Pulkovo Observatory and the National Observatory Movement: A Historical Overview

2020 ◽  
pp. 403-416
Author(s):  
Steven J. Dick
1990 ◽  
Vol 141 ◽  
pp. 29-38
Author(s):  
Steven J. Dick

The patronage of national governments has played an important role in the history of astronomy, classically in the form of National Observatories. In this paper we 1) argue that the last three centuries have seen what we may call a “national observatory movement,” in that national governments during this period increasingly supported astronomical observatories, and in that such institutions share certain common properties of origin, purpose and evolution; 2) demonstrate the important role that Pulkovo Observatory has played in this movement; and 3) compare certain aspects of the Pulkovo Observatory and the United States Naval Observatory as exemplars of this species founded within a decade of each other under very different political conditions.


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Schroeder ◽  
Larry Bailey ◽  
Julia Pounds ◽  
Carol Manning

2007 ◽  
pp. 87-103
Author(s):  
R. Nureev

The article is devoted to the history of reception and interpretation of the ideas of Marx and Engels. The author considers the reasons for divergence between Marxist and neoclassical economic theories. He also analyzes the ways of vulgarization of Marx’s theory and the making of Marxist voluntarism. It is shown that the works of Marx and Engels had a certain potential for their over-simplified interpretations. The article also considers academic ("Western") Marxism and evaluates the prospects of Marxist theory in the future.


2018 ◽  
pp. 1274-1279
Author(s):  
Elena V. Olimpieva ◽  

The article reviews O. A. Shashkova’s ‘... Call the Mute Artifacts to Speech.’ Essays on the History of Archaeography of the 15th - Early 20th Century. Wide array of sources and broad geographical frameworks allow Shashkova to present emergence and development of Russian and European archaeography from the 15th to early 20th century intelligibly enough for educational purposes. A whole chapter is devoted to the manuscript tradition and publishing of sources before Gutenberg. When considering the formation of archaeographical tradition, the author uses comparative method. O. A. Shashkova offers a historical overview and analyzes theoretical and practical issues of archaeography. The reviewer notes the significance of the chosen topic due to a need to reconsider the development of publishing in light of modern views on archaeography and to make it accessible to students and non-professionals. She notes traditional academic approach of O. A. Shashkova to presentation of the development publication practices. The review considers the possibility of using the ‘Essays...’ in studying the history of archaeography and offers possible directions for a broader consideration of historical experience, in particular, of Novikov’s publication projects. The review notes the controversial nature of the author’s approach to systematization of her large historical material in order to consider issues concerning the study of archaeographical practices. It stresses that coverage of issues of development of methods of preparation of publications separately from its historical and practical aspects hinders successful mastering of the material by an untrained reader. It concludes that the publication has high practical value for specialists in archaeography and students.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document