Zytoarchitektonik und Revolution ‐ Lenins Gehirn als Raum und Objekt

The investigation of Lenin's brain by the German neurobiologist Oskar Vogt from Berlin and his Russian collaborators in Moscow is one of the most exciting and simultaneously oddest chapters in the history of medicine. With the bizarre claim to be able to detect the material substrate of genius it provoked as much unrealistic expectations in the public as strong criticism by the scientific community of brain researchers. The present paper deals in a brief survey with the history of collecting and measuring the brains of famous persons in general and particularly with the historical, political and social circumstances of the performed investigation of Lenin's brain. In this connection the epistemological and technical prereqisites of architectonical brain research and its means of the topographical representation of complex histo‐anatomical and physiological differences in the brain cortex are shortly discussed. The opening of Russian archives after the socio‐economic turn of the year 1991 brought up new background facts in Lenin's pathobiography; together with the sources from German archives a rather extensive reconstruction of the historical events between Lenin's death in 1924 and the final report of the Moscow Brain Research Institute (Institute Mozga) to the Politburo of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviki) in 1936 is possible now.     

列宁的历史认识论

列宁在其毕生的革命生涯中,为了认清并解决俄国社会问题,和形形色色的机会主义、错误思潮进行斗争,大量运用了历史知识作为观点的辅助说明,并用自己研究革命史、工人运动史等事例作为论据,形成了独特的历史认识论。列宁的历史认识论对于发展唯物史观历史认识论有重要理论价值和现实意义。     

中国俄国史研究百年检视与思考

中俄交往始于蒙古西征和金帐汗国时代(1238-1480年),中国学人撰写俄国史自1878年刊印的鹭江奇迹人的《俄国志略》,到今天已经有整整140年的历史。中国的俄国史学科伴随民族命运、国家危机以及世界形势的变化而生,自诞生之日起即负有学人情怀、民族重任和学术职责三重使命。因此,俄国史学科在中国一直发挥着“知夷”和“盗火”的两大作用。中华人民共和国成立后,俄国史(包括苏联时期和俄罗斯联邦时期)研究获得了70年的巨大发展,主要成就有:1985年中国苏联东欧史研究会成立(1992年英文更名为中国俄罗斯东欧中亚史研究会),高等院校、社会科学院、党校、国家有关部委及党政机构纷纷设立俄国史或俄罗斯问题研究机构,建立了从历史学学士、俄国史硕士到俄国史博士的三级专业人才培养体系,俄国史和俄罗斯问题研究的专业期刊创立并连续出版,大量的俄国通史、中俄(中苏)关系史、专题著作、各类教科书、翻译著作(来自俄文、英法、法文、德文、波兰文等)出版,中国俄国史学者积极参与国际学术会议和国际合作研究,具有中国特色的中国“俄罗斯学”新学科正在建立过程中。     

近代俄国的历史观念与国族意识——以历史学家米留可夫为例

俄罗斯随历史发展成为领土辽阔的庞大国家。随时间与空间的延续,生活在其中的人竟然无法就国族文化得到共识。十九世纪的知识阶层独立于政权之外展开社会自发的国族论述。从早期斯拉夫派与西方派的国族本质辩论,到革命前政治意识型态之争,国家历史是知识分子最重要论述依据。历史学家应能发挥专业长才,贡献于审视国族文化,却又往往被视为与知识阶层隔绝。本文以莫斯科学派的米留可夫为例,探究历史学家的国族观念。米留可夫无法认同长期受浪漫主义唯心哲学主导的俄国社会思想,主张经验历史的重要,如此才能建立正确的历史知识,找到真正的国族文化。他希望用客观的方法替代过去以人类精神为主体的理论架构,因此为俄国历史学和国族论述添上了新的一页。     

Imperial Nationality Policy and the Russian Version of the History of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Mid-Nineteenth Century

Abstract

This article analyses how changes in Russian nationality policy after the 1830–31 Uprising in Poland and Lithuania led to the initiative of an historical project that sought to prove the Russian nature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It focuses on the tender organized by the Ministry of Education in the 1830s for the publication of a history textbook, which was to form the canon of Russian interpretations of the history of the Grand Duchy. The most important creator of this narrative was Nikolai Ustrialov. According to Ustrialov, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was just as much a Russian state as the Grand Duchy of Moscow, with the sole caveat that the tiny Lithuanian nation had played a part in creating it. Territorial rivalry between these two states was a mere ‘family quarrel’ over which dynasty would prevail. The supremacy of the Lithuanian dynasty did not mean the victory of an alien power since the Lithuanian princes were closely related to Russian princes and moreover, a considerable number of them belonged to the Eastern (Orthodox) Church. Russians could regard therefore them as their own. The last part of this article is devoted to the changes in nationality policy after the 1863–64 Uprising and the requirement for a new interpretation of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.     

