’s significance is that he was not only a court orator, but a gifted and whole-hearted humanist of the transitional period, one of the creators of cultural continuity between Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Orations by Themistius:6 Political (I-XIX) Oration 1. On the Love of Mankind; or Constantius. Oration 2. Thanksgiving to Constantius – Also a Perfect Philosopher and Emperor. Oration 3. Embassy Speech for Constantinople Delivered in Rome. Oration 4. To the Emperor Constantius. Oration 5. On the Consulship, to the Emperor Jovian. Oration 6. On Brotherly Love, or On Philanthropia. Oration 7. On Those Who Were Defeated under Valens. Oration 8. Five Years. Oration 9. The Hortative Oration to the Young Emperor Valentinian. Oration 10. On Concluding of Peace (to the Emperor Valens). Oration 11. A Decade, or, On the Emperor’s Duty. Oration 12. To Valens On Religions (Latin). Oration 13. Enamored, or, On Beauty of One Who Reigns. Oration 14. Embassy to the Emperor Theodosius. Oration 15. To Theodosius or The Most Royal of the Virtues Oration 16. Speech of Thanksgiving to the Emperor for the Peace and the Consulship of the General Saturninus. Oration 17. On the Election to the Urban Prefecture. Oration 18. On Emperor’s Love to Listen. Oration 19. On the Autocrat Theodosius’s Philanthropy. Private (20-34)7 Oration 20. A Funeral Oration in Honor of His Father. Oration 21. The Examiner, or, The philosopher. Oration 22. On Friendship. Oration 23. The Sophist. Oration 24. An Exhortation to the Nicomedians. Oration 25. In Reply to One Who Asked for an Extempore Oration. Oration 26. On Speaking, or, How the Philosopher Should Speak. Oration 27. On the Need to Give Thought, Not to Where [We Study] but to the Men [Who Will Teach us]. Oration 28. The Disquisition on speaking.

Published in Schenkl and Downey 1965-1974; Euphrada 2011. Indices to orations can be found in Garzya 1989. Incomplete translation of Themistius`s orations into English is available in Heather and Moncur 2001. 7 Translation of Themistius`s private orations can be found in Penella 2000. 6

182

N. N. Bolgov. Themistius and His Works … Oration 29. In Reply to Those Who Interpret [His Oration] “Sophist” Incorrectly. Oration 30. Should One Engage in Farming? Oration 31. Concerning My Presidency [of the Senate], addressed to the Senate of Constantinople. Oration 32. On Moderation of One’s Emotions, or, On Love to One’s Children. Oration 33. [Title lost]. Oration 34. In Reply to Those who Found Fault with Him for Accepting Public Office. Translated from Russian by Natalia V. Grigorenko and Emily B. Baran REFERENCES 1. Ballériaux, О. 1994. “Thémistius et le Néoplatonisme: le νοῦς παθητικός et l'immortalitate de l'ame.” Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 12 (2): 171–200. 2. Blumenthal, H. 1990. “Themistius, the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?” In Aristotle Transformed, edited by R. Sorabji, 113–123. London: Duckworth. 3. Brague, R. (trad.). 1999. Thémistius, Paraphrase de la «Métaphysique» d'Aristote (livre Lambda). Trad. de l'hébreu et de l'arabe, introd., notes par R. Brague. Paris: Vrin. 4. Dagron, G. 1968. “L'empire romain d'orient au IV siècle et les traditions politiques de l'Hellénisme. Le témoignage de Thémistios.” Travaux et Mémoires 3: 1–242. 5. Downey, G. 1957. “Themistius and the Defense of Hellenism in the Fourth Century.” Harvard Theological Review 50 (4): 259–274. 6. Downey, G. 1955. “Education and Public Problems as Seen by Themistius.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 86: 291–307. 7. Euphrada, T., ed. 2011. Themistii Orationes Ex Codice Mediolanensi. Nabu Press, 2011. 8. Garzya, A., ed. 1989. Themistii orations index auctus (Hellenica et Byzantina Neapolitana, Colana di Studi e Testi, 11). Naples: Bibliopolis. 9. Heather, P. and D.d Moncur, transl. 2001. Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century: Selected Orations of Themistius. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. 10.Heinze, R., ed. 1899. In De anima paraphrases. CAG V, 3. Вerlin: Greimer. 11.Landauer, S., ed. 1903. In Metaphysica 12, lat. et. hebr. CAG V 5. Вerlin: Greimer. 12.Landauer, S., ed. 1902. In De Caelo, lat. et hebr. CAG V, 4. Вerlin: Greimer. 13.Meridier, L. 1906. Le philisoph Themistios. Paris: Hachette et cie. 14.Penella, R. J., trans. 2000. The Private Orations of Themistius. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. 15.Schemmel, F. 1908. “Die Hochschule von Konstantinopel im IV. Jahrhundert.” Neue Jahrbücher fur Pädagogik 22: 147–168.

183

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 16.Schenkl, H., ed. 1900. In Physica paraphrases. CAG V, 2. Вerlin: Greimer. 17.Schenkl, H., G. Downey, eds. 1965–1974. Themistii orationes quae supersunt. Vols. 1–3. Leipzig: Teubner. 18.Schroeder, F. M., R.В. Todd, eds. 1990. Two Greek Aristotelian Commentators on the Intellect: The De Intellectu Attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius' Paraphrase of Aristotle De Anima, III 4-8. Toronto, Ont.: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. 19.Solopova, M. A. 2008. “Femistii [Themistius].” In Antichnaia filosofiia. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar' [Ancient Philosophy. Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia publ. Accessed January 15, 2014. http://encdic.com/phyantich/Femisti-261/ 20.Solopova, M. A., trans. and comment. 2005. “Femistii i ego kommentarii k «O dushe» Aristotelia (II.1–2) [Themistius and His Commentary on Aristotle`s “On the Soul.” In Kosmos i dusha [Cosmos and Soul]. Edited by P. P. Gaidenko and V.V. Petrov, 420–429. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia publ. 21.Todd, R.B., trans. and comm. 2003. Themistius on Aristotle Physics 4. АСА. London; Ithaca: Bristol Classical Press. 22.Todd, R.B., trans. and comm. 1996. Themistius. On Aristotle On the Soul. АСА. London; Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 23.Val'denberg, V. E. 2008. Istoriia vizantiiskoi politicheskoi literatury v sviazi s istoriei filosofskikh techenii i zakonodatel'stva [A History of Byzantine Political Literature in Connection with the History of Philosophical Trends and Legislation]. Prepared for publication by V. I. Zemskova. Sankt Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin publ. 24.Vanderspoel, J. 1996. Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 25.Vanderspoel, J. 1989. “The «Themistius Collection» of Commentaries on Plato and Aristotle.” Phoenix 43, 2: 162–164. 26.Wallies, M., ed. 1900. Themistii Analyticorum Posteriorum paraphrases. CAG V, 1. Вerlin: Greimer.

184

Tassilo Schmitt. “Germanen“ und römische Politik “GERMANEN“ UND RÖMISCHE POLITIK Tassilo Schmitt Universität Bremen

Tассило Шмитт Бременский университет

Abstract. Nach der Eroberung Galliens von Caesar waren Konflikte der Römer auf dem östlichen Ufer Rheins als ―Kriege gegen ‗Germanen‗― bekannt. Dieser Artikel führt vor, wie jene Feinde den Namen „Germanen― bekommen haben und wie diese Bezeichnung wahrgenommen wurde. Es werden die römischen Methoden der Bewahrung des Imperiums, sowie die Rolle der Widerstreite mit den „Germanen― für die römischen Kaiser beschrieben. Schlüsselwörter: Römer, Germanen, Germania, Gegner, Kriege. E-mail: tschmitt[at]uni-bremen.de Copyright: © 2014 Schmitt. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

“GERMANS” AND THE POLICY OF ROME Abstract. After Caesar‘s conquest of Gaul, the Romans went to battle in the "wars against 'Germans'" on the eastern bank of the Rhine River. This article explores how this new enemy came to be known as "the Germans" and the significance of this name. It also examines how Romans secured the empire and the importance of conflict with the "Germans" for Roman emperors. Keywords: Romans, Germans, Germania, contenders, wars. УДК 94 (37)

«ГЕРМАНЦЫ» И ПОЛИТИКА РИМА Аннотация. После завоевания Цезарем Галлии римляне вступили в борьбу за земли на восточном берегу Рейна. Эти столкновения стали известны как «войны против "германцев"». В статье дано объяснение, почему эти племена именовались «германцами» и как трактовалось это название. Проанализированы методы защиты Римской империи и значение столкновений с «германцами» для императоров Рима. Ключевые войны.

слова: римляне, германцы, Германия, 185

противники,

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 „Seit 210 Jahren―, so formuliert Tacitus in seiner im Jahre 98 n. Chr. verfassten Schrift Germania, „wird Germania besiegt.― Der Autor spannt damit den Bogen von der Gründung der Stadt, in deren 640. Jahr–das ist 113 v. Chr.–man zum ersten Mal von den Waffentaten der Kimbern gehört habe, bis zu seiner Gegenwart. Jenes Jahr markiert für ihn einen Einschnitt, seit dem die Römer Völkern aus dem Norden immer noch nicht Herr geworden sind. Die „Germanen― stehen für ihn hier in einer Reihe mit den Samniten, den Karthagern, den spanischen Völkerschaften, den Galliern und den Parthern, also mit all den großen Gegnern der Römer. Eines unterscheidet erstere aber: Über sie seien zwar ebenfalls Triumphe gefeiert worden, besiegt seien sie hingegen nicht (Tacitus, Germania XXXVII 2-5).1 Der weite Horizont dieses historischen Überblicks hat seine Wirkung nicht verfehlt. Die anscheinend „ewige― Feindschaft zwischen Römern und Germanen konnte seit der Wiederentdeckung der Germania im 15. Jahrhundert als Vorstufe eigener zeitgenössischer Konflikte thematisiert werden, sei es zwischen Reformation und Römischer Kirche oder zwischen der deutschen und der französischen Nation. Tacitus‘ Aussage verlieh diesen Auseinandersetzungen historische Tiefe und Relief—und machte vergessen, dass seine Deutungen hier wie anderswo keineswegs selbstverständlich und sehr voraussetzungsreich sind (Timpe 1995): Es war und ist ein schwerer Fehler, Tacitus‘ Darstellung ohne Weiteres als eine gültige Aussage über das Verhältnis der Römer zu denen zu betrachten, die von ihm hier als Germani ezeichnet werden. Vor diesem Fehlschluss kann schon der Befund warnen, dass im Jahre 83 n. Chr. Domitian (81–96 n. Chr.) zur Bekräftigung des Anspruchs, das „Germanen-Problem― endgültig gelöst zu haben, als erster römischer Kaiser den Siegesbeinamen Germanicus annahm und den Monat September in Germanicus umbenannte. Auch die Benennung der von Domitan geschaffenen Provinzen Germania Superior (Obergermanien) und Germania Inferior (Niedergermanien) verkündete diesen Sieg. Solche Aussagen sind es, gegen die Tacitus polemisiert, die aber immerhin doch die Frage aufwerfen, wie es denn mit dem angeblichen Dauerkonflikt wirklich bestellt war. Unter den Kaisern Nerva (96–98 n. Chr.) und Trajan (98–117 n. Chr.) ist es dann noch zu gelegentlichen Feldzügen gegen „Germanen― gekommen, an die diese Herrscher ebenfalls jeweils durch den Siegesbeinamen Germanicus oder durch die Prägung von Münzen mit Germania capta („Germanien ist eingenommen―) erinnert haben. Aber eine starke Bedrohung aus der Germania ist nirgends erkennbar. Die Zahl der Legionen wurde reduziert. Sogar die Befestigung des Limes und seine Vorverlegung im zweiten Jahrhundert verweisen nicht auf gravierende Sicherheitsprobleme, sondern dienen vor allem der Ordnung im Grenzgebiet, die ganz so gestaltet werden konnte, wie die Römer sich Gute allgemeine Überblicke bei Beck et al 1998; Pohl 2004; Wolfers 2008; Bleckmann 2009. Die neueste Forschung erschließt Timpe 2012. 1

186

Tassilo Schmitt. “Germanen“ und römische Politik das vorstellten (Schallmayer 2006; Pietzner 2009). Mit massivem Widerstand durch „Germanen― mussten sie dabei nicht rechnen. Die nach Tacitus angeblich schwärende Wunde an der römischen Nordgrenze war also vielmehr im Wesentlichen ausgeheilt. Als sich schließlich unter Marcus Aurelius (161–180 n. Chr.) zunächst im unteren Donauraum, im dritten Jahrhundert wieder jenseits von Neckar und Rhein Gefahren zusammenbrauten, liegen neue, eigene Entwicklungen vor: Die beginnenden Auseinandersetzungen mit Marcomanni, Alamanni, Franci und anderen werden in zeitgenössischen Quellen anfänglich zwar gelegentlich als „germanische― Konflikte bezeichnet. Dabei spielt die Erinnerung an die früheren Kämpfe eine Rolle. Aber im allgemeinen Verständnis handelte es sich gerade nicht um ein Wiederaufleben einer „germanischen― Urbedrohung. Deswegen wird die Bezeichnung „germanisch― auch immer seltener. Erst die Neuzeit hat im Banne des Tacitus einen jahrhundertelangen römisch-germanischen Gegensatz konstruiert. Pointiert ausgedrückt: Gerade die, die in der späteren Kaiserzeit schwerste Kämpfe im Norden zu bestehen hatten, kämpften gegen Gegner, die man nur anachronistisch „Germanen― nennen konnte. Deren Selbstverständnis entsprach diese Bezeichnung gewiss nicht. Das gilt erst recht für die so genannten „Germanischen― Nachfolgereiche, die erst die Moderne zu solchen gemacht hat. Der Name „Germanen― wurde, wie Tacitus in einem schwierigen, erst spät in der Forschung überzeugend gedeuteten Satz erkennen lässt, von den Römern auf die Völkerschaften jenseits des Rheins übertragen, die Caesar in seinem Gallischen Krieg nicht unterworfen hatte (Timpe 1995, 61–92). Vorher waren als „Germanen― nur einige besonders kriegstüchtige Stämme bezeichnet worden, von denen man sich erzählte, dass sie lange vor der caesarischen Eroberung den Rhein überschritten, die Vorbevölkerung vertrieben und sich in deren fruchtbaren Gebieten niedergelassen hätten (Caesar, Bellum Gallicum II 4,2). Diese Germanen waren schon dem Universalgelehrten Poseidonios (135–51 v. Chr.) bekannt. Von seiner Darstellung ist nur ein aus dem Zusammenhang gerissener Satz erhalten: „Die Germanen … tragen zur Mittagszeit gliederweise gebratenes Fleisch auf und trinken Milch dazu und den Wein ungemischt―.2 Griechische und römische Leser dieses Fragmentes erkannten an derartigen Esssitten, dass es sich bei diesen „Germanen― um solche handeln musste, deren zivilisatorische Standards an Homers Zyklopen erinnerten, besonders „wilde― Menschen also. Damit knüpft Poseidonios gewiss an das Bild an, das die Nachbarn dieser „Germanen― von ihnen zeichneten. Aber er unterscheidet sie nicht grundsätzlich von den Galliern oder Kelten. Für ihn wie für die älteren Geographen und Ethnographen gab es im Norden nur Kelten (Gallier) im Westen und Skythen im Osten; die „Germanen― hielten sie für einen wilden Teil der Kelten. Poseidonios hat auch die Kämpfe mit den Kimbern beschrieben 2

FGrHist 87 F 22 = Fr 73 Edelstein-Kidd; vgl. Malitz 1983, 204.

187

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 und es dabei nicht versäumt, über deren Herkunft und Eigenart Forschungen anzustellen. Nichts deutet darauf hin, dass er sie—ganz anders als später Tacitus—nicht ebenfalls als Teil der Kelten angesehen hätte; Verbindungen zu den „Germanen― hat er nicht hergestellt. Bis in die Zeit Caesars also waren „Germanen― nur als eine Untergruppe der Kelten bekannt: Ihren Nachbarn galten sie als später hinzugekommene Eindringlinge. Auch das bei Poseidonios bezeugte Merkmal der besonderen Wildheit wird ursprünglich auf deren Schilderungen zurückgehen. Allerdings waren diese „Germanen― deswegen nicht isoliert. Vor allem mit den Belgern hatten sie sich vielfach verbunden und dazu beigetragen, dass diese als hervorragende Krieger galten (Caesar, Ibid. II 4,3). Erst Caesar hat Germanen und Kelten deutlich differenziert. Seine Unterscheidung konnte gewiss deswegen überzeugen, weil Caesar durch die jahrelangen Feldzüge (58–51 v. Chr.) und vielfältige Kontakte ein ungleich größeres Wissen über die Verhältnisse im Norden gewonnen hatte als jeder Römer (und Grieche) vor ihm. Genau hat er festgehalten, dass jemand wie Ariovist, der aus Gebieten weit jenseits des Rheins gekommen war, üblicherweise einen Dolmetscher brauchte, um mit den Völkerschaften diesseits des Rheins in Gespräch zu kommen (Caesar, Ibid. I 47,4). Aber es ist ganz unwahrscheinlich, dass solche Beobachtungen zu Kultur und Sprache der wesentliche Grund dafür waren, den „Germanen― einen eigenen Platz neben den Kelten einzuräumen. Caesars Motivation lässt sich vielmehr dann erschließen, wenn man berücksichtigt, dass es ihm darauf ankommen musste, den Kampf gegen Ariovist zu legitimieren, der immerhin den ihn vom Senat verliehenen Titel eines „Freundes des römischen Volkes―. Deswegen rückte Caesar die von Ariovist ausgehende Bedrohung in einen engen Zusammenhang mit den Kimbern, derer Herr zu werden den Römern so große Schwierigkeiten bereitet hatte: Wie diese kamen auch Ariovist und seine Sueben aus Gebieten weit jenseits des Horizontes, den die Menschen Italiens und der Mittelmeerwelt überblickten. Dieser Heimat weitab von jeglicher Gesittung verdankten sie ihre besondere Unberechenbarkeit und Gefährlichkeit; hier wuchs eine Bedrohung Italiens heran (Vgl. Caesar, Ibid. I 33,4). Ihr zu begegnen präsentierte sich Caesar als der richtige Mann, der zugleich bewusst an das Erbe seines Onkels, des Kimbernsiegers Marius, anknüpfte. Der barbarische Übermut musste bezwungen werden. Für die Benennung dieser Barbaren als „Germanen― benutzte Caesar eine ältere Bezeichnung, die linksrheinisch für eine besonders militante, aus dem Rechtsrheinischen stammende Gruppe von Völkern verwendet worden war. Damit übertrug er diesen Namen auf die gesamte Völkerwelt rechts des Rheines. Die, die bislang allein „Germanen― geheißen hatten, mussten nun konsequent „Germanen diesseits des Rheins― (Germani cisrhenani) genannt werden. Caesar selbst übernahm zugleich die Rolle des Schutzherrn aller Gallier, indem er sie von den „Germanen― und von der Furcht vor ihnen befreite. 188

Tassilo Schmitt. “Germanen“ und römische Politik Gerade weil er so zum Patron wurde, wählte er einen Namen, der für seine neuen gallischen Klienten (und deren römische Verbindungsleute) ein deutliches Relief besaß und nicht etwa den der „Sueben―, der angesichts von Ariovists Verbindungen ebenfalls in Frage gekommen wäre. Die Abspaltung der Germania vom gallischen Norden war Caesar aber auch in seiner innerrömischen Rivalität mit Pompeius von Nutzen: Dieser war wenige Jahre zuvor im Jahre 61 v. Chr. von erfolgreichen Unternehmungen im Osten zurückgekehrt und hatte einen Triumph für einen Sieg über „Asien― gefeiert (Plinius, Naturalis historia VII 98), sich also als Bezwinger eines Erdteils stilisiert. „Gallien― konnte als Begriff für den gesamten westlichen Norden ebenfalls als ein solcher Erdteil aufgefasst werden. Um nicht hinter Pompeius zurückzubleiben, genügte es aber nicht, dort einige Feldzüge unternommen zu haben. Nein, „Gallien in seiner Ganzheit― musste für das römische Volk gewonnen werden! Den Bericht über die Kriege dort leitet Caesar deswegen pointiert mit einer Skizze „Galliens in seiner Gesamtheit― (Gallia … omnis) ein, bevor er schildert, wie er dort in harten Schlachten den römischen Frieden (pax Romana) durchsetzte. Der Anspruch, dies in „ganz Gallien― getan zu haben, war nur dann aufrecht zu erhalten, wenn die Gebiete östlich des Rheins von Gallien abgetrennt wurden. Caesar also konstituierte die Germanen als eine eigene Völkergruppe. Das von ihnen bewohnte Gebiet wurde als Germania bezeichnet. Insbesondere im ersten Jahrhundert n. Chr. wirkte sich die Herkunft der Benennung nach einem „Angst-―Gegner—ursprünglich von (anderen) Kelten—insofern aus, als Germania auch das Aufgabengebiet von römischen Feldherren im Norden meinen und schließlich ab Domitian für die neuen Provinzen Germania Superior und Germania Inferior verwendet werden konnte. Für ethnographische Betrachtungen warf das Auftreten dieser neuen Völkergruppe die Frage auf, was denn an ihr besonders sei. Man gewann die Kriterien wesentlich aus der Übersteigerung der schon den Kelten zugeschriebenen Eigenschaft der Wildheit, die noch von keiner Zivilisation gebändigt worden war. Als Prototypen standen die Germani cisrhenani für solche, die (angeblich) aus der Tiefe des Nordens kommend noch diesen barbarischen Zug bewahrt hatten, der gemildert worden wäre—so konnte man schließen,—wenn sie schon länger mit anderen, von der mediterranen Kultur beeinflussten Stämmen in Berührung gekommen wären. „Germanen― sind demnach in den Jahrzehnten um die Zeitenwende erst kürzlich in den Gesichtskreis der Mittelmeerwelt und ihrer unmittelbaren Anrainer getretene Völkerschaften des Nordens, die aus unbekannter Ferne stammten, besonders wild waren und sich wegen der räumlichen, kulturellen und sprachlichen Distanz zu den übrigen Kelten auch nicht recht mit ihnen verständigen konnten. Caesar hatte im Falle der Kimbern vorgemacht, dass man ethnische Einheiten auch nachträglich zu den „Germanen― rechnen konnte. In der Ethnographie hat man das am in mancher 189

