Northern Russian Names of Flour and Bread Made of Different Varieties of Grain: The Semantic-Motivational Aspect

This article discusses dialectal names of bread made of a mixture of two or three varieties of flour (barley, rye, oat, or wheat), recorded on the territory of Arkhangelsk, Vologda, and northern Kostroma regions. The author carries out an analysis of this group of vocabulary in linguo-geographic and semantic-motivational aspects in order to determine the peculiarities of the formation of the lexical group under consideration and the corresponding food tradition, to identify possible foreign language and foreign cultural influences and the etymological reconstruction of lexemes with an unclear motivation. There are several groups of names and areas of distribution of the ideogram “bread made of mixed flour”. It is established that the use of bread made of mixed flour was typical of residents of the south, southeast, and west of Arkhangelsk region, the central and eastern parts of Vologda region, and the northeastern parts of Kostroma region. The author singles out several types of names and areas of their distribution, i.e. двоежиток — троежитник; двинянка; соричник, сорица; смёш, смешечник; сутолока. Referring to the semantic-motivational models revealed, the author proposes an etymology for the northern Russian двинянка ‘bread that has two layers of dough’ in connection with the number два ‘two’. Given the existing etymology of Rus. dial. сорник ‘bread made of several types of flour’ in connection with the Komi сор ‘admixture’, it is proposed to consider dial. смешенник as a calque of loanwords with the root сор- (сорник, etc.). The archaic nature of the vocabulary group in question makes it possible to consider the tradition of making mixed flour and bread out of it quite old. It was partially borrowed by Russian peasants from the Finno-Ugric peoples who had more experience in baking bread from barley.

Social Policy in the Theoretical and Programme Documents of the British Labour Party in the 1920s–1930s

This article covers the concepts of social policy in the official programme documents of the British Labour Party and in journalistic works of its leaders and key theorists of the interwar period. From the early twentieth century, Labourists put the focus not on social reforms, but on transformations in the management of the economy and property. They believed that a fair and effective organisation of economy could at the same time solve social problems. After World War I and in the first half of the 1920s, Labourists did not propose large-scale and high-priced social programmes for fear of alienating their potential electorate. However, the social and economic problems of the 1920s, the General Strike, and the Great Depression forced them to take a more left stand. From the late 1920s, social policy became for Labourists an important part of fundamental change of the country’s economy based on the principles of planning and public control. These ideas were in the programmes of the Labour party of 1928 and 1934, in the works of G. D. H. Cole and Clement Attlee, and in the articles of members of the Socialist League. Labourists started proposing not only large-scale plans of the improvement of education, public health, accommodation, and well-being, they made some demands, including State Health Service, accessibility of higher education, and help for disabled persons, unique for their times, thereby anticipating some important components of the Welfare State of the second half of the twentieth century.

On the Semantic and Motivational Interpretation of Russian Dialectal Vocabulary with the Meaning of Disgust (посвирывать, кобзовать, скабежливый, etc.)

This article employs the semantic and motivational aspects to study three Russian dialect words, namely Pskov and Tver Regions посви́рывать ‘to be picky, to disdain’, Kaluga Region ко́бзовать ‘to disdain’, Don, Volgograd, Ryazan, and Tambov Regions скабе́жливый ‘squeamish’. The choice to refer specifically to these linguistic facts is determined by the fact that some of the lexical units presented have not been previously discussed in literature, while, in the author’s opinion, some have controversial etymological solutions. The author states that the word посви́рывать has the root -вир-. Here, the idea of turning is recognised as a motivationally significant one since it reflects popular observations of the behaviour of a person who rejects something. Thus, the axiological assessment of squeamish behavior is fixed in the word’s inner form. The author connects the word ко́бзовать with кобызиться ‘to act arrogantly; to be stubborn, to be obstinate’, where быз indicates ‘a whiny, capricious child’. An assumption is made that a number of lexical units, such as Vologda Region бзли́вый ‘spoiled, capricious’, Perm Region скобы́чка ‘a quarreler and a mean person’, etc. belong to the same family. The author builds potential lines of their semantic and motivational development. The family includes designations of character traits (arrogance, boastfulness, foppery, cockiness, quick temper, cunningness) and human behaviour (such ideograms as ‘to cry’, ‘to frown’, ‘to be angry’, ‘to take offense’). The author hypothesises that the lexical unit скабежливый also refers to the family of the -быз- root. This conclusion is made based on phonetic variation in the root (скабе́зливый, скабы́зливый, скобызко́й) and the similarity in the development of meaning for all the lexical units studied (also, they share the semantics of arrogance, sensitivity, and tearfulness).

