scholarly journals THE BOOK OF SOCHNY WRITING AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE

2021 ◽  
pp. 64-78
Author(s):  
Алексей Геннадьевич Гуменюк
Keyword(s):  
Tax Reform ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Historical Source ◽  
Living Quarter ◽  
Clerical Work ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Land Surveying

Книга сошного письма является важным источником при изучении писцового делопроизводства. Сохранившиеся редакции памятника до настоящего времени не стали объектом систематического исследования. При подготовке данной работы, были исследованы 22 списка книги сошного письма. Изученные рукописи позволяют выделить две полных редакции памятника. Текст книги сошного письма в первой редакции выявлен в 4-х списках, относящихся к середине XVII в. Вторая редакция книги сошного письма сохранилась в 6 списках первой половины XVIII в. 12 списков являются сокращенными редакциями документа, отличающимися друг от друга. Анализ комплекса списков книги сошного письма показывает, что первая редакции текста содержит элементы протографа, составленного в 1588-1610 гг. К правлению царя Михаила Фёдоровича следует отнести дополнения в тексте, касающиеся разверстки живущей четверти. Текст первой редакции сохранял много разделов, устаревших к середине XVII в. После налоговой реформы 1679 г. текст был переработан, вторая редакция книги сошного письма являлась официальным руководством по землемерию до середины XVIII в. The book of soshny writing is an important source in the study of scribal clerical work. The surviving versions of the text have not been become the object of systematic research yet. During the preparation of this work 22 copies of the book of soshny writing were examined. The studied manuscripts are allowed to distinguish two complete versions of the written artifact. The first edition of the book of the soshny writing is revealed in 4 copies belonging to the middle of the XVII century. The second edition of the book of soshny writing is preserved in 6 copies of the first half of the XVIII century. 12 copies are shorten versions of the document. The analysis of copies of the book of soshny writing shows that the first version of the text contains elements of the protograph compiled in 1588-1610. To the reign of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, it is necessary to include additions in the text concerning assessment of the living quarter. The text was revised after the tax reform of 1679. The second edition of the book of soshny writing was the official guide for land surveying until the middle of the XVIII century.

scholarly journals Precious framing of the bestowed royal figures during the time of Peter the Great

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-109
Author(s):  
Iuliia Igorevna Bykova
Keyword(s):  
Art Criticism ◽  
Significant Part ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Peter The Great ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Western European ◽  
Xix Century

The goal of this research is the comprehensive examination of precious framing of the bestowed royal figures in Russia during the reign of Peter the Great. The author explores the circumstances of emergence of such awards in Russia and creation of precious frames of this time, possible “prototypes” of the diamond frame pattern that are similar to Western European awards, the masters who design these frames, etc. The article is based on the combination of art criticism and historical-cultural approaches. The object of this research was the award badges – royal figures of the first quarter of the XVIII century (enamel and graphic miniature portraits of Peter the Great, as well as minted medals). The research employs the written (unpublished archival documents) and visual sources (portraits of the grandees of the Petrine period with such awards; images of the royal figures on lithographs of the mid XIX century). It is established that precious frames of the bestowed royal figures of the first quarter of the XVIII century had the same pattern. Most likely, in design of the framing of award badges in Russia, the masters relied on the appearance of the royal figures brought by Peter I from England and Holland after the Great Embassy. These Western examples, in turn, had the “design” characteristic to similar royal awards of the XVII century. The article list the names of the jewelers who manufactured diamond frames of the bestowed royal figures in Russia of that time. These are the "foreigners" J. Westfahl, K. Boldan, I. Jasper. A significant part of such frames (over a hundred) was created by J. Westfahl. The design of precious frame for the royal figures of the Petrine period remained in similar awards of the Russian rulers and in XVIII – XIX centuries.

