The specifi cs of Monotheism (tawhid) as “a thing-in-itself”. On the Evolution of Islamic Theology in the Late Russian Empire

In this paper, we will try to give a dynamic characterization of the object and the subject of Modern theology among the Tatar Muslims on the exemplar of the theological views of ‘Abdunnasīr Qursavi (1776–1812), Shihabutdin Marjani (1818–1889) and Murad Ramzi (1854–1934) (and partly of their contemporaries). The incognizability of the Creator and the faith as “a thing-in-itself” transformed Tatar Religious Epistemology into the cognition of more defi nite realities. Agnosticism in the question of God’s attributes led to the anthropocentric features of theological worldviews. The above-mentioned chain of theologians demonstrates not only the continuity of the Tatar Theology, but also refl ects the dynamics of the evolution of the attitude towards the madhhabs and towards the role of an individual, the specifi cs of the Naqshbandi-Mujaddidiya Sufi brotherhood, as well as the Ottoman ‘usul fi qh’ in the modernization period of the early XVIII century. In general, the works of Qursavi constitute a certain system of views that can be considered as a certain cornerstone, the so-called ‘starting point’ of Tatar School of Theology.

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

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]

CREATIVITY OF SPIRIDON MIKHAILOV (YANDUSH) AND THE WORLDVIEW OF THE CHUVASH ETHNOS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE XIX CENTURY

The worldview of the Chuvash ethnos is a person’s idea of the world formed on the basis of ethnic constants and cultural-value dominants. Being specific to each culture, it created the illusion of objectivity in its bearers. The Chuvash worldview is different in different periods of the ethnos’ life, but thanks to ethnic constants, their structure remains the same at its base. In the Chuvash mythological pantheon of the XVIII century, the main images of the patronizing forces were the God who dwells in heaven and the king who dwells on earth, and the images of the opposing forces were earthly evil spirits and churchmen who moved to the Chuvash villages. In the XIX century, this image changes: a mythological character Pulekhse approached the God, who transformed into the image that has the ability to harm a person, and not bring God-appointed good to him. Such transformations in the mythological pantheon occurred due to a change in the image of the enemy in the socio-cultural space of the Chuvash world. All these processes are well reflected in the scientific works and works of Spiridon Mikhailov (Yandush).

Judicial system and legal proceedings of the Hetmanate (second half of the 17th – first half of the 18th centuries)

The article identifies and characterizes the main stages of formation and transformation of the judicial system and the judiciary of the Hetmanate. The years of independence of the Ukrainian state are marked by rapid changes in the judicial system. The desire of national law to eliminate gaps, determines the interest in the legal past, namely, awareness of the need to reproduce an objective picture of the emergence and evolution of national justice to determine the main directions of its further development. In this regard, the analysis of the judicial system and the judicial process in the Ukrainian lands of the second half of the XVII – first half of the XVIII century. Is useful in some respects. First, an important factor is the appeal to the history of the Ukrainian judicial system, namely the period of the second half of the XVII – first half of the XVIII century, which was decisive for the formation of Ukrainian law as a prototype of European. Secondly, in recent decades there has been an accumulation of significant theoretical and scientific value, which requires a theoretical rethinking of many facts and phenomena. The relevance of the study lies in the accumulation of a large amount of information to reproduce an objective picture of the provisions of the judiciary, which can significantly affect the evolution of the national judicial system and determine its further development. The purpose of the article is to study the structures of the judicial system of the Hetmanate in the second half of the XVII – first half of the XVIII century., And highlight the main features of the judiciary. Issues related to the organization of the judicial system and forms of justice in the Hetmanate in the second half of the XVII – first half of the XVIII century are considered and analyzed. The legal aspects of the organization and activity of various institutions of the judicial system, their jurisdiction and instance are also analyzed. The most significant provisions of the proceedings are highlighted: preliminary investigation, procedure for consideration of the case, evidence, court decisions, the procedure for their appeal and execution.

Heritage of Tatar Literature from the Aspect of Translation

The article presents the review of Tatar literature works and their translations into Russian and some other world languages. The Tatar literature has rich heritage, the first works of it (manuscripts) are dated back to the Middle Ages. The first printed works were published in the XVIII century as that time the Tatar language was the diplomatic language used in the communication between western and eastern countries. The time of XIX-XX centuries is considered to be the rise of the Tatar literature. Since that time the Tatar writers started writing their works in Russian that was caused by natural bilingualism established on the land of Tatarstan due to historical development. In the Soviet times the works of Tatar writers and poets written in Tatar were translated into Russian which is the intermediate language in the Russian Federation. After the collapse of the USSR Russia opened its boundaries and the number of translations of the Tatar writers works into Western and Eastern languages have been growing dramatically. Modern Tatar literature is continuing the traditions of the Tatar literature, the works of Tatar writers have been translating into foreign languages in order to present them to world community.