Crimean Correspondents of Academician V. I. Vernadsky (1920s–1930s)

Referring to a corpus of epistolary sources kept in the personal archival fund of academician V. I. Vernadsky in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (correspondence sent to him from Crimea) and documents from the St Petersburg branch of the RAS Archive and the Department of Written Sources of the State Historical Museum, the author restores some aspects of the daily life of Crimean local history of the 1920s–1930s. Vernadsky’s attention to people and events on the peninsula are connected with a dramatic period of his biography, i.e. his unexpected tenure as rector of the University of Taurida (October 1920 — January 1921). Thanks to the participation of the university in the activities of the Taurida Scientific Association, the academician formed a social circle of scientists from different fields of knowledge in Crimea. The analysis of Vernadsky’s correspondence helps define his range of interests related to Crimean affairs after his departure from Crimea. Vernadsky, not indifferent to the fate of Taurida University (M. V. Frunze Pedagogical Institute) (during the years in question described as Crimean University), was interested in the fate of the prominent professors who he worked with at the university in 1920. Thanks to the Crimean correspondence of A. I. Markevich, the leader of the local history movement, the author has been able to clarify the fate of individual manuscripts by V. I. and G. V. Vernadsky and the history of transfer of funds of the pioneers of comprehensive exploration of the peninsula P. I. Köppen and H. H. Steven to the Archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The epistolary heritage of geologists P. A. Dvoichenko and S. P. Popova, Vernadsky’s former colleagues at Taurida University, makes it possible to recreate the pages of the research of the natural productive forces of Crimea carried out in those years. In his correspondence with professors E. V. Petukhov and N. L. Ernst, Vernadsky discussed individual issues that worried scientists.

Letter of King Hugh IV of Cyprus and its Interpretation in the 17th-Century Russian Literature

This article contains two sources concerning the history of Russia and Cyprus: an unknown and previously unpublished letter of King Hugh IV of Lusignan of Cyprus to Giovanna, Queen of Naples, and a work of an unknown Russian author of the seventeenth century about the victory of the Cypriot Christian army over the Turks. A textual and comparative analysis of both sources carried out in the article proves a borrowing of information by the Russian author from the letter of the Cypriot king. The work of the anonymous author is an almost liberal literary translation of Hugh’s letter. At the same time, the Russian translator did not borrow the plot of the letter directly, but most likely through later Cypriot literature, in which the story told by the Cypriot king was probably extremely popular. The events of the history of Cyprus of different times intertwine in the Russian text in order to show the heroic past of Cyprus. The Russian author dates his story to 552 and connects it with Emperor Justinian I, the most revered and heroic Byzantine ruler. He cannot separate the history of Cyprus from the history of Byzantium, just as the Cypriot and Greek-Byzantine authors of the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries could not do it. However, both texts speak of Latin Crusaders, who are fighting against the Turks under the leadership of the King of Cyprus. The Russian author remains faithful to the Orthodox tradition of rejection of the idea of crusades and replaces the idea of martyrdom of a crusader in the name of the Lord with heroic battle scenes traditional for Russian literature. He acknowledges that warriors are fighting for the Christian faith and for the church but denies the idea of guaranteed salvation and eternal life for military feats. At the end of the article, the full text of the letter of Hugh IV of Lusignan based on a manuscript of the fifteenth century kept in the manuscript department of the Bavarian State Library is published.