Origin of the Pentateuch: Tradition and еру documentary hypothesis

2019 ◽  
pp. 39-51
Author(s):  
Михаил Анатольевич Скобелев
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Studies ◽  
Traditional Church ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Entire Text

В статье рассматривается проблема происхождения Пятикнижия. Согласно традиционному церковному взгляду, Пятикнижие всегда считалось произведением пророка Моисея. Однако уже в XVII веке - первой половине XVIII века появились исследователи (Бенедикт Спиноза, Ришар Симон, Жан Астрюк), утверждавшие, что весь текст Пятикнижия или отдельные его части не принадлежат пророку Моисею. Эти предположения получили дальнейшее развитие в трудах протестантских ученых Вильгельма Де Ветте, Э. Рейсса, Карла Графа, Г. Гупфельда и Ю. Велльгаузена. В результате Ю. Велльгаузен сформулировал гипотезу, согласно которой текст Пятикнижия состоит из четырех источников (документов): Ягвиста (J), Элогиста (E), Девтерономиста (D) и Жреческого Кодекса (P). Эта гипотеза получила название Документальной. Важно отметить, что самый ранний из этих источников, Ягвист, датируется Ю. Велльгаузеном IX в. до Р. Х. Таким образом, налицо очевидное противоречие между традиционным и критическим взглядами на происхождение книг Закона. Автор статьи излагает основные аргументы адептов Документальной гипотезы, отстаивающих компилятивный характер Пятикнижия, и пытается проследить отношение к ней в отечественной дореволюционной библеистике, католицизме и традиционном иудаизме. In the article the problem of Pentateuch’s origin is researched. According to the traditional Church position, the Pentateuch was always considered a work of the prophet Moses. But already in XVII century - first half of XVIII century they were scholars (Benedictus Spinoza, Richard Simon, Jean Astruc), who argued, that the entire text of Pentateuch or some of its parts do not belong to Moses. These assumptions received a development in the works of protestant scholars Wilhelm De Wette, E. Reuss, Karl Graf, G. Hupfeld and J. Wellhausen. As a result, J. Wellhausen formulated a hypothesis, that the Pentateuch’s text consists of four sources (documents) - Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D) and Priesterkodex (P). This hypothesiswas called the Documentary hypothesis. It is important to notice, that the earliest of these sources was dated by Wellhausen to the IX century BC. So there is an obvious contradiction between the traditional and critical views on the Torah’s origin. The A. sets forth the main arguments of the followers of the documentary hypothesis, who argue a composite character of the Pentateuch, and tries to understand the attitude towards it in pre-revolotionary Russian biblical studies, in Catholicism and traditional Judaism.

scholarly journals ...To Remember Everything

2018 ◽  
pp. 13-28
Author(s):  
Ilya G. Lezhava
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Influence ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Xix Century

The article is devoted to the problems of mutual influence of Russian and Western architecture. The study covers the period from the XVIII century to the present day. The following stages are considered: the end of the XVII century - the first half of the XIX century; in the XX century - from the 1919 to the 30-ies; further from the 30's to the 50's, from the 50's to the 60's, from the 60's to the 80's and, finally, the period of the beginning of the XXI century. The article is considered by the author not so much as a full-fledged research, but rather as a call to collect new data and publications relating to this topic.

scholarly journals “Natural” in the philosophical and moralistic literature of the XVII century

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-45
Author(s):  
Nataliya Vladimirovna Zaуtseva
Keyword(s):  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Work Of Art ◽  
External Reality ◽  
Philosophical Thought ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
History Of ◽  
Historical Tradition ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Aesthetic Ideal

In philosophy, “natural” is viewed as an ontological characteristic of the objects of internal and external reality along with the concept of “artificial”. However, in the XVII century, the philosophical and moralistic literature undergoes aestheticization. Numerous appeals of the writers, moralists and philosopher, as well as dialogues and arguments on the topic of “natural” indicate that this was of crucial importance for the aesthetic thought of the XVII century. The answer to the question ‘what natural is’ has become the cornerstone of the new gallant aesthetics, and in behavior was associated with fluency and aristocratic inattention, which are opposed to pomposity and affectation. In art, “natural” was perceived as a desire to purge from the Baroque ostentation. In literature, it is the result of hard work on the language that allows achieving lightness and fluency. Ultimately, in the philosophical thought, “natural” is perceived as the correspondence with truth. Until the present, the question of aestheticization of the “natural” did not draw the attention of Russian researchers. This is partly explained by the historical tradition. Russia enters the European philosophical thought only in the Era of Enlightenment in the XVIII century; thus, the XVII century seems somewhat archaic on the background of the topical issues. However, the XVII century is the advent of the history of modern philosophical and aesthetic thought, and creates the foundation of modern European mentality. This period marks the formation of the new aesthetic ideal, new aesthetic norms, and the system for assessing the work of art, which assign an important role to the “natural”.