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Hinsicht typologisch verwandten Beispiel der Bastarner wiederholt, die seit dem dritten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert als sehr wilde Neuankömmlinge südlich der unteren Donau wahrgenommen, zunächst als Kelten registriert und schließlich den Germanen zugeordnet worden sind.3 Tacitus‘ Germania hat diese Anschauung dann in eine für die spätere Nachwelt gültige Form gebracht und eine Germania omnis („Germanien in seiner Gesamtheit―) zum Gegenstand seiner Germania gemacht, ein von „Germanen― bewohntes Gebiet, das durch Rhein und Donau begrenzt ist, im Osten bis zu Sarmaten und Dakern reicht und im Norden vom Ozean umspült ist (Tacitus, Germania I). Wenn Caesars Abtrennung der rechtsrheinischen Gebiete vom Keltenland und die Konstitution der Völkergruppe der „Germanen― also vornehmlich aus den Umständen und Notwendigkeiten des römischen Siegers über Gallien erklärt werden muss, kann gleichwohl nicht bestritten werden, dass seine ethnische Identifikation der von Ariovist geführten Scharen mit den Kimbern der vorangegangenen Jahrhunderts eine typologische Plausibilität hatte. Jedes Mal handelt es sich um hoch mobile, durch Jungmannschaften geprägte, weite Strecken überwindende Kriegerscharen, die vielfach als Verbündete in innerkeltischen Auseinandersetzungen um den Vorrang im regionalen oder überregionalen Kontext ihre Aufgabe gefunden hatten (Vgl. Timpe 1994/2006). Ariovist war zunächst Anführer einer von den Sequanern in den Rivalitäten mit ihren Nachbarn hinzugezogenen Unterstützungsmannschaft, konnte sich dann aber als selbstständiger Machtfaktor etablieren. Das ermöglichte auch den Nachzug von Frauen und Familien. Neben dem „Bedarf― an derartigen Truppen für die innerkeltischen Kämpfe haben im Einzelnen auch spezifische Faktoren in den Herkunftsgebieten, generell aber das kulturelle und ökonomische Gefälle zwischen den Völkerschaften im Norden und Osten und dem wesentlich reicheren gallischen Westen jeweils eine wichtige Rolle gespielt: Für Anführer wie Ariovist und ihre Männer gab es in Reichtum und Ansehen viel zu gewinnen. Die Römer erbten als neue Macht am Rhein diese Problemlage— und sie verhielten sich analog. Wie „germanische― Kämpfer vorher oft auf beiden Seiten zu finden waren, haben die Römer auf der einen Seite „barbarische― Übergriffe wie die eines Ariovist mit aller Macht bekämpft, sich auf der anderen Seite aber auch von Anfang an „germanischer― Hilfstruppen bedient. Solche Einheiten sind seit Caesar bezeugt und haben im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert mindestens zweimal in historisch bedeutsamer Weise in den Gang der römischen Geschichte eingegriffen: Arminius, der Sieger der Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald im Jahre 9 n. Chr., hat den Aufstand gegen den Statthalter Varus zunächst innerhalb der römischen Armee, als „Anführer― einer nach ethnischen Gesichtspunkten formierten Hilfstruppe (ductor popularium (Tacitus, Quellen und Diskussion bei Bleckmann 2009, 48–54, der die Bastarner als die am frühesten bezeugten „Germanen vor den Germanen― ansieht. 3

190

Tassilo Schmitt. “Germanen“ und römische Politik Annales II 10,3)) initiiert. In den Bürgerkriegen nach dem Ende der Julisch-Claudischen Kaiserdynastie spielen die Truppen der Bataver eine aktive und bedeutsame Rolle (so genannter Bataver-Aufstand 69–70 n. Chr.) (Vgl. Timpe 2005/2006). Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass gerade diese beiden Erfahrungen mit Einheiten, die ins römische Militär eingegliedert worden waren, sich dann aber gegen die Römer wandten, Tacitus‘ Ansicht von den „Germanen―, insbesondere von ihrer NichtIntegrierbarkeit wesentlich geprägt haben. Hinter seiner Darstellung stecken demnach (vielleicht durchaus individuell) gewichtete Erfahrungen der römisch-„germanischen― Beziehungen seit Caesar bis zum Ende des ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts. Dieselben Ansichten und Schlüsse dürfen für die Zeitgenossen der Phase nach Caesars Weggang aus Gallien keineswegs vorausgesetzt werden. Dessen Parallelisierung von Kimbern und „Germanen― lieferte für die Zeit unmittelbar danach keine eindeutigen Handlungsmaximen. Völlig unvorhersehbar musste es zunächst sein, wie die „Germanen― auf die römische Eroberung Galliens und auf die Sicherung und den Ausbau der römischen Herrschaft dort reagieren würden: Als „Verbündete― in innergallischen Händeln wurden sie nicht mehr gebraucht. Manche werden ihr Auskommen bei den Römern gesucht haben, für wieder andere änderte sich anscheinend wenig daran, im reichen Gallien ein Betätigungsfeld für männliche Kriegerehre und das Ziel von Beutezügen zu sehen. Entsprechend darf man annehmen, dass die Etablierung der römischen Herrschaft wesentlich mit der Sicherung der eroberten „gallischen― Gebiete durch Infrastrukturmaßnahmen und durch die Bekämpfung von „Überfällen― beschäftigt war. Die Quellen, die sich auf die innerrömischen Bürgerkriege zunächst im Zusammenhang mit Caesars Weg zur Alleinherrschaft, dann um sein Erbe konzentrieren, verraten kaum Einzelheiten von der Entwicklung der nächsten Jahrzehnte. Selbst ein so wesentliches Faktum wie die Umsiedlung der Ubier durch Augustus‘ Schwiegersohn Agrippa als Voraussetzung für die Gründung der Stadt ara Ubiorum, dem späteren Köln, kann nicht eindeutig der ersten oder der zweiten Statthalterschaft in Gallien 39–38 v. Chr. oder 19 v. Chr. zugeordnet werden. 4 Einen Wendepunkt markiert die Niederlage des römischen Statthalters in Gallien M. Lollius im Jahre 16 v. Chr. (clades Lolliana) im Kampf gegen Sugambrer, die den Rhein überschritten hatten. Das nur durch lapidare Notizen bekannte Ereignis (Velleius Paterculus, Historia Romana II XCVII 1; Sueton, Augustus XXIII 1; Cassius Dio LIV 20, 4-6) ist in seiner militärischen Bedeutung nicht einzuschätzen. Wesentlicher war aber, dass es den Feinden gelungen war, einen Legionsadler zu erbeuten. Das bedeutete einen Rückschlag für Kaiser Augustus, der seine Rolle als Sieger weltweit kurz zuvor dadurch unter Beweis gestellt hatte, dass er 20 v. Chr. endlich die Legionsadler zurückgewinnen 4

Zum römischen Köln umfassend Eck 2004.

191

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 konnte, die im Jahre 53 v. Chr. durch die Niederlage des Crassus bei Carrhae an die Parther verloren worden waren. Nun war vier Jahre später wieder eine solche Standarte in den Händen von Feinden. Es ist deutlich, dass von nun an für lange Zeit—wie bei Caesar—„Germanen―Politik und Kriegszüge gegen sie ganz eng mit dem Prestige des Kaisers selbst verbunden wurden. Da dessen Stellung entscheidend darauf beruhte, dass er sich als militärisch erfolgreicher Führer (imperator) bewährte, waren außenpolitische Erfolge ein Teil der Herrschaftssicherung. Deswegen richtete sich nun eine verstärkte Aufmerksamkeit des Kaisers (und der Quellen) auf die Verhältnisse an der Nordgrenze. Die Bedeutung für Augustus lässt sich unmittelbar daran ablesen, dass nun meist enge Vertraute oder Verwandte des Herrschers das Kommando führten (Agrippa, Drusus, Tiberius, Varus, Germanicus). Politik und Kriegführung waren in den folgenden Jahrzehnten von der Grenz- und Vorfeldsicherung, von der Notwendigkeit des Kaisers, den Schutz Galliens sowie das Ansehen einer siegreichen Armee zu gewährleisten und von dem Bedürfnis kaiserlicher Verwandter bestimmt, sich als erfolgreiche Feldherren zu bewähren. Die konkreten Entscheidungen waren außerdem abhängig vom Verhalten der „Germanen― und der Einschätzung ihrer Gefährlichkeit, von der Kenntnis und Erschließung der Räume für die Auseinandersetzung und von der allgemeinen politischen Lage, in die die Verhältnisse in anderen Regionen des Reiches ebenso eingingen wie die wechselnden dynastischen oder sonstigen Überlegungen zur Stabilisierung der Kaiserherrschaft. Welche jeweiligen kurz-, mittel- und langfristigen Pläne dabei konzipiert wurden, ist nicht überliefert und kann deswegen nur aus den Unternehmungen selbst abgeleitet werden. Aus der kontroversen Forschungsdiskussion kann die Meinung, dass die Römer wegen ihres Selbstverständnisses als Weltenherrscher bereit oder gar genötigt waren, grundsätzlich schrankenlos auszugreifen, sicher ausgeschlossen werden. Augustus hatte gezeigt, wie auch Kompromisse als Sieg und Verständigungen als Unterwerfung dargestellt werden konnten: Er stand unter keinem ideologischen Druck dieser Art. Im Übrigen sind die Möglichkeiten großräumiger Planungen durch die bessere Landeskenntnis und den Ausbau militärischer Infrastruktur sicher gewachsen. Dasselbe muss aber auch für das Bewusstsein davon gelten, dass lange Verbindungslinien stärker gefährdet waren und dass kein Vorstoß nach Osten zu einer „natürlichen―, leicht zu stabilisierenden Grenze führte. Diesen Ambivalenzen konnte man sich defensiver oder offensiver stellen. Der Kaiser mochte seine Meinung auch revidieren oder anderen Überlegungen den Vorzug geben. Er konnte es für nötig halten, umfassende Strategien zu entwerfen, oder auch nur auf wirkliche oder angenommene Bedrohungen reagieren: Grundsätzlich lässt sich (meist) ein sehr rational kalkulierendes Vorgehen beobachten, das eher weniger zu der These passt, die 192

Tassilo Schmitt. “Germanen“ und römische Politik Führungskräfte hätten vornehmlich weit ausgreifende Strategien verfolgt. Als Folge der clades Lolliana wurden die in Gallien stationierten Legionen dauerhaft an den Rhein vorverlegt. An den Mündungen der beiden wichtigsten Germanien nach Osten erschließenden Flüsse Lippe und Main entstanden die Lager Castra Vetera (Xanten) und Moguntiacum (Mainz). Augustus selbst weilte zunächst mehrere Jahre in Gallien (16–13 v. Chr.). Im Jahre 12 v. Chr. eröffnete sein Adoptiv-Sohn Drusus als Reaktion auf neuerliche Germanenüberfälle die Offensive. Beim vierten Jahresfeldzug 9 v. Chr. erreichte er die Elbe. Auf dem Rückmarsch starb er an den Folgen eines Reitunfalls. Von ihm übernahm sein eilends nach Norden aufgebrochener Bruder Tiberius das Kommando, beendete im Jahre 8 v. Chr. den Krieg und konnte am 1. Januar 7 v. Chr. einen Triumph feiern. Der zeitgenössische Historiker Aufidius Bassus notiert, dass sich „zwischen Elbe und Rhein alle Germanen dem Tiberius Nero unterworfen― hätten (Aufidius Bassus F 3 Peter: inter Albim et Rhenum Germani omnes Tiberio Neroni dediti). Zentrale Achsen der Kriegführung und dann auch der Kontrolle waren die östlichen Nebenflüsse des Rheins und von der Nordsee aus vor allem Ems und Weser, schließlich auch die Elbe. Die vom Militär geleisteten Pionierarbeiten in der Erschließung des Landes müssen gewaltig gewesen sein. Dazu kam die Anlage mächtiger Lager vor allem an der Lippe (Oberaden; 8 v. Chr. wieder aufgegeben), aber auch kleinerer Vor- und Überwachungsposten wie dem, der kürzlich bei Hedemünden an der Werra entdeckte wurde (Grote 2006). Aus der militärischen Infrastruktur konnten sich aber mancherorts im Laufe der Zeit auch neue Zentren ziviler Nutzung entwickeln. Die Grabungsergebnisse in Haltern können das ebenso verdeutlichen wie der sensationelle Nachweis einer sich monumentalisierenden Siedlung in Waldgirmes (Becker und Rasbach 2006). Die zumindest partiell intensive wirtschaftliche Erschließung ist jüngst durch den Nachweis von Bleibergbau im Sauerland sichtbar geworden (Rothenhöfer und Hanel 2005). Die rechtsrheinischen Gebiete verblieben zwar unter dem Kommando des Statthalters von Gallien, nahmen aber immer mehr den Charakter einer eigenen Provinz an. Allenthalben lässt sich beobachten, dass die Römer es auch hier verstanden haben müssen, nach der Errichtung ihrer Herrschaft feindliche Stämme und Gruppierungen zum Beispiel durch Umsiedlungen oder Vertreibung zu isolieren, vor allem aber weite Teile der Stammeseliten zu gewinnen: Arminius machte Karriere als römischer Offizier. Ohne Konflikte in diesen Völkerschaften ist das oft gewiss nicht verlaufen—und es blieb noch hinreichend Potenzial für die anti-römische Optionen. So waren Versuche des Statthalters L. Domitius Ahenobarbus um die Zeitenwende, in der cheruskischen Innenpolitik Einfluss zu nehmen, nicht erfolgreich und M. Vinicius sowie Tiberius fochten Kämpfe seit 1 n. Chr bis 5 n. Chr. aus, für die sie in Rom ausgezeichnet wurden; ihre Siege wurden zu solchen eines großen Krieges stilisiert (bellum immensum) (Velleius 193

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Paterculus, Historia Romana II 104, 2).5 Eine wirkliche Erschütterung der römischen Machtposition war damit aber wohl nirgends verbunden. Als gefährlich erschienen solche Stammesführer, die bei und mit den Römern gelernt hatten, wie diese ihre Kriege führten. Jedenfalls hielten es Tiberius und Augustus für angemessen, den zunächst mit den Römern verbundenen Markomannenkönig Marbod, der in Böhmen ein weit ausgreifendes Herrschaftszentrum errichtet hatte, in seine Schranken zu verweisen. Der gegen ihn vorbereitete Zangenangriff, bei dem erstmals gleichermaßen von Rhein und Donau aus operiert werden sollte, musste im Jahre 6 n. Chr. abgebrochen werden, weil ein Aufstand in Pannonien (Ungarn) die Aufmerksamkeit der Römer auf sich zog—und Marbod war klug genug, seine Chance zum Ausgleich zu nutzen. Im Jahre 6 n. Chr. übernahm P. Quinctilius Varus die gallische Statthalterschaft und damit die Zuständigkeit für Germanien. Er war ein in heiklen Aufgaben erfahrener und mit dem Kaiserhaus eng verbundener Mann. Die schwer durchschaubare Überlieferung lässt nicht eindeutig erkennen, inwiefern er die römische Durchdringung der rechtsrheinischen Gebiete stark intensivierte oder nur im Wesentlichen weiterführte. Unklar ist trotz zahlloser Bemühungen der Forschung auch, was Arminius, einen Offizier seines Stabes, dazu bewog, drei römische Legionen in einen Hinterhalt zu locken. Höchstwahrscheinlich spielten hierbei Rivalitäten innerhalb des cheruskischen Adels eine große Rolle. Die Frage, wie man sich zur römischen Herrschaft stellte, war dabei gut geeignet, Loyalitäten zu binden. Für Arminius muss— vielleicht aufgrund der Beobachtung der Entwicklungen um Marbod— der Gedanke motivierend gewesen sein, sich auch außerhalb der römischen Oberhoheit etablieren zu können. Der Kampf um die „Freiheit― von den Römern war untrennbar mit dem Kampf um eine eigene Machtstellung verbunden. Jedenfalls gelang es ihm, indem er das in ihn gesetzte Vertrauen des Varus brach, im Jahre 9 n. Chr. in der Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald eine große römische Armee zu vernichten. Der Erfolg dieser Revolte wuchs sich zu einem Aufstand aus, der das Netz römischer Infrastruktur über die rechtsrheinischen Gebiete zerriss. Die Lager und Siedlungen mussten aufgegeben werden. Die Gebiete, die seit den Feldzügen des Drusus gewonnen worden waren, gingen zum großen Teil verloren. Andererseits zeigte es sich für die Römer, die anfänglich auch um linksrheinische Gebiete sehr besorgt waren, dass diese zu keiner Zeit tatsächlich gefährdet waren. Arminius‘ Erfolg beruhte nicht auf einem gesamtgermanischen Aufbegehren und führte auch nicht zu einer politischen Einheit. Der Verlust der römischen Herrschaft hatte vielmehr erbitterte Kämpfe zwischen den Stämmen und innerhalb ihrer Eliten zur Folge: Auch Arminius erlag später einem Anschlag von Verwandten. Den zum dritten Mal an die Nordgrenze beorderten Tiberius gelang es, mit Hilfe neuer

Zur Diskussion vgl. Wolfers 2008, 56–59.

194

Tassilo Schmitt. “Germanen“ und römische Politik und verstärkter Legionen sich siegreich auch rechts des Rheins zu behaupten sowie vorgelagerte Stützpunkte neu zu befestigen. Ab 13 n. Chr. stieß dann Drusus‘ Sohn Germanicus in mehreren Feldzügen wieder weit nach Osten vor und stattete auch dem Ort der VarusSchlacht einen Besuch ab. Die Römer verwüsteten weite Gebiete und zentrale heilige Orte ihrer Gegner wie etwa der Marser, verzeichneten immer wieder Siege, ohne jedoch eine entscheidende Schlacht schlagen zu können. Umgekehrt liefen die aufwändig vorbereiteten Operationen, bei denen die Truppen sowohl über Land als auch mit der Flotte über die Flüsse weit in die Gebiete ihrer Feinde vorstießen, das Risiko, Schiffbruch zu erleiden oder in unwegsamem Gelände einem Hinterhalt zu erliegen: Im Jahre 15 n. Chr. entging der römische Feldherr Caecina nur knapp einer Situation, die dem Varus-Heer den Untergang gebracht hatte. Der als Augustus‘ Nachfolger im Jahre 14 n. Chr. zum Kaiser gewordene Tiberius (14–37 n. Chr.) zog aus solchen Beobachtungen die Konsequenz, dass man die „Germanen― der Dynamik ihrer internen Auseinandersetzungen (internae discordiae (Tacitus, Annales II 26)) überlassen und das Risiko direkter Interventionen vermeiden sollte. Er berief Germanicus gegen dessen Willen von der Rheinfront ab und überhäufte ihn mit Ehren für die erfolgreiche Rache an den „Germanen― und deren Bezähmung, die—wie die Zukunft zeigte—in der Tat keine schwere Bedrohung mehr darstellten. Das war kein Verzicht auf die Eroberung der rechtrheinischen Gebiete und Völker, sondern eine der Situation angemessene Entscheidung, die ohne weiteres die Option enthielt, bei Bedarf jederzeit wieder militärisch einzugreifen. Germanien blieb unter römischer Beobachtung und Kontrolle, ohne dass man eine direkte Verwaltung errichtet oder Städte gegründet hätte: Die griechischrömische Zivilisation konnte sich so nicht weithin verbreiten und einwurzeln. Diese grundsätzliche Disposition schloss es nicht aus, dass Kaiser wie Caligula (37–41 n. Chr.) oder Claudius (41–54 n. Chr.), Germanicus‘ Sohn bzw. Bruder, Feldzüge gegen wirkliche oder vermeintlich gefährliche Gegner unternahmen und suchten, sich das Prestige eines Germanen-Siegers zu verschaffen. Im Allgemeinen blieb die Politik von abwägendem Kalkül bestimmt. In diesem Rahmen war es möglich, dass man am Oberrhein die Gebiete direkter Herrschaft in Phasen bis an den Neckar vorschob und damit fruchtbare Gegenden für „keltische― und römische Neusiedler erschloss, die vorher lange ungenutzt geblieben waren. Das Verhältnis der Römer zu den Völkerschaften rechts des Rheins war weitaus differenzierter als es deren Etikettierung als „Germanen― erscheinen lässt. Dieser Name sollte gefährliche Gegner bezeichnen, über die zu siegen als besondere Leistung galt und besonderen Ruhm verhieß. Wahrscheinlich hätten die meisten so genannten „Germanen― verständnislos auf die Frage reagiert, ob sie denn „Germanen― seien. Ein allgemeines „germanisches― Selbstbewusstsein ist nicht belegt, weil es in dieser Form nicht existiert hat. 195

waren

Altertum

Wesentlichen

eine

römische

REFERENCES 1. Beck, H., H. Steuer, D. Timpe, hrsg. 1998. „Germanen, Germania, germanische Altertumskunde.― Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 11: 181–438. 2. Becker, A., G. Rasbach. 2006. „Waldgirmes.― Reallexikon der germanische Altertumskunde 33: 131–136. 3. Bleckmann, B. 2009. Die Germanen. Von Ariovist bis zu den Wikingern. München: C. H. Beck Verlag. 4. Eck, W. 2004. Köln in römischer Zeit. Geschichte einer Stadt im Rahmen des Imperium Romanum. Köln: Greven Verlag Köln. 5. Grote, K. 2006. „Das Römerlager im Werratal bei Hedemünden (Ldkr. Göttingen). Ein neuentdeckter Stützpunkt der augusteischen Okkupationsvorstöße im rechtsrheinischen Germanien.‖ Germania 84: 27–59. 6. Malitz, J. 1983. Die Historien des Poseidonios. München: C. H. Beck Verlag. 7. Pietzner, K. 2009. „Limes.― Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 23: 163–207. 8. Pohl, W. 2004. Die Germanen. (Enzyklopädie deutscher Geschichte 57) München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. 9. Rothenhöfer, P., A. Hanel. 2005. ―Germanisches Blei für Rom. Zur Rolle des römischen Bergbaus im rechtsrheinischen Germanien im frühen Prinzipat.‖ Germania 83: 53–65. 10.Schallmayer, E. 2006. Der römische Limes. Geschichte einer Grenze. München: C. H. Beck Verlag. 11.Timpe, D. 1994/2006. „Kimberntradition und Kimbernmythos― (ursprgl. 1994), 63–113. In Timpe, D. 2006. Römisch-germanische Begegnung in der späten Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit. Voraussetzungen – Konfrontationen – Wirkungen. Gesammelte Studien. München; Leipzig: K. G. Saur. 12.Timpe, D. 1995. Romano-Germanica. Gesammelte Schriften zur Germania des Tacitus. Stuttgart: Teubner. 13.Timpe, D. 2005/2006. „Tacitus und der Bataveraufstand― (ursprgl. 2005), 318–357. In Timpe, D. 2006. Römisch-germanische Begegnung in der späten Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit. Voraussetzungen – Konfrontationen – Wirkungen. Gesammelte Studien. München; Leipzig: K. G. Saur. 14.Timpe, D. 2012. „Die „Varusschlacht― in ihren Kontexten. Eine kritische Nachlese zum Bimillenium 2009.― Historische Zeitschrift 292: 593–652. 15.Wolters, R. 2008. Die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald. Arminius, Varus und das römische Germanien. München: C. H. Beck Verlag.

