Suchergebnisse

The direction of Russian policy in the Turkestan general Government and its implementation were determined not only by a certain super-idea of messianic significance. They depended not only on the messages from the capital. Of course, the ideas and principles underlying the legislative acts that came from St. Petersburg were formed not only on the basis of certain civilizational attitudes. They were influenced by the image of the region, which was formed from the echoes of events unfolding in the southeast of the empire, and the messages that came to inner Russia from Tashkent. Information about the military actions and activities of the authorities reached the ministries by secret dispatches, some of them were published in the information columns of newspapers. And literary and illustrated magazines replicated works of art created by Russian military and civilian officials. And it was these works that conveyed to the reader the images of events, people, and nature of Turkestan, which formed a generalized image of the region, under the influence of which not only public opinion fell, but also ministerial officials, on whom the direction of the Turkestan policy of the empire depended.

This book, first published in 1977, begins with a close look at the lives of nineteenth century Russian writers, and at the problems of their profession. It then examines their environment in its broader aspects, the Russian empire being considered from the point of view of geography, ethnography, economics, and the impact of individual Tsars on writers and society. A discussion of the main social estates' follows, and concluding is an analysis in their literary context of the activities of the competing forces of cohesion and disruption in imperial society: the civil service, law courts, police, army, schools, universities, press, censorship, revolutionaries and agitators. This book makes possible a fuller understanding of the works of Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov and the other great Russian writers.

This book, first published in 1961, traces the lives and works of six outstanding Russian authors, each of whom is interesting and important in himself, as well as for his contribution to Russian letters. As personalities they are extremely varied, and also as artists, so much so that each of them might be studied as the centre of a distinct school of writing. Taken as a group they are a microcosm of Russian literature in the twentieth century, an age of rapid and extreme change.

The continuity of Chekov's text adheres to the existence of his protagonists everywhere and then. The presence of Chekhov's heroes in every place and time is the key to the text's long-term viability. He described various characters, upon whom feelings were shown in different situations, specifically feeling scared among his protagonists. The character of (Belekov) in "The introversive man" who fears everything is different from the protagonist in "Khemech" by the contemporary writer Yuri Buyda. The protagonist's wife made an unusual reaction against Chekov after her husband's death. She screamed: "I hate your writer Chekov! I hate him! I hate him!". This reaction was a protest and a denial of the cover idea which had become a literary mode in literary works and daily life as was presented by Chekov in "The Introversive man". The modern writer V. Bitsokh was able in "The cabinet" to show fear in people's behavior in the Soviet Union, and so he did show how permanent fear of the protagonists' environment was a common factor with Chekov's. As for the female writer G. Shcherbakova in her "The introversive man", she presented a character of a school headmistress named (Vania) who was dedicated and ambitious. However, she neglected an important aspect of her life, making a family. This was a struggle for her cover in Chekov. Shcherbakova named her story after Chekov's "The introversive man", but her protagonist differed from Chekov's (Varinka) who did not recognize others' feelings. Here, Chekov's text gained its controversy and dialogue in a contemporary and modernist way.

During the initial years of her reign, Catherine II had to contend with political criticism and expectation of reform among nobles such as Denis Fonvizin and Ippolit Bogdanovich. Many Soviet scholars, particularly Makogonenko, Gukovskii and Pigarev, argue that the political writings of these critics can be interpreted as the initial evidence of a "constitutional" movement in Russia similar to those of mid-seventeenth century England and late eighteenth century France. The goal was to force Catherine to share political power by accepting "fundamental laws" or a "constitution." Convinced of the need for such reforms, Fonvizin, Bogdanovich, and several other lesser known writers tried unsuccessfully in 1762 to win Catherine's approval of their projects. Failing to gain Catherine's support, the nobles became her political opponents —consistently and insistently advocating their political principles. This interpretation is valuable for its focus on the question of sovereignty and the individual's relation to the ruler as well as appealing for its attempt to integrate Russian events into a broader, European framework. Yet Soviet historians do not adequately specify and evaluate the theoretical origins of this "constitutional" opposition. General references to contemporary European thinkers (British, French or German political philosophers) obscure their differences and assume the transfer of western European political ideas into Russia intact and unaltered in content or understanding. It is necessary, therefore, to investigate carefully the theoretical origins of the Russian writers' political ideals, their own version of these ideals, and the implications these opinions had for the writers' relationship to the ruler during the early 1760s.