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]

THE SQUARE AS SYMBOLIC SPACE IN A.S. PUSHKIN’s WRITING

Repetition and variation of some baseline motives and images are a hallmark of A. Pushkin’s poetic system. A comprehensive system of A. Pushkin’s writing arises due to complex and contradictory relationships of specific elements. A principle of ‘resourceful contradiction’ forms the basis for the system. The square is one of the key space images which not only unites a wide range of works (from ‘Boris Godunov’ tragedy to ‘The Captain’s Daughter’ novel) but forms a recurrent plot as well. The author of the paper demonstrates the functioning of this image and elicits its semantics by means of numerous texts. The square space in Pushkin’s works is both a death site and a place of salvation; both a place of historic resolutions and a place of historic dead end. Special attention is paid to the allusive principle which is constitutive in Pushkin’s fiction system. The image of the square is inseparable from the events of December, 14, 1825 and July, 25, 1826 in a number of works (‘The Bronze Horseman’, ‘The Captain’s Daughter’ and others).

An Unknown Work about Boris Godunov from the Post-Petrine Era

This article examines a new early manuscript containing two works by an unknown compiler in the 1730s: the story of the “tyrant Ivan the Terrible” and Boris Godunov “greedy” for autocratic power. The manuscript is kept in the State Archives of Ryazan Region as part of the collection of the Ryazan Provincial Scientific Archival Commission. The study demonstrates that its brief archaeographic description was given in 1892 by Aleksey Vasilyevich Selivanov, one of the founders of the archival commission in Ryazan. Relying on watermarks, he dates the collection to about 1727; in 2001, the manuscript was described anew in a review of the manuscript collection of the State Archives of Ryazan Region. The authors analyse the part of the manuscript collection containing an essay about Boris Godunov; this essay has not been introduced into scholarly circulation previously. The article reveals the compiler’s sources, which turn out to be translations of notes taken by foreigners about Russia between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, more particularly the works of Jerome Horsey, Jacob Ulfeldt, Adam Olearius, and some others. Also, the authors single out a whole series of parallel pieces of news from Jerome Horsey’s notes in a little-known version of the publication in Old German about Tsar Boris’ character. The authors focus on which notes would have been available to the alleged compiler of the collection in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The article contains data revealing the provenance of the work. Additionally, an assumption is made about the possible author of the published source, who was probably related to the circle of victims in the case of Artemy Volynsky. Finally, the appendix to the article contains the previously unpublished text of the manuscript about Boris Godunov.

The Birthday of Boris Godunov

The life story of Tsar Boris Godunov, one of the most intriguing characters of Late Medieval Rus’, is still surrounded by unsolved enigmas, obscure gaps, and omissions. The date of his birth is to yet be verified and introduced into scholarly discourse. This paper presents evidence that, if interpreted appropriately, we argue it enables us to estimate Godunov’s birthday. Accurate dating is important for many reasons, for instance it helps us to contextualize and broaden our understanding of everyday life at the ruling house, the cult of personal patron saints, and aristocratic naming conventions in Rus’ between the 14th and the 17thcenturies.

Imposture as a problem of reference: semiotics of the name in Boris Godunov

In this article, we continue to address the mechanisms of presenting oneself as another and another as oneself. In this regard, non-trivial features of the semantics of a proper name are described. Based on the analysis of contexts of inappropriate use of a name in a situation of imposture, described in Pushkin's tragedy Boris Godunov, the author considers semiotic mechanisms of transformation and assignment of identity. The article shows that Pushkin's intuition allowed him to see the problems that arose in the analytical philosophy of the name of the second half of the 20th century. Pushkin consistently creates contexts in which the con­ditions of acceptability or unacceptability of deviating uses are tested. On the one hand, these features allow the author to offer an additional, logical and semantic dimension for the inter­pretation of the tragedy Boris Godunov. On the other hand, they significantly clarify the ex­isting theories of the proper name, showing their possible non-trivial, and in some cases, prob­lematic consequences. Simultaneously, the logical-semantic analysis makes it possible to iden­tify the mechanisms of imposture and the communicative conditions for its success.

