The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Problems of relationship of the state and church during the early period of national history in N.M. Karamzin's interpretation

i.E. Rudkovskaya. Problems of relationship of the state and church during the early period... UDC 930.1.322

I.E. Rudkovskaya


Tomsk state pedagogical university

Among those problems which were lifted in "The history of the state Russian" by N.M. Karamzin since the birth of whom 240 anniversary is celebrated in 2006 a specific place was held by problems of relationship of the state and orthodox church. Summing up in the V volume the results of the most gloomy, Mongolian period in the history of the Russian statehood, Karamzin noticed: "Istoriya confirms the truth offered by all Politicians-philosophers and only for some light minds doubtful that Vera is special force state" [1, page 209]. The analysis of the option of interpretation of relationship of Orthodoxy offered them, orthodox church and the Old Russian state can be under construction from recognition positions behind church of the status or a significant element of the state, or the most important institute of civil society. Without calling into question I.N. Danilevsky's statement that the church in the Old Russian state was "established in fact", had the enormous power, issued laws to which all submitted [2, page 170], it should be noted also the fact of development of centuries-old dialogue between the power and church as rather equivalent partners when the church really undertook functions of protection of citizens in their opposition with the power. It is necessary to find out in what measure, according to Karamzin, adoption of Christianity at the initiative of the political leader predetermined not only change of priorities of the princely power, behavioural stereotypes of governors and their citizens, but also level of independence of church, volume of the functions assumed by it, extent of "nationalization" of this institute. Also studying approach of the historian to a problem of influence of Orthodoxy on process of self-identification of Russians in the period of the political fragmentation complicated by dependence on the Mongolian statehood and expansion from the West is represented important.

The option of reconstruction of history of change of value and behavioural reference points of the prince offered by N.M. Karamzin as heads of state Russian during acceptance and the statement of Orthodoxy is supposed to be lit on the basis of comparison to the solution of the same problems in research E. A gibbon with whom Karamzin's work is genetically connected not only historiographically [3, page 142-148], but also syuzhetno. Karamzina - the history of the state which connected is the focus of attention

the destiny with Orthodoxy apprehended from Byzantium, and E. Gibbon who paid primary attention to the Eastern Roman Empire in detail considered process of Christianization of Rome. The analysis of changes of priorities of the princely power offered here in the context of orthodox values is based on allocation as significant elements of the text of the heads devoted to background of a baptism, actually to a baptism and its consequences for the dominating persons in "The history of the state Russian" and "The history of decline and destruction of the Roman Empire".

AA. The gibbon gave more volume analysis of the reasons which induced the head of state to address Christianity. It partly can be explained with the fact that the English historian wrote about changes in the state organism which already had thousand-year history whereas Karamzin considered innovations in the state which hardly passed for one hundred years. It was represented to E. Gibbon important to give characteristic of motives of the address of Konstantin to Christianity, "following or from his piety, or from its policy, or from his beliefs, or from its remorse" [4, page 111-112]. The reasonable governor, on the Gibbon, had to look with pleasure at achievements of the religion which extended such clean, blessed and general system of morality in the people [4, page 235] in the conditions of the menacing decline of the Roman customs. Also passive obedience of the power could not but seem "to the most outstanding and the most useful of all evangelical virtues" [4, page 236].

Wordly calculations quite could carry away Konstantin as the Christianity was favorable "and for its glory, and for its eminence" [4, page 244245]. Speaking about the reasons of adoption of Christianity by the princess Olga, Karamzin gives preference to features of psychology of old age [5, page 123-124]. Original motives of a baptism of the prince Vladimir, according to Karamzin, are known to God, but not people, nevertheless it designated the dilemma similar to the list of alternatives offered by E. Gibbon: Whether "True assurance of a Christianity shrine, or... one ambition and desire to be in the related union with the States Byzantine decided it to be christened?" [4, page 169]. Division into the periods in board adopted Christianity

