Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Russian historiography
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ivan Ivanovich Lappo’s Views on the Circumstances of Establishing the Union of Lublin in the Context of Pre-Revolutionary Russian Historiography

100%
Ambroziak T.
Zapiski Historyczne
|
2019
|
vol. 84
|
issue 4
97-122
EN
The aim of the article is to analyze the views of Ivan Ivanovich Lappo regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin. The opinions of this historian were presented in the context of the views of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, especially of such authors as Nikolay Gerasimovich Ustryalov, Mikhail Osipovich Koyalovich, Nikolay Alexeyevich Maksimieyko, Matvey Kuzmich Lyubavskiy and Fedor Ivanovich Leontovich. The article belongs to the vast area of studies on the history of historiography, the undertaking of which allows the assessment of the current scholarly achievements and research methodology, and thus making new research postulates. It should be noted that, despite some evolution, the fundamental assessment of the Union of Lublin in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography remained negative. However, the circumstances and reasons for its conclusion were perceived differently. Although the description of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin was not the main research goal for I. Lappo, he carried out a fairly detailed reconstruction of the Sejm of Lublin and the circumstances of the conclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian union in 1569. It seems that the aim of such a procedure was not only to explain the attitude of Lithuanians towards Poles and the legal relationship between the Grand Duchy and the Crown, but first of all to support of the historian’s fundamental thesis that, as a result of the Union of Lublin, the Grand Duchy did not lose its independence and distinctiveness. This historian not only reported the course of the Sejm of Lublin and the decision of the Act of the Union of July 1, but also confronted the views of Poles and Lithuanians concerning the conditions of the Union and the way it was concluded. According to him, the historical reality and the political system of the Grand Duchy until 1569 corresponded to the project of a union presented by Lithuanians. In his opinion, the aim of Poles was not to bring about real unification based on the principles of equality and fraternity, but to force Lithuanians to enter into a union through the implementation of old rights and privileges. In some parts of his research, however, the scholar differentiated between the radical attitude of the Chamber of Deputies of the Crown and the more conciliatory position of the Senate. The description of King Sigismund Augustus’s activities presented by I. Lappo turned out to be quite paradoxical and partly incoherent. On the one hand, the historian claimed that the monarch was under the influence of Poles and betrayed the Grand Duchy. On the other hand, he quoted a number of cases in which the king’s attitude contradicted this general opinion. Lappo’s general attitude towards the Union of Lublin remained negative. The historian clearly sympathized with Lithuanians, seeing Poles as merely caring for their own interests to the detriment of the Grand Duchy. The analysis of Lappo’s views made in this article shows that there are elements in his concepts that testify to the connection with the traditional narrative of Russian historiography, as well as new and original ideas.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ivan Ivanovich Lappo’s Views on the Circumstances of Establishing the Union of Lublin in the Context of Pre-Revolutionary Russian Historiography

100%
Ambroziak T.
|
EN
The aim of the article is to analyze the views of Ivan Ivanovich Lappo regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin. The opinions of this historian were presented in the context of the views of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, especially of such authors as Nikolay Gerasimovich Ustryalov, Mikhail Osipovich Koyalovich, Nikolay Alexeyevich Maksimieyko, Matvey Kuzmich Lyubavskiy and Fedor Ivanovich Leontovich. The article belongs to the vast area of studies on the history of historiography, the undertaking of which allows the assessment of the current scholarly achievements and research methodology, and thus making new research postulates. It should be noted that, despite some evolution, the fundamental assessment of the Union of Lublin in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography remained negative. However, the circumstances and reasons for its conclusion were perceived differently. Although the description of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin was not the main research goal for I. Lappo, he carried out a fairly detailed reconstruction of the Sejm of Lublin and the circumstances of the conclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian union in 1569. It seems that the aim of such a procedure was not only to explain the attitude of Lithuanians towards Poles and the legal relationship between the Grand Duchy and the Crown, but first of all to support of the historian’s fundamental thesis that, as a result of the Union of Lublin, the Grand Duchy did not lose its independence and distinctiveness. This historian not only reported the course of the Sejm of Lublin and the decision of the Act of the Union of July 1, but also confronted the views of Poles and Lithuanians concerning the conditions of the Union and the way it was concluded. According to him, the historical reality and the political system of the Grand Duchy until 1569 corresponded to the project of a union presented by Lithuanians. In his opinion, the aim of Poles was not to bring about real unification based on the principles of equality and fraternity, but to force Lithuanians to enter into a union through the implementation of old rights and privileges. In some parts of his research, however, the scholar differentiated between the radical attitude of the Chamber of Deputies of the Crown and the more conciliatory position of the Senate. The description of King Sigismund Augustus’s activities presented by I. Lappo turned out to be quite paradoxical and partly incoherent. On the one hand, the historian claimed that the monarch was under the influence of Poles and betrayed the Grand Duchy. On the other hand, he quoted a number of cases in which the king’s attitude contradicted this general opinion. Lappo’s general attitude towards the Union of Lublin remained negative. The historian clearly sympathized with Lithuanians, seeing Poles as merely caring for their own interests to the detriment of the Grand Duchy. The analysis of Lappo’s views made in this article shows that there are elements in his concepts that testify to the connection with the traditional narrative of Russian historiography, as well as new and original ideas.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Od „burżuazyjnego nacjonalisty” do „faszysty”: marksistowska recepcja twórczości Mychajła Hruszewskiego w pierwszym trzydziestoleciu XX wieku