196

E. V. Litovchenko. The Сultural Space of Imperial Provinces … THE СULTURAL SPACE OF IMPERIAL PROVINCES AS A FACTOR IN PRESERVING ROMAN IDENTITY IN LATE ANTIQUITY E. V. Litovchenko Belgorod National Research University

Е. В. Литовченко Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет

Abstract. This work is dedicated to uncovering the significance of provincial cultural space in the preservation of Roman identity in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. The author concludes that the provincial elite, having replaced the old Roman aristocracy, sought to preserve the eternal ideal, which for them could not be separated from Rome. The cultural space of some imperial provinces was a factor in the preservation of traditional classical values such as the “imperial idea” (including the concept of “Aeternitas Romae”), rhetorical techniques, and others because of the system of rhetorical education, the high level of urbanization, and the Roman policy of consolidating the local aristocracy. Keywords: Late Antiquity, Roman provinces, Gaul, North African provinces, intellectual elite of the Roman nobility, Ausonius, Rutilius Namatianus, Sidonius Apollinaris, Dracontius, classical tradition. E-mail: litovchenko[at]bsu.edu.ru Copyright: © 2014 Litovchenko. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. УДК 93 (3)

КУЛЬТУРНОЕ ПРОСТРАНСТВО ИМПЕРСКИХ ПРОВИНЦИЙ КАК ФАКТОР КОНСЕРВАЦИИ РИМСКОЙ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТИ В ПОЗДНЕАНТИЧНУЮ ЭПОХУ Аннотация. Статья посвящена выявлению значения культурного пространства имперских провинций в консервации римской идентичности в IV-V вв. н.э. Автор приходит к выводу, что провинциальная элита, заменившая старую римскую аристократию, стремилась сохранить вечный идеал, который для нее был неотделим от Рима. Благодаря системе риторического образования, высокому уровню урбанизации и римской политике консолидации местной аристократии, в позднеантичное время культурное пространство

197

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 некоторых провинций Римской империи являлось фактором консервации традиционных классических ценностей, таких как «имперская идея» (включая концепцию «Aeternitas Romae»), риторические приемы и др. Ключевые слова: Поздняя Античность, римские провинции, Галлия, Северная Африка, интеллектуальная элита, Авзоний, Рутилий Намациан, Сидоний, Драконций, классическая традиция. In the present socio-cultural situation the role of the provincial is being reinterpreted, not only as a keeper of traditional cultural values, but as a social environment for the formation and preservation of spiritual and daily lived experience. Such an interpretation is impossible without a foundation in the historical past of mankind, including the history of the provincial Roman Empire. During the last period of antiquity certain Roman provinces lived practically independent cultural (and, particularly, literary) lives. Undoubtedly, North Africa and Gaul stood out for achieving the highest cultural and educational levels. In their golden age of economy and culture, the North African provinces played the leading role during the second and third centuries in both the spiritual and political spheres. By the middle of the third century, North Africa was economically one of the most highly developed regions of the Roman Empire, firmly fixed as the most important source of agricultural products in the western part of the empire. After Diocletian‟s reforms, which spread throughout the African provinces during the five or six subsequent decades of the fourth century, Africa lived in a state of inner and outer peace, interrupted neither by Berber invasions, nor by the wars fought between aspirants for the imperial throne (Warmington 1954). By the fourth and fifth centuries, in spite of Vandal domination, the African provinces still maintained their leading positions in the cultural and educational spheres. The outward appearance of daily and cultural life of the fourth century African city, as depicted in the inscriptions and records of church authors, showed no signs of serious decay. Teaching Greek and rhetoric was widespread not only in Carthage, but also in small towns such as Tagasta and Madavre where rhetoric schools functioned. Judging by Augustine‟s religious and polemic works, writers of the golden age of Roman literature were widely known. Various philosophical schools were active in the big cities, as were heated public debates (Diligenskii 1961, 44). Many prominent church authors came from this region, including Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Augustine, as well as the secular authors Apuleius and Martianus Capella. An acute political crisis in the Western Empire at the beginning of

198

E. V. Litovchenko. The Сultural Space of Imperial Provinces … the fifth century diminished the emperor‟s power in North Africa. Having taken advantage of internecine wars in the Roman provinces, Vandals and Alans, led by Geiserich, sailed from the Iberian Peninsula to Africa and started the conquest of Roman territory in 429. By the year 455 (after the death of Valentinian III) Geiseric occupied the last regions belonging to the Roman Empire (Mauretania, Numidia Cirtensis, and Tripolitania), thus completing the conquest of the African imperial provinces by the Vandals. The Vandals‟ conquest was not prominently reflected in the literary activity of the Roman population (not including the sharp rise in panegyrics to the new rulers). The rhetorical educational system remained unshakeable. The Vandal kings needed the support of the Roman bureaucratic apparatus and the ruling class of the African society for the foundation of their supremacy over the conquered population. This likely explains to a considerable extent the convergence of a portion of Roman nobility and the “barbarian” ruling elite under the key role of the church (Kopylov 2006). Foreign literature even denotes this period as a “Vandal Renaissance” (Hays 2004). However, the outer features of daily and cultural life of the African city in the previous (fourth) century show neither signs of serious decay, nor a rupture with the antique tradition. Therefore, the use of such a definition does not seem entirely accurate. Under Geiserich and his successors, many noble Romans held prominent positions at the court of the Vandal kings, in the Vandal army, and in the provincial government (Vict. Vit., Ι, 6; 12; 14; 16; III, 4; 10). Under King Trasamund (496-523), Carthage had many Roman poets who glorified the Vandal king in their poems and bore the title viri clarissimi, that is they belonged to the senatorial nobility: Lucsorius, Сoronatus, Flavius Felix, Dracontius, and others. They all engaged in literary activity and, besides the panegyrics to barbarian kings, M. Gasparov notes that they laughed in their Latin epigrams at the new governors who permitted them to do so (Gasparov 1982, 11). The mission of the late antique authors from North Africa consisted largely in “the return of outcast sciences to the African city” (Drac. Rom. I, 13) ("sciences" – litteras, that is literature, namely). Generally speaking, there is nothing surprising about the leading position of the North African provinces in the imperial structure both economically and intellectually. Recall that Africa was not only the Roman agrarian “granary,” but also its scientific and philosophical “granary” (Alexandrian school). Concerning Gaul, with Lyons as its main center of Romanization, it also was a “citadel of the late antique cultural life (Albrecht 2005, 1410).” The spiritual centers were schools in Marseilles, Arle, Nimes, Toulouse, Narbonne, Vienne, Poitiers (Limonum), and Bordeaux. The last great antique poet, Decimus Magnus Ausonius, came from Gaul. Lugudunum, an earlier capital of the province, was one of the most densely populated cities of Gaul with eighty to one hundred thousand inhabitants. Contemporaries called this city gymnasium mundi. 199

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Interestingly, the rhetoric competitions were held here back in the first century (Perfilova 2002, 45). The provincial elite appreciated “the literary knowledge,” considering it equivalent to nobility (Sid. Epist. VIII. 1). Gradually Gaul became the Roman cultural and educational depository, as evidenced by “the magnificent development of literature and arts in the shortsighted eyes of contemporaries,” who presented the period as “the era of glory and prosperity of the native land (Grevs et al 1913, 231)”. In the fourth and fifth centuries, Gaul‟s borderlands with Germany became a Roman outpost in the struggle against barbarians, and further strengthened the significance of this province in the Latin Western world. Gaul also produced numerous remarkable Christian authors, among them Salvianus of Marseilles; Sulpicius Severus; Paulinus of Nola, the founder of the Christian poetic tradition; and Gregorius Turonensis. In the fifth century the Romans lost Gaul, but under the power of German kings, oratory schools and representatives of the intellectual elite of Gallic-Roman society, such as Sidonius Apollinaris, continued their activity. What made it possible for Gaul to become the last stronghold of the dying empire not only in military and administrative terms, but also intellectually? The answer to this question can be found in the epoch of Caesar and Augustus. Researchers typically emphasize that Celtic civitas was preserved almost entirely intact during Roman times (Jullian 1914, 362). The only element changed by the Romans was the organization of Gaul‟s administration according to the Roman model (Gaxotte 1951, 68-69). In addition, the changing character and role of the city center was an important modification to the previous organization of civitas in the Roman period. This was connected to the Roman policy of consolidating the local aristocracy, which Rome saw as a natural support for its power in the provinces. In the first centuries A.D., Gaul experienced a rapid growth of its cities. A policy of urbanization was particularly strong during the reigns of Caesar and August. French historian A. Grenier refers to this period as the great epoch of founding cities, the most significant and brilliant Renaissance in the history of France (Grenier 1931, 689-690). The city became the base for Romanization and Roman influence over the entire community. It was the essence of Roman urbanization policy and the municipalization of the city structure. In this regard, the city in the Roman epoch lay at the heart of economic, political, and cultural life in Gaul, the center of Roman influence on the local community. Due to Roman influence, Gallo-Roman society acquired a certain outer administrativepolitical and inner social structure through the establishment of the Roman municipal system. Here the significance of the intellectual provincial elite in the Late Antique period should be clarified. Independence and artistic freedom was hard to preserve in the context of almost absolute imperial power.

200

E. V. Litovchenko. The Сultural Space of Imperial Provinces … Moreover, because of Rome‟s large-scale conquests throughout its history, the Empire itself was gradually changing. It was becoming less and less “Roman,” that is marked by Rome and Italy, and instead more and more universal. The “Imperial” aristocracy, having come from the provinces, dominated in Rome, and the city itself lost part of its historical supremacy as a result (Hanoune and Scheid 2004, 27). By the beginning of the fourth century Rome ceased to be the political center not only of the whole Roman Empire, but of its Western part as well. Emperors began to use Milan, Trier, Constantinople, and Ravenna as imperial residences instead. The provincial elite, having replaced the old Roman aristocracy, longed to preserve the eternal ideal, inseparable in their opinion from Rome. In the era of Domitianus and Trajan, the upstarts Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, having both come from Cisalpine Gaul (the former definitely came from there; for the latter it is merely supposition), were more ardent supporters of tradition than the last representatives of famous families dating back to Hannibal. In Late Antiquity, such representatives of the intellectual elite as Apollinaris Sidonuis, Symmachus, and Claudius Rutilius Namatianus succeeded Pliny and Tacitus to preserve Roman identity. These people were united not only by their status as Roman nobility, but by the system of rhetorical upbringing and education, the “paideia” of the Roman model, which cultivated both a cognitive component of consciousness and a whole system of social and cultural values typical for classical antiquity. Practically all late antique authors were rhetorically educated and, consequently, were inclined to self-expression in the arts (and particularly, in literature). In addition, all of them spoke the same language, Latin, and learned and taught the same morals and aesthetics. In regard to Latin, it should be noted that language was one of the basic components of Roman identity. Considering language as “the means of creating thought,” the Russian philologist A. A. Potebnia has proven that the language of every nation creates unique systems of thought and mentality, and influences the formation of symbolism and values (Potebnia 1892, ch. 3), which undoubtedly affected the formation of the provincial Roman elite. One last, but by no means least important component of Roman identity was the adherence to the idea of the immortality of the Empire and Rome, “the eternal city.” A. Toynbee notes that the word “eternity” is the most common phrase (for example, the poets use “Aeternitas Romae” or simply “Urbs” instead of Rome) not only in Latin, but in Greek as well right before the fall of Rome. Even after the sack of Rome by Alaric the speech of this city‟s immortality still can be heard (Toynbee 1991, 391). As P. Courcelle accurately remarks, after the catastrophe at Adrianople a sudden awareness of deadly threat loomed above the empire and brought new strength to the patriotic mood (Courcelle 1964, 134-161). It also instilled new life in the concept of Aeternitas Romae, as evidenced in 201

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 numerous literary works of this period (Auson. Cons. Orat.; De omen.; De urb.; Orat. Laud. ad Caes. Grat.; Prud. Cl. Lib. Peristeph.; Rut. Nam. De red. suo; Amm. Marc. XIV; Sid. Epist. II.; IV ). This feeling undoubtedly came from admiration for Rome‟s past and from the traditions of small provincial towns, which often adored their idealized neighbour Rome, a sentiment instilled in them during their education by rhetoricians and philosophers. Ancient moral values were taught in the Latin rhetoric schools (from the first century A.D.) through a curriculum founded on the study of classical literary works, whose plot lines revolved around ancestors‟ heroic deeds and the highly moral actions of previous generations of political leaders. Thus cultural space, in particular the rhetoric schools, played a factor in the preservation of traditional values from the imperial golden age during Late Antiquity. In the fifth century, shifting from Gaul and North Africa to the independent barbarian states, the main factors in preserving the classical tradition were “the vitality” of the Roman state structures – the Senate, the magistrates, and the law (Boethius, for example, served as magister officiorum under King Theodorich, and held the leading position in the Senate, which still functioned even under the Ostrogoths (Ukolova 1989, 32)), and the preservation of the Latin language as the living language of the late antique ethnos (Russel 1958) (roughly until the mid-sixth century). Translated from Russian by Irina O. Eshchenko and Emily B. Baran REFERENCES 1. Warmington, Brian H. 1954. The North African Provinces from Diocletian to the Vandal Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 2. Diligenskii, G. G. 1961. Severnaia Afrika v IV–V vv. [Northern Africa in the 4th –5th Centuries]. Мoscow: Nauka publ. 3. Kopylov, I. A. 2006. “Tserkov' v sisteme organizatsii vlasti i obshchestva v Vandal'skoi Afrike (V–VI vv.) [The Church in the Organization of Power and Society in Vandal Africa (4th–6th Cent.)].” „Kandidat nauk‟ diss., Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences. 4. Hays, Gregory. 2004. “Romuleis Libicisque litteris: Fulgentius and the 'Vandal Renaissance'.” In Vandals, Romans and Berbers: New Perspectives on Late Antique North Africa. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. 5. Gasparov, M. L. 1982. “Poeziia ritoricheskogo veka [Poetry of the Rhetoric Age].” In Pozdniaia latinskaia poeziia [Late Roman Poetry]. Мoscow: Khudozh. lit. 6. Albrecht, Michael von. 2005. Istoriia rimskoi literatury [A History of Roman Literature]. Translated by A. I. Liubzhin. Vol. 3. Moscow: “Greko-latinskiy cabinet” Iu. A. Shichalina. Original publication: Michael von Albrecht. 1994. Geschichte der römischen Literatur. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag. 7. Perfilova, T. B. 2002. “Organizatsiia uchebnoi deiatel'nosti v grammaticheskikh i ritoricheskikh shkolakh Gallii v IV-V vekakh [The Organization of Study in Grammar and Rhetorical Schools in Gaul in the 4th–5th Cent.]”, Iaroslavskii pedagogicheskii vestnik [Iaroslavl` Pedagogical Bulletin] 4 (33): 42–50.

202

E. V. Litovchenko. The Сultural Space of Imperial Provinces … 8. Grevs, I. M., F. F. Zelinskii, N. I. Kareev, M. I. Rostovtsev, eds. 1913. “Istoriia Frantsii v rannee srednevekov'e [A History of France in the Early Middle Ages].” Obshchaia istoriia evropeiskoi kul'tury [General History of European Culture]. Vol. VII. Sankt Petersburg: Brokgauz-Efron. 9. Jullian, Сamille. 1914. Histoire de la Gaule. Vol. IV. Paris: HACHETTE et Cie. 10.Gaxotte, Pierre. 1951. Histoire des Franqais, Vol. I. Paris: Flammarion. 11.Grenier, Manuel А. 1931. d'Archeologie gallo-romaine. Vol. V. Paris: Picard. 12.Hanoune, Roger, and John Scheid. 2004. Tsivilizatsiia Drevnego Rima [Ancient Roman Civilization]. Translated by I. S. Borodycheva and A. A. Kitaitseva. Moscow: AST publ. Original publication: Hanoune, Roger, et John Scheid. 1995. Nos ancetres les romains. Paris: Gallimard (Editions). 13.Woolf, Greg. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 14.Potebnia, A. A. 1892. Mysl' i iazyk [Thought and Language]. Khar`kov: Adol'f Dare publ. 15.Toynbee, Arnold J. 1991. Postizhenie istorii. Abridged one-volume edition compiled by A. P. Ogurtsov. Moscow: Progress publ. Original publication: Toynbee, Arnold J. 1934–1961. A Study of History. In 12 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 16.Courcelle, Pierre P. 1964. Histoire littéraire des grandes invasions germaniques. Paris: Études augustiniennes. 17.Ukolova, V. I. 1989. Antichnoe nasledie i kul'tura rannego srednevekov'ia [Antique Heritage and Culture of the Early Middle Ages]. Moscow: Nauka publ. 18.Russel, Josiah C. 1958. Late Ancient and Medieval Population. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.

203

BORDERLANDS

“SOMETIMES MARTHA ATTACKED RURAL SETTLEMENTS AND GENTRY ESTATES:” FROM THE HISTORY OF THE NOBLE BANDITRY IN THE ХVIII – FIRST HALF OF THE ХIХ CENTURIES (Based on Belgorod and Kursk regional materials)

V. A. Shapovalov Belgorod National Research University

В. А. Шаповалов Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет

Abstract. The author considers the banditry of Martha Durova, a prominent landowner in Putivl` uezd, Sevsk province, Belgorod guberniia, in the context of social relations in the Russian-Ukrainian borderlands in the eigthteenth through the first half of the nineteenth century. The government ultimately sent military units to the “porubezhny krai” to secure her arrest. While noble banditry was certainly not unique to Belgorod and Kursk provinces, no other regions of Russia recorded violent, bloody noble banditry and an accompanying governmental military response on a similarly large scale during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The author identifies the tradition of “vol’nitsa” (brigands) in the Russian-Ukrainian borderlands, as well as the weakness and corruption of the Crown authorities in the former southwestern borderlands of the Russian state, as the major factors that shaped the Durova incident. Keywords: Russian-Ukrainian borderlands, Martha Durova, proprietor, banditry, Belgorod province, eigthteenth century, first half of the nineteenth century. E-mail: Shapovalov[at]bsu.edu.ru Copyright: © 2014 Shapovalov. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

204

V. A. Shapovalov. “Sometimes Martha Attacked Rural Settlements … УДК 323.3-058.12:32.019.5 «ИНОГДА МАРФА НАПАДАЛА НА СЕЛЕНИЯ И НА ПОМЕЩИЧЬИ УСАДЬБЫ»: ИЗ ИСТОРИИ ДВОРЯНСКОГО РАЗБОЯ ХVIII – ПЕРВОЙ ПОЛОВИНЫ ХIХ ВВ. (на материалах Белгородской и Курской губерний)

Аннотация. Автор рассматривает разбойную деятельность Марфы Дуровой, крупной помещицы Путивльского уезда Севской провинции Белгородской губернии, в контексте специфики социальных отношений в русско-украинском порубежье в ХVIII веке. Для ареста помещицы правительство было вынуждено даже специально направить в «порубежный край» воинские части. Безусловно, дворянский разбой не был уникальным явлением, характерным для Белгородской и Курской губерний, однако упоминаний о масштабах, жесткости, кровопролитности дворянских разбоев, сборов против них многотысячных ополчений и воинских частей в ХVIII – первой половине ХIХ веков больше не встречается нигде, кроме, как в отношении данных регионов. Вероятно, здесь сыграли большую роль традиции вольницы русско-украинского порубежья, слабость и продажность коронных властей на бывших юго-западных окраинах российского государства. Ключевые слова: русско-украинское порубежье, Марфа Дурова, помещица, разбой, Белгородская губерния, ХVIII век, первая половина ХIХ века. When family income was not connected with economic activity, but rather with banditry, landed gentry relations often reflected the traditions of the vol`nitsa of freemen and outlaws on the RussianUkrainian border. Regarding this connection, N. I. Kostomarov remarks: “People prosecuted by the law in one place often found shelter and rescue in another. As a result, the border between the Great Russian Ukrainian lands and Little Russian lands witnessed social interactions that were nonexistent or rare in the heartland. The Ukrainian lands of the Muscovite state adjacent to the Hetmanate’s borders had long been the stage for willfulness by local landowners, who exploited their location far from the legal center as an opportunity to conceal their actions outside the Hetmanate. Records from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries contain numerous petitions regarding the border gentry’s willfulness. There still exist the noble surnames mentioned in these petitions and subsequent investigations. Such was the Durova surname. Legend has preserved the memory of Martha Durova as a famous outlaw” (Kostomarov 1882, 6). Martha Durova was a prominent landowner in Putivl` uezd, Sevsk province, Belgorod guberniia during the reign of Anna Ioannovna. A 205

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 widow, she did not burden herself with legal economic activity, but rather engaged in banditry. This lifestyle was only possible under the weak local Crown administration, and in the context of traditions that psychologically freed the landowner from moral control (NartovaBochaver 2001, 57): Riding a horse in the manner of men, with a gun slung over her shoulder, a handgun in her pocket, and a sword at her side, she led her band, followed by men in carts to gather the plunder. She did not order her peasants to sow seeds and harvest crops. Instead she told them that they did not have to toil and sweat in the hot sun. They could get everything for nothing, prepared by other people’s labor. In July and August, Martha strode among her slaves, ordering them to collect and deliver the newly harvested grains to her volost`, and to raise the haystacks. The same was done as they encountered grazing herds of cattle and swine and flocks of sheep. At once the landlady ordered her slaves to drive them onto her lands and then share them with her muzhiks (Kostomarov 1882, 7). The systematic robberies of Martha Durova could not fail to be noticed by the Crown authorities; most likely she had paid them off. Further, the characterization of such campaigns in the RussianUkrainian borderlands during this period as somehow normalized due to a long border tradition cannot be fully rejected. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the impunity of Martha when she attacked whole settlements and country estates, demanded tribute, “then made the victims kiss an icon and take an oath not to prosecute her for plunder. If not, she threatened to come again and bring them to ruin or set their lands on fire” (Kostomarov 1882, 7). On the other hand, the systematic character of “landowners’ warfare” within one uezd supports this version: Beyond Martha Durova, Putivl uezd had a reputation for similar bold deeds of willfulness on the part of the other noble families, among whom the Stremoukhovs and the Voropanovs have remained in people’s memory. These noble bandits did not always act in concert, but rather opposed one another, in rivalries that ultimately led to feuds. On one occasion, a bandit and his band (Voropanov, it seems) attacked Martha Durova’s household. A violent, bloody scuffle resulted. Martha was defeated. Her estate was reduced to ashes. Some of her people were beaten; others ran away. The entire settlement burned down. The owner herself, along with her young sons, barely escaped unscathed, having hidden in a swamp. Once the enemies left, Martha gathered her scattered servants and, before starting restoration of the destroyed homes, she attacked her rival, burned his estate to the ground, and killed him with her own hands. Her servants killed many 206

V. A. Shapovalov. “Sometimes Martha Attacked Rural Settlements … muzhiks who had attacked Martha Durova’s household and village (Kostomarov 1882, 8). This incident reads more like the description of a military operation by two opposing armed forces than a clarification of relations between two landowners. The murder of one of them, the death of a large number of peasants, the burning of villages and estates, and the absence of punishment of the victor by the regional Crown administration speaks to how authorities distanced themselves from “landed gentry fights.” Throughout the century, popular legends preserved the memories of the local bandits’ exploits in Kursk province. Such a long historical memory could only function if it was based on mass, resonant events that encompassed much of the region’s population. Take, for example, “The Historical and Geographic Guide to Kursk Province, from the Orel border to Khar`kov, through 241.5 versts,” composed by the official V. N. Levashev at the initiative of Kursk governor M. N. Murav’ev. This document reached Tsarevich Alexander Nikolaevich during his famous journey around the country in 1837. The section entitled, “Station Eleven: Twenty-nine versts from Belgorod to Chermoshnaia,” specially states: At verst sixteen, past twelve mounds extending for six versts past the road, lies the village Chausovka. And to the left there is a place called Storozhi because, according to legend, some eighty years ago pickets stood here to defend against the robberies of Kudeiar, who dwelt with a huge band in these parts and had many accomplices who hid in the dense forests of Kursk province at that time. Nearby, steep mountains form one solid mass, pitted with deep ravines. Their numerous peaks tower over one another for seven versts to the east of the northern Don River, scarcely seen between the mountain gaps adjoining one deep ditch. Over the river a valley opens up, surrounded by mountains and forest. The neighboring peasants say that despite the pickets, there were constant murders in the old days, and bandits’ gangs increased steadily such that the authorities had to assemble many thousands of settlers from Kursk and its neighboring provinces to exterminate the gang. This call was known then as “Klich” (from klikat` – to call)…. Kudeiar escaped to parts unknown, but his gang, who had dwelt near the village of Tolokonnoe twelve versts away from Storozhi and in other places of Belgorod, Fatezh, and Kursk uezds along the rivers of Svopa and Sem, disappeared (Levashev 2010 [1837], 112). V. N. Levashev notes that to cope with huge gangs of bandits in the 1750s provincial authorities had to assemble voluntary military forces numbering in the many thousands. Given the extent of banditry 207