Excerpts from Tables of Contents of other Translation Journals

The Russian conquest of Siberia was one of the great feats of history, bringing almost one-tenth of the landmass of the world under the control of the Russian Empire. This paper proposes a framework for examining the role of Siberia in the development of the Russian state and the evolution of the world economy from the sixteenth to early twentieth century. This study supports the contention that, rather than representing an interesting aside in the annals of European imperialism, Russian colonization of Siberia was not only affected by European colonialism and the European-based capitalist world economy, but, in fact, was part of it Moreover, the conquest and consolidation of Siberia is viewed as a “series of changing geographies,” over space and time, as it was affected by and in turn affected the rise of Russian nationalism and the development of European capitalism. The three-part framework for analysis suggested in this study employs (1) a world-systems model, (2) a multi-disciplinary approach, and (3) cross-cultural comparison.     

ON THE CONTENT AND THE TASKS OF HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY (AS THE HISTORY OF NATURE MANAGEMENT)

A Pleistocene geologist calls for a totally new approach to the study of geography as the basic discipline concerned with the man-nature relationship, or what he terms nature management (Russian, prirodopol'zovaniye). He views the basic study object of an essentially unified geography as natural-technical territorial complexes (biotechnocenoses or geotechnocenoses), requiring investigation in three time dimensions—the past (historical geography), the present (dynamic geography) and the future (predictive geography). In keeping with the proposition that historical geography should be a separate, unified discipline, a distinctive historical-geographic periodization is proposed, differing from the periodizations in use in paleogeography, anthropology, archeology and history.     

鲍·尼·米留科夫的一生及其史学贡献

米留科夫是俄国19-20世纪之交最杰出的历史学家之一,在俄国史学史上占有重要地位。他学识过人,著述丰富,在多个领域为俄国史学的发展做出了独创性的贡献:首次完成了对俄国文化史的全面论述,开创了俄国史研究的新领域;开拓了俄罗斯思想史研究的新境界;重新评价彼得改革;进一步深化了"国家学派"关于俄罗斯与西方历史发展关系的认识。     

Missing Links. Indigenous Life and Evolutionary Thought in the History of Russian Ethnography

The history of Russian social anthropology has long been best known for the work of three, late nineteenth-century “exile ethnographers,” each sent to the Russian Far East for their anti-tsarist activities as students. All three men—Vladimir Bogoraz, Vladimir Iokhel'son, and Lev Shternberg—produced voluminous and celebrated works on Russian far eastern indigenous life, but it was the young Shternberg who had perhaps the most profound effect on setting the agenda for the canonic evolutionist line soon to take hold in late Russian imperial and early Soviet ethnography. This essay draws on archival, library, and field research to revisit the life and work of Shternberg in order to tell the story of “group marriage” that he documented for the life of one Sakhalin Island indigenous people, Gilyaks (or Nivkhgu, Nivkhi). Documented in this way by Shternberg, the Nivkh kinship system proved a crucial “missing link” for Friedrich Engels, who had long been eager to provide evidence of primitive communism as man's natural state. For Gilyaks, the die was cast. Their role as the quintessential savages of Engels’ favor made them famous in Russian and Soviet ethnographic literature, and significantly enhanced their importance to Soviet government planners. This essay tracks that episode and its aftermaths as a pivotal moment in the history of Russian social anthropology and of evolutionist thought more broadly.     

当代俄罗斯史学中动乱学研究的新趋向

苏联解体后,俄罗斯学界开始反思20世纪初的革命,在深化对17世纪初大动乱研究的基础上,形成一种以“动乱”取代“革命”的话语,采用多学科综合研究的方法,构建以“动乱—帝国”为模型的俄国国家系统性危机理论体系的动乱学研究范式。该范式强调,17世纪初、20世纪初和20世纪末发生的历史事件是俄国国家制度的三次系统性危机(即动乱),前两次危机都以建立帝国而结束,俄国历史在“动乱—帝国”的周期性节律中循环。动乱学的提出,是21世纪“俄罗斯学”和“帝国学”研究热潮下的产物,也是一部分俄国学者对当前俄罗斯向何处去的一种回答。但作为建构一门新学科的尝试,其学科体系尚待进一步深化。     

