scholarly journals Edited and Annotated Correspondence between Sholem Aleichem and Judah Leib Gordon

2018 ◽  
pp. 154-178
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Frenkel
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Jewish Literature ◽  
National Library ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
Private Collection ◽  
First Time

The exchange of letters between the Yiddish writer Sholem Aleichem (1859– 1916) and the Hebrew poet Judah Leib (Leon) Gordon (1830–1892) took place in 1888– 1890 and deals with the challenging problems facing Jewish literature at the end of the nineteenth century. This correspondence is published here for the first time in its entirety, bringing together the original letters from the National Library of Israel (Jerusalem), Beth Shalom Aleichem (Tel-Aviv) and the private collection of Isaak Kofman (Santa Clara, CA). Two letters, originally written in Yiddish and Hebrew, are presented here in Russian translation. The other seven letters are presented in the original Russian with numerous insertions in Yiddish, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Vladimir Titov’s Letter to Vladimir Odoevsky as a Well-Known Response to Ivan Turgenev’s Article “Hamlet and Don Quixote” (Contemporaries’ Reception of Turgenev’s Interpretation of the Image of Hamlet)

2021 ◽  
pp. 104-116
Author(s):  
Ivan O. Volkov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
German Idealism ◽  
Don Quixote ◽  
The Other ◽  
National Library ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
First Time

For the first time, in the article, Vladimir Titov’s letter (dated 12/24 February 1869) is published and commented. In the 1820s, in Russia, Titov was well-known as a writer and literature theorist, the author of a romantic novella The Remote House on Vasilyevsky Island (1829) close to Society of Lyubomudriye. The letter extracted from the archives of the National Library of Russia is addressed to Duke Vladimir Odoevsky whose relationship with Titov was friendly from the very beginning of their acquaintance. The letter focuses on Ivan Turgenev’s speech published in the first issue of Sovremennik and titled “Hamlet and Don Quixote”. Reacting to Turgenev’s article, Titov shortly and critically accesses the comparison concentrating mainly on the image of Hamlet and thoroughly expresses his opinion on the essence of his tragic state. Titov’s opinion is just the opposite of Turgenev’s complex and multidimensional interpretation. Having experienced the great impact of the philosophy of German idealism at the beginning of his career, Titov to a great extent idealizes Shakespeare’s character whom he long knows and whom he is clearly eager to vindicate. Meanwhile, Titov does not pursue the aim to absolutely advocate the romantic halo of Hamlet as a Titanic personality (grandiose intellect and scale of feeling) and to enact the tragic pathos of the inner fight only. Developing Goethe’s definition of the essence of the character’s inner conflict, Titov, on the one hand, approaches its real understanding underlying the prince’s necessity to stay in a derogatory position of a “pitiful semiclown, indecisive grouch and shred”. On the other hand, the assessment can not be absolutely objective because Titov wants to see Hamlet as a victim of the fatal fortune which turns him into a character of an almost classical tragedy of fate. Titov’s bright and developed reaction (in the document of private nature) to Turgenev’s article is attractive and important first of all for its vividly demonstrated novelty and creativity of the writer’s view, wideness and multimodality of the author’s perception of Hamlet’s image. For the first time, Turgenev gave a developed interpretation of Shakespeare’s image in the tale “Hamlet of Shchigrovsky Province” (1848). Continuing his searches in the area of “Russian” (or “steppe”) Hamlet, Turgenev creates moral and philosophical problems of the English tragedy in the crisis socio-historical and cultural atmosphere of Russia of the 1840s. However, the principles of the artistic generalization and the peculiarities of the new reading, not mentioned and not fully comprehended by his contemporaries, were surprising and rejected when the speech “Hamlet and Don Quixote” appeared, in which Shakespeare’s character is presented ultimately vividly and lively in the then current interpretation.

scholarly journals Ljetnikovci mletačkog pukovnika Vuka Crnice na otocima Viru i Ugljanu

Ars Adriatica ◽  
2014 ◽  
pp. 327
Author(s):  
Sofija Sorić
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scholarly Research ◽  
Country House ◽  
Large Group ◽  
Country Houses ◽  
First Time

The author deals with two country houses of Vuko Crnica which have not hitherto been subject to scholarly research. One of them is no longer extant residential and agricultural complex of the Crnica Family on the island of Vir which consisted of a country house, a chapel and a small utility building. These structures were built by Vuko Crnica, a colonel in the Venetian army, after 1634, when he received the island of Vir as a concession, but before 1666, when they were mentioned for the first time in his will. The country house at Preko on the island of Ugljan was erected in 1666, as is recorded on the inscription installed above the entrance to the garden. This house is well-preserved albeit in a modified form because of the nineteenth-century intervention which occured when it was owned by the painter Franjo Salghetti-Drioli. Significant features of the summer residence at Preko include a large, well-preserved garden, as well as the original articulation of the living quarters inside the house. The inventories of the country houses at Vir and Preko, recorded in 1683, enable us to reconstruct their original appearance and furnishings. Both country houses belong to the large group of seventeenth-century summer residencies being built on Zadar islands. Both, through their characteristic locations by the sea, one with a chapel, the other with a large garden, fit into the contemporary trends in country house architecture on Dalmatian islands, marked by simple, utilitarian architecture with hints of Baroque morphology applied to specific elements of architectural and sculptural decoration.