masters it is traced in characteristics of both the emperor Konstantin, and the princess Olga, and the prince Vladimir. E. Gibbon considered vain attempt to combine dissimilar (positive and negative) lines of the hero as it "has to create rather terrible, than human image if we do not expose it in appropriate light by means of thorough separation of various periods of reign of Konstantin" [4, page 169]. To N.M. Karamzin the first - pagan - period of reign of the princess Olga seemed time noted by "relentless revenge" and affairs of government, the second is characterized as an era of glory it in our church history [5, page 122-123]. Differentiating two eras of government of the prince Vladimir, Karamzin, like the Gibbon, focuses attention on ethical criteria: "Byv in paganism the avenger the furious, mean voluptuary, the soldier blood-thirsty and - that is more awful than everything - bratoubiytseyu, Vladimir set in philanthropic rules of Christianity was already afraid to shed blood of villains and enemies of the fatherland" [5, page 161]. However also the distinction of situations of two heroes who received a title equal to the apostles was obvious to Karamzin.

Vladimir, unlike Konstantin, made the main decision not at mortal line. In E. Gibbon's work the thesis which Karamzin could not but consider was put forward: "The example and Konstantin's reputation, apparently, maintained usage to deposit a baptism and inspired in the tyrants reigning after it belief that innocent blood which they will shed during long reign will be washed instantly away from them by revival waters" [4, page 248]. Karamzin in details depicted that absolutely new, unusual for Vladimir earlier behavior model which determined by itself a new stage of its board. Significantly already the fact that from the procedure of a baptism Vladimir came out the winner what was partly predetermined by the choice of rather neutral place of a baptism (not in Kiev and not in Constantinople). The miraculous healing shown in the course of the baptism, according to Karamzin, provided fast christianization of nobility. The amazed people, the historian will note, he is courageous to protect the imaginary gods [5, page 152-153]. Karamzin, unlike E. Gibbon noting that "the insuperable power of the Roman emperors was found out in important and dangerous change of national religion" that "the fear which was inspired by their military forces muffled weak and nobody not supported grumble of pagans" [4, page 250] will begin to place emphasis on omnipotence of the prince. The young dynasty, undoubtedly, had no still such volume of imperious resources which would be comparable with

Roman analog. "Vladimir, - Karamzin will emphasize, - did not want to force conscience, apparently... he tried to educate Russians" [5, page 154].

The dialogue with "wise bishops and aged men" adjusting policy of the prince for criminals and external enemies, construction of churches, the help to the poor, feasts for associates considerably expanded the range of activity of the princely power, its legitimations promoted, having given, according to Karamzin, an image of the prince Vladimir of line of similarity to Charles the Great [5, page 161-162]. Many elements of the new model of political behavior built by the prince Vladimir after the baptism became obligatory components of princely service that was most brightly shown in Yaroslav the Wise's activity. Death saved Vladimir from possible repetition of fate of Konstantin guilty of the death of the son rival Crispus. Having opposed the father, Yaroslav, nevertheless, followed the tradition created by him, built dialogue both with church, and with the subject population, paid special attention to dissemination of knowledge, book business. It is characteristic that Karamzin in "History" did not make the comparison of the prince Vladimir to Constantine the Great arising, apparently. The comparative analysis of two texts allows to draw a conclusion on accounting of separate theses of E. Gibbon by Karamzin, however in general in N.M. Karamzin's interpretation, it is represented, the annalistic tradition of reconstruction of images of the princess Olga and the prince Vladimir prevails. Perhaps, it is explained by too striking differences both in informational content of the sources used by the historian, and in the level of complexity of those public relations against the background of which there was Christianization of masters in Constantinople and Kiev [6, page 50-53].

Summing up the results of the specific period, Karamzin will consider it necessary to compare a role of Christian church and clergy in the history of the states of the West and Russia. In the West, according to Karamzin, "The spiritual power appropriated wordly" because "dealt with the people half-civilized - Gotfami, Longo bards, Francs" whereas "The Greek Church began to shine in the Power well-planned" [1, page 210]. "To happiness, - the historian will designate the position here, - Saint Vladimir preferred Constantinople to Rome".