Attribution of the Throne Chairs of Tsars Boris Godunov and Mikhail Romanov in the 19th–21st Centuries: Historical and Art Historical Aspects

Древние тронные кресла отечественных монархов из собрания Музеев Московского Кремля были неоднократно опубликованы на протяжении XIX — XXI вв., но и сегодня нельзя считать работу по их атрибуции законченной. Примером тому — о два древнейших артефакта — тронные кресла царей Бориса Годунова и Михаила Романова: вопрос определения времени и места их создания остается неразрешенным. Ошибка исследователей заключается в том, что их внимание сосредоточено на ювелирном декоре предметов, не был применен метод описания и анализа художественных и технических приемов изготовления артефактов в целом, а также архивная документация изучена в недостаточной степени. По мнению автора, упомянутые предметы являются образцами персидской работы XV–XVI вв., в то время как прежде кресло царя Бориса Годунова датировалось 1603-1605 гг., а атрибуция принадлежавшего царю Михаилу Романову варьировалась между второй половиной XVI — первой третью XVII вв., причисляя изделие к московской или иранской работе. The article examines two ancient throne chairs of Russian monarchs from the collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums: the chair of Tsar Boris Godunov, which is believed to have been received at the beginning of the 17th century as part of the ambassadorial gifts from Shah Abbas I, and the chair which researchers associate with the name of Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich. The aim of the article is a comprehensive study of these objects based not only on their external description, but also on the identification of their structure, parts hidden by metal and woven coatings. In addition, for the first time, the author considers the chairs as pieces of furniture art, trying to “embed” them into the line of the development of artistic styles. In the course of the research, the method of description and analysis of artistic and technical methods of making artifacts, methods of comparative analysis and interpretation of historical sources were applied. The materials of the study were archival documents, published sources and the results of research by Russian historians and museologists. Various historical evidence about the investigated artifacts and views on their dating, reflected in documents and research works, is analyzed. The author compiled descriptions of the throne chairs and made assumptions about the possibility of a later change in their appearance. The analysis of the form and decor made it possible to attribute the throne chair of Tsar Boris Godunov as an example of a Persian work of the 15th–16th centuries; the use of European heritage is clearly traced in the creation of its artistic image. The attribution of the chair of Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich cannot be considered final, because today there are several versions of it (a sample of the work of the Moscow Kremlin Workshops of the 17th century, precious plates of Iranian production of, presumably, the 16th century were used in its decoration; Iran, Isfahan, second half of the 16th century (?); work of Iranian court masters of the first third of the 17th century). This throne chair presumably has a pair – the chair of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: outwardly these objects are remarkably similar and look like a set, in which, with the general logic of shaping, only the manner of decoration is somewhat different. The visual analysis of the monument allows classifying it as a sample of Persian work, made under the influence of the Renaissance art, which spread from Italy to Europe in the 15th–16th centuries. The need to study these rarities with the use of modern technologies and research methods is emphasized.

Interpretation Content of the Modern Musical Theater: Portrait in the Style of ad Libitum