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 in this period, local authorities probably did not always have the time and energy to deal with more minor banditry. It should be noted that local landed gentry understood such “exploits” as compatible with Christian virtues, and they considered themselves sincere members of the Orthodox Church. Regarding Martha Durova, N. I. Kostomarov emphasizes: This woman was characterized by her outward piety. She observed church fasts, never missed services on Sundays and holidays, zealously contributed to God’s church, was very generous to all honest clergy, and paid special attention to the church in Kozach’ia Sloboda. She would visit the priest in Kozach’ia Sloboda prior to an assault. She would ask for a prayer service and for God to give her success in her venture. “Listen, Father,” she would say to the priest, “if we have luck we will bring you a present for it means you have prayed to God for our success. If we have no luck, then, sorry, we will beat you (Kostomarov 1882, 8–9). As a result, the government had to send military divisions to the “border region.” Martha Durova and her closest associates were arrested, prosecuted, and sent to Siberia. The absence of administrative control, resultant willfulness, and impunity of Belgorod provincial landlords was caused in no small part by large-scale bribery, embezzlement of state property, and other illegal actions of the local Crown authorities (Penskaia and Penskoi 2010, 71–79): Despite the short period of its existence, this province acquired notoriety throughout Russia for the grandiose investigations of their political leaders’ and clerks’ criminal actions. These criminal actions included bribery, extortion, and illegal requisitions. Catherine II, having received information about lawlessness in Belgorod province, established a special commission under the chairmanship of Major Shcherbinin to investigate. This commission uncovered bribery by thirty-nine bureaucrats, who were prosecuted and sentenced by the ruling Senate. On November 11, 1766, the empress confirmed the sentence, with minor modifications. Governor and Privy Councilor Saltykov was the most prominent of these Belgorod grafters and “bribe-takers” (Tankov 1888, 240). An additional important factor deserves mention: the psychological permissiveness of Kursk landowners who engaged in banditry. As serf owners, many landowners lost a sense of human empathy, seeing in their serfs only “christened property.” In the context of a lack of supervision on the part of authorities, even a sense of self could atrophy, no longer controlled by anybody or anything except personal ambitions and claims (Presniakov 2012, 258; Tarasov 2011, 6–7). Even the murder 208

V. A. Shapovalov. “Sometimes Martha Attacked Rural Settlements … of a man who is one’s social equal and the theft of his property did not represent a definite barrier for some landowners, as is demonstrated by the “exploits” of Martha Durova, Kudeiar, the Voropanovs, Stremoukhovs, and many others. The tradition of gentry banditry in Kursk province shifted from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century. In any case, contemporaries suggest it was a very widespread phenomenon in the prereform era, although its scope shrunk somewhat over this period. R. Markov, the landowner of Shchigrovskii uezd, Kursk province, recollects the conflict of his grandfather, the prominent landowner Alexander Andreevich, with his neighbor A. G. Osorgin (the surname has been changed by the author – V. Sh.): There occurred a serious incident on the grandfather’s birthday. Quite unexpectedly, Alexander Andreevich quarreled with his nextdoor neighbor A. G. Osorgin, who created a panic among the people of the uezd. He was a terrible man, linked to many violent crimes in different parts of the uezd. Local rumors implicated him in robberies, burglaries, arson, and numerous murders… Having drunk a bit, Osorgin was counting out the money he had lost to the grandfather on his birthday, and put down several counterfeit coins Alexander Andreevich lost his temper and said he did not keep such money, and did not advise anybody to do so. In short, there was a stormy scene, at the end of which Osorgin vowed to exact a terrible vengeance on the grandfather (Markov 1891, 249–250). Taking into account that R. Markov wrote his recollections about his grandfather in 1891, the given event is likely to have occurred between the late 1830s and the early 1840s. It bears mention that the author references the widespread robbery and murder in the uezd and connects these events to one landowner’s name. Further, Markov relates how Osorgin and his serfs prepared a campaign against the grandfather’s estate, the main aim of which was to take away “the bread … in Markov’s barn.” The preparation itself demonstrates the deliberation involved in such campaigns. It was known in advance that most of Markov’s muzhiks had left for the town of Sevsk to get “the red forest.” Having prepared the carts and armed themselves with cudgels, pitchforks, and axes, Osorgin’s army started the campaign (Markov 1891, 250–254). Considering his previous similar experience, Alexander Andreevich paid special attention to recruiting the estate watchmen who constituted his “guards:” The guards of the estate patrolled the vast yard all night, their bast shoes and cudgels scraping the snow. These were first-class strong 209

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 and clever men…. The guards were loyal to their master and dangerous to the outlaws. These men had few equals in strength, agility in a fight, keen eyesight, and acute hearing. It was difficult and dangerous to go past such guards…. The guards of Markov the landowner were widely known in the area (Markov 1891, 251). In short, the strongest and cleverest men on Markov’s estate were assigned to the guards, evidence of the estate’s constant readiness to repulse “thieves’ mischief” or banditry. At night, notes the author, six of Markov’s guards met Osorgin’s entire army, who began reloading the bread from Markov’s barn onto their carts. Further, he gives the description of the fight: And a terrible fight began. Cudgels, pitchforks, scythes, fists were all used. Then followed a roar, cries, and bloodcurdling moans. Numerical superiority gave the bandits the upper hand, although they were certainly weaker and less skillful than the guards (Markov 1891, 255). According to the recollections, at this point, returning muzhiks from the village hurried to help Markov`s guards: “Destroy, destroy!,” cried Osorgin, running among his men. “We are winning….” All of a sudden, Osorgin yelled, “Retreat, retreat!,” struggling as he waved his hunting spear at the men who had come to his aid. “Cart away the bread, quickly! Drive the horses!,” he screamed at the top of his lungs. However, none of the loaded carts would budge. Old Seliverst, experienced in such occasions, managed to cut one tug in each horse's collar, and all the saddle girths under the din of the battle. Osorgin himself barely escaped by climbing into the empty sleighs…. Most of his string of carts were abandoned to the grandfather, who in turn gave them to his men (Markov 1891, 256). The description of this “battle” leads to certain conclusions. The phrase “old Seliverst, experienced in such occasions,” affirms the sense of a rooted tradition of Kursk landowners using serf contingents to settle scores among themselves. The victor acquired his enemy’s abandoned property “on the field of battle.” The landowners led such “campaigns” personally. The question of resolving conflict through the courts was apparently beyond the legal notions of much of the local gentry. Noble origin and gentry honor demanded personal participation in the resolution of conflict. It was a kind of duel, but with the help of their serfs’ cudgels and axes. These actions assumed the connivance or perhaps understanding of Crown authorities, whose ranks included the gentry. Neither side 210

V. A. Shapovalov. “Sometimes Martha Attacked Rural Settlements … rejected bribes. At the same time, it should be noted that the landowners’ internecine wars in Belgorod province in the eighteenth century had more tragic, bloody consequences than in the first half of the nineteenth century in Kursk province. In order to provide for their serfs and house servants, some landowners forced their peasants to engage in banditry, while not losing sight of their own “economic” interests. The landowner did not take to the highway himself, but initiated and controlled his or her peasants’ brigandage: To this day people in Shchigrovskii uezd say, “Tut-tut, village of Viazovoe. Those who enter you, raise a howl!” It should be noted that even now people call part of this village in the old-fashioned way, “Ponyri” (“in the burrows”). The nickname unintentionally conjures up a time when the whole village of unhappy peasants belonging to the landowner Alymova lived in this neighborhood in burrows (“po noram”), that is not in the log huts, but in wet dugouts. Her first husband Sychev trained them as well as all his house serfs in real brigandage. However, one should add here that when she was married to her second husband Alymov and even after his death, Alexandra Ezot’evna Alymova herself sent her people not once “to feed by shaft bow,” not only in their own community, but farther, so to speak, “to the distant fields” (Markov 1899, 538–539). Alexandra Ezot’evna’s brigandage took place in the 1820s. She became the true successor of Martha Durova, but she did not personally lead her army on campaigns. This paper does not affirm the unique nature of the phenomenon of gentry banditry nor of landowners’ internecine wars in Belgorod and Kursk provinces in the Russian-Ukrainian borderlands. The settling of scores between landowners via their own serfs was widely practiced in the other Russian provinces. For example, S. T. Slavutinskii, born in the village of Gaivoron, Kursk province, recalled his grandfather from the village of Mikheevo, Egor’evskii uezd, Riazan’ province, in the latter half of the eighteenth century. He noted in particular: My grandfather Nikolai Mikhailovich P-v was combative and successful in protecting his water mill in Mikheevo from the wicked and utterly cruel female landowner from the village of Miksheevo, whose surname I no longer remember. It is remarkable that the fight was not in the form of the barratry and red tape litigation, but rather in a purely medieval fashion: at the mill dam there were frequent violent fights between Mikheev’s and Miksheevo’s men, which were always led personally by grandfather and his dashing neighbor (Slavutinskii 1880, 216–217). 211

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Nevertheless, only in Belgorod and Kursk provinces was mention made of wide-scale, cruel, and bloody gentry banditry, and of manythousand voluntary military forces and regiments called against them in the eighteenth through the first half of the nineteenth century. The traditions of freemen and outlaws in the Russian-Ukrainian borderlands is likely the primary explanatory factor, along with the weakness and venality of the Crown authorities in the former southwestern outlying districts of the Russian state. However, an attempt to draw parallels with Dubrovskii (a character from Pushkin’s novel) would be ill-advised, as the awareness of the personal nobility among Kursk gentry was rather perverted and self-interested. The Kursk gentry’s women outlaws stand out in the historical record for their special cruelty and impudence. Translated from Russian by Irina O. Eshchenko and Emily B. Baran

REFERENCES 1. Kostomarov, N. I. 1882. “Kazach'ia Dubrova, inache Kazach'ia sloboda ili Kazach'ia [The Cossack Dubrova, Otherwise the Cossack Settlement or the Kazach'ia].” Russkaia starina [The Russian Old Time] 33: 1–10. 2. Levashev, V. N., comp. 2010 [1837]. Istoricheskii i geograficheskii putevoditel' po Kurskoi gubernii ot orlovskoi granitsy do khar'kovskoi na 241 ½ verst [The Historical and Geographic Guide to Kursk Province, from the Orel Border to Khar`kov, through 241.5 Versts]. Comp. in 1837. Sankt-Petersburg: Russian National Library. 3. Markov, R. 1891. “Nedavniaia starina. (Otryvki iz semeinoi khroniki) [Recent Past. (Fragments from the Family Chronicle) ].” Istoricheskii vestnik [The Historical Herald] 45: 240–262. 4. Markov, R. 1899. “Nedavniaia starina [Recent Past].” Istoricheskii vestnik [The Historical Herald] 78: 538–544. 5. Nartova-Bochaver, S. 2001. Psikhologiia lichnosti i mezhlichnostnykh otnoshenii [The Psychology of Personality and Interpersonal Relations]. Moscow: EKSMO-Press publ. 6. Penskaia, T. M., and V. V. Penskoi. 2010. Ocherki istorii Belgorodchiny v ХVIII v. [Essays on the History of Belgorod region in the Eigthteenth Century]. Belgorod: Politerra publ. 7. Presniakov, A. E. 2012 [1911]. “Dvorianskii i krest'ianskii vopros v nakazakh [The Nobility and Peasantry Question in Directives].” In Velikaia reforma. Russkoe obshchestvo i krest'ianskii vopros v proshlom i nastoiashchem [The Great Reform. Russian Society and the Peasantry Question in the Past and Present]. vol. I. Moscow: I.D. Sytin publ. 8. Tankov, A. 1888. “K istorii vziatochnichestva [On the History of Bribery].” Istoricheskii vestnik [The Historical Herald] 34: 240–245. 9. Tarasov, B. Iu. 2011. Rossiia krepostnaia [The Russia of Serfdom]. Moscow: Veche publ. 10.Slavutinskii, S. 1880. “Rodnye mesta. Iz otryvochnykh vospominanii [Native Places. From Fragmented Memories].” Russkii vestnik [The Russian Herald] 147: 198–240.

212

THE DNIEPER-DON FOREST-STEPPE AS AN ETHNO-CONTACT ZONE: RUSSIA, THE POLISH-LITHUANIAN COMMONWEALTH, AND THE CRIMEAN KHANATE A. I. Papkov Belgorod National Research University

А. И. Папков Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет

Abstract. This article deals with the process of Russian territorial expansion to the south in the sixteenth century. It analyzes the conflict between Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Crimean Khanate in the struggle for domination of the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe. The author concludes that this competition resulted not only in the annexation of certain territories by these countries, but also in their gaining valuable experience in interacting with interstate and borderland populations. At the same time, local inhabitants of Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in these contested territories had to develop effective mechanisms of coexistence. Keywords: Russian Tsardom, South of Russia, Dnieper-Don forest-steppe, Crimean Khanate, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Ukrainians, frontier, borderland. E-mail: papkov[at]bsu.edu.ru Copyright: © 2014 Papkov. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. УДК 94(47).04

ДНЕПРО-ДОНСКАЯ ЛЕСОСТЕПЬ КАК ЭТНОКОНТАКТНАЯ ЗОНА: РОССИЯ, РЕЧЬ ПОСПОЛИТАЯ И КРЫМСКОЕ ХАНСТВО Аннотация. В статье рассматривается процесс расширения государственной территории России в южном направлении, происходивший в XVI в. Анализируются противоречия, возникавшие между Россией, Речью Посполитой и Крымским ханством в результате напряженной конкурентной борьбы за господство в Днепро-Донской лесостепи. Автор приходит к выводу о том, что результатом противоречий и соперниче

The study was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, project 14.B37.21.0457.

213

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 ства стало не только закрепление конкретных земель за отдельными государствами, но и получение ценного опыта как межгосударственного взаимодействия, так и пограничного взаимодействия населения, который позволил в дальнейшем найти эффективные механизмы сосуществования подданных России и Речи Посполитой на спорных территориях. Ключевые слова: Российское царство, Юг России, Днепро-Донская лесостепь, Крымское ханство, Речь Посполитая, украинцы, порубежье. The formation of an integrated Russian state was completed in 1521 with the incorporation of Riazan‘; a new stage of development began. Russian territory now bordered the sparsely populated steppe areas. Once Riazan‘ was joined to Moscow, the defensive line along the Oka river closed and the Prince of All Rus‘ exercised the power to oversee the defense of the southern frontier at his own initiative and discretion (Liubavskii 1996, 252). All Russian lands not included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania belonged to the principality. From the viewpoint of the ruling elite, further consolidation of Russia‘s international position depended on the territorial expansion of the state. The existence of powerful and hostile neighbors required Russia to combine its political borders with natural boundaries formed by mountain chains, swamps, big rivers, lakes, and seacoasts, an advantageous strategy for organizing of defense of territories from armed attacks. Russian expansion during and after the sixteenth century occurred in multiple directions, but the most important was to the south. Because of the geographical peculiarities of the region (forest-steppe and steppe), the southern border was relatively unstable in comparison with Russia‘s western border, where the existence of multiple natural barriers promoted strong defense. To help clarify this discussion, it is useful to define some terms employed in this article. The territory under study is the forest-steppe bordering the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where Eastern Slavs lived. The Russian documents (from the end of the sixteenth through the first half of the seventeenth century) describe the lands as ―Field‖ (Pole), which is an approximate synonym of ‗steppe‘, or ―Field`s frontier‖ (Pol’skaia ukraina).1 Conrad Bussow, a German witness to the Time of Troubles, began to apply the term ―wild Field‖ (―wilde Feld‖ / ―dikoe pole‖) in regard to this area (Bussow 1961 [1831], 94), and, as a result, a number of historians (e.g. Cherepnin 1960, 415) have mistakenly used the term as a geographic designation. Some scholars, however, have sufficiently proven the unsuitabil-

Russian sources also designated the steppe areas situated between the Golden Horde territories and Russian lands as ―Field.‖ See Khoroshkevich 2001b, 63 (note 3). 1

214

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … ity of the given term for these lands. In this period ―wild field‖ simply meant virgin soil (Zagorovskii 1972, 37–38). Accordingly the Russian documents identify many towns in the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe as ―Field`s towns‖ or ―towns in the Field,‖ in contrast to Severskie and Riazan‘ towns, which were dubbed ―towns from the Field.‖ Voevods ruled the towns with full military and administrative powers. Those from towns ―in the Field‖ frequently came in contact with the administration of southern territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Every year from early spring to late autumn, Russian ―storozhi‖ were established. These were observation points typically manned by two to six service men. At the same time, minor cavalry military detachments (stanitsy) of ten to twenty men were sent to the steppe to patrol the frontier. The problem of applying such terms as ―Ukraine‖ and ―Ukrainian‖ deserves special mention. This is connected to the still unresolved question of Ukrainians` (in the modern understanding of this word) origins, an issue further complicated by the influence of various ideological clichés. 2 For a long time, Russian historiography espoused the idea that the Ukrainian people had fully formed by the late fourteenth century (Mavrodin 1978, 146; Bromlei 1988, 472). Other scholarship dated the formation of the Ukrainian nation only to the sixteenth or early seventeenth centuries, noting that ―Ukraine‖ as the name for the ethnic territory had been used since the end of the sixteenth century (Kondufor 1990, 44–45). This reflects the complexity of Ukrainian ethnic history, given that the people employed a variety of ways of naming themselves (ethnonyms) and their territory. In scientific literature there are two basic viewpoints concerning the origin of the Ukrainian nation. The first is connected with the so-called ―theory of continuous development of nations.‖ According to this theory, the direct ancestors of the Ukrainians were Neolithic people who lived on the territory of modern Ukraine and who evolved first to Neuri, then to Antes, further to Rus` in the period of Kievan Rus`, and at last to Ukrainians. The second one is represented by the so-called ―academic viewpoint,‖ according to which the formation of the Ukrainians began in the period of feudal disunity of the Old Russian State (the twelfth and thirteenth centuries) and ended in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Both theories are debatable, but the appearance of the term ―Ukraina‖ in the Hypatian Codex of 1187 adds weight to the latter theory (Polishchuk 2000, 5–19). B. N. Floria notes that starting with the end of the fourteenth century, one can speak about the different historic destinies of the East Slavs in the framework of new multiethnic states: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Kingdom on one hand, and the developing Russian state on the other. He marks the last quarter of the fourteenth century as the period when the consciousness of differences resulted in changes in the char2

For more details see Gorizontov 2002; Sysyn 1986.

215

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 acter of East Slavs‘ ethnic self-consciousness on the territory of this state (Miller 1997, 12–16; Floria 1997, 92–94). Floria further argues, ―the process of ethnic differentiation between the East Slavs in the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth and Russia from the end of the sixteenth to the early seventeenth century was rather deep, but was far from its final completion; the conception of East Slavs united as a singular ethnic community continued to occupy an important place‖ (Miller 1997, 19). In addition, Floria characterizes the process of ethnic development of the East Slavs in the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries more definitely: ―Starting with the end of the fourteenth century, the paths of historic development of the East Slavs were clearly different. Those who were in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Kingdom had one path of development; those who were united within the Russian state had another. Although many common traditions, customs, and religious beliefs remained, at the same time, many social, and later cultural, differences appeared during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It appears to me that the objective result of this was the fact that by approximately the seventeenth century the East Slavs on the both sides of the border began to consider each other as closely related, but at the same time different, special peoples‖ (Gorizontov 2002, 8-9). In the first half of the seventeenth century, the Orthodox population of Poland identified as ―Russian‖ (russkii), but the word ―Ukrainian‖ (ukrainets) denoted an inhabitant of the outlying districts. However, Russians living in Russia, including its southern borderlands, were strictly differentiated from Russians living in Poland, and were identified as ―rossiiskie‖ (Gumilev 1992, 244 (note); Rusyna 1998, 276–277). There is another view of the matter, according to which the ethnonym ―ukrainets‖ was used along with the Old Russian designations ―rus’ki‖ and ―russkii‖ in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Polishchuk 2000, 20). Nevertheless it is rather difficult to define what is hidden behind the first term. It bears mention that in the domestic historical literature the term ―Ukraina‖ was firmly established as demarcating the left bank of the Dnieper River and ―ukraintsy‖ as denoting the population of these territories in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 3 The phrase ―ukrainskoe pogranich’e‖ figured in official documents of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for example in the edict of Sigismund III in 1590 (Kulish 1888, 52–53). G. Beauplan, a French engineer who served in the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth, used the term ―Ukraina‖ as a geographic descriptor in his work, published in Paris in 1651 (Beauplan 1832 [1651]). Recall that using such macrotoponyms as ―Lesser Rus`‖ and ―Little Rus`‖ to refer to the territory of contemporary Ukraine in the sixteenth and sevSee, for example, Tikhomirov 1962, 418–419; Alekberli 1961, 37; Zimin 1972, 164, 311; Floria 1978, 17 and subsequent pages; Pashuto, Floria, Khoroshkevich 1982, 66, 229; Stanislavskii 1990, 7–8; Pokhlebkin 1992, 183; Pokhlebkin 1995, 392, 439–446; Sakharov 1999, 230, 277–298. 3

216

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … enteenth centuries is not appropriate (Rusyna 276). Employing the term ―Little Rus`‖ in literature in the late sixteenth century, as well as in the sphere of ecclesiastical relations, is not a sufficient explanation for this denotation of Ukrainian ethnic territory (Miller 1997, 16–17). This term may be reasonably used only from the middle of the seventeenth century. At that time, the phrase ―Little Rus`‖ was included in the title of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich and in official language. It is worth mentioning that authors of summary works (e.g. Polishchuk 2000, 19) and foreign scientists 4 both consider the latter approach acceptable. These and other factors laid the foundation for continued use of the term ―Ukraine‖ by modern scholars to refer to the left bank of the Dnieper River and ―Ukrainians‖ to refer to the Slavic people on this territory.5 At the same time, specialists of the East Slavs‘ development in the seventeenth century feel compelled to use also such terms as ―Ukrainian-Belorussian influence,‖ while admitting the necessity of notional set sorting and the absence of comparable terms in historical documents (Gorizontov 2002, 13–17). М. К. Liubavskii notes that after the Truce of Deulino in 1618 the term ―Ukraine‖ was also applied to the portion of the Chernigov territory that Poland seized from Russia; in 1635 Chernigov voevodship was formed (Liubavskii 1996, 335). In sum, it is appropriate to use the term ―Ukraine‖ for the left bank of the Dnieper River in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Inhabitants of the Ukrainian lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were considered ―cherkasy‖ or ―Lithuanian people‖ in the Russian sources of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. In some documents, these terms are synonyms; in others they have different meanings. In the latter case, the Ukrainian Cossacks were labelled ―Cherkasy‖ and all inhabitants of left-bank Ukraine in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were considered ―Lithuanian people.‖ Zaporozhian Cossacks were frequently singled out from other Ukrainian Cossacks as ―Zaporozhian Cherkasy.‖ The appearance of the term ―Cherkasy‖ is connected with the town Cherkasy, which became the center of the Ukrainian Cossacks in the latter half of the sixteenth century. The evolution of this term deserves further explanation. It first appeared as the term for Ukrainian Cossacks in the sixteenth century and by the mid-seventeenth century all inhabitants of Ukraine were considered ―Cherkasy‖ in all official Russian documents. This generalization holds true for the borderlands of interest in this article through at least the mid-seventeenth century. It is significant that in eighteenth-century censuses (reviziii), descendants of Ukrainian migrants from the early seventeenth century identified themselves as ―Cherkassian subjects,‖ but those of migrants after 1654 identified as ―Little Russian See, for example, Bushkovitch 1986, 356; Sysyn 1985, 136; Sysyn 1986, 101–102, 105. See Miller 1997, 43, 51, 61, 126; Skrynnikov 1997, 443; Solodkin 1999, 37–41; Smolij and Stepanov 1999, 41–61. 4 5