Level of Repression in Altai Regions between 1935 and 1937: An Attempt at Using Statistical and GIS Methods

This article focuses on the analysis of the impact of socio-economic development indicators of Altai region and Oyrot autonomous region on the eve of the Great Purge (1935 — first half of 1937) on the regional intensity of repression. Employing statistical methods (regression analysis), the author verifies the hypothesis that in the areas with the highest level of well-being of the population, the level of repression was also higher. It is established that the turnover and expenditures per capita compared with other economic indicators had the greatest influence on repression levels in Altai and Oyrotia regions. Based on the results of the analysis of regional statistics, the author of the article puts forward a theory that the thesis proclaimed by the Bolsheviks to justify the failure of economic development by the actions of the “enemies” in practice seems untenable, since economically lagging regions were characterised by a relatively low level of repression. In the second part of the article, the author presents a typology of districts of Altai and Oyrotia regions based on the results of cluster analysis of various groups of socio-economic development indicators. Additionally, she substantiates the hypothesis about the influence of the spatial factor on the intensity of repression: the groups of regions of each individual cluster consist mainly of adjacent regions.

Social Mobility of Collective Farmers in the 1930s

The author carries out a retrospective analysis of social mobility elevators and channels functioning within the collective farm system in the USSR in the 1930s. The subject of research is the collective farm peasantry and its border social groups (machine operators, administrative staff of collective farms, and machine and tractor station workers). It is concluded that multidirectional channels and lifts of intergroup and intragroup social mobility operated in Soviet rural areas in the 1930s. The most widespread channel of social mobility was collectivisation. Intensive social processes took place inside collective farms, which resembled social elevators that had an internal corporate character. A professional career in collective farms could be used as a mechanism of mobility: external elevators, institutionalised state practices, “positive” behavioural practices, and “positive” socio-political record. Channels of social and professional mobility functioned within the collective farm system. The most socially significant of them was the transition of workers engaged in horse and manual labour to machine operators. The collective farm system was integrated into the system of social elevators and channels operating in the USSR, but transition to them from collective farms was limited. Administrative, educational, professional, gender, and age barriers were in place for the social mobility of collective farmers. Chance to go beyond collective farms was given to young people receiving education and conscription. Being sentenced to prison meant the collective farmer’s descent to the bottom of the Soviet social ladder. The mechanisms of social descent could be: “negative” behavioural practices, illegal actions, and “negative” socio-political record.

Economic Reforms in Hungary and Bulgaria and the Reaction to them in the USSR (Late 1950s — First Half of the 1970s)

This article analyses economic reforms in Hungary and Bulgaria between the late 1950s and early 1970s, as well as the reaction of official Moscow to the changes in these countries. The main sources for this article were documents of the Soviet embassies in the HPR and the PRB, briefing notes of Soviet economists, reports of special services and materials of meetings and negotiations at the highest party and state level. The authors conclude that a significant role in the launch and curtailment of reforms belonged to the political leaders of Hungary and Bulgaria — Ya. Kadar, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the HSWP, and T. Zhivkov, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the BCP, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the PRB. Therefore, at the level of decision-making, these reforms differed from similar ones in other countries of the socialist camp. The authors demonstrate that the transition to self-supporting relations in the HPR and PRB did not solve a number of economic problems, but, on the contrary, provoked a departure from socialist principles and the strengthening of market elements. This circumstance led to an increase in the volume of external debt of Hungary and Bulgaria, mainly to capitalist countries, which caused concern on the part of the Soviet leadership. Therefore, the Kremlin, which had previously pursued a policy of detached observation, forced Zhivkov and Kadar to curtail economic reforms. At the same time, Moscow offered individual solutions in each case. In Bulgaria, for example, the economic independence of enterprises ended after the USSR repaid the country’s internal debt, and in Hungary after Brezhnev’s conversation with Kadar. The authors believe that the direct initiator of the curtailment of reforms in the HPR and the PRB was a rather narrow circle of Soviet leaders who realised the futility of introducing market mechanisms into the socialist economy and launched a large-scale revision of the concept of the development of the world system of socialism in the early 1970s.

