Historiography of the Problem of Reception of Western European Education Ideas in the 18th Century Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-1) ◽  
pp. 214-228
Author(s):  
Ivan Kokovin ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Ford

Classical criticism refers to a conception of the nature and function of poetry and of verbal art generally whose principles were first theorized by the sophists in 5th-century bce Greece. In contrast to traditional views, they held that eloquence was no less a product of conscious design than a house or a sculpture, and that skillful speech was an art (τέχνη) that could be learned. The expertise they claimed centered on style rather than content, and the qualities they valued tended to be formal ones: clarity, orderliness, and balance, with a sense of decorum governing all elements. Their project was repudiated by Plato in a series of searching critiques, but after being refined by Isocrates and systematized by Aristotle, the study of rhetoric—which encompassed the study of poetry in an ancillary role—constituted the backbone of higher education in the liberal arts. Classical principles determined which works would be “canonized” in the Hellenistic libraries, where literary scholars began to call themselves “critics” or judges; after Greek literary culture was imported into Rome, the exemplary authors came to be called “classic” or “of the first rank.” Classical criticism retained a central place in European education and culture that would not be undermined until the 18th century. Although Romanticism rejected 18th-century classicism as excessively rationalistic and narrowly formal, its basic concepts and terms continue to be useful because of deep dialectical tensions built into them at the time of their formation.


Author(s):  
Lorenzo Zanella

Morphological variation of central-western European populations of Abax parallelepipedus was studied in order to revise the microsystematics of this species. Original descriptions and systematic revisions published since the second half of the 18th century are discussed. Biometric variables and morphometric indexes were evaluated on 792 specimens sampled from several European countries. The data were statistically analysed in order to discriminate the populations significantly differentiated from the nominotypical form. Features of male genitalia are also discussed. The results attest that the morphological variation becomes more relevant among populations inhabiting alpine environments and the Italian ones show the most distinctive modifications of somatic and/or aedeagic traits. On the basis of these results, A. p. euganensis Schatzmayr, 1944 is resurrected from synonymy with A. p. inferior, whereas the following new synonymies are proposed:Abax parallelepipedus parallelepipedus (Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783) = A. p. subpunctatus (Dejean, 1828) syn. nov. = A. p. audouini (L. Dufour, 1851) syn. nov. = A. p. germanus Schauberger, 1927 syn. nov.Abax parallelepipedus inferior (Seidlitz, 1887) = A. p. alpigradus Schauberger, 1927 (sensu Schatzmayr, 1944) syn. nov.A phylogeographical scenario is hypothesized and discussed in the light of the collected data.


2017 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 231-253
Author(s):  
Beatrice Teissier

AbstractThis article discusses the portrayal of Crimea, particularly Crimean Tatars and their culture, through the writings of nine men and women who travelled in the region in the late 18th century. These writers travelled in different capacities and represent a diversity of viewpoints; they include figures of the Russian academic and political establishment and western European travellers, with or without Russian affiliations. The article sets their writings in the context of the imperial Russian rhetoric of conquest associated with the annexation of Crimea in 1783 and Catherine II's tour of the area four years later. This rhetoric remains relevant today through the marked persistence of certain historic tropes in contemporary Russian attitudes towards Crimea. The article also discusses the writers’ responses to Crimea in the light of broader Enlightenment tropes in travel writing and ethnographic observation. It examines the extent to which the travellers’ accounts of Crimea were shaped by notions of ancient Greek heritage, Scythians and ‘Tartar hordes’, attitudes towards the Ottoman Empire (Crimea had previously been an Ottoman protectorate) and Islam, and 18th-century orientalism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document