217

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 (malorossiiane) subjects.‖ There must be some connection between terms used in documents and the state‘s interest in settling the borderlands with service class people rather than peasants until the incorporation of ―Little Rus`‖ into Russia in the mid-seventeenth century. ―Cherkasy,‖ who did not pledge allegiance to the Russian Tsar and plundered ―in the Field‖ (na Pole), were usually identified as ―vorovskie‖ (―thieves‖). Floria has noticed that in early seventeenth-century Moscow documents the East Slavs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were denoted as ―Cherkasy‖ and ―belorustsy‖ (Floria 2002, 38). A search of the sources suggests that the latter was used more rarely and as a rule in the confessional context. Typically, Orthodox priests from the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth (i.e. Orthodox subjects of Polish crown) were referred to by this term as opposed to Catholics or Uniates, as well as Orthodox believers who lived in Russia. Naturalized ―Belorustsy‖ were sent to Russian monasteries for ―faith correction,‖ along with those who had been under Tatar captivity and those who were preparing to join the Orthodox faith. Thus it is correct to use the term ―Cherkasy‖ for inhabitants of Ukrainian lands included in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, especially because it was used in official Russian documents and became the self-designation of migrants from Ukraine to Russia. The situation on Russia‘s frontiers was complicated by constant conflicts with aggressive neighbors: the Crimean Khanate and later the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth (e.g. Vodarskii 1973, 22–23). For a long time, the steppe was a source of constant threat for the Slavs. Tatar detachments roamed these lands, raiding the Slavs and enslaving captured inhabitants. This was not the territory‘s sole problem: all three states—the Tsardom of Russia (since 1547), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Crimean Khanate—laid claim to the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe adjacent to the southern Russian borderlands. The fact that many outstanding historians have addressed this problem in different contexts proves its great importance. M. K. Liubavskii pays special attention to the issue in his chapter, ―conflict between the Tsardom of Muscovy and the Crimean Tatars, and the settlement of the black soil steppe‖ (Liubavskii 1996, 285–311). Liubavskii describes the struggle between Russian settlers and the Crimean Tatars. Although he mentions the migration of Ukrainians to the southern Russian borderlands, he does not analyze this process in detail (Liubavskii 1918, 10–19). Describing the regions of the Russian state on the eve of the Time of Troubles, S. F. Platonov sketched out the geographic characteristics of ―the Field,‖ and noted the dominance of governmental over grassroots colonization in the upper portions of the rivers Seim, Severski Donets, and Oskol during the late sixteenth century (Platonov 1994, 55–62). I. D. Beliaev crafted the first professional work devoted to the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe in the sixteenth century (Beliaev 1846). Late ninteenth-century Ukrainian historians D. I. Bagalei and I. N. Miklashevskii

218

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … carried out significant research about this territory (Bagalei 1887; Miklashevskii 1894). The two men devoted their works primarily to the economic aspects of development and settlement of ―the Field‖ in the seventeenth century. In his articles, Bagalei describes the collision of two colonization streams: ―Great Russian‖ and ―Little Russian.‖ He notes that he examined each stream separately and did not offer a comparison (Bagalei 1886; 1913). The tradition of regional research in the light of economic development and settlement, and against the background of constant struggle with the Crimean Tatars, was continued by Soviet scholars (Protorchina 1948; Zagorovskii 1991). A. A. Novosel‘skii authored the foundational work concerning the history of the southern frontier (Novosel‘skii 1948). Authors of works on international relations pay little to no attention to the problem of interaction between Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Crimean Khanate in the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe.6 While scholarship exists regarding the problems of integration of Russian expatriates in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, these works concern only the lives of elites and do not address the borderlands (Erusalimskii 2011, 7–54). In short, the issue of the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe is insufficiently explored. Yet extant diplomatic correspondence and Russian edict records make possible an analysis of international relations on the territory of ―the Field‖ in the late sixteenth century. Moreover, taking into consideration the achievements of modern historical scholarship, it makes sense to research the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe as an ethnic contact zone. Some scholarly literature makes mention of the controversial problem of the so-called ―Big border,‖ i.e. the border between European and non-European civilizations (Dashkevich 1989, 7–21). The term ―Big border‖ most frequently refers to the ethno-contact zone between the Christian West and the pagan, and later Islamic, East. However, the phenomenon of a special frontier way of life was typical not only for this zone (Dashkevich 1989, 10). The Russian southern borderlands in the sixteenth century can also be characterized as a zone of special social conditions and of ethnic and social integration. This corresponds to Frederick Jackson Turner‘s frontier thesis (Vorob`eva 2012, 102), a concept used not only in foreign, but also Russian historiography.7 It is easy to notice that in Russian historiography, the concept of ―frontier‖ has received the most attention in connection with the study of Siberian development. At the same time, a ―mobile border‖ also characterized other directions of Russian territorial expansion, including to the

See, for example, Floria 1978; Zaborovskii 1981, etc. See, for example, Zamiatina 1998, 75–88; Ageev 2005; Rezun et al. 2002; Rezun 2005; Poberezhnikov 2009, 25–30; Poberezhnikov 2011, 191–203. 6 7

219

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 south in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 8 Professor of Loyola University-Chicago Michael Khodarkovsky has demonstrated this fact in his published works on relations between Russia and the Steppe, with a focus on the southeastern frontier. In particular, he examines relations between Russia and the Golden Horde (and subsequently the Tatar states formed after its breakup) (Khodarkovsky 2002; 1999). It should be noted that this field is currently undergoing a rethinking of the place of frontier territories in the social history of individual countries and regions. This has required a rejection of interpretations that label these lands as somehow peripheral, marginal, or unimportant. Instead, scholars note the substantial potential of frontiers (cultural, economic, and political), their unique functional ability to initiate integration, and the broad sphere of interaction that contributes the development of territories, including those far from the borderlands. Moreover, when researching this problem, the notion of ―frontier territories‖ should not refer simply to a narrow strip on both sides of a state or administrative border. It is more productive to consider a much broader zone that could be considered ―frontier.‖ In this regard, a ―border‖ is defined as a wide, transitional zone, borrowing from the term ―ecotone‖ in the field of physical geography (Krylov 2012, 28). Still, the issue of ethno-contact formation and frontier zones is far from fully examined, even under these more productive methods of scholarly research (Podgrushnyi 2010; Gritsenko 2010). Russian expansion into the Severskie lands, which earlier belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, led to a tangle of contradictory relations between these two states in the early sixteenth century. 9 Beginning in 1507, the Grand Principality of Moscow experienced constant attacks from the Crimean Tatars. In the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe there were a lot of Tatar roads around dense woodlands and broad rivers. Аs a rule, the roads were laid according to watersheds. This was because in the spring, snow thawed earlier on higher ground on the steppe, this ground dried more quickly, and thus the grass, much needed for the Tatars‘ horses, grew faster. In the sixteenth century, Russia‘s sphere of interests in its southern borderlands was not economic, but strategic. During the entire sixteenth century, peasants developed the lands to the south of the Oka River. They considered this activity as a return to their own lands, which they had had See, for example, Shaw 1983; Mizis and Kashchenko 2011; Zhukov, Kanishchev, Liamin 2012. 9 As a result of the first Russian-Lithuanian war in the sixteenth century, the Prince of all Rus` claimed almost all Chernogiv-Severskie lands, including towns and adjacent countryside in the given region, namely Chernigov, Putivl`, Ryl`sk, and Novgorod-Severskii. An attempt by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to reclaim the lost territories in 1507-1508 was not successful. According to the ―Perpetual Peace‖ signed October 8, 1508, Lithuania recognized all the conquests of Ivan III. The situation remained static after the third (1512–1522) and the fourth (1534–1537) Russian-Lithuanian wars. (See: Pokhlebkin 1995, 363–379; Tikhomirov 1962, 18). 8

220

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … to abandon because of the Mongol conquest of Rus‘. 10 Colonization poured over into conflict between the Tsardom of Russia, which considered itself the successor of Kievan Rus‘, and the Crimean Khanate, which considered itself the successor of the Golden Horde, though the latter did not proclaim this openly.11 The governmental strategy consisted of building new defensive lines and fortresses for the protection of peasants. Thus the colonization of the southern borderlands had a national and a governmental character. This is particularly important when one takes into consideration the fact that black earth was more fertile, but harder to plow with the traditional equipment used by Russian farmers, who were accustomed to the lighter grey forest soils. The turf of forest soils consists of a weak sod and a fragile structure, which is why the main agrotechnical demand for their tillage is moldering and mixing rather than undercutting and reversing (what a plow does); wooden plows are more suitable for this (Krasnov 1987, 195). Nevertheless, a simple wooden plow (‗sokha’) with two iron shares was the main agricultural implement not only in the forest center but also in the southern forest-steppe in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. This fact offers clear evidence of the predominance of military and strategic over economic (which would have preference later) motivating factors in southern steppe colonization. At the same time in the sixteenth century, according to foreigners‘ descriptions, there was clear understanding of the higher fertility of soils in Riazan‘ region as compared to the Russian heartland (Solov`ev 1993 [1901], 361). The Dnieper-Don forest-steppe became a zone of intersecting interests for three powers: Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Crimean Khanate. Russia strove for the colonization of these territories as they provided some definite advantages. First, the settlement and development of these lands by service class people allowed Russia to form a new defensive line against Tatar raids. Second, any expansion to the southwest was advantageous for Russia as it made possible more effective resistance to Polish aspirations to the east. Further, the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were traditional, long-time rivals of Russia. The high point of territorial expansion and growth in power by Russia‘s western enemies in the steppe region was the Union of Lublin, signed by the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This resulted in the foundation of a single state: the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1569 (Fal`kovich 2011, 156). Moreover, beginning with the reign of Vasilii III, all grand princes of Moscow claimed possession of some part of lands belonging to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Concerning pre-Mongol settlements in the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe see, for example, D'iachenko 1998; Vinnikov and Kudriavtseva 1998; Tropin 1999. 11 See in more detail Novosel'skii 1948, 41; Khoroshkevich 1999; Khoroshkevich 2001a, 225–271. 10

221

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 For its part, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth tried to prevent further growth of Russia‘s power. No natural borders separated the two states; therefore they constantly opposed each other. It is interesting that both states cited history and the law in bolstering their claims to these territories, although none of these claims brought any fruits. Another factor then came the foreground: colonization. The state that succeeded in staking its claim to the disputed territories in both a military and economic sense would win the territorial controversy. It is remarkable that the colonization of the southern borderlands of Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth began nearly simultaneously in the last decades of the sixteenth century (Padalka 1914, 53). Forest-steppe lands situated between the Dnieper and the Don were not permanent settlement areas for the Crimean Tatars. As nomads, the Tatars could not develop and consolidate ownership of the basin of the Severski Donets River and other tributaries of the Dnieper and the Don, but they considered these lands to be a part of the Crimean Khanate. Although they did not live there all year round, they used these territories as summer camping grounds. As a result, the Tatars tried to block the colonization of ―the Field‖ by other states. During the late sixteenth century, this territory was akin to a buffer zone between Russia and the Crimean Khanate. This situation made the Khanate nearly invulnerable. In regard to the Russian campaign against the Crimean Khanate, the Russian army had to move forward along the waterless steppe with a bulky string of carts. The Khan had the ability to gather strength and attack enemies periodically with small detachments. The buffer zone was the convenient territory for the concentration of the Tatars before raids and also it made it easier to dodge pursuers. The invasion of Crimean Khan Mehmed I Giray through ―the Field‖ to Moscow in 1521 demonstrated Russia‘s need to review its policy concerning its southern borderlands. Over the next decade, Vasilii III continued to improve the defensive system in the southern borderlands, but he made no attempt to organize the defensive lines along the paths of Tatars‘ raids, ―on the Field.‖ In 1530–1540, there were two frontier lines in the Russian south. The main line ran along the Oka River to the south. The second was the line ―from the Field,‖ which included such towns as Tula, Odoev, Belev, Bobrik, Pronsk, Zaraisk, later Novgorod-Severskii, Putivl‘, Pochep, Karachev, and Mtsensk. The town of Riazan‘ (Pereiaslavl‘-Riazanskii) was also included in this line, although the town was situated far from the main bank of the Oka River. By the mid-sixteenth century, the line ―from the Field‖ received another name: ―from Crimean ukraina.‖ Both lines shared a common task. An analysis of official registries led V. I. Buganov to conclude that in Moscow, service ―on the bank‖ and service ―from the Field‖ were considered as a single, unified whole (Buganov 1980, 208–209). Brick fortresses were constructed in Zaraisk and Kolomna. After devastating raids by the Tatars on Riazan‘ lands in 1533 and 1535, the state de-

222

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … cided to restore the town of Pronsk as fortification from the south to Pereiaslavl‘-Riazanskii (Zagorovskii 1991, 76–79). In the summer in 1541, Russian governmental reconnaissance ―in the Field‖ began. On the orders of Prince I. F. Bel‘skii, Gavrila Tolmach‘s troops were sent to survey Tatar roads. When the subsequent Tatar invasion was repelled, however, Russian reconnaissance activities in the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe petered out. From 1541 to 1546, the Crimean Tatars made repeated attacks on the Russian frontier (Zagorovskii 1991, 81–84). By the mid-sixteenth century, the Russian government was fully aware of the disadvantage of its geopolitical situation in this region. It initiated a southern strategy after the conquest of Kazan‘ in 1552. Gradual construction of fortresses began in frontier districts near ―the Field‖ after this event. As a result of building such ―towns against Field`s Ukraine‖ as Mikhailov, Shatsk, Dedilov, Bolkhov, Riazhsk, Novosil‘, Orel, Epifan‘, Dankov, and others, the Russian government clashed with the Crimean Khanate over possession of ―the Field‖ in 1555. By joint decision of the Tsar and the council of boyars, a detachment (13,000 people) under the command of I. V. Bolshoi Sheremetev was sent to the Crimean Khanate. The tactical aims of that campaign were not realized due to the Tatar invasion of Moscow, which ended with the Battle of Sud‘bishchi on July 3, 1555. Nevertheless, the strategic aim – the demonstration of the increased power of the Russian state – was attained (Zagorovskii 1991, 115–121). In 1557, in addition to the traditional assembly of noble cavalry regiments at the Oka River, the voevod with service class people assembled deep into the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe, as far as the Bystraia Sosna and Seim Rivers. Thus a temporary front defensive line was established on the territory of ―the Field.‖ Interestingly, V. P. Zagorovskii has observed that the places where the Russian army assembled ―in the Field‖ in 1557 became three new towns—Livny, Yelets, and Kursk (Zagorovskii 1991, 127–128). Still, the campaigns of the Russian army to the Bystraia Sosna and Seim Rivers did not lead to the immediate consolidation of the Russian Tsardom on this part of the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe; the concentration of the Russian army here was not regular. The government of Ivan the Terrible attempted to win victory over the Tatars in 1559. That year, Russian detachments under the command of I. M. Veshniakov and D. F. Adashev attacked the Crimean Khanate from the lower Don and Dnieper. However, only a small number of detachments participated in this campaign; thus it was ineffective. Later in the period of 1560–1562, Russian foreign policy underwent gradual change: a western orientation began to predominate over a southern orientation. The Tatars took the initiative in the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe and neighboring regions. The Russian government likely concluded that it had insufficient power to hold the southern line. Such confrontation with the Crimean Khanate demanded the constant presence of a sizable military contingent on the bank of the Oka River irrespective of other campaigns elsewhere on

223

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 the frontier (Novosel`ski 1948, 23). During the Livonian War, this was impossible. In July 1562, Crimean Khan Devlet-Giray attacked Mtsensk and Mtsensk districts (uezd). Detachments under the command of Divey-Murza and Mustafa-Aga ravaged Bolkhov and Belevsk districts.12 Following the establishment of the town of Donkov (1568), Russian construction of new towns in this region tapered off for at least the two subsequent decades. The general construction of the southern defensive lines changed and after 1569, the presence of military contingents on the banks of the Oka River became obligatory. The situation in 1570 exemplified the shifts in Russian policy concerning its southern borders. That year an attack by the Crimean Khan failed, but Russia had to mobilize all of its military might to repulse the invasion. Ivan IV personally led the regiments of the noble cavalry. He arrived together with his son Ivan from the Alexandrovsky Kremlin sloboda to Serpukhov. This is perhaps a clear moment when the unsatisfactory state of Russian reconnaissance in the DnieperDon forest-steppe was laid bare, and Russia had no choice but to recognize the need to reorganize sentry and stanitsa duties. From 1571 the All-Russian sentry service began to function ―in the Field,‖ organized by the boyar M. I. Vorotynskii. Every year from early spring to deep autumn, Russian sentries and other detachments were stationed ―in the Field.‖ The border service at that time consisted of three elements: 1) Putivl‘ and Ryl‘sk detachments along routes approved by Moscow; 2) sentries from towns in frontier districts in places also approved by Moscow, who watched the roads for possible Tatar invasion; and 3) AllRussian sentries situated ―in the Field‖ who sent their own detachments in all directions. The first All-Russian observation point was situated at the confluence of the Balykleia and Vapa Rivers, the second on the left bank of the Don River above the mouth of the Khopior River, the third at the Oskol River near the mouth of the Ublia River, and the fourth at the Seim River near the mouth of the Khona River. Beginning in 1573, the armed forces of frontier Russian towns united into the ―ukrainnyi razriad‖ to prevent a Tatar incursion into Moscow. The second defensive line was represented by the ―riverbank razriad‖ (at the Oka River), which consisted of noble cavalry. In 1575-1576, the position of some All-Russian observation points changed. As a result, the westernmost observation point moved from the Seim River bank to the Severski Donets River, the mouth of the Ud River. The devastation caused by the unfortunate Livonian War led to the reduction of All-Russian observation points ―in the Field‖ from four down to two, including the point at the Severski Donets River. Only the observation points at the Oskol River near the mouth of the Ublia River and at the Don River remained, each with seventy people (Zagorovskii 1991, 156–187; Margolin 1948, 3–28). By this time, 12

See more detail in Zagorovskii 1991, 133–141.

224

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … Russia made an official attempt to incorporate ―the Field‖ into its territory. Voevod M. Tiufiakin and clerk M. Rzhevskii demarcated the southern border of the Russian state with special signs. From the 1580s onward, Russia engaged in the construction of fortresses directly ―in the Field,‖ which served as footholds against the Crimean Khanate. In 1586 it founded Livny and Voronezh. As V. P. Zagorovskii has noted, the establishment of these towns was meant to block Tatar roads, as well as to keep the portion of ―the Field‖ near the Don for Russia. This goal acquired greater urgency in connection with the appearance of Cherkasy in the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe. In 1591 Crimean Khan Gazi II Giray attacked Moscow. This invasion largely failed, but it revealed weaknesses in the Russian defensive system along the southern border. The Crimean Tatars marched toward Moscow, circumventing Livny on the left and Voronezh on the right. In response, the town of Yelets was founded in 1592, followed shortly therafter by Belgorod and Oskol. It is worth noting that from 1596, voevods held responsibility for the garrisons of town fortifications. The town of Valuiki was likely founded in this manner. Tsarev-Borisov, built in the summer of 1599 at the confluence of the Severski Donets and the Oskol, represented Russia‘s furthest extension into ―the Field.‖ Remarkably, Russia intended its construction not only to solve the problems with the Crimean Khanate, but also to oust the Cherkasy from this region (Zagorovskii 1991, 224–226). Russia accumulated much experience in its relations with the Crimean Khanate, and this helped to resolve problems related to the colonization of the Field`s borderlands. In 1593 Crimean Khan Gazi II Giray received a letter on the Tsar‘s behalf; most likely Boris Godunov took part in its writing. The letter offered the Khan aid against his enemies, in particular an offer to build towns and send voevods with many service class people ―to the Donets.‖ In this manner, Russia‘s southern advance was diplomatically camouflaged from the Crimean Khanate, and Gazi II Giray was sent a sum of ten thousand rubles as compensation (Lashkov 1891, 32–33). When towns were built, the Crimean Khanate realized the disadvantages of its position in the region and made retaliatory steps. As the Tatars could not destroy these fortresses, they tried to use other means. In 1601 Gazi II Giray sent a secret letter to Godunov in which he reproached the Russian Tsar for building towns on the summer camps of the Tatars at the Donets. In the letter, the Khan threatened Moscow, implying Turkish intervention and warning that a further Russian southern advance could spoil their relations (Solov`ev 1994 [1901], 396). The attempt to intimidate Russia with threats of a Turkish invasion was no more than a diplomatic ruse. In spite of this bluster, the colonization of ―the Field‖ continued. The Tatars continually attacked Russian borderlands, but as their chief goal was plunder, they usually fled when met with resistance. Moreover they did not attempt to lay siege to stockaded towns. At least in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there were no Tatar attacks on or at-

225

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 tempted seizures of Russian fortresses (Ishchenko 1989, 136–145). By the end of the sixteenth century, the reinforced settlements of the Russian Tsardom extended deep into the south until the confluence of the Oskol and the Severski Donets, a position rather close to Tatars‘ summer camps. Russia also had considerable experience in its relations with the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which considered these territories as the part of Severskie lands won by Russia from it. The Polish government clearly never renounced its intention to regain lost territories for the Kingdom of Poland. However, in the late sixteenth century, it did not come into open conflict with Russia over this issue. Russia‘s southern borders were attacked only by the Ukrainian Cossacks, who were subjects of the Polish– Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Russian government used the Cherkasy incursions as justification for its building of fortresses ―in the Field,‖ explaining to Gazi II Giray that such actions only benefited the Tatar camps, as it drove out Cherkasy-bandits from these territories (Solov`ev 1994 [1901], 396). One of the earliest mentions of Cherkasy ―in the Field‖ dates back to 1571, when the Russian observation point moved from the Kolomaka River to the Ol`shanka River. This relocation happened after the Cherkasy came to the Kolomaka and attacked its sentries (Popov 1889, 13). In addition to conducting raids, which were rather common in these territories in the late sixteenth century, the Ukrainian population tried to settle on the Russian lands. The voevods of Putivl‘, Ryl‘sk, and Novgorod-Severskii took note of such instances (Anpilogov 1967, 74). The danger of Ukrainian colonization lay in the fact that the Cherkasy who settled on the frontier lands did not pledge allegiance to the Russian Tsar and, therefore, remained subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This made the Russian government distrustful of the Cherkasy‘s settlement on its lands, as these migrants created potentially favorable conditions for the annexation of this territory by the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the late sixteenth century, the Cherkasy became increasingly active. This can be explained by the fact that when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania ceded the Volyn lands and some territories at the Dnieper to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the feudal and confessional oppression of the Ukrainian population intensified. In fact, the territory of ―the Field‖ belonged to nobody at that time; thus Ukrainians moved there from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There is another point of view regarding this situation. G. N. Anpilogov considers the appearance of the Cherkasy within Russian territories as an official state policy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Anpilogov 1967, 19). His theory is based on information from the ―stateiny spisok‖ (ambassadors‘ reports) by Pavel Volkov and Martin Sumskoi sent to Warsaw, and from identical embassy materials prepared by Afanasii Rezanov (Anpilogov 1967, 74, 85). Special attention should be paid to the Cherkasy who came for hunting, fishing, and forest beekeeping. Their colonization of lands already under development by Russian subjects created conflicts. Documents from the 1580s and 1590s that could confirm this 226

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … view were not saved in the state department (Razriadnyi prikaz) collection. Probably these documents were destroyed in the fire of 1626 in Moscow or were lost later. Thus it is difficult to define the role of the Polish state, the heads of large territorial units, and the Polish gentry (szlachta) in the organization of the Cherkasy advance into the Russian borderlands. D. I. Bagaley has suggested that Ukrainian elders might have taken such actions irrespective of the Warsaw government (Bagalei 1886, 89). Only spontaneous actions of the Cherkasy can be confirmed with confidence, as well as the fact that the Polish administration did not impede them, as these raids were made onto the territory of a longstanding rival. Moreover the Polish government never controlled the Cherkasy in full measure. Thus ―in the Field‖ in the 1580s, the subjects of two hostile powers collided with one another and these collisions happened not only in the frontier zone, but also deep inside the state. We can judge the scale of this invasion from the report of leader Roman Verdevskii in the books of official orders, instructions, and directions (razryadnye knigi). On July 31, 1585, he reported that the Cherkasy destroyed his observation point on Lake Bogaty Zaton (Kuz`mina 1987, 65). In a subsequent incident, Cherkasy under the command of Denis Sempski attacked peaceful villages in Briansk district (Anpilogov 1967, 80). The Cherkasy from the towns of Cherkasy and Kanev came up to Novosil‘ to destroy and attack the inhabitants of these borderland territories.13 In 1586 Pereslavl‘s Cherkasy assaulted the newlyconstructed towns of Livny and Voronezh, and also attacked stanitsas and inhabitants of different districts.14 In 1587 the voevod A. I. Khvorostinin reported on the attack of forty cherkasy from Kanev who were defeated and captured.15 The above evidence demonstrates that in the latter half of the sixteenth century, the Dnieper-Don forest-steppe became a zone of fierce competition between the Tsardom of Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Crimean Khanate. The Crimean Khanate considered ―the Field‖ as its own territory, which it used not only as the site of its summer camps, but also as a buffer zone whose existence gave an advantageous position to the state in relation to its northern neighbors. Having assessed this situation, Russia began its colonization of ―the Field‖ in the latter half of the sixteenth century. At the same time, subjects of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—the Ukrainian Cossacks-Cherkasy— also appeared in this region. The Ukrainian colonization was spontaneous, sparked by the actions of Polish landowners, but not by the government. In contrast, Russian colonization was primarily government-led and centered on the construction of fortified towns and the stationing of armed forces in this region. This fact helps to explain why Russian colonization, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov [The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts] (RGADA). Fond 79. Opis` 1. Kniga 20. Listy 194 back–195. 14 RGADA. Kn. 17. L. 11–11back. 15 RGADA. Kn. 18. L. 457–458. 13