84%
Telwak W.
Klio Polska. Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Historiografii Polskiej
|
2016
|
issue 8
EN
This article investigates the reception of M. Hruszewski’s work by the Russian and Ukrainian Marxist historiography in the first three decades of the twentieth century. It aims to retrace the main lines along which Hruszewski’s work was interpreted. For a long time Soviet sociologists, while condemning the scholar’s political affiliation in the past, managed to steer clear of misrepresenting his views and tolerated the interpretation of historical process he advanced. Appreciating his work, they relied on his findings for illustrating their own theses. However, beginning in the 1920s, as the country’s socio-political situation worsened, the process of Ukrainization grew weaker, the academic world became increasingly affected by the totalitarian ideology and the new young Marxist cadres, raised in the spirit of ideological intransigence, began to enter the political scene, Hruszewski’s work came under growing criticism. The analysis of the available material clearly shows that Soviet scholars, in passing the critique of Hruszewski’s views, offered an ideologically distorted picture of his work.
PL
W pracy poddano analizie recepcję twórczości Mychajła Hruszewskiego w marksistowskiej historiografii rosyjskiej i ukraińskiej pierwszego trzydziestolecia XX w. Wskazano główne tendencje interpretacyjne dorobku naukowego tego historyka, dowodząc, że wzrost krytycznych opinii na jego temat był następstwem dogmatyzacji życia naukowego w państwie radzieckim.
4
Content available remote

Občianska vojna na Urale a československé vojsko v Rusku – nové ruské pohľady a hodnotenia

84%
Vrábel F.
Moderní dějiny: sborník k dějinám 19. a 20. století (Modern History: Studies into 19th and 20th century history)
|
2014
|
vol. 22
|
issue 1
107-123
EN
In 1917–1922 the Russians and their neighbors experienced a very painful period of their history – the Civil War. This conflict in Russia had also some impact on the Czechoslovak Army Corps that got trapped in that country in the years 1917– 1920 when the Bolsheviks had signed a peace treaty with the Central Powers. Previous historiography of the Soviet era in Russia and that of the socialist era in Czechoslovakia considered those events from the class- and party-based point of view, and Czechoslovak historians, under the pressure of Communist ideology and censorship reproduced the views of Bolshevist leaders, namely V. I. Lenin. Since 1990 new approaches to this period of Russian and our history have appeared. Confidential materials stored in archives as well as prohibited literature and journals have become available to the public and their study provides a better balanced view of the Civil War in Russia. A great contribution to both Czech and Slovak historiography is the large work done by Russian scientists who study the relevant archival materials and present the results of their work at conferences devoted to the First World War and/or the Civil War in Russia. Owing to several scientific institutions in the Perm Region a number of scientific conferences and exhibitions devoted to the Civil War in the Urals have been organized and the very first Civil War Museum has been opened in the village of Kyn containing an exhibition dedicated to the Czechoslovak legions.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ссыльные поляки в Вологодской губернии в 19 веке: российская историография и перспективы исследования