借鉴，还是抄袭——评《对列宁一国建成社会主义思想及其意义的探讨》

陈立旭的《对列宁一国建成社会主义思想及其意义的探讨》一,主要内容抄自李心华的《列宁“一国建成”思想新论》稿。陈立旭认为自己的行为是借鉴。到底是借鉴,还是抄袭?经过详细比较证明,陈立旭的《探讨》是一篇道地的抄袭之作。抄袭就是抄袭,抄袭和借鉴是有区别的。     

Chinese Objects in Eurasian Empire: On the Cultural Meaning of Chinese Art in Russia in the Late 17th–Early 18th Centuries

This article examines special features of “Chinoiserie” or “Chinese fashion” (“Kitaischina”) in Russia from the late 17th to the early 18th century: The reign of Peter the First. It discusses this cultural phenomenon’s historical origins, demonstrates the role of Chinese luxury goods and art objects in the era’s Russo-Chinese cultural exchange, and illustrates how Chinese decorative arts were used in Russian palaces. While Chinoiserie in Russia was influenced by similar trends in Western Europe, it was rooted in the unique history of regular contacts between Russia and the Qing Empire. Chinese objects not only appeared as commodities in the higher levels of Russian society, they also contributed to the prestige of the Russian state. Peter the First had a political purpose behind the collection, display and imitation of Chinese art objects in Russian palaces, as these practices demonstrated the growing wealth and power of newly established Russian Empire, which enjoyed trade connections with the Qing Empire. While contemporary perceptions of China in Russia were derived mostly by the exotic images of export art, ethnographic collections of genuine Chinese utensils, which were founded during that period, also contributed to Russian views of China. This research uses a comprehensive methodology, combining studies of material objects preserved in Russian museums and written sources, including archival records.     

Mastering the Arctic marine environment: organizational practices of Pomor hunting expeditions to Svalbard (Spitsbergen) in the eighteenth century

We consider the foundations of the widely recognized reputation of the Pomors as experts in dealing with the severe and unpredictable marine environment of the White and Barents Seas. Our research focuses on the history of Russian exploitation of Spitsbergen. Though these kinds of activities occupied only 1% of maritime shipping in the Russian North, the history of exploitation of this Arctic archipelago is contextualized within the history of the Russian North and the lives of its people. Thus, it provides an informative model for general understanding of the methods and structures Pomors used to control the marine environment. The paper is based on newly discovered documents that allowed us to analyse the social and property status of organizers and participants in Spitsbergen hunting. We also consider practices linked to trip organization and supply. We argue that an understanding of Spitsbergen hunting management reveals the general principals of Pomor mastery of the Arctic environment. Flexibility and decentralization of economic activities permitted peasants of the Russian North to demonstrate stable and positive economic results under severe conditions. This could easily have been perceived as a special ability to live in the Arctic.     

Lev Gumilev: The Ideologist of the Soviet Empire

Summary

Russian intellectuals like to appeal to examples of foreign history. Lev Gumilev's views on history are a good example. Gumilev was one of the most well-known representatives of Eurasianism, which was in turn one of the most interesting intellectual constructs in Russian historiography. Gumilev believed that Russia was born not from Kievan Rus—the view of the majority of Russian historians of his time—but from the empire of the Mongols. While Gumilev saw Europe as a hostile entity to Russia/Eurasia, this was not the case with the neo-Eurasianists of the Yeltsin era. This article examines Gumilev's Eurasianism and its influence on modern Russian national identity.     

The Moscow Colloquium on Electroencephalography of Higher Nervous Activity and its impact on international brain research

Late 1950s was a period of recognition of Russian neurophysiology by international neuroscience community and vice versa. This process of "opening windows in both directions" might be illustrated by the story of The Moscow Colloquium on Electroencephalography of Higher Nervous Activity. The Colloquium took place on October 6-11, 1958 at the House of Scientists in Moscow. It was organized by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR under the initiative of the Institute for Higher Nervous Activity and focused on (a) EEG correlates of cortical excitation and inhibition; (b) electrophysiological study of different brain structures and their role in conditioned reflexes; and (c) EEG of higher nervous activity in humans. At the final session it was suggested to launch an International Year for the Study of the Brain and to ask UNESCO for international coordination of brain research. This resulted into the International Brain Research Organization (IBRO) founded in 1960. This article is based on unpublished records of international contacts of Soviet neurophysiologists and organization of the Moscow Colloquium from the Archive of Russian Academy of Science (ARAN), reports in Soviet periodicals, publications in obscure Festschriften, etc.     