scholarly journals Writers’ Letters to George Sylvester Viereck in a Private Collection

2021 ◽  
pp. 337-349
Author(s):  
Vasilii E. Molodiakov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Translation ◽  
Free State ◽  
Full Extent ◽  
Private Collection ◽  
American Poet ◽  
Editorial Work ◽  
Irish Free State ◽  
First Time

German-born American poet, novelist, journalist and editor George Sylvester Viereck (1884 –1962) during his almost 60-year literary career (his first poem was published in 1898) befriended, met and corresponded with hundreds of contemporaries, including world famous persons. His first biographer Elmer Gertz wrote in 1954, “One should go through Viereck’s correspondence with the great personalities of his time in order to learn the full extent of the admiration they expressed for him. Alas, that correspondence is scattered; but excerpts from it can be found in the catalogues of various autograph dealers and should be preserved”. Liberated from prison in 1947 Viereck was not able to restore his previous position in literary world, was in need of money and had to sell autographs from his personal archive. This publication includes letters of four writers addressed to Viereck and dealing with his literary and editorial work. All of them are preserved in the author’s private collection and are published in English for the first time. In Russian translation one letter is published for the first time, another one was previously published, two letters were quoted. Journalist, writer, and politician Brand Whitlock (1869 –1934) followed Viereck’s journalistic activities as well as his Decadent poetry. English author and poet Richard Le Gallienne (1866 –1947), being a living incarnation of the “naughty nineties” for Viereck, valued contributing to his magazine The International. Known as the Dean of American Biographers, famous writer Gamaliel Bradford (1863 –1932) refused to support Viereck’s protest against the prohibition of his novel My First 2000 Years in the Irish Free State. Poet, artist and filmmaker Ferdinand Earle (1878 –1951) remained faithful to his long friendship with Viereck even when the latter was emprisoned.

“Us” or “Them”? Belarusians and Official Russia, 1863–1914

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Cultural Difference ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
The Other ◽  
Central Russia ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Specific Category ◽  
First Time

In the final decades of the nineteenth century, nationality as an “ordering principle” became for the first time a significant factor for Russian imperial policy. Among the most thorny issues facing the imperial bureaucracy was the delimitation of the boundaries of the “Russian nation.” As is well known, St Petersburg never accepted either Ukrainians (at the time more often referred to as “Little Russians”) or Belarusians as separate nations. On the other hand, official Russia also did not deny the linguistic and cultural difference of these two groups entirely. Categories used in the 1897 census reflect this: under the category “mother tongue” (not surprisingly, no specific category of “nation” or “ethnicity” was included), those surveyed could respond “Great Russian,” “Little Russian,” or “Belarusian.” All three of these categories were then, however, subsumed into the larger category “Russian.” In a similar way, Russian officials never denied that Belarusians were in certain respects different from their brethren in central Russia. They did, however, indignantly reject the idea that these differences were so great as to exclude Belarusians from membership in the Russian nation.

Poland and the Poles through the Eyes of a Don Cossack: Memoir, Journalistic and Literary Heritage of Ivan S. Ulyanov, Staff Officer of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 42-56
Author(s):  
Artyom Yu. Peretyatko
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
State Archive ◽  
Cultural Phenomenon ◽  
Public Figures ◽  
Rostov Region ◽  
Literary Heritage ◽  
First Time ◽  
Major General

Major General Ivan S. Ulyanov served more than ten years in Poland. He was one of the most famous public figures of the Don Region in the mid-nineteenth century. Ulyanov was an officer of the headquarters of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich and was captured by the Poles during the November Uprising of 1830–1831. He wrote a number of manuscripts about Poland and made translations from Polish into Russian, most of them remained unpublished during his life. Among the most interesting materials, there are, in particular, his “Notes” about the Polish captivity, which were published by the famous Don Region historian Khariton I. Popov in the early twentieth century, in regional editions. Later they were forgotten. In the article, for the first time in historiography, an attempt was made to systematize Ivanov’s materials related to Poland. Both published and unpublished documents from the State Archive of the Rostov Region (GARO) have not yet been put into scholarly circulation. The author analyzes the circumstances of appearance of these materials, Ulyanov’s biography and his thoughts. The author concludes that Ulyanov’s work is interesting both as evidence of contemporaries, containing factual material about Poland in the years of 1830–1831, and as a cultural phenomenon as such. It is considered to be unique, because it is the first Polish-Russian translation made by a Don Region author. Also, it was an expression of a certain concept of Russian-Polish relations, formed under the influence of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich. This concept assumed friendship and cooperation between the two nations, but under the condition of the Russian domination over the Poles.