84%
Liutynski A.
Studia z Historii Społeczno-Gospodarczej XIX i XX Wieku
|
2017
|
vol. 17
91-102
PL
Gubernia wołogodzka, region Imperium Rosyjskiego (w latach 1796–1917), był wykorzystywany przez rząd carski w XIX – początkach XX wieku, jako miejsce zsyłek politycznych. Pewna liczba uczestników ruchu rewolucyjnego w Królestwie Polskim w XIX wieku została zesłana na tę prowincję. Rosyjska historiografia polskich zesłańców odnosi się głównie do regionów syberyjskich, gdzie wygnańców było znacznie więcej. Istnieją interesujące i szczegółowe opracowania dotyczące polskich zesłańców w sąsiednich guberniach archangielska, wiatska i nowogrodzka. O zesłanych do Wołogdy uczestnikach powstań w Królestwie Polskim powstało kilku wydawnictw lokalnych naukowców (Бонфельд, Голикова и др.): o wysokiej rangi dowódcach wojskowych powstania listopadowego, o zesłańcach konspiracji Konarskiego i o ponad 80 uczestnikach powstania styczniowego. Na podstawie danych archiwalnych badane są epizody z życia codziennego, dane biograficzne, uogólnienia. Tematami istotnymi badawczo pozostają następujące obszary: szczegółowa analiza biografii, publikacja źródeł archiwalnych, badanie źródeł osobowych: wspomnienia zesłańców i mieszkańców.
EN
Vologda Province, the region of the Russian Empire (1796–1917), was used in the XIX – early XX century by the tsarist government as a place of political exile. A certain number of participants in the revolutionary movement in the Kingdom of Poland in the 19th century was exiled to the province. The Russian historiography of the Polish exile mainly refers to the Siberian regions, where exiles were much larger. There are interesting and detailed studies of Polish exiles in the neighboring Arkhangelsk, Vyatka and Novgorod provinces. Several publications of local researchers (Bonfeld, Golikova, etc.) about the exiled Poles in Vologda from the Kingdom of Poland have been made: about high-ranking commanders of the November uprising, about exiles after Konarsky case and more than 80 participants of the January uprising. On the basis of archival data, episodes of everyday life, biographical data, generalizations are studied. The topic remains relevant for research in the following areas: detailed analysis of biographies, publication of archival sources, study of personal sources: memories of exiles and local residents
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Rosyjscy historycy o początkach II wojny światowej – przypadek Aleksandra Diukowa

84%
Gajos B.
Studia z Dziejów Rosji i Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej
|
2015
|
vol. 50
|
issue 1
EN
This article examines the work of contemporary Russian historian Alexander Dyukov, The Molotov‑Ribbentrop Pact in Questions and Answers, published in 2009. The asser­tions made in this publication are presented in a wider context, in comparison to the brochure Falsifiers of History, which determined the Soviet historiography regarding the origins of World War II and the works of Russian historians conceived after 1991. As a result, certain continuity could be traced between the interpretations constituting the official canon throughout the exi­stence of the USSR, and those found in The Molotov‑Ribbentrop Pact (…).This article also presents Dyukov’s efforts towards the popularisation of history, associated mainly with his role as director of the “Historical Memory” Foundation. These activities confer an extra‑scientific context to the work of the Russian historian.Finally, this article addresses the main assertions made in Dyukov’s publication, and points out the manipulations and concealments made by the author.
PL
W artykule została przeanalizowana książka współczesnego rosyjskiego histo­ryka Aleksandra Diukowa Pakt Mołotowa‑Ribbentropa w pytaniach i odpowiedziach wydana w 2009 roku. Tezy zawarte w tej publikacji przedstawiono na szerszym tle, porównując je z bro­szurą O fałszerzach historii, która zdeterminowała sowiecką historiografię dotyczącą początków II wojny światowej, oraz dziełami rosyjskich historyków powstałymi po 1991 roku. Dzięki temu udało się wskazać ciągłości pomiędzy niektórymi interpretacjami, które stanowiły kanon przez cały okres istnienia ZSRS oraz tymi zawartymi w książce Pakt Mołotowa‑Ribbentropa.Ponadto przedstawiona została działalność Diukowa na płaszczyźnie popularyzacji histo­rii, co wiąże się z kierowaną przez niego fundacją „Pamięć Historyczna”. Owe działania nadają pozanaukowy kontekst publikacji rosyjskiego historyka.Na koniec odniesiono się do najważniejszych tez zawartych w analizowanej książce i wska­zano na zastosowane przez autora manipulacje oraz przemilczenia.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Историческая полонистика В. О. Ключевского в оценке польской историографии

67%
Кручковский Т. T.
Klio Polska. Studia i Materiały z Dziejów Historiografii Polskiej
|
2017
|
issue 9
EN
This article discusses the key elements of Vasily Klyuchevsky’s interpretation of Polish history as well as the reception of it in Polish historiography, mainly in works by Marian Henryk Serejski and Katarzyna Błachowska. Vasily Klyuchevsky was one of the leading representatives of the Russian liberal historiography at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
PL
W artykule omówione zostały zasadnicze problemy ujęcia dziejów Polski i stosunków polsko-rosyjskich w historiozoficznych koncepcjach Wasyla O. Kluczewskiego, jednego z głównych rosyjskich historyków nurtu liberalnego z przełomu XIX i XX w., a także recepcja i oceny tego aspektu twórczości rosyjskiego uczonego we współczesnej polskiej nauce historycznej (przede wszystkim w pracach Mariana Henryka Serejskiego i Katarzyny Błachowskiej).
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.