227

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 which relied on the support of the state, had the advantage over its Ukrainian counterpart. However, the Russian government did not succeed in expelling the Ukrainians from ―the Field.‖ As a result, a peculiar compromise was reached: the Cherkasy were allowed to settle on Russian territories provided they accepted Moscow subjecthood. In the end, the Russian state succeeded in pushing back its rivals and consolidating the DnieperDon forest-steppe. Translated from Russian by Natalia V. Grigorenko and Emily B. Baran REFERENCES 1. Ageev, A. D. 2005. Sibir' i amerikanskii Zapad: dvizhenie frontirov [Siberia and the American West: Movement of Frontiers]. Tomsk: Tomsk University Press. 2. Alekberli, M. A. 1961. Bor'ba ukrainskogo naroda protiv turetsko-Tatarskoi agressii vo vtoroi polovine XVI – pervoi polovine XVII vekov [The Fight of the Ukrainian People against the Turkish-Tatar Aggression in the 1550s through 1650s]. Saratov: Saratov University Press. 3. Anpilogov, G. N. 1967. Novye dokumenty o Rossii kontsa XVI – nachala XVII vv. [New Documents on Russia in the Late Sixteenth to Early Seventeenth Century]. Moscow: Moscow State University Press. 4. Bagalei, D. I. 1913. ―Neskol'ko slov o kharaktere kolonizatsii iuzhnoi stepnoi okrainy Moskovskogo gosudarstva [A Few Words about the Character of Colonization in the Southern Steppe of the Moscow State].‖ In Ocherki russkoi istorii [Essays in Russian History]. Vol. 2. Khar`kov: The Zil'berberg Press. 5. Bagalei, D. I. 1887. Ocherki iz istorii kolonizatsii stepnoi okrainy Moskovskogo gosudarstva [Essays on the History of Steppe Colonization of the Moscow State]. Moscow: Publishing House of the Society for History and Russian Antiquities. 6. Bagalei, D. I. 1886. ―K istorii zaseleniia stepnoi okrainy Moskovskogo gosudarstva [On the History of Settlement of the Moscow State`s Steppe Edge],‖ Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia [The Ministry of Popular Education Journal] 5, 6: 87–105; 250–387. 7. Beauplan, G. L. de. 1832 [1651]. Opisanie Ukrainy [Description of Ukraine]. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Kraiia. Original publication: Beauplan, G. L. de. 1651. Description des contres du Royayume de Pologne, contenuës depuis les confins de la Moscovie, iusques aux limites de la Transilvanie. Roüen: Jacque Cailloue. 8. Beliaev, I. D. 1846. O storozhevoi, stanichnoi i polevoi sluzhbe na Pol'skoi ukraine Moskovskogo gosudarstva do tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha [About the Storozhi, Stanitsy and Polevaia Duties on the Polish Ukraina of the Moscow State before Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich]. Moscow: University Press. 9. Bromlei, Iu. V., ed. 1988. Narody mira: istoriko-etnograficheskii spravochnik [Peoples of the World: An Historical-Ethnographic Guide]. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia. 10. Buganov, V. I. 1980. ―Razriadnye knigi kak istochnik po istorii pogranichnoi oborony Russkogo gosudarstva kontsa XV – pervoi treti XVII v. [Razriadnye Knigi as a Source on the History of Russian State Border Defenses in the Late Fifteenth to Early Seventeenth Century].‖ In Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii [Source Studies in National History], edited by V. I. Buganov. Moscow: Nauka publ.

228

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … 11. Bushkovitch, Paul. 1986. ―The Formation of National Consciousness in Early Modern Russia.‖ Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10: 355–376. 12. Bussow, Conrad. 1961 [1831]. Moskovskaia khronika [The Moscow Chronicle] («Chronicon Moscoviticum, continens res a morte Joannis Basilidis Tyranni, omnium quos sol post natos homines vidit immanissimi et truculentissimi, an. Christi 1584–1612»), archeographic commentary by I. I. Smirnov. Мoscow, Leningrad: The USSR Academy of Sciences Press. The manuscript was completed in 1613, first published in 1831. 13. Cherepnin, L. V. 1960. Obrazovanie russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV–XVI vekakh [The Formation of the Russian Centralized State in the 14th – 16th Centuries]. Moscow: Sotsekgiz publ. 14. Dashkevich, Ia. R. 1989. ―Bol'shaia granitsa Ukrainy [Big Border of Ukraine].‖ In Etnokontaktnye zony v Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR [Ethno-Contact Zones in the European Part of the USSR]. Мoscow: The Institute of Ethnography Press. 15. D'iachenko, A. G. 1998. ―Drevnerusskii gorod na r. Koren' [An Ancient Russian Town on the River Koren`].‖ In Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoprakticheskoi konferentsii «Iug Rossii v proshlom i nastoiashchem: istoriia, ekonomika, kul'tura» [Materials of the International Scholarly-Practical Conference ―South of Russia: History, Economy, Culture‖], 19–22. Belgorod: Belgorod State University Press. 16. Erusalimskii, K. Iu. 2011. ―Pol'sko-litovskie moskovity vtoroi poloviny XVI – nachala XVII v.: sotsial'nyi sostav, kul'turnye orientiry, puti integratsii [Polish-Lithuanian Muscovites in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Century: Social Structure, Cultural References, Paths of Integration].‖ In Etnokul'turnaia identichnost' narodov Ukrainy, Belorussii i Pol'shi: Mekhanizmy formirovaniia i sposoby proiavleniia [The Ethno-Cultural Identity of the Peoples of Ukraine, Byelorussia and Poland: Mechanisms of Formation and Ways of Manifestation]. Moscow: Institute of Slavic Studies (Russian Academy of Sciences) Press. 17. Fal'kovich, S. M. 2011. ―Istoricheskie sud'by pol'skogo naroda kak faktor formirovaniia na-tsional'nogo samosoznaniia i natsional'nogo stereotipa poliakov [The Historical Destiny of the Polish People as a Factor in Forming Polish National Self-Consciousness and National Stereotypes].‖ In Etnokul'turnaia identichnost' narodov Ukrainy, Belorussii i Pol'shi: Mekhanizmy formirovaniia i sposoby proiavleniia [The Ethno-Cultural Identity of the Peoples of Ukraine, Byelorussia and Poland: Mechanisms of Formation and Ways of Manifestation]. Moscow: Institute of Slavic Studies (Russian Academy of Sciences) Press. 18. Floria, B. N. 2002. ―Otnoshenie ukrainskogo kazachestva k Rechi Pospolitoi vo vremia kazatskikh vosstanii 20–30-kh godov XVII veka i na nachal'nom etape Narodno-osvoboditel'noi voiny [Relations between Ukrainian Cossacks and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Cossack Uprisings of the 1620–1630s and the early National Liberation War.‖ Slavianovedenie [Slavic Studies] 2: 36–51. 19. Floria, B. N. 1997. ―Nekotorye soobrazheniia o etnicheskom samosoznanii predkov sovremennykh belorusov [Some Thoughts about the Ethnic SelfConsciousness of Byelorussian Ancestors].‖ In Rus' – Litva – Belarus' [Rus` – Lithuania – Belarus], edited by A. K. Kavko, 92–94. Moscow: Nasledie publ. 20. Floria, B. N. 1978. Russko-pol'skie otnosheniia i politicheskoe razvitie Vostochnoi Evropy vo vtoroi polovine XVI – nachale XVII v. [Russian-Polish Relations and the Political Development of Eastern Europe from the 1550s through the Early Seventeenth Century]. Moscow: Nauka publ. 21. Gorizontov, L. E. 2002. ―Vostochnye slaviane v XVII – XVIII vekakh: etnicheskoe razvitie i kul'turnoe vzaimodeistvie (Materialy ―kruglogo stola‖) [Eastern

229

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Slavs in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Ethnic Development and Cultural Interaction (Roundtable Materials)].‖ Slavianovedenie [Slavic Studies] 2: 3–35. 22. Gumilev, L. N. 1992. Ot Rusi k Rossii: Ocherki etnicheskoi istorii [From Rus` to Russia: Essays on Ethnic History]. Moscow: Ekopros publ. 23. Gritsenko, A. A. 2010. ―Vliianie politicheskikh i landshaftnykh granits na regional'nuiu identichnost' v rossiisko-ukrainskom porubezh'e [The Influence of Political and Natural Borders on Regional Identity in the Russian-Ukrainian Borderlands].‖ ‗Kandidat nauk‘ diss., Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences. 24. Ishchenko, S. A. 1989. Voina i voennoe delo u krymskikh tatar XVI – XVIII vv. [War and Military Schooling of the Crimean Tatars in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries].‖ In Severnoe Prichernomor'e i Povolzh'e vo vzaimootnosheniiakh Vostoka i Zapada v XII – XVII vv. [Relations between Northern Black Sea and Volga Regions and East and West in the Twelfth to Seventeenth Centuries]. Rostov-on-Don: Rostov University Press. 25. Khodarkovsky, Michael. 2002. Russia’s Steppe Frontier. The Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500–1800. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 26. Khodarkovsky, Michael. 1999. ―Taming the «Wild Steppe»: Muscovy‘s Southern Frontier, 1480–1600.‖ Russian History / Histoire Russe 26 (3): 241–297. 27. Khoroshkevich, A. L. 1999. ―Rus' i Krym posle padeniia ordynskogo iga: dinamika tributarnykh otnoshenii [Rus` and Crimea after the Collapse of the Mongol Yoke].‖ Otechestvennaia istoriia [National History] 2: 69–77. 28. Khoroshkevich, A. L. 2001a. Rus' i Krym: Ot soiuza k protivostoianiiu [Rus` and Crimea: From Union to Opposition]. Moscow: Editorial URSS publ. 29. Khoroshkevich, A. L. 2001b. ―Kulikovskaia bitva i stanovlenie natsional'nogo samosoznaniia russkikh, ukraintsev i belorussov [The Battle of Kulikovo and the Formation of Russians, Ukrainian and Belorussian National SelfConsciousness].‖ In Dmitrii Donskoi i epokha vozrozhdeniia Rusi [Dmitry Donskoi and the Epoch of the Revival of Rus`], 63–78. Tula: Tul`ski poligrafist publ. 30. Kondufor, Ju. Ju. 1990. Ukraïns'ka narodnist': narysy social'noekonomychnoji y etno-politychnoi istoriï [Ukrainian Nationality: Essays on Socioeconomic and Ethno-Political History]. Kyïv: Naukova dumka publ. 31. Krasnov, Iu. A. 1987. Drevnie i srednevekovye pakhotnye orudiia Vostochnoi Evropy [Ancient and Medieval Plough Tools in Eastern Europe]. Moscow: Nauka publ. 32. Krylov, M. P., Gritsenko A. A. 2012. ―Rossiiskaia etnokul'turnaia identichnost' v rossiisko-ukrainskom i rossiisko-belorusskom porubezh'e: istoricheskaia pamiat' i kul'turnye transformatsii [Russian Ethno-Cultural Identity in the Russian-Ukrainian and Russian-Belorussian Borderlands: Historical Memory and Cultural Transformation].‖ Labirint [Labyrinth] 2: 28–32. Accessed September 14, 2013. http://journal-labirint.com/ 33. Kulish, P. A. 1888. Otpadenie Malorossii ot Pol'shi [The Disunion of Malorossiia from Poland]. Vol. I. Moscow: University Press. 34. Kuz`mina, L. F., comp. 1987. Razriadnaia kniga 1475–1605 gg. Vol. 3. Part 2. Moscow: Institute of Soviet History. 35. Lashkov, F. 1891. Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii Krymskogo khanstva s Moskovskim gosudarstvom v XVI i XVII vv. [Records of Diplomatic Relations between the Crimean Khanate and the Moscow State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries]. Simferopol`: Tipografiia gazety ―Krym.‖ 36. Liubavskii, M. K. 1996. Obzor istorii russkoi kolonizatsii s drevneishikh vremen i do XX veka [An Historical Overview of Russian Colonization from Ancient

230

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … Times to the Twentieth Century]. Moscow: Moscow University Press. This is the first publication of the manuscript, which was written in the early twentieth century. 37. Liubavskii, M. K. 1918. Nastuplenie na step' [The Advance on the Steppe]. Мoscow: Prakticheskie znaniia publ. 38. Margolin, S. L. 1948. ―Oborona Russkogo gosudarstva ot Tatarskikh nabegov v kontse XVI veka [The Defense of the Russian State from Tatar Attacks in the Late Sixteenth Century].‖ Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia [Works of the State Historical Museum] 20: 3–28. 39. Mavrodin, V. V. 1978. Proiskhozhdenie russkogo naroda [The Origins of the Russian Nation]. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press. 40. Miklashevskii, I. N. 1894. K istorii khoziaistvennogo byta Moskovskogo gosudarstva [Toward a History of Household Everyday Life in the Moscow State]. Part I. Moscow: The Inokhodtsev Press. 41. Miller, A. I., ed. 1997. Rossiia – Ukraina: istoriia vzaimootnoshenii [Russia—Ukraine: A History of Relations]. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture. 42. Mizis, Iu. A., and Kashchenko, S. G. 2011. ―Problema formirovaniiu russkogo frontira na Iuge Rossii v XVI – pervoi polovine XVIII v. v otechestvennoi istoriografii [The Problem of Russian Southern Frontier Formation from 1500 to 1750 in National Historiography].‖ Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriia 2: Istoriia [St. Petersburg University Bulletin. Series 2: History] 1: 9–16. 43. Novosel'skii, A. A. 1948. Bor'ba Moskovskogo gosudarstva s tatarami v pervoi polovine XVII v. [The Struggle of the Moscow State with Tatars in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century]. Moscow; Leningrad: The USSR Academy of Sciences Press. 44. Padalka, L. V. 1914. Proshloe poltavskoi territorii i ee zaselenie [A History of Poltava Region and Its Settlement]. Poltava: The Poltava Learned Archeographic Commission. 45. Pashuto, V. T., Floria, B. N., and Khoroshkevich, A. L. 1982. Drevnerusskoe nasledie i istoricheskie sud'by vostochnogo slavianstva [Ancient Rus` Heritage and the Historical Destinies of Eastern Slavs]. Moscow: Nauka publ. 46. Platonov, S. F. 1994 [1899]. Ocherki po istorii Smuty v Moskovskom gosudarstve XVI – XVII vv. [Essays on the Time of Trouble in the Moscow State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries]. Moscow: Records of the Historical Thought. 47. Pokhlebkin, V. V. 1992. Vneshniaia politika Rusi, Rossii i SSSR za 1000 let v imenakh, datakh i faktakh [One Thousand Years of Foreign Policy of Russia, Rus`, and the USSR in Names, Dates, and Facts]. Issue I. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia publ. 48. Pokhlebkin, V. V. 1995. Vneshniaia politika Rusi, Rossii i SSSR za 1000 let v imenakh, datakh i faktakh [One Thousand Years of Foreign Policy of Russia, Rus`, and the USSR in Names, Dates, and Facts]. Issue 2. Book 1. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia publ. 49. Poberezhnikov, I. V. 2009. ―Kanadskii i rossiiskii frontir: obshchee i osobennoe (XVI – nachalo XX v.) [Canadian and Russian Frontiers: The Common and Particular (Sixteenth to Early Twentieth Century)].‖ Ural'skii istoricheskii vestnik [The Urals Historical Bulletin] 2: 25–30. 50. Poberezhnikov, I. V. 2011. ―Aziatskaia Rossiia: frontir, modernizatsiia [Asian Russia: Frontier and Modernization].‖ Izvestiia Ural'skogo federal'nogo universiteta. Seriia 2: Gumanitarnye nauki [The Urals Federal University Bulletin. Series 2: Humanitarian Sciences] 96 (4): 191–203. 51. Podgrushnyi, G. P., ed. 2010. Problemy obshchestvennoi geografii. Prigranichnye territorii: metodologicheskie podkhody i opyt issledovanii [Problems of

231

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Social Geography. Borderland Territories: Methodological Approaches and Research]. Issue 2. Kiev: Institute of Geography, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. 52. Polishchuk, N. S., ed. 2000. Ukraintsy [The Ukrainians]. Moscow: Nauka publ. 53. Popov, N. A., ed. 1889. Akty Moskovskogo gosudarstva, izdannye imperatorskoiu Akademieiu nauk [Acts of the Moscow State Published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences]. Vol. I. Sankt-Petersburg: The Academy of Sciences Press. 54. Protorchina, V. M. 1948. ―Zaselenie stepnoi okrainy Moskovskogo gosudarstva v kontse XVI – pervoi polovine XVII vv. [The Settlement of the Steppe Borderlands of the Moscow State from the Late Sixteenth Century to 1650].‖ ‗Kandidat nauk‘ diss., Leningrad State University. 55. Rezun, D. Ia., Lamin, V. A., and Mamsik T. S. 2002. Frontir v istorii Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki v XVII – XX vv.: obshchee i osobennoe [The Frontier in the History of Siberia and North America in the Seventeenth to Twentieth Centuries; The Common and Particular]. Novosibirsk: RIPEL plius publ. 56. Rezun, D. Ia., and Shilovskii, M. V. 2005. Sibir', konets XVI – nachalo XX veka: frontir v kontekste etnosotsial'nykh i etnokul'turnykh protsessov [Siberia in the Late Sixteenth to Early Twentieth Century: The Frontier in the Context of Ethno-Social and Ethno-Cultural Processes]. Novosibirsk: Sova publ. 57. Rusyna, O. V. 1998. Ukrai'na pid tataramy i lytvoju [Ukraine under the Tatars and Lithuania]. Kyi'v: Al`ternativy publ. 58. Sakharov, A. N., ed. 1999. Istoriia vneshnei politiki Rossii. Konets XV – XVII veka [A History of Russia`s Foreign Policy from the End of the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia publ. 59. Shaw, D. J. B. 1983. ―Southern Frontier of Moscow 1550–1770.‖ Studies in Russian Historical Geography 1: 117–142. 60. Skrynnikov, R. G. 1997. Istoriia Rossiiskaia. IXX – VII vv. [Russian History. Ninth to Seventeenth Century]. Moscow: Ves` mir publ. 61. Smolij, V. A., V. S. Stepanov. 1999. Ukrai'ns'ka nacional'na revoljucija XVII st. [The Ukrainian National Revolution of the Seventeenth Century]. Kyi'v: Institute of Archeography, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. 62. Solodkin, Ia. G. 1999. ―Ukraintsy v Sibiri kontsa XVI — nachala XVII vv. [Ukrainians in Siberia in the Late Sixteenth to Early Seventeenth Centuries].‖ Sotsiokul'turnaia dinamika Khanty-Mansiiskogo avtonomnogo okruga segodnia i v perspektive XXI veka [Socio-Cultural Dynamics of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomious District at Present and in Twenty-First Century Perspective], 37–41. Surgut: Surgut State University Press. 63. Solov'ev, S. M. 1993 [1901]. Sochineniia [Oeuvre]. Vol. V. Moscow: Golos publ. 64. Solov'ev, S. M. 1994 [1901]. Sochineniia [Oeuvre]. Vol. VIII. Moscow: Golos publ. 65. Stanislavskii, A. L. 1990. Grazhdanskaia voina v Rossii XVII v. [Civil War in Russia in the Seventeenth Century]. Moscow: Mysl` publ. 66. Sysyn, Frank E. 1986a. ―Concept of Nationhood in Ukrainian History Writing, 1620–1690.‖ Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10: 393–423. 67. Sysyn, Frank E. 1986b. ―Recent Western Works on the Ukrainian Cossacks.‖ Slavonic and East European Review 64 (1): 100–116. 68. Sysyn, Frank E. 1985. Between Poland and the Ukraine. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 69. Tikhomirov, M. N. 1962. Rossiia v XVI stoletii [Russia in the Sixteenth Century]. Moscow: Nauka publ.

232

A. I. Papkov. The Dnieper-Don Forest-Steppe … 70. Tropin, N. A. 1999. Eletskaia zemlia v XII – XV vv. [The Elets Land in the 12th – 15th Cent.]. Elets: Elets State Pedagogical Institute Press. 71. Vinnikov, A. Z., and Kudriavtseva, E. Iu. 1998. ―Gorodishche Kholki na iugo-vostochnoi okraine Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva [Gorodishche Kholki in the Southeastern Edge of the Ancient Rus` State‘.‖ Voprosy istorii slavian. Arkheologiia. Etnografiia [Questions in the History of the Slavs. Archeology. Ethnography] 12: 50–71. 72. Vodarskii, Ia. E. 1973. Naselenie Rossii za 400 let (XVI – nachalo XX v.) [The Russian Population in Four Hundred Years (the Sixteenth to Early Twentieth Century)]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie publ. 73. Vorob'eva, T. D. 2012. ―Istoriia Kamchatki s pozitsii metodologii frontira [A History of Kamchatka using Frontier Methodology.‖ In Piatye mezhdunarodnye istoricheskie i Sviato-Innokent'evskie chteniia: materially [Materials of the Fifth International Historical and St. Innokentii Presentations] , 101–104. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii. Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.kamlib.ru/resourses/vorobieva5.htm 74. Zaborovskii, L. V. 1981. Rossiia, Rech' Pospolitaia i Shvetsiia v seredine XVII v. [Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Sweden in the MidSeventeenth Century]. Moscow: Mysl` publ. 75. Zagorovskii, V. P. 1991. Istoriia vkhozhdeniia Tsentral'nogo Chernozem'ia v sostav Rossiiskogo gosudarstva v XVI veke [A History of Incorporation of the Central Black Earth Region into the Russian State in the Sixteenth Century]. Voronezh: Voronezh State University Press. 76. Zagorovskii, V. P. 1972. ―Nekotorye voprosy rannei narodnoi kolonizatsii pol'skoi okrainy Rossii [Some Questions of the Early People`s Colonization of the Field`s Borderland of Russia].‖ In Ezhegodnik po agrarnoi istorii Vostochnoi Evropy za 1698 g. [Yearbook of Agrarian History of Eastern Europe in 1698]. Leningrad: Nauka publ. 77. Zamiatina, N. Iu. 1998. ―Zona osvoeniia (frontir) i ee obraz v amerikanskoi i russkoi kul'turakh [The Zone of Settlement (Frontier) and Its Image in American and Russian Cultures].‖ Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost' [Social Sciences and the Contemporaneity] 5: 75–78. 78. Zhukov, D. S., V. V. Kanishchev, and S. K. Liamin. 2012. ―Frontir i fraktal: podkhody k komp'iuternomu modelirovaniiu dinamiki rossiiskogo frontira [Frontier and Fractal: Approaches to the Computer Modelling of Russian Frontier Dynamics].‖ Fractal Simulation 2: 26–35. 79. Zimin, A. A. 1972. Rossiia na poroge novogo vremeni [Russia at the Turn of the Modern Era]. Moscow: Mysl` publ.