Relevance of the study. The interpretive space of modern musical theater is one of the most dynamic, multivariate and modernized world culture phenomena. In the era of culture “non-classical paradigm” the past cult operas viability is maintained through their renewed representation and “alienation”. The refusal to perceive the author’s work as complete and the only possible for realization emancipates the modern interpretive strategy and opens up endless possibilities until the emergence of the “corporate” opera text’s phenomenon. So the interpretation process extends to the work’s “inner sanctum” — to its music and thus allows the involvement of the modern artist’s personality to co-author with the composer of the past. The unique example is the opera project “Boris” by corporate authorship of Modest Mussorgsky and contemporary Russian-German composer Sergei Nevsky (2020, Staatsoper). The need for update the ideas about the modern musical theater’s interpretive strategy and the lack of this project research provides the relevance and the innovative essence of the material.Main objective of the study is to determine the modern interpretive strategies of modern opera theater on the example of the project “Boris”.Methodology. The material specificity led to the adaptation of the fellowing research methods: the interpretive — to identify the modern musical theater main interpretive strategies in relation to the production of “Boris Godunov” by M. Mussorgsky with an emphasis on the project “Boris”; the hermeneutic-semantic — for the purpose of reveal the intonation-image specificity of the analyzed S. Nevsky’s project; the comparative — for juxtaposition of two co-operas authored by Mussorgsky and Nevsky as components of the project “Boris”; the holistic intonation analysis — to study the intonation and drama specifics of the hybrid work.Results and conclusions. The modernity interpretive reality initiates the emergence of radically new trends in the opera interpretation. An example of the modern musical theater innovative strategy is the hybrid project “Boris” synthesized from two stylistically contrasting operas that belong to different epochs: “Boris Godunov” by M. Mussorgsky and “Second-hand Time” by S. Nevsky. The research considered the intonation-genre specificity and its indicators from the point of view of the associative musical text theory. The associative text of “Boris” exists in two versions: as a quotation (in S. Nevsky’s opera “Second-hand Time” was adapted the material from “Boris Godunov” by M. Mussorgsky); b) in the form of a whole work presented by Mussorgsky’s opera “Boris Godunov” in the framework of the entire project “Boris” which is a unique opera phenomenon.

THE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF THE "GOD'S FOOL" CONCEPT IN THE ESSAY "PEPINIERE" BY I. A. GONCHAROV

The article attempts to analyze the semantic structure of the “God’s fool” concept in the essay Pepiniere by I. A. Goncharov. As a term, this concept is interpreted from the point of view of culturology. The essay reveals the basic structural components of the “God's fool” concept, as well as its core and additional semantic features. The author of the article believes that the religious component is embodied in the structure of the concept one way or another, but is not reflected directly in the word usage. The “God's fool” lexeme mainly comprises various secular meanings that are expressed via metaphors, repetitions and comparisons. The specific nature of the “God's fool” concept in I. A. Goncharov's Pepiniere is revealed in its periphery, which is formed by certain artistic techniques and categories (intertextual exchanges, comic elements). For instance, the function of the quote of Friday's nomination from Daniel Defoe's The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe; Written by Himself, as well as the comparative quote from Boris Godunov by A. S. Pushkin are considered in this article. Furthermore, quoting is an artistic technique that creates the game motive, to which I. A. Goncharov resorts indirectly. The gaming component not only creates and emphasizes the comical element, but also serves as one of the writer's artistic principles that contributes to the creation of the harmonious, negentropic worldview. The study of I. A. Goncharov's sphere of concepts allows to identify not so much the variability of the writer's worldview as its invariability.

Inside Frozen Geographies

After the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation in 2014, the attitude of Baltic theatre producers and artists towards cultural and institutional partnerships with Russian theatres and their involvement in the mutual artistic exchanges, tours, common projects, and networking changed; not only due to these exchanges becoming a controversial issue in the public eye, but also due to the polarization they caused in the artistic community itself. Some artists, like Latvian stage director Alvis Hermanis, have decisively terminated all their previous creative partnerships, arrangements and tours, calling also other theatre artists “to take sides”. Others, like Russian stage and film director Kirill Serebrennikov who, for years, had been involved with Baltic theatres, would regard taking sides as a disastrous yielding of culture to the logic of war – theatre should be kept as the last link between societies gradually separated by reciprocal propaganda insanity. Building upon these conflicts describing the changes in intercultural theatrical cooperation between Russian and Baltic theatres, the article focuses on the analysis of three productions: Dreams of Rainis by Kirill Serebrennikov at the Latvian National Theatre (2015), Alexander Pushkin’s play Boris Godunov directed by Eimuntas Nekrošius at the Lithuanian National Drama Theatre (2015) and Brodsky/Baryshnikov staged by Alvis Hermanis at the New Riga Theatre in 2016. All of the performances refused to stay inside the frameworks marked for them by the regimes of propaganda wars, public diplomacy, or dispositif of security, but focused instead on the possibilities of intellectual disobedience.