Vases, Caskets, and Decorative Lamps of the Leningrad Factory of Porcelain in 1956–1966: Context, Attribution, Interpretation

This paper focuses on two stages in the development of post-war production interior porcelain. The first stage is the completion of the development in the decorative and industrial arts of the grand style. The second stage is the development of modern style, which is reflected in the works of mass porcelain. The research refers to the Leningrad Factory of Porcelain and the production of the enterprise from 1956–1966. The products of the plant have not been studied sufficiently so far. However, the factory was one of the many Soviet porcelain enterprises that was involved in the creation of a new living environment. Two stages in the development of industrial art related to the organisation of the residential interior were reflected in the company’s products, i.e. works of small porcelain plastics, utilitarian porcelain, i.e. vases, boxes, bottles, night lamps, etc. The first stage is filled with works of small plastic arts (second half of the 1950s). The second stage is associated with the interior, in which porcelain goods played the role of accents in the interior, emphasising empty space (first half of the 1960s). The author of the article carries out analysis of caskets and vials of the enterprise (40 Years of October caskets, casket with a lion, Matryoshka casket, Summer Garden, a series of bottles and caskets), vases and pots (Lines planters, decorative vases, damask, and stacks), lamps (Chinese Pagoda night light, Golden Cockerel night light). Based on the interpretation of the value of the enterprise in the formation of the interior, the value of products in the processes of transition from the grand style to the modern style, a conclusion is drawn about the importance of the plant in the formation of the living environment. The massive nature of the works of the plant influenced the fact that the current stylistic trends were available to a vast number of Soviet citizens, who perceived new aesthetic norms.

Attribution of Works by Vladimir Grinberg and Alexander Vedernikov: The Problem of the Artist’s Signature

This article considers the phenomenon of the authors’ signatures of Vladimir Grinberg (1896—1942) and Alexander Vedernikov (1898—1975), two representatives of the Leningrad Landscape School community in the 1930s—1940s. During this period, they entered a single circle of friendly and professional communication and experienced mutual influences. The artists’ work is considered more broadly and goes beyond their participation in the community. The goal of the article is to single out the most significant periods of their activity, trace changes in the authors’ handwriting from decade to decade, pay attention to the period of apprenticeship and formation of the artists, and focus on controversial issues in the attribution of their paintings and drawings. A study of all the works by Grinberg and Vedernikov currently identified in museum and private collections, makes it possible to trace the changes in the authors’ styles and discover the artistic landmarks of the masters. Grinberg’s manner repeatedly transformed. The neoclassical stylistics of his works of the late 1910s and citation of paintings by the old masters gave way to modest still lifes in the 1920s. After landscapes and scenes of everyday life on a black background in the early 1930s, there was a lightening of the colour scheme during his work on the New Leningrad series in the middle of the decade. In the early 1940s, Grinberg began to paint very broadly, generalising and simplifying the images. This scandalising manner has parallels with the style of the 1960s. Vedernikov was influenced by the art of French post-impressionists. Also, he took interest in the art of Russian folk crafts in the post-war period, more particularly, in Gorodets painting. The article pays much attention to Grinberg’s and Vedernikov’s lithographs. A significant part of their works has been catalogued and published, which facilitates dating and attribution, but much remains unknown (for example, an episode in Vedernikov’s work associated with the unification of the Masters of Analytical Art). In the article, the author describes the marking of works in detail, the placement and outline of the signatures, and traces the changes in them, which will help determine the range of works and authorship more accurately.