Nikolai V. Konovalov (1900-1966): his role in the development of neurology and the creation of the Institute of Neurology of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

Nikolai V. Konovalov (1900-1966) has left a significant imprint in the history of Russian neuroscience. He was among the coryphaei of international and national neurology. Along with the large number of fundamental scientific papers that have determined several aspects of the development of neuroscience, his contribution has been equally important to the establishment and development of one of the distinguished Russian scientific centers - the Institute of Neurology of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, which he headed from 1948 until 1966.     

What Is the State? The Russian Concept of Gosudarstvo in the European Context

What allows us to talk about the state as an active agent when we understand that only individuals act? This article draws comparisons between Quentin Skinner's exposition of the history of the concept of the state in major European languages and the history of its equivalent Russian term gosudarstvo in order to provide some general hypotheses on the development of the phenomenon of the state, and on the origins of this baffling usage. First, summing up a vast number of historical and lexicographical works, it attempts a detailed reconstruction of the conceptual development of the term in the Russian language. Second, a peculiarity of the Russian case is discussed, in whichabsolutist thinkers (and not republicans, as in western Europe) stressed the difference between the person of the ruler and the state. Third, political interests in introducing such novel usage are discussed, together with the role of this usage in the formation of the state. This allows us to see better the origins of current faith in the existence of the state as a more or less clearly designated and independent actor, predicated on the mechanism of what Pierre Bourdieu described as “mysterious delegation.”     

Roots and routes of Russian neurosurgery (from surgical neurology towards neurological surgery)

Regular and purposeful neurosurgical interventions started at the end of the nineteenth century. Both surgical and neurological roots of the emerging speciality could be traced. The surgical roots of neurosurgery were the invention of anaesthesia, aseptics and antiseptics which made brain operations relatively safe and markedly reduced postoperative mortality. The neurological roots were the improvement of topical diagnosis in neurology and the understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the nervous system. The first operating room at the neurology department of the Russian Military Medical Academy was established in 1897 by the famous Russian neurologist and psychiatrist Vladimir Bekhterev (1857-1927). According to Bekhterev, neurology should become a surgical speciality like gynaecology or opthalmology and "neurologists will take a knife in their hands and do what they should do". Bekhterev's pupil Ludwig Puusepp (1875-1942) became the first full-time Russian neurosurgeon ("surgical neurologist"). He headed the first university course in surgical neurology in the world organised in 1909 at Bekhterev's Psychoneurological Institutte in St. Petersburg and bacame professor of surgical neurology in 1910. The role of neurologist might be illustrated by the development of a sterotactic instrument named "encephalometer" designed by D. Zernov in 1889 and improved by G. Rossolimo in 1907. The idea was to map cerebral structures in degrees of latitude and longitude similar to mapping the terrestrial globe in order to localise the brain lesion and enhance its minimally invasive removal....     

Constructing Familiarity in Finnish–Russian Karelia: Shifting Uses of History and the Re-Interpretation of Regions

This paper will present evidence of regionalization processes taking shape in “Finnish–Russian” Karelia based on the construction of “familiarity”. This region-building strategy harks back to the well-known Euroregion model developed within the context of European integration. However, if Euroregions can be seen as largely public sector projects of “place-making” the construction of familiarity is a much more socially grounded process. The major shift under consideration is that of transcending the national appropriations of Karelia that have characterized Finnish, Russian and Soviet policies in the past. The focus will be on two aspects: (1) notions of a common regional space in order to promote cross-border co-operation and (2) the re-framing of history and the influence of tourism in developed multifaceted (partly post-national) regional ideas of Karelia. Rather than understand Karelia within the framework of nationalizing historiographies, these contemporary interpretations depict Karelia as a borderland—as a space of cultural and historical ambiguity marked but not dominated by alternating phases of Russification, Finnishization and Sovietization.     

Changes in the Structure and Distribution of Russian GDP in the 1990s

The author, a noted Japanese observer of Soviet and post-Soviet economic affairs, examines System of National Accounts data for the Russian Federation in order to analyze changes in the structure and distribution of Russian GDP during the six-year period commencing in 1989. The study, based in part on first-hand investigation in Moscow in late 1995 and on hitherto unpublished raw data, represents an initial attempt to examine the methodology underlying the compilation of Russian System of National Accounts statistics, which the Russian Government began to publish only recently. A distinct focus is on GDP by sector of origin and by end use, and on distribution of income. 9 tables, 22 references. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: O11, O47, P24.