Since the second volume (the first chronologically came to the end with government of the prince Vladimir), the church perspective becomes a significant story line of "History" of Karamzin. Such informative text as tables of contents of volumes of Karamzin "History", confirms stable attention of the historian to Orthodoxy, to orthodox church. As the most often meeting

structural elements of the text it is necessary to recognize the through heading "Church affairs" [7, t. II, Chapter XIV, XVI; t. III, Chapter VI; 8, Chapter XI; 1, the chapter І - ІІІ] and especially plots about the highest orthodox hierarches [7, t. II, Chapter II, GU^P, XII, XV, XVI; t. III, Chapter I, IV; 8, Chapter V-VII, К^; 1, Chapter I]. Points having informative and estimated character meet: "Dependence of our church from Greek", "Peacefulness of Clergy", "Good action of belief", "Benefits of clergy: nature of ours" [7, t. II, Chapter IV; t. III, Chapter III; 1, Chapter IV]. The facts connected with construction or destruction of cathedrals, the device or burning of monasteries are also removed at the level of the table of contents [7, t. II, Chapter II, VI; 8, Chapter X; 1, Chapter I]. The facts of a baptism, distribution of Orthodoxy, the device of kres-tilnitsa at churches are mentioned, besides, names of Saints, an icon Vladimir, church cathedrals, the charter church, the charter a church tribute, transferring of relics, a baptism of bones, heresies [7, t. II, chapter of P^P, IX; t. III, Chapter I, VIII; 8, Chapter IV; 1, the chapter of the Martyr Karamzin carefully, by years reproduced the plots recorded by chroniclers, and they as the researcher concerning results of government of Vladimir Monomakh noted, "telling in detail military and church affairs, hardly mention state or civil" [7, page 101]. Thus, the specifics of annalistic sources promoted drawing attention to Orthodoxy, church, monasteries, etc. The maximum of characters of "History" of N.M. Karamzin from among priests fall on the specific period that is caused first of all by plurality of the centers political, church, annalistic. In volume II Karamzin mentioned not less than 110 representatives of clergy, in volume III - about 100, in volume IV - already 140, and in volume V - not less than 210.

At the same time, analyzing Karamzin's work, it is necessary to see that it was not limited only to reproduction of information, and the research foreshortening elected by him recorded in the name of its "History" changed a ratio of the provided data and therefore church history did not cover with itself history secular in the general outline of its work at all. The coherence, interconditionality of a social life and life church was carefully fixed by Karamzin. St. Sophia Cathedral decorated Kiev in honor of a victory over Pechenegs [7, page 20]. Yaroslav's decision on that "to put Illarion Rossiyanin's Metropolitan" - the decision purely political. "Greeks, - the researcher noticed, - having told us Vera and sending the chief spiritual Pastors, hoped to appropriate, perhaps, through them and some temporal power over Rossiyey: Yaroslav did not want that..." [7, page 25-26]. Ryurik dynasty actively interposed in the matter church,

orthodox priests - in political cases.

Reproducing an event outline, the historian recreated the list of diverse functions of orthodox clergy in ancient Russia. First of all metropolitans and bishops provided legitimation of the power of the prince, his separate acts with the blessing [9, page 35-38]. Princes addressed for blessing not only the highest hierarches [7, page 126, 467; 8, page 18, 108, 135, 159; 1, page 210], but also to the "hermits" who did not have a high office, however being renowned respect in the people that also increased the level of legitimacy of the power of any given prince, as well as his separate decisions [7, page 56]. The legitimacy of a dynasty in general was consolidated by the tradition consecrated with the images of princes-martyrs esteemed by church. Karamzin's work recorded special influence of images of Boris and Gleb and on representatives of a princely dynasty, and on perception by its people [7, page 52, 92, 51, 62, 264, 98, 124, 403, 147]. Izyaslav with brothers left friends after in common in 1072 transferred Boris and Gleb's relics: "Sami Yaroslavichi carried to cancer Borisova, and the Metropolitan Georgi recognized sanctity of the Russian Martyrs, to pleasure of the Sovereign and people" [7, page 51]. Describing in the heading entitled "by G. 1086. Yaropolk's killing, November 22", tragic events of those days, Karamzin will note: The prince Yaropolk "envied Boris and Gleb's sanctity, and wished to die also the martyr" [7, page 62]. Yaroslav Yaropolkovich, as it is told by Karamzin in notes, will leave Kiev as he before it will swear an oath in 1102 to reconcile "at a coffin of these Martyrs" [7, page 264]. And Vladimir Monomakh in 1125, on the eve of death, and fatally sick Vsevolod in 1146, and the prince Svyatoslav Kiyevsky in 1194 preferred to go to die there [7, page 98, 124, 403]. The union between Izyaslav Mstislavovich and his uncle Vyacheslav in 1150 was also concluded "over a coffin of Saints Boris and Gleb" [7, page 147]. The authority of Saint Martyrs could serve also as cover for perfidy: Yury Dolgorukiy (Georgy) in 1151 "under the guise of excellent diligence to St. Boris" "celebrated his memory, lived Violas ashore, prayed in the temple of this martyr", breaking thus an oath to leave Pereyaslavl [7, page 147]. As defenders of Mr. Vyshegorod contemporaries attributed to Boris and Gleb's protection Mstislav Hrabry's victory in 1174 [7, page 367]. Allocating the headings devoted to transferring of relics of Boris and Gleb on May 2, 1072 and on May 2, 1115 twice [7, page 52, 92], Karamzin pays attention to a double-meaning happening in 1115: "This celebration, both church and state, representing a spirit of the age, adequately remarks in the history". It strengthened a unification of laymen and church, contributed to gradual warehouses -