233

IN LIMITE / SINE LIMITIBUS

BORDERLAND STORIES: LIFE AT THE RUSSIAN BORDER Jenny Jansson, Maria Jansson Uppsala University Independent researcher

Йенни Янссон, Мария Янссон Упсальский университет Независимый исследователь

Abstract. This paper details the project ―Borderland Stories,‖ which focuses on national identity in various borderland regions of the Russian Federation. The authors point out that the contradiction between the pronunciation of national identity in the borderlands and the practical aspects of borders makes it particularly exciting to focus on national identity formation and daily life in the borderlands, especially in a huge country, such as the Russian Federation, that borders many different countries. Collection and analysis of the material are being conducted in 2014 and the first results are due for presentation in 2015. Keywords: borderlands, Russia, national identity, borders. Corresponding author: jenny.jansson[at]statsvet.uu.se Copyright: © 2014 distributed under the 4.0), which permits medium, provided the

Jansson and Jansson. This is an open-access article terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any original authors and source are credited.

УДК 94 (47+57)|20|

ИСТОРИИ ПОГРАНИЧЬЯ: ЖИЗНЬ НА РОССИЙСКОЙ ГРАНИЦЕ Аннотация. Статья посвящена проекту «Истории пограничья», в рамках которого изучаются различные пограничные регионы

234

Jenny Jansson, Maria Jansson. Borderland Stories … Российской Федерации. Ее авторы подчеркивают, что противоречие между проявлениями национальной идентичности и практическими аспектами существования границ делает исследование формирования национальной идентичности в контексте повседневной жизни в пограничье весьма интересным — особенно в такой огромной стране, как Россия, которая граничит со многими странами. Сбор и анализ материалов осуществляются в 2014 г., первые результаты исследования будут представлены в 2015 году. Ключевые слова: пограничье, Россия, национальная идентичность, границы. State borders are constructed by humans. They are a result of politics and history and are not given by nature. They define where the territory of one state begins and another ends. Borders are essential for states; they determine where the state has the authority to exercise power and where it has a monopoly over the use of force, as well as where the state has obligations to provide services. For central governments, borders must be maintained. A state that cannot maintain its borders and, thus, control its territory, lacks legitimacy (Vaughan-Williams 2009; Wilson and Donnan 1998). Borderlands are particularly interesting from an identity perspective. Research has claimed that social identities, such as national identities, emerge when the carriers are confronted with those who do not share their identity: the encounter with ―the other‖ creates a ―we‖ (Albert and Whetten 1985; Elsbach and Bhattacharya 2001). These encounters take place in the borderlands where different national identities meet. Consequently, one could assume that the specificity of a state's selfperception—the characteristic elements of a country‘s national identity—is pronounced in the border regions. But for those who live near the border, the ordinary citizens, the symbolic importance of the border may not be acknowledged. Far-reaching regional collaboration across the border may downplay the importance of the border and instead nourish cross-border culture and regional identities, especially if the borderlands are far away from the central government (Markusse 2006; Wilson and Donnan 1998). More importantly, the perspective of ordinary citizens will inevitably contain practical aspects of daily life, such as employment, shopping, renting a place to live, etc. From this perspective, the border can be perceived as an artificial construction that puts limits on daily living. Differences in rules, norms, and legislation between two countries may create obstacles in the everyday lives of the people who live at or near the border (Lundén 2009; Lundén and Zalamans 2002). The contradiction between the pronunciation of national identity in the borderlands and the practical aspects of borders makes it particularly

235

ÂŠ TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 exciting to focus on daily life on a countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s borders, especially in a huge country, such as the Russian Federation, that borders many different countries. In our project we examine daily life and national identity in the borderlands of Russia. Russia is an interesting case for various reasons. Russia is the largest country, in terms of land mass, in the world: it covers a territory from Vladivostok in the east to Kaliningrad in the west. It has land borders with twelve different countries. Thus, some of the borderlands are far from the central government, whereas others are much closer. Moreover, historically, Russia has had different relations with different neighboring countries, which also shapes the possibilities for cross-border cultures to develop. Choosing Russia can thus give us variation among different borderlands in the same country, which allows us to analyze multiple borderlands with the same central government. Recent events also make Russia a particularly relevant object of study. The annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine have put a great deal of international pressure on Russia, which could suggest a national mobilization around the central power in the country and, according to identity theory, a strengthening of national identity, especially in the border regions. Is this theoretical claim true? The Russian example can shed light on this question. In order to analyze identity formation and daily life in the borderlands we conducted interviews with residents of five different borderland cities in the Russian Federation. Examining life stories through in-depth semi-structured interviews gives us good possibilities to explore identity issues and to capture the essence of daily life in the borderlands. Life stories (oral history) as a method increases the understanding of how people define themselves and place themselves in a context (Johansson 2005), which is exactly what we aim to examine: life in the borderlands and national identity. We have chosen to analyze daily life in different kinds of regions. Two of our chosen cities border former Soviet republics: Ivangorod and Belgorod. Ivangorod borders Estonia. During the Soviet era it was part of Narva (located in Estonia), but after the fall of Soviet Union the city was divided into two parts. Estonia quickly distanced itself from Russia after independence and entered NATO, and later the EU. Initially it became harder for people on both sides to cross the border, but in recent years it has become easier, particularly for the Russian population in Estonia (Makarychev 2004). Belgorod is situated on the border with Ukraine, another former Soviet republic. Since the fall of the Soviet Union until recently, relations between Russia and Ukraine have been quite close. In particular, the relationship between Belgorod in Russia and Khar`kov in Ukraine has been described as advanced cross-border cooperation (Zhurzhenko 2004a; Zhurzhenko 2004b). This relationship has changed during 2014.

236

Jenny Jansson, Maria Jansson. Borderland Stories … One city close to Norway, Murmansk, has been included in the study. Norway belonged to NATO during the entire Cold War, making this particular border the land boundary between East and West, and the only land border between the Soviet Union and NATO. The border, which was closed during the Cold War, has lately become one of the most open borders to Russia (Nilsen 2010; Pettersson 2014). In addition, our study includes the former Finnish town Vyborg, situated on the border with Finland. Finland was part of the Russian empire, but gained independence after World War I. During the Cold War, Finland shared the longest land border with the Soviet Union; the Iron Curtain literally ran through this country (Aggestam 2000; Norborg and Sjöstedt 1998). The border was closed during Soviet times, but this has changed substantially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (Paasi 1999). Finally, we have included the city of Blagoveshchensk, which is located on the border with China. At the end of the nineteenth century and during the Boxer Rebellion there were conflicts between Russia and China. Chinese-Russian relations during the Soviet era were characterized by both suspicion and solidarity. The countries were on the same side against the capitalist West, but both countries competed for power in the Far East. Analyses of identity formation in these five cities will give us a comprehensive and diversified picture of national identity and daily life in Russian borderlands. On the one hand, historical and political differences between Russia and its neighboring countries will make it possible to discover common features in very different borderlands that could be applicable to all of Russia. On the other hand, the case selection will allow us to identify and explain differences. Collection and analysis of the material are being conducted in 2014 and the first results are due for presentation in 2015. REFERENCES 1. Aggestam, Lisbeth. 2000. Europeisk säkerhetspolitik. Lund: Studentlitteratur. 2. Albert, Stuart, and David A. Whetten. 1985. ―Organizational Identity.‖ Research in organizational behavior 7: 263–295. 3. Elsbach, Kimberly D., and C. B. Bhattacharya. 2001. ―Defining Who You Are by What You're Not: Organizational Disidentification and the National Rifle Association.‖ Organization Science 12 (4): 393–413. 4. Johansson, Anna. 2005. Narrativ teori och metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur. 5. Lundén, Thomas. 2009. ―Valga―Valka, Narva―Ivangorod. Estonia‘s divided border cities—cooperation and conflict within and beyond the EU.‖ In Jaroslaw Jańczak, ed. Conflict and Cooperation in Divided Towns and Cities, 133–149. Berlin: Logos. 6. Lundén, Thomas, and Dennis Zalamans. 2002. ―‗National allegiance‘ and spatial behaviour in Baltic boundary twin towns.‖ Journal of Baltic Studies 33 (2): 177–198.

237

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 7. Makarychev, Andrey. 2004. Marginality or provinciality? Pskov and Ivangorod at the intersection of Russia's trans-border relations: DIIS Working Paper. 8. Markusse, Jan. 2006. ―Trans-border interregional alliances in Europe: toward fading away national boundaries of regional identities?‖ Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica 39 (2): 39–56. 9. Nilsen, Thomas. 2010. ―First opening in the Schengen-regime with Russia.‖ Barents Observer, 2 November. 10.Norborg, Lars-Arne, and Lennart Sjöstedt. 1998. Grannländernas historia. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 11.Paasi, Anssi. 1999. ―Boundaries as Social Practice and Discourse: The Finnish‐Russian Border.‖ Regional Studies 33 (7): 669–680. 12.Pettersson, Johanna. 2014. ―From Boundary to Zone: Ideas of Openness in the Reconstruction of the Norwegian-Russian Border.‖ in IPSA World Conference of Political Science. Montréal. 13.Vaughan-Williams, Nick. 2009. Border politics: the limits of sovereign power. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 14.Wilson, Thomas M., and Hastings Donnan. 1998. Border identities: nation and state at international frontiers: Cambridge University Press. 15.Zhurzhenko, Tatiana. 2004a. ―Cross-border cooperation and transformation of regional identities in the Ukrainian–Russian borderlands: towards a Euroregion ―Slobozhanshchyna‖? Part 1.‖ Nationalities Papers 32 (1): 207–232. 16.Zhurzhenko, Tatiana. 2004b. ―Cross-border cooperation and transformation of regional identities in the Ukrainian–Russian borderlands: towards a Euroregion ―Slobozhanshchyna‖? Part 2.‖ Nationalities Papers 32 (2): 497–514.

238

A. Iu. Andreev, S. I. Posokhov. The Results of an International … THE RESULTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT “UBI UNIVERSITAS, IBI EUROPA” A. Iu. Andreev, S. I. Posokhov Moscow State University V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

А. Ю. Андреев, С.И. Посохов Московский государственный университет Харьковский национальный университет им. В.Н. Каразина

Abstract. The article details the results of an international research project on the establishment of universities in the Russian Empire. A team of historians from Moscow, Kazan` and Khar`kov Universities oversaw the project. The results make possible a greater understanding of how university ideas were adapted by and transferred into and within the Russian Empire in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The resultant research also offers a needed comparison of the development of universities in the Russian Empire with broader European trends, and a better estimation of inherited universities‟ traditions. Keywords: history of universities, universities in the Russian Empire, university traditions. Corresponding author: sposokhov[at]mail.ru Copyright: © 2014 Andreev and Posokhov. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited. УДК 94(4/5)|18/19|

РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ МЕЖДУНАРОДНОГО ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКОГО ПРОЕКТА “UBI UNIVERSITAS, IBI EUROPA” Аннотация. В статье идет речь об итогах реализации международного научного проекта, посвященного анализу процесса становления университетов в Российской империи. Проект осуществлен коллективом историков из Московского, Казанского и Харьковского университетов. Результаты исследований позволяют осмыслить специфику трансфера и адаптации университетской идеи в XVIII – первой половине XIX в., сравнить развитие университетов в Российской империи с общеевропейскими тенденциями, лучше понять доставшиеся нам в наследство университетские традиции. Ключевые слова: история университетов, университеты в Российской империи, университетские традиции. The international research project, entitled “Ubi universitas – Ibi Europa: The Transfer and Adaptation of University Ideas in the Late 239

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-century Russian Empire,” was officially implemented in 2008-10, although project participants initiated discussion of some ideas earlier. The completion of all scheduled tasks took place in 2012 with the publication of a final monograph. The project was based out of the German Historical Institute in Moscow, with Dr. A. V. Doronin as the Instute‟s curator of the project. Gerda Henkel Stiftung provided core funding (AZ 02/SR/08). Participants in the project included historians from Moscow, Khar`kov and Kazan` universities. Already in the project‟s early stage, the participants were clustered into three study groups. The Moscow group (its head, A. Iu. Andreev, also supervised the implementation of the project) studied various types of relationships within corporations at Russian universities in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, disclosed largely through university conflicts that demonstrated a different understanding of the ideological foundations of a university and, therefore, the characteristics of the transfer and adaptation of ideas in the Russian context. These included issues of formalization of corporations by obtaining privileges, adaptation of the system of academic titles and degrees in Russia, hierarchical division within corporations, relations between professors and students, and change over time due to the assimilation of “classical university” ideas. Project participants from Kazan` (headed by E. A. Vishlenkova) focused on the study of governance arrangements, the practice of formal and informal power relations between the university and the state, the role of trustees, administrative problems, the role and functions of rectors, inspectors and other positions in the corporate culture, and the formation of norms and deviations in an academic environment. The special task of this group, and specifically of Kazan` University, was to study the “educational colonization” of the region through the university, i.e. its contribution to the development of infrastructure and to the improvement of local living conditions. The Khar`kov group (headed by S. I. Posokhov) primarily examined the problem of the “university and the city” in its various aspects, including the socialization of scientists in an urban environment, spatial and temporal organization of life, material and financial conditions of work, relationships between city authorities and the local community, and forms of representation in public life. The International Scientific Conference “University Concept in Europe and Russia in the Eighteenth – Early Twentieth Centuries” (St. Petersburg, June 22-24, 2007),1 held by the German Historical Conference papers were published in the book: Andreev, A. Iu, comp. 2009. “Byt' russkim po dukhu i evropeitsem po obrazovaniiu:” Universitety Rossiiskoi imperii v obrazovatel'nom prostranstve Tsentral'noi i Vostochnoi Evropy XVIII – nachala XX v. [“To Be a Russian at Heart and a European by Education:” Universities of the Russian Empire in the Educational Space of Central and Eastern Europe in the Eighteenth to Early Twentieth Centuries]. Moscow: ROSSPEN publ. 1

240

A. Iu. Andreev, S. I. Posokhov. The Results of an International … Institute in Moscow at the Russian State Historical Archive in St. Petersburg, played a critical role at the preparatory stage in forming the team members and delineating the main issues of the project. Subsequently, the project participants organized five more workshops: 1) “Academic Conflictology: the Nature of University Conflict in the Russian Empire” (Moscow, November 5-6, 2007), which addressed the main types of conflicts and the resulting clashes between different hierarchies at the university, the mechanisms of adaptation of “university autonomy,” including academic positions and degrees, and other issues. 2) “The University and the City in the Russian Empire in the Eighteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries” (Khar`kov, May 15-18, 2008), employed a comparative framework to explore the interaction of three Russian universities (Moscow, Khar`kov and Kazan`) with the social space of the cities in which they were located, the impact of the university on the city, and the impact of the city on the university. 3) “University Practices of Ruling: Kazan`, Moscow, Khar`kov (the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century)” (Kazan`, April 27-29, 2009), focused on the problem of formal management practices (the institution of curators and trustees in this time period under Russian legislation and the European tradition); the presence of informal practices carried out through letters, language, and symbols between professors and authorities; and a gradual formation of “power of intelligence” through the creation of a new elite by Russian universities, who become carriers of the European ideas. 4) “Russian-German University Connections in the Eighteenth to Early Twentieth Centuries: Partnership, Mutual Influence, and Intellectual Space” (Mainz, June 17-19, 2010). In addition to the project participants, German scholars involved in similar studies took part, making it an international conference. The Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) provided support. Featured topics included a comparison of university space in the Russian Empire and Central Europe (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire, the German Confederation, and the German Empire) in this time period, a comparative analysis of Russian corporations and German universities within the main parameters stated in the project objectives, and mechanisms for the transfer of university ideas from Europe to Russia. 5) The final project meeting was held at the German Historical Institute in Moscow (November 19, 2010). Each group presented summary reports on the results of their work, in accordance with parts of the subsequent monograph. The scientific publications prepared in the course of the project were also presented. Altogether, the project resulted in three collective publications, as well as monographs by individual participants. The German Historical Institute in Moscow, in collaboration with the publisher ROSSPEN, will offer a series of edited volumes from the project “Ubi universitas, ibi Europa.” The anthology “The Idea of the University in the Late Eighteenth

241

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 to Early Twentieth Century Russian Empire,” contains texts in which academics, statesmen, and public figures express their understanding of the processes of distribution, establishment, and development of university ideas in the Russian Empire (Andreev and Posokhov 2011). These texts show the reflection of different views in Russia, which had emerged in Europe during the ideological foundation of the universities‟ utilitarian, enlightenment, and classical activities. These texts likewise demonstrate that Eastern Europe also contributed to the design of university ideas. The collection includes more than forty texts arranged in four sections in chronological order. Each section is prefaced, and the texts themselves contain detailed commentary and biographical information about the author and history of the text. In addition, the appendix includes translations from German of papers by European university education theorists Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Schleiermacher, whose writings are perhaps the most important for understanding the meaning of university ideas. Most of the members from Moscow and Khar`kov project teams took part in the preparation of this anthology. Overall, this volume makes clear that modern conceptions of the university represent the intertwining of variegated approaches, interpretations, and hypotheses from earlier time periods that still have not lost their relevance today. The biographical dictionary, Foreign Professors of Russian Universities from 1750 to the 1830s, provides the first ever publication of one hundred biographies of foreign (mostly German) professors who taught at Moscow, Khar`kov, Kazan` and St. Petersburg universities (Feofanov 2011). The biographies draw from archival sources (service records, personal files), and include lists of works, teaching programs, formal attributes of a career in Russia (grades and awards), and, when possible, the mens‟ subsequent careers after returning home from Russia. The resultant material allows not only for individual biographies of academic scholars (many of whom lacked such records until now), but also makes possible a prosopography of those who acted as intermediaries in the transfer of university practices from Europe to Russia. All of the project teams attended to the work on the dictionary. Individual monographs illuminating scholarly findings on specific aspects of the project in accordance with its goals include works by A. Iu. Andreev (Andreev 2009b), A. M. Feofanov (Feofanov 2010), and L. Iu. Posokhova (Posokhova 2011). This creative activity fulfilled the main objective of the project, culminating with the publication of a final monograph in late 2012.2 The authors of this article prepared this book for publication, but it has, in fact, become a collective monograph, since it included the results of every participant. In particular, the book would have been impossible without the great research assistance (including archival work) carried out by project Andreev, A. Iu, and S. I. Posokhov, eds. 2012. Universitet v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII – pervoi poloviny XIX veka [University in the Russian Empire from 1700 through 1850]. Moscow: ROSSPEN publ. 671 pages. 2

242

A. Iu. Andreev, S. I. Posokhov. The Results of an International … participants A. M. Feofanov, D. A. Tsygankov (Moscow), L. Iu. Posokhova, V. Iu. Ivashchenko (Khar`kov), K. A. Ilina, and T. V. Kostia (Kazan`). Of course, the collaborative efforts involved a certain amount of disagreement and debate among participants over key issues, but the result is a text that can be called “final,” and for which we, its authors and editors, assume full responsibility. While we will avoid offering a personal assessment of the results of our work, press reviews of the book appeared shortly after its publication and deserve a brief assessment. In particular, V. S. Bakirov considers the value of the monograph as follows: “First of all, in this case, the history of Russian universities is inscribed into the European context. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that this is not a simple copy/move, but an adaptation of university ideas in a different socio-cultural space. The authors explore the complex processes of perception of new cultural forms, the approval of the university as „theirs,‟ and the adoption of local university traditions. Secondly, the study is based on a broad source base, including recent works, foreign scholarship, and contemporary methodological methods. Regarding the latter, we note the use of comparative and cultural history. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the monograph contains a number of fundamentally new opinions, estimations, and characteristics. For example, we note the concept of „Northwestern‟ and „Southwestern‟ shuttle vectors, interpretation of such concepts as „university corporation,‟ „university autonomy,‟ „university lifestyle,‟ „university space,‟ and so on, which do not act as empty abstractions, but rather as concrete historical concepts inscribed in their temporal contexts. We draw attention to the authors‟ description of the mechanisms of the university as a social institution and its interaction with the non-university environment.”3 We are pleased by such an assessment. After completing a difficult and ambitious task people always want to hear praise, but in this case we note that the highlighted themes accord well with our own understanding of our intended objectives. That said, we also know that the study of the history of Russian universities, including in the modern period, is far from complete. Many complex and controversial issues remain unexplored and the required research cannot be completed in a single project. The university is not only the most important social institution, but it also reflects the state of the society in which it operates and is connected by thousands of threads to this broader context. In conclusion, we wish to express our deep gratitude to the staff of the German Historical Institute in Moscow, and especially its founding director Professor Bernd Bonwetsch and director from 2010 Professor “Kruglyi stol, posviashchennyi vykhodu v svet knigi «Universitet v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII – pervoi poloviny XІX veka» Pod obshch. red. A.Iu. Andreeva i S.I. Posokhova. – M.: ROSSPEN, 2012 [A roundtable devoted to the book launch of Andreev, A. Iu., and S. I. Posokhov, eds. 2012. The University in the Russian Empire from 1700 through 1850. Moscow: ROSSPEN publ.”].” 2013. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta [The Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University Herald]. No. 4 (53): 144. 3

243

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 Nikolaus Katzer, as well as researchers Andrei Doronin and Brigitta Ziehl. With sincere appreciation, we acknowledge the German scholars who, through their academic and organizational assistance, helped with the project: Trude Maurer (Goettingen), Hartmut Rüdiger Peter (Halle), and Johannes Gutenberg University (Mainz) professors Jan Kusber and Alexander Kaplunovsky. We are convinced that the university is a good basis for cooperation not only for researchers, but for all who seek mutual understanding, appreciate the important role of dialogue among cultures, and want to make life better. In this regard, we hope that the German Historical Institute in Moscow publication series about universities enjoys a long and fruitful existence. REFERENCES 1. Andreev, A. Iu, and S. I. Posokhov, eds. 2012. Universitet v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII – pervoi poloviny XIX veka [The University in the Russian Empire from 1700 to 1850]. Moscow: ROSSPEN publ. 2. Andreev, A. Iu, and S. I. Posokhov, comp. 2011. Universitetskaia ideia v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII – nachala XX vekov: antologiia [The University Idea in the Russian Empire in the Eighteenth to Early Twentieth Centuries: An Anthology]. Moscow: ROSSPEN publ. 3. Andreev, A. Iu, comp. 2009a. “Byt' russkim po dukhu i evropeitsem po obrazovaniiu:” Universitety Rossiiskoi imperii v obrazovatel'nom prostranstve Tsentral'noi i Vostochnoi Evropy XVIII – nachala XX v. [“To Be a Russian at Heart and a European by Education:” Universities of the Russian Empire in the Educational Space of Central and Eastern Europe in the Eighteenth to Early Nineteenth Centuries]. The series is edited by A. V. Doronin. Moscow: ROSSPEN publ. 4. Andreev, A. Iu. 2009b. Rossiiskie universitety XVIII – pervoi poloviny XIX veka v kontekste universitetskoi istorii Evropy [Russian Universities from 1700 to 1850 in the Context of University History in Europe]. Moscow: Znak publ. 5. Feofanov, A. M., comp. 2011. Inostrannye professora rossiiskikh universitetov (vtoraia polovina XVIII – pervaia tret' XIX v.): biograficheskii slovar' [Foreign Professors of Russian Universities from 1750 to the 1830s: A Biographical Dictionary]. Edited by A. Iu. Andreev. Moscow: ROSSPEN publ. 6. Feofanov, A. M. 2010. Studenchestvo Moskovskogo universiteta vtoroi poloviny XVIII – pervoi chetverti XIX v. [The Student Body of Moscow University from 1750 to the 1820s]. Moscow: PSTGU publ. 7. “Kruglyi stol, posviashchennyi vykhodu v svet knigi «Universitet v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII – pervoi poloviny XІX veka» Pod obshch. red. A.Iu. Andreeva i S.I. Posokhova. – M.: ROSSPEN, 2012 [A Roundtable on the Book Launch of Andreev, A. Iu., and S. I. Posokhov, eds. 2012. The University in the Russian Empire from 1700 to 1850. Moscow: ROSSPEN publ.”].” 2013. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta [The Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University Herald]. No. 4 (53): 141–57. 8. Posokhova, L. Iu. 2011. Na perehresti kul'tur, tradycij, epoh: pravoslavni kolegiumy Ukrai'ny naprykinci XVII – na pochatku XIX st. [At the Crossroad of Cultures, Traditions and Epochs: Orthodox Collegiums in Ukraine in the Late Seventeenth to Early Nineteenth Centuries] Kharkiv: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University Press.