Erasmus in the Nineteenth Century: The Liberal Tradition*

1968 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 193-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce E. Mansfield
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
The Other ◽  
Liberal Tradition ◽  
Rapid Flow ◽  
Jules Michelet ◽  
First Time

Around 1840 two French travelers returning from Journeys to Italy passed by Basle and reflected on Erasmus, who—so both believed—had helped form the city's modern character. One was Louis Veuillot, fresh from his Roman conversion and exercising for the first time the pen that was to make him the most formidable ultramontane publicist of the age. The other was Jules Michelet, historian of France, future apostle of the people's liberation, finding here already in the rapid flow of the Rhine an analogy for the irresistible progress of the human mind.

An Old Russian Service Book in Baltimore and Its Missing Fragment in St. Petersburg

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-447
Author(s):  
Tatiana I. Afanasyeva
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Art Museum ◽  
The Other ◽  
National Library ◽  
Early Nineteenth Century ◽  
Old Russian ◽  
Historical Figures ◽  
History Of ◽  
Made In

AbstractThis study examines the history of an ancient Russian service book (sluzhebnik) dating from the first half of the fourteenth century, which was divided into two parts in the early nineteenth century. One of the two parts was purchased by the well-known Russian collector Alexander Sulakadzev and is currently held by the Manuscript Library of the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland (USA). The other part was acquired by the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg (currently, the National Library of Russia) no later than the 1830s. Judging by the surviving inventories, Sulakadzev acquired the service book for his collection in 1816 at the earliest. While in his possession, Sulakadzev added several false notes to the sluzhebnik attempting to pass it off as a manuscript known to have been in Tmutarakan in 1079; other false handwritten notes in the service book were intended to imply that it had belonged to several famous Russian historical figures. This article corrects some errors made in earlier publications about the manuscript and establishes that Sulakadzev pasted into the service book a miniature of much later origin (which, however, has not survived). The article presents a reconstruction of the contents of the original sluzhebnik, including descriptions of both its parts.

Migration, Exile, and Homecoming in the Book of Ruth

Open Theology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 514-530
Author(s):  
Achia Anzi
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Historical Narrative ◽  
The Other ◽  
Biblical Story ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
Religious Identification ◽  
Promised Land ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Jewish Experience

Abstract My article examines various artworks from Europe and Israel that portray and are inspired by the Book of Ruth. While in Jewish sources such as the Talmud (Yevamot 47b) Ruth is seen as an immigrant and a convert to Judaism, European artists since the seventeenth century highlighted different episodes and aspects of the biblical story that suited their social, political, and religious worldviews. Notably, the expansion of colonialism during the nineteenth century transformed the depictions of Ruth. While in the canvases of painters such as Pieter Lastman and Jan Victors Ruth is depicted as a model of religious identification, in the paintings of Joseph Anton Koch and Francesco Hayez she epitomises “oriental” otherness. Furthermore, while early European painters underscore the immigration of Ruth, Hayez represents Ruth as a dweller of the “East.” Zionist artists were influenced by European traditions of depicting the Book of Ruth but developed a unique fusion between strategies of identification and differentiation. Artists such as Ze’ev Raban (1890–1970) portrayed the story of Ruth as both ancient and contemporary, while imitating and appropriating Palestinian tropes in order to imagine the Zionist narrative of homecoming. The contemporary Israeli artist Leor Grady (b. 1966), on the other hand, addresses questions of immigration and homecoming while exploring the Book of Ruth in his solo exhibition Bethlehem (2019, Tel Aviv). While Raban’s illustrations ignore the Jewish experience of exile, Grady’s oeuvre epitomises what the Israeli historian Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin sees as “exile within sovereignty.” Instead of recounting a linear historical narrative that begins with exile and culminates with the return to the Promised Land, Grady underscores that every return is also a departure and every departure a return. In this manner, Grady foregrounds the voices silenced by Zionist historiography and challenges the exclusion of the Palestinian narrative.

scholarly journals CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION IN THE SVRLJIG AREA

2018 ◽  
pp. 097
Author(s):  
Irena Ljubomirović
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Archaeological Sites ◽  
National Library ◽  
Archaeological Investigation ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
History Of ◽  
Unpublished Manuscripts ◽  
First Time

Archaeological sites on the territory of south-eastern Serbia were visited for the first time by the famous writer Feliks Kanic (1824-1904) in the second half of the nineteenth century. He started work on making the archaeological map of Serbia in 1861 and that task would later be continued by Nikola Vulic (1872-1945). He visited archaeological sites on the territory of Niš as well as Svrljig and its surroundings. Vulić wrote facts about these archaeological sites in his unpublished writings titled “Appendixes for the archaeological map section of Niš” - a part of the scientist's unpublished manuscripts which are kept at the National Library of Serbia. In this work we will expose facts from Vulić's unpublished manuscripts.

Darwin's two competing phylogenetic trees: marsupials as ancestors or sister taxa?

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Archibald
Keyword(s):  
Fossil Record ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Phylogenetic Trees ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charles Lyell ◽  
Single Origin ◽  
Molecular Studies ◽  
Richard Owen ◽  
First Time

Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen. Charles Lyell had held similar views to those of Owen, but it is clear from correspondence with Darwin that he was beginning to accept the idea of monophyly of major groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document