vany situations when it became difficult to Russians to present itself out of the space outlined by Orthodoxy.

The role of a cult of Boris and Gleb can be compared with the exclusive role of Ludovic Sviaty in the history of the monarchy in France who fastened "with the personality the union of church and the kingdom" noted by T.N. Granovsky partly. Philip Krasivy's crimes, - the historian believed, - errors of the house of Valois could not wash away the character given by Ludwig to the royalty" [10, page 10]. Symbolizing a unification of laymen and church, the cult of princes-martyrs contributed to gradual folding of a situation when it became difficult to Russians to present itself out of the space outlined by Orthodoxy.

Also continuous, though not quite successful influence of clergy on lifestyle of political leaders of that time was significant. Metropolitans in the compositions "talked to Sovereigns, connecting diligent praise to manual Christian" [7, page 60, 102-103], "taught Sovereigns to be ashamed of the crimes inspired by wild, unbridled passions [7, page 478]. Karamzin repeatedly noted devotion of princes [7, page 25, 63, 87, 98] that did not prevent, however, much of them to break "sacred charters of morality", being content only with "exterior of piety" [7, page 87-88]. The orthodox belief not always preventing crimes princely allowed princes to perceive failures as a heavenly penalty for deeds. Quite so Karamzin treated reaction of the prince Andrey Bogolyubsky to defeat of residents of Suzdal in fight with Novgorodians in 1170 and at a siege of Vysh-goroda in 1173 "Andrey, - Karamzin drew a conclusion, - did not express either sorrow, or disappointment, and demolished abasement with mildness of the Christian, attributing it "to God's anger on Residents of Suzdal for devastation of sacred churches Kiev in 1169"" [7, page 367]. Created by the prince Vladimir consider in two centuries the new model of political behavior transformed before as the changed time realities, and personal features of certain princes, nevertheless served as the certain reference point supported by clergy. The church created, consecrated alternative trajectories of a course of life for representatives of a princely dynasty. Karamzin's text demonstrates that the going into convent of princes in monks becomes a peculiar norm. The prince Sudislav, having spent 24 years in a dungeon, preferred tonsured and terminated life in the Kiev monastery of Saint George [7, page 46]. Karamzin devoted a special heading to David Chernigovsky's son Svyatoslav called for his piety the Hypocrite who "refused the world, and consisted in Monastery of Pe-

chersky, respecting monastic virtues of more civil" [7, page 89]. In 1147 Igor Olgovich captivated earlier Izyas-lavy was tonsured in monks of prince [7, page 128-132]. The prince Vasylko Romanovich, Daniil Galitsky's brother, "terminated the days the Monk and the toiler" [8, page 70]. Acceptance of a monastic dignity by the prince on the eve of death, contrary to opinion of Vladimir Monomakh learning that not a