SELF-WRITING IN THE DIMENSION OF EVERYDAY LIFE: DYNAMICS, CHALLENGES, PERSPECTIVES

The article presents a study of the everyday life discourse in writing about the Self of a fictional subject. It seems obvious that involvement of self-writing in everyday practice calls into question the power of self-writing in the context of everyday life for the self-knowledge of the individual. The purpose of this scientific research is to debunk this illusion and explain the connection between the everyday life and self-writing. It transforms the practice of incorporating one’s own «I» in writing into the dimension of constructing the subject’s identity. There are no works on this topic in modern literary criticism and this fact also indicates the relevance and novelty of the research that is unfolding in the following article. Nowadays, the history of everyday life is booming. It is evidenced by a whole array of scientific papers on this issue. The study of self-writing in the dimension of everyday life appeals to the semiotic approach of Y.M. Lotman and G. Knabe for the analysis of the sign-symbolic nature of everyday life, to the sociological studies of A. Schutz, P. Berger and T. Lukman to identify the ways of constructing everyday life as reality or as a «life world», to the works of V.D.Leleko in the field of aesthetics and culturology of everyday life. The works of the philosophical and anthropological school serve the basis for the research. Particular attention is given to the text-letter of the Enlightenment. The protagonists of the Enlightenment Age invest the issues of everyday life in the work of writing that is a daily practice in the XVIII century. Due to its characteristics, the sphere of everyday life is a measure of self-knowledge and self-affirmation of the individual that was first artistically embodied by enlightened characters. The study shows that everyday life asa strong ground for self-affirmation of the subject was discovered with the help of the personal writing in the novel of the XVIII century, but this discovery became a lost testament to the text-writing of the Enlightenment. Changing the picture of everyday life under the influence of new technologies does not interfere with the text-writing. In the dynamic picture of everyday life offered to us by the 21st century, writing about the Self of a fictional subject opens up new facets of the power of everyday life discourse for the anthropological laboratory of literature. The study is illustrated by thesuch texts as: «Robinson Crusoe» by D.Defoe, «Nun» by D. Diderot, «Memoirs of two young wives» by O. de Balzac, «Poison of Love» by E.-E. Schmitt, «Self-portrait of the radiator» by K. Boben.

YAKUT SON BOYAR IVAN LVIV - THE FIRST COMPILER OF THE MAP OF NORTHEAST ASIA AND THE NORTHERN PART OF ALASKA (XVIII CENTURY)

Scientific expeditions organized in different years by the Russian government to the northeast of the country needed guiding maps compiled by experienced people, including the son of a boyar Ivan Lviv from Yakutsk. In the 1710s, he compiled the first map of Chukotka with the inclusion of the Anadyr prison, two islands and part of Alaska, which, not yet explored by anyone, at one time went down in history as the "Land of the Yakut nobleman". The genealogy of the serviceman Ivan Lviv begins with Yakut Kisikey Sakhaltin, baptized in Moscow in 1677 under the name of Leonty Lviv and recorded in the title of the son of a boyar. His direct descendant, the official A.Ya. Uvarovsky, is known as a writer who wrote the first works of fiction in the Yakut language in 1848. The map compiled by the son of Boyar Ivan Leontievich Lviv is now highly regarded as the oldest map in which, for the first time in the world, the strait connecting the Arctic and Pacific Oceans, the islands of Diomede (Gvozdev) and part of Alaska were designated.

THE PROBLEM OF PROPERTY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE OWNER PEASANTS OF RUSSIA XVIII - FIRST HALF OF XIX CENTURIES

The problem of the correlation of the concept of «property» (or «private property») with the situation in Russia in the pre-reform period is insufficiently studied in historiography. There is no definite opinion about the time of the appearance of this concept in the socio-political life of the Russian Empire, about what was considered movable and immovable property (especially in the countryside) then, especially since about the middle of the XVIII century, how the owner (landowner) peasantry was perceived in legislation and in practice in this context – as movable or immovable property of landowners-nobles, whether the owner peasants themselves at that time had rights to movable or immovable property. To study the problem, the author draws on numerous materials of noble projects for solving the peasant question, published by him in a number of collections of documents, as well as data on legislation, memoirs, etc. At the same time, only a part of them is directly used in the study itself. The materials of pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern Russian historiography, as well as some studies of foreign historians related to this issue, are drawn. As a result of the analysis of sources, literature and materials of his own research, the author first raises questions, offering in some cases certain intermediate solutions, drawing attention to the need for historians to develop a certain consensus on the use of certain concepts in this context, since the materials of legislation and its implementation in the practical life of the prereform time allow for different interpretations. The work is in a certain sense a continuation of the author's research on the main components of serfdom in Russia in the last 1.5 centuries before the peasant reform of 1861.