244

E. A. Vishlenkova. Picturing Empires …

SCHOLARLY EVENTS

PICTURING EMPIRES: PHOTOGRAPHY AND SOCIAL CHANGES IN 19th CENTURY MULTIETHNIC ENVIRONMENT E. A. Vishlenkova The A. Poletaev Institute for Theoretical and Historical Studies in the Humanities (IGITI), National Research University “Higher School of Economics” (Moscow)

Е. А. Вишленкова Институт гуманитарных и историко-теоретических исследований им. А. Полетаева (ИГИТИ), Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики» (Москва)

E-mail: evishlenkova[at]mail.ru Copyright: © 2014 Vishlenkova. This is an open-access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

ИЗОБРАЖАЯ ИМПЕРИИ: ФОТОГРАФИЯ И СОЦИАЛЬНЫЕ ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ В ПОЛИЭТНИЧЕСКОМ КОНТЕКСТЕ XIX ВЕКА The international conference «Picturing Empires: Photography and Social Change in 19th Century Multiethnic Environments» was held in Basel (Switzerland) on August 27 to 29, 2014. Scholars interested in the histories of Russia, South Africa, America, Central Asia, Great Britain, France, and the Baltic States took part in the conference—this provided a comparative approach to the theme. Specialists in social history, art theory and history, cultural topography, and the history of medicine, science and 245

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 technology participated in the event. The conference took place at the Augusta Raurica Country Castle. Dr. Benjamin Schenk, the conference organizer, is well-known in the academic world for his works in the sphere of historical memory, mental geography, and the social history of Russia. His broad international network made possible the representation of scholars from different countries, national research traditions, and scientific disciplines. The conference represents one part of a larger collective project on the role of technological and technical innovation in the social modernization of the Russian Empire. Five panels met for three days in the chateau: 1) Visual Representations Before and After the Invention of Photography (presenters Elena Vishlenkova, Heather Sonntag, James Ryan, and commentator Mark Bassin); 2) Picturing Imperial Subjects in the Age of Photography (presenters Lorenna Rizzo and Olga Annanurova, and commentator Andreas Broeckmann); 3) Visualizing Multiethnicity (presenters Laura Ellias, Baiba Tetere, and Martina Baleva, and commentator Elizabeth Edwards); 4) Visualizing Religious Diversity (presenters Eugene Avrutin, Jannifer Keating, Jurg Schneider, and Arno Schubbach, and commentator Arno Schubbach); and 5) Industrial Photography (presenters Lanka Fehrenbach, Celina Assegond, Noeme Santana, and Monika Dommann, and commentator Monika Dommann). The conference format required preliminary preparation of reports, perusal of online manuscripts by the participants of the conference, visual presentations and explanations of methods used in image analysis, specially invited commentators’ speeches on reports, and detailed discussion among all participants. Further, participants formulated questions relevant to the history of photography and worked to extract theoretical conclusions from presented cases. As a result, the conference theme was not just a simple “umbrella” term to describe different and poorly connected cases. The conference generated a list of questions regarding the use of images in scholarly studies: How do we look at images? How are we allowed to look at them and to see them? How do new technologies and the development of technique influence how we perceive images? What role do customers’ and producers’ interests play in the looking policy? How important is cultural and local context in correctly interpreting images? Fierce debates occurred over such questions as: can we reconstruct gaze and contemporaries’ perception? Would this reconstruction entail the reproduction of new interpretations and their incorporation into new discourses? This anxiety is a natural consequence of adopting a postcolonial and feminist critique. Obvious deconstruction of the research hypothesis has occurred in recent years due to the development of new science and technology history. Could the object of the picture influence its own image? How could it be made? In other words, the limits and means of the construction of subjectivity and objectivity excited explorers of the

246

E. A. Vishlenkova. Picturing Empires … visual. Each panel addressed additional questions: How do photographers take part in national conventions? What do they bring to these conventions? How are photos collected and preserved for historians and other specialists in archives, museums, and private collections? Participants offered potential answers to the question of photos’ power to witness, help, remember, construct, change, and popularize. It should be noted that each presenter discussed photograph series and albums, rather than single images. This suggests that the single image is not a visual narrative. It offers a unique, but separate testimony, a unit of the visual language. The conference title problematizes the role of the photographer in representations of country, groups, and community (i.e. the metropole’s success in the “civilizing of natives”), the empire’s selfconfidence in an international context, and the mapping of geographic and mental spaces. The photographer helps to structure the social world (as multiethnic, socially heterogenous) and to create national identities. However, as the discussed cases revealed, the photographer is also a channel for overcoming isolation and local limitation. Industrial photography provides people with a sense of a global community by depicting global problems (i.e. air pollution made by factories). Participants discussed the multiplicity of imperial modernities and their reception by contemporaries. They also paid particular attention to the material component of visual images: the paper, chemicals, and optical equipment. As long as pictures are a means of social communication, its creators, consumers, and investigators are in need of its signatures. It issues a challenge to the correlation between visual and verbal languages, and raises questions about the place of photography among other media (graphics, caricatures, maps, and films). The conference demonstrates how one group of investigators have used Foucault’s theoretical framework in their research and how another group has challenged Foucault’s rigorous arrangement of discourse and power. At the same time, no one argued for a universal methodological framework. Rather they agreed with Dr. Benjamin Shenk’s arguments in favor of collective elaboration of theory in scholarship on the history of photography, support for an interpretational openness in approaching images, and the importance of analyzing gaps in our comprehension.

247

Adrianne K. Jacobs University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Эдриан К. Джекобс Университет Северной Каролины в Чапел-Хилл

E-mail: adri.k.jacobs[at]gmail.com Copyright: © 2014 Jacobs. This is an open-access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

КУЛИНАРНОЕ ИСКУССТВО, КУЛЬТУРА И ПОЛИТИКА В РОССИИ И ВОСТОЧНОЙ ЕВРОПЕ: ПИЩА ДЛЯ РАЗМЫШЛЕНИЙ The Symposium ―Food for Thought: Culture and Cuisine in Russia & Eastern Europe, 1800–Present‖ was held at the University of Texas at Austin on February 7 and 8, 2014. Mary Neuburger, Tatiana Kuzmic, and Keith Livers, all of UT Austin, organized this event with support from the Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies, and other local sponsors. With more than fifty presenters, ―Food for Thought‖ represents the largest conference on Russian, East European, and Eurasian food studies ever held in the United States. This event brought together scholars from a range of disciplines, including history, anthropology, literature, and geography, with culinary professionals engaged in promoting and researching these regions’ foodways. This was a truly international gathering. ―Food for Thought‖ hosted participants from the United States, Canada, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovenia. Dr. Ronald LeBlanc, Professor of Russian and Humanities at the University of New Hampshire, gave the keynote address, ―From Russian Vegetarians to Soviet Hamburgers: Tolstoy, Pilnyak, and the Ethics/Politics of Diet.‖ This included material from Dr. LeBlanc’s previous monograph, Slavic Sins of the Flesh (2009), and also offered a preview of his forthcoming gastrocritical study of Boris Pilnyak’s 1936 novel, Meat. In this talk, Dr. LeBlanc captured one of the unifying themes of the conference. That is, in studying the way people in a given society think 248

Adrianne K. Jacobs. Cuisine, Culture, and Politics in Russia … about, practice, and represent their food culture, scholars can untangle heretofore overlooked aspects of the society’s networks of moral, ethical, and aesthetic principles. The Symposium’s fourteen panels covered a wide array of subjects and approaches to the study of food and drink, past and present. For example, a panel titled ―In Vino Veritas‖ addressed the history of wine as a commodity in Russia and Bulgaria, while also connecting the history of viticulture to representations and practices of alcohol consumption in these countries. ―Progress in the Kitchen‖ featured four papers—by Christine Ruane (University of Tulsa), Alice Weinreb (Loyola University of Chicago), Marina Potoplyak (University of Texas Austin), and Emily Hillhouse (Huston-Tillotson University)—that looked at the kitchen as a site for social reform projects throughout the twentieth century. Other themes and approaches ran throughout the conference. Some scholars used the methods of cultural geography to interrogate food customs. Maria Emanovskaya (INALCO Paris) thus explored Soviet Russian food habits in the 1980s, while Kaitlin Lane Fertaly (University of Colorado Boulder) examined domestic skills in postsocialist Armenia. Several participants focused specifically on manifestations of ―national‖ cuisine in the Soviet Union, post-Soviet Russia, Bulgaria, Belarus, and Slovenia. Celebrity chefs provided one entry point into the subject of national culinary identity, as in presentations by Ana Tominc (Lancaster University) and Mary Neuburger. Lynn Visson (Monterey Institute of International Studies) and Nikolai Burlakoff (independent scholar) combined research with personal memories in their presentations on, respectively, Russian restaurants in postwar New York City and the history of borscht. Other presentations considered such diverse topics as food in post-Soviet Russian comics, representations of cannibalism in literature, the daily lives of gypsies, and tourists’ meals in socialist Romania. Presenters and invited attendees also enjoyed several unique gastronomic experiences as part of the symposium. Czech-American chef Pavla von Biber of the August Escoffier School of Culinary Arts in Austin catered lunches and coffee breaks. Friday’s lunch centered on chicken paprikash—chunks of chicken in a creamy paprika sauce—served with egg noodles and bread dumplings (knedliky). Lunch on Saturday featured a variety of handmade Czech-style sausages. On both days of the symposium, participants and visitors enjoyed Chef Von Biber’s pastries and cakes between panels. Dr. Glenn Mack, President of Le Cordon Bleu College Atlanta, invited presenters to attend a special event at Le Cordon Bleu Austin on Friday. Dr. Mack demonstrated the art of making hand-pulled noodles, such as those found in Chinese, Uzbek, and other East and Central Asian cuisines. During the presentation, participants enjoyed laghman, a spicy beef noodle soup, prepared in-house by Le Cordon Bleu chefs in training. Afterward the group sampled a selection of infused vodkas and vodka cocktails.

249

ÂŠ TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 The symposium closed with a wine tasting and gala dinner. Master Vintner Vance Petrunoff conducted the wine tasting. Participants learned about the history of viticulture in Bulgaria and sampled an array of Bulgarian wines available for sale in parts of the United States. Next came an evening of food and dancing at the Russian House NaZdorovye Restaurant, located at 307 E 5th St in downtown Austin. The meal included a variety of popular dishes from Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union, including borscht, chakhokhbili (a Georgian chicken stew), and delicate Napoleon cake. In the weeks following the symposium, participants founded the Association for the Study of Russian, East European, and Eurasian Food and Drink (ASREEEFD). This interdisciplinary community brings together scholars and culinary professionals dedicated to the study of the history, politics, and the culture of food in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Members of ASREEEFD have since contributed to the creation of the H-Eurasia-Food Network, which launches this fall as a new addition to the H-Net Commons. ASREEEFD plans to organize additional conferences on Russian, East European, and Eurasian food studies in the future. Interested scholars can contact ASREEEFD at adri.k.jacobs@gmail.com.

250

N. N. Bolgov. IV International Scholarly Conference “Kondakov’s Readings” IV INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARLY CONFERENCE “KONDAKOV’S READINGS” N. N. Bolgov Belgorod National Research University

Н. Н. Болгов Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет

E-mail: bolgov[at]bsu.edu.ru Copyright: © 2014 Bolgov. This is an open-access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

IV МЕЖДУНАРОДНАЯ НАУЧНАЯ КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ «КОНДАКОВСКИЕ ЧТЕНИЯ» The IV International Scholarly Conference ―Kondakov‘s Readings‖ was held on October 12–13, 2013 in Belgorod. The project began in 2004 on the initiative of the History Department of Belgorod National Research University. The conference takes place every three years and offers a forum for scholarly research related to the work of academician N. P. Kondakov (1844–1925), native of Belgorod region, in such themes as the history and archaeology of Antiquity, the Byzantine Empire, and Ancient Rus‘. The conference included representatives from many of the scientific centers of Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhnii Novgorod, Tula, Belgorod), Ukraine (Kiev, L‘vov, Khar‘kov), Belarus (Minsk), and Israel (Haifa). Plenary reports addressed the central themes of the conference. N. N. Bolgov, the head of the Department of World History and International Area Studies, offered a review of the yearlong research activities of the ―Classical and Byzantine tradition‖ program at the university. D. E. Bogdanov and M. I. Dorokhov provided information on the youth wing of this program. D. S. Gordienko (Kiev) dedicated his speech to the scholarly research of N. P. Kondakov, with a focus on evaluating the works of academian M. S. Grushevskii. The following scholars presented papers on the problems of classical antique history: A. A. Kleimenov (Tula), ―Phalanx peculiarities in Sparta and Macedonia,‖ A. V. Kleimenova (Tula), ―Roman legions in Britain,‖ K. I. Kuibida (L‘vov), ―Animal depictions in the Homeric epic,‖ E. A. Semicheva (Belgorod), ―‗The Other‘ at Ammianus Marcellinus,‖ D. E. Bogdanov, ―Years 395–410: the breakup of the empire,‖ and others.

251

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 N. P. Kondakov‘s first scientific research concerned the northern Black Sea region and its material culture. This theme attracted the attention of many scholarly participants: S. V. Iartsev (Tula), ―Filimer‘s campaign and the downfall of the Crimean Scythia,‖ A. L. Ermolina (Haifa)—―The Bosporans in antique toreutics,‖ M. V. Fomina (Khar‘kov), ―The ‗Kingdom of God‘ in the early Christian art of Chersoneses‖, I. A. Fomina (Khar‘kov), ―The iconographic program of four-apsidal cathedral in Chersoneses‖, A. N. Domanovsky (Khar‘kov), ―‗Bread for the pope:‘ The exile letters of Martin I regarding the food trade in Byzantine Chersoneses during the Dark Ages,‖ and others. In accordance with the evolution of N. P. Kondakov‘s scientific interests, the section dedicated to the problems of Byzantine history and culture occupied the leading position at the conference. In his presentation, A. A. Torkanevskii (Minsk) considered the problem of ―The second bonds‖ of Paul the Apostle. M. V. Gratsianskii (Moscow) presented on the papacy‘s position under the Byzantine Empire‘s downfall in central Italy in the eighth century. A. A. Romenskii (Khar‘kov) spoke about the complex circumstances of the power struggle in the Byzantine Empire at the end of the 980s between Basil II and Bardas Phokas. N. I. Bystritskii (Moscow) reported on the informational base for the ―Byzantine Vremennik.‖ A. M. Bolgova explored the history of high schools in early Byzantine Palestine. I. V. Denisova addressed reasons for Slavic assimilation in Byzantine Greece. A. V. Kurbanov (St. Petersburg) provided some observations on textual criticism of the ―correspondence between Barsanuphius of Palestine and John the Prophet‖ in the historical context of monastic life in sixth-century Gaza. Additional reports were made by young scholars and graduate students of the University: ―Antique vestiges in everyday life and the morals of early Byzantine towns‖ (Iu. N. Agarkova), ―Female monkhood in early Byzantine Palestine‖ (A. Iu. Ryshkovskaia), ―The Christian concept of imperial power in ‗A panegyric to Anastasius I‘ by Priscian‖ (K. N. Bolgov), ―Goths in Constantinople‖ (O. V. Golovina), ―The Byzantine books of ‗Chronographia‘ by John Malalas‖ (A. V. Kobzeva), ―John the Lydian: Byzantine antiquarian and bureaucrat of the sixth century‖ (M. M. Sinitsa) and others. The section on Ancient Rus‘ History, Culture and Heritage has become an equally vibrant portion of the conference. V. V. Kornienko (Kiev) discussed the ―High ecclesiastical altar of St. George in the side chapel of Sofia of Kiev, according to epigraphics.‖ In his report, ―The ghost of Oleg the Seer,‖ L. V. Voitovych (L‘vov) suggested a new detailed reconstruction of problems concerning the ancient Russian prince. Ia. V. Litvinenko (Kiev) reviewed graffiti in the Kiev Caves Monastery from the twelfth through the twentieth century. E. V. Pitateleva (Kiev) offered an interesting ―Excursus into the iconography of Saints Cyril and Methodius, based on examples of Eastern and Central European visual art.‖ The report by A. B. Golovko, ―Rulers of Southwestern Rus‘ at the beginning of 252

N. N. Bolgov. IV International Scholarly Conference “Kondakov’s Readings” the thirteenth century: Prince Mstislav Mstislavich the Bold and Daniel Romanovich,‖ was the result of many years of research on this topic. M. E. Domanovskaia (Khar‘kov) and A. A. Mavrin (Kiev) gave historiographical papers on ―Byzantine art and archaeology at the Twelfth Archaeological Congress in Khar‘kov‖ and on ―The second UkrainianArmenian session of 1962 from the letters of Y. R. Dashkevich.‖ P. S. Al‘boshchii (Belgorod) presented a detailed report on the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Belgorod and recent archaeological excavations on its territory. A concluding session of the conference summarized its findings and gave recommendations as to the further development of research under consideration. The conference included the dedication of a N. P. Kondakov Lecture Room, which was established in 2013 in the Department of History and Philology at Belgorod National Research University. Conference proceedings were published at the end of 2013. Translated from Russian by Natalia V. Grigorenko

253

М. И. Дорохов Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет

E-mail: doroxov.misha[at]mail.ru Copyright: © 2014 Dorokhov. This is an open-access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

VII НАУЧНАЯ КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ МОЛОДЫХ УЧЕНЫХ «КЛАССИЧЕСКАЯ И ВИЗАНТИЙСКАЯ ТРАДИЦИЯ» The VII Young Scholars` Conference “Classical and Byzantine Tradition” was held on October 5–6, 2013, in Belgorod, having been conducted since 2007 by the History Department at Belgorod National Research University. The conference offers a sort of version of “Kondakov’s Readings” for young scientists, undergraduates, and graduate students. Conference participants hail from Moscow, Yaroslavl’, Tula, Smolensk, Saratov, St. Petersburg, Khar`kov, Donetsk, and Belgorod. The section “Classical Greece and Rome” included seventeen papers. Presentations on “Antique strategems in the writings of R. Montecuccoli” by E. S. Danilov (Yaroslavl’), on “Colour symbolism in the antique tradition” by A. I. Pankova (Donetsk), and on “Problems in relations between the Roman Empire and the barbarian world: between economy and politics” by N. A. Bilenko (Tula) garnered special interest. The section “the Northern Black Sea region in the antique and Byzantine periods” included eleven reports, most of which concerned archaeological field research by their authors. Some authors and their reports deserve special mention: “Demeter’s companions in the terracotta of the Bosporan Kingdom” by A. V. Vakhrameev (Donetsk), “A sling as a source for the military history of the Bosporan Kingdom (based on excavations of the Belinskoe settlement)” by A. A. Chernikova (Tula), and “The role of family and the church in the spiritual life of Chersonesus’s citizens in the 12-14th centuries” by D. V. Dudchenko (Khar`kov). The section “Late Antiquity” included thirteen reports. The following presentations attracted special interest from participants and the

254

M. I. Dorokhov. VII Young Scholars` Conference … audience: “Modern researchers of late antiquity and their works” by M. I. Lopatina (Belgorod), “The treaty between Constantine I and the barbarians in 322” by O. I. Kraiushkina (Tula), and “The Serapeum of Alexandria in Egypt” by M. A. Rudneva (Belgorod). The section “Early Byzantine Empire” included the largest number of presenters (twenty-five total). S. A. Galkina (Tula) gave her paper on “Missionary Ulfilas’s life and dissemination of Christianity among the Goths.” M. M. Sinitsa (Belgorod) presented on “Sources of Roman statehood as conceived by Byzantine intellectuals in the sixth century (John Lydus).” N. E. Tretiakova (Belgorod) offered a paper on “The Moors in the epoch of Byzantium’s assertion of power in Africa.” For the first time, the conference included the section “Antique literature and classical philology,” which included four presentations. Five scholars gave presentations for the traditional section “Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire from the view point of schoolchildren.” The conference achieved its primary goal of developing research at Belgorod National Research University in the field of classical and Byzantine tradition. This conference attracted more participants from more places than its predecessors. A number of Belgorod National Research University’s second-year students in the Departments of History and Philology gave their first presentations at the conference. Graduate students and undergraduates have tested new ideas and the results of their research. A conference volume of the papers was published in December 2013. This work also contains materials from the annual seminar “Fiction in History” (held in February 2013), as well as new translations of excerpts from works by antique and early Byzantine authors, chronicles of current events, and notes. Translated from Russian by Natalia V. Grigorenko

255

Andreev, A. Iu. Bolgov, N. N.

– Professor of Russian History at the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Doctor of Science (History) – Professor of Ancient and Medieval History at the Belgorod National Research University, Doctor of Science (History)

Chatterjee, Choi

– Professor of Russian and Soviet History at the California State University (Los Angeles), PhD in History

Dorokhov, M. I.

– Master`s student of History at the Belgorod National Research University – PhD Candidate in Russian and East European History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Researcher at the Department of Government, Uppsala University; PhD in Political Science – Project manager of the book-project "Borderland Stories," Journalist; MSc in Business and Economics, BA in Russian

Jacobs, Adrianne K.

Jansson, Jenny

Jansson, Maria

Litovchenko, E. V.

– Assistant Professor of Ancient and Medieval History at the Belgorod National Research University, Candidate of Science (History)

Papkov, A. I.

– Dean of the History and Philology Department at the Belgorod National Research University, Candidate of Science (History) – Chair of the Department of History at the University of Kentucky (Lexington); Professor of Russian and Soviet History, PhD in History – Dean of the Faculty of History at the V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Doctor of Science (History) – Professor of Ancient History and Dean of the Social Sciences Division at the University of Bremen, Prof. Dr. – Professor of Russian History and ViceRector at the Belgorod National Research University, Doctor of Science (History)

Petrone, Karen

Posokhov, S. I.

Schmitt, Tassilo Shapovalov, V. A.

256

INFORMATION ABOUT AUTHORS

Vishlenkova, E. A.

– Deputy Director of the A. Poletaev Institute for Theoretical and Historical Studies in the Humanities, National Research University “Higher School of Economics,” Doctor of Science (History)

Yakushkina, E. I.

– Associate Professor at the Voronezh State University, Candidate of Science (History)

257

© TRACTUS AEVORUM 1 (2). Fall 2014 INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS The journal “TRACTUS AEVORUM” (Latin for “the path of centuries”) focuses its attention on the twin concepts of space and transition throughout history, with particular emphasis on borders and borderlands. To encourage international and domestic dialogue among scholars, we invite original manuscripts in English and Russian that have not previously been published and are not concurrently under consideration by another journal. Submissions in German or French are also possible. The journal “TRACTUS AEVORUM” is biannual: it comes out in March and October. We provide immediate open-access to the journal`s content on the principle that this publishing mode contributes to a greater global exchange of knowledge. Due to support of the Belgorod National Research University, there is no submission/publication fee. The journal publishes research articles, review essays, book reviews, information about relevant scholarly events (e.g. conference reports). Other kinds of submissions are possible. All research materials undergo double blind peer-review, other manuscripts are subject to editorial review. Articles must be from 20 000 to 40 000 characters (including spaces). This character count should include the following: title; author(s), affiliation and contact information (address, phone number, e-mail); 5-10 line abstract in English (the editorial team will translate it into Russian); 5-7 keywords; main text with references; optional appendices with any necessary tables, pictures, or graphs. References should follow the Chicago citation style (Author-Date). More information is available on the website of the journal www.belsu-tractus-aevorum.ru.

258