scholarly journals ANCIENT RUSSIA AND XVIII CENTURY IN V. BRUSOV’S CREATIVE HERITAGE

2019 ◽  
pp. 123-132
Author(s):  
IRINA ATAJANYAN
Keyword(s):  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Peter The Great

The paper’s author withholds her consent to the opinion that V. Brusov did not address XVIII century and Ancient Russia in his works. To substantiate the standpoint, the author analyzes V. Brusov’s works on Moscow history – «Moscow of XVII Century», «A Women’s Life in a Terem (a tower room»), «The Streets», his verses «Terem» (a tower room), as well as six verses devoted to Peter the Great. The analysis concludes that the writer was interested in the above-mentioned issue

scholarly journals РИСИ СУСПІЛЬНО-ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЙ У МОСКОВСЬКІЙ ДЕРЖАВІ В XVII СТ.

2021 ◽  
pp. 63-81
Author(s):  
Олег Марченко
Keyword(s):  
Old Regime ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
New Beginning ◽  
Russian State ◽  
History Of ◽  
Time Of Troubles ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Boris Godunov

Ключові слова: Московська держава в XVII ст., династія Романових, самодержавство, абсолютизм, станово-представницька монархія. Анотація На основі новітніх історичних досліджень поданий неупереджений погляд на розвиток Московської держави в XVII ст. через призму соціокультурного, проблемного підходу до суперечливих в історіографії питань, що турбують сьогоднішніх істориків, політиків, звичайних людей України, Росії, інших країн світу і стають предметом численних спекуляцій та маніпуляцій. У результаті проведеного дослідження висвітлено основні риси суспільно-політичних трансформацій у Московській державі в XVII ст., акцентовано увагу на спростування радянських та сучасних російських міфів щодо розвитку централізованої самодержавної моделі Московії, визначаються можливості цивілізаційного вибору Московської держави XVII ст. між станово-представницькою та абсолютистською моделями розвитку. Посилання Andreev, 2003 – Andreev I.L. Aleksey Mihaylovich [Alexey Mikhailovich]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2003. 638 s. [in Russian] Ahiezer, 2013 – Ahiezer A., Klyamkin I., Yakovenko I. Istoriya Rossii: konets ili novoe nachalo? [History of Russia: end or new beginning?] / 3-e izd., ispr. i dop. Moskva: Novoe izdatelstvo, 2013. 496 s. [in Russian] Bogdanov, 2009 – Bogdanov A.P. Nesostoyavshiysya imperator Fedor Alekseevich [Failed Emperor Fyodor Alekseevich]. Moskva: Veche, 2009. 320 s. [in Russian] Volodihin, 2013 – Volodihin D.M. Tsar Fedor Alekseevich, ili Bednyiy otrok [Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, or Poor youth]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2013. 267 s. [in Russian] Danilov, 2007 – Danilov A.G. Alternativyi v istorii Rossii: mif ili realnost (XIV–ХІХ vv.) [Alternatives in the history of Russia: myth or reality (XIV – XIX centuries)]. Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks, 2007. 303 s. [in Russian] Zarezin, 2018 – Zarezin M.I. V puchine Russkoy Smutyi. Nevyiuchennyiy uroki istorii [In the abyss of the Russian Troubles. Unlearned history lessons]. Moskva: Veche, 2018. 400 s. [in Russian] Istoriia Rosii, 2013 – Istoriia Rosii (z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia XVIII st.) [History of Russia (from ancient times to the end of the XVIII century)]: navch. posib. /avtor-uklad. V.M. Mordvintsev. Kyiv: Znannia, 2013. 346 s. [in Ukrainian] Kozlyakov, 2004 – Kozlyakov V.N. Mihail Fedorovich [Mikhail Fedorovich]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2004. 352 s. [in Russian] Kozlyakov, 2017 – Kozlyakov V.N. Boris Godunov. Tragediya o dobrom tsare [Boris Godunov. The tragedy of the good king]. Moskva: Molodaya gvardiya, 2017. 330 s. [in Russian] Lobachev, 2003 – Lobachev S.V. Patriarh Nikon [Patriarch Nikon]. Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo-SPb, 2003. 416 s. [in Russian] Lukin, 2000 – Lukin P.V. Narodnyie predstavleniya o gosudarstvennoy vlasti v Rossii XVII v. [Popular ideas about state power in Russia in the XVII century].Moskva: Nauka, 2000. 296 s. [in Russian] Marchenko, 2015 – Marchenko O.M. Istoriia slovianskykh narodiv. Chastyna persha. Istoriia Rusi, Moskovskoi derzhavy, Rosiiskoi imperii do kintsia XVIII st. Kurs lektsii dlia studentiv vyshchykh navchalnykh zakladiv: Navchalnyi posibnyk [History of Slavic peoples. Part one. History of Russia, the Moscow State, the Russian Empire until the end of the XVIII century. Course of lectures for students of higher educational institutions: Textbook]. Druhe vydannia, pereroblene y dopovnene. Kirovohrad, POLIMED-Servis, 2015. 385 s. [in Ukrainian] Narysy istorii, 2007 – Narysy istorii Rosii [Essays on the history of Russia]: per. z ros. /B.V. Ananich, I.L. Andreiev, Ye.V. Anisimov ta in.; Za zah. red. O.O. Chubariana. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr, 2007. 800 s. [in Ukrainian] Nefedov, 2004 – Nefedov S.A. Pervyie shagi po puti modernizatsii Rossii: reformyi seredinyi XVII v. [First steps towards modernization of Russia: reforms of the middle of the XVII century] // Voprosyi istorii. 2004. №4. – S. 33–52. [in Russian] Payps, 2012 – Payps R.E. Rossiya pri starom rezhime [Russia under the old regime]. M.: Zakharov. 2012. 480 s. [in Russian] Pisarkova, 2007 – Pisarkova L.F. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie Rossii s kontsa XVII do kontsa XVIII veka. Evolyutsiya byurokraticheskoy sistemyi [Russian government from the end of the XVII to the end of the XVIII century: the evolution of the bureaucratic system]. Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2007. 743 s. [in Russian] Svetova, 2013 – Svetova E.A. Dvor Alekseya Mihaylovicha v kontekste absolyutizatsii tsarskoy vlasti [The courtyard of Alexei Mikhailovich in the context of the absolutization of the tsarist power]. Moskva: MGU, 2013. 212 s. [in Russian] Sedov, 2006 – Sedov P.V. Zakat Moskovskogo tsarstva: Tsarskiy dvor kontsa XVII veka [The decline of the Moscow kingdom: the royal court at the end of the XVII century]. Sankt-Peterburg: Dmitriy Bulanin, 2006. 604 s. [in Russian] Skryinnikov, 1988 – Skryinnikov R.G. Rossiya v nachale XVII v. Smuta [Russia at the beginning of the XVII century. Troubles]. Moskva: Myisl, 1988. 283 s. [in Russian] Stanislavskiy, 1990 – Stanislavskiy A.L. Grazhdanskaya voyna v Rossii XVII v. [The Civil War in Russia in the XVII century]. Moskva: Myisl, 1990. 270 s. [in Russian] Talina, 1996 – Talina G.V. Tsar Aleksey Mihaylovich: lichnost, myislitel, gosudarstvennyiy deyatel [Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: personality, thinker, statesman]. Moskva: Magistr, 1996. 144 s. [in Russian] Ulyanovskiy, 2006 – Ulyanovskiy V.I. Smutnoe vremya [Time of Troubles]. Moskva: Evropa, 2006. 448 s. [in Russian] Cherepnin, 1978 – Cherepnin L.V. Zemskie soboryi Russkogo gosudarstva v XVI – XVII vv. [Zemsky Cathedrals of the Russian State in the XVI – XVII centuries]. / Moskva: Nauka, 1978. 420 s. [in Russian] Shokarev, 2013 – Shokarev S.Yu. Smutnoe vremya v Moskve [Time of Troubles in Moscow]. Moskva: Veche, 2013. 320 s. [in Russian]

scholarly journals Arguing Spanish voseo tuteante verb endings: learning, variation and history with OT

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 123-152
Author(s):  
Miguel Vázquez-Larruscaín
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Global Properties ◽  
History Of ◽  
Latin American Spanish ◽  
American Spanish ◽  
Historical Trajectory ◽  
Over Time

The full historical trajectory of voseo (second plural) forms becoming (deferent) second singular forms — as in Latin vos amātis (2pl) > Medieval Spanish vos amádes (2sg formal) — is a central chapter in the history of Spanish. In many Latin-American Spanish vernaculars, classical voseo fused with the original tuteo, giving rise to a new neutral address paradigm, voseo tuteante (Pre-classical Spanish voseo: vos amádes, amáes, amáis, amás (2sg formal) > Latin-American Spanish voseo tuteante: vos amáis, amás (2sg informal)). After a process of selection from the available options, four sets of endings have survived in those varieties: (áis, éis, ís / ás, és, ís / áis, ís, ís / ás, ís, ís). Why these four? The analysis proposed here builds on global properties of the verb system: (i) the verb suffix -is definitively replaced -des in the second half of the XVII century and the early XVIII century, and (ii) the four sets of endings now extant are exactly the ones that can be learned by Optimality-Theoretic grammar-inductive algorithms. This analysis supports the generative view that only languages with learnable grammars are passed on to future generations. Unlearnable languages are most likely to be lost over time. Similarly, variation is also constrained by the limits set by learnability conditions.

scholarly journals "Insza prostota szczera, cnotliwa, przystojna; insza prostota co ją głupstwem zowią". O rozwoju jednego ze znaczeń prostoty

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 21-42
Author(s):  
Beata Raszewska-Żurek
Keyword(s):  
Xviii Century ◽  
Religious Attitude ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Short Period ◽  
History Of ◽  
Polish Language ◽  
Xix Century ◽  
Religious Aspect ◽  
The Way

The transformation of a meaning of prostotaThis article is dedicated to the evolution of one of prostota lexeme meaning (and prostoć, prostość as well) – its human mental sphere significance. The analysis (definitions and examples) expands over the Polish language dictionary since its beginning till modernity. There were two main meanings of a lexeme prostota from the Old Polish till the end of the XVII century – positively characterised straight meaning regarding morality, directly linked to religious attitude and the second one, referring to mental and intelectual ability of individual, negatively regarding its undernormative features.It transformed during the XVIII century – the disredarding meaning disappeared, the first, religious aspect expanded over morality, customs, the way of living, simultanously drifting away from its religious significance.Throught the history of the prostota lexeme there was a short period regarding to a lack of culture and misbehaviour but dissapeared quickly with uprising of a prostactwo lexeme. Since the XIX century the dominating feature of prostota lexeme is being natural in a positive way. Besides the modifications of the lexeme and the transformation of its meanings prostota was mostly referring to positive values, which are the only meanings now.

LA FISICA DELLA MUSICA

Nuncius ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-111
Author(s):  
ELISA BENSA ◽  
GIANNI ZANARINI
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Models ◽  
Music Theory ◽  
Scientific Revolution ◽  
Xviii Century ◽  
Xvii Century ◽  
Musical Acoustics ◽  
History Of ◽  
Musical Sounds ◽  
Physics Experiments

Abstracttitle SUMMARY /title The scientific revolution of XVII century concerned also the domain of music theory, deeply investigating the nature of musical sounds and the physics of their production. Also the classical explanations of musical consonance were questioned, looking for its hidden causes through physics experiments and mathematical models. The passionating history of musical acoustics from Galileo to the end of XVIII century is revisited, with a particular emphasis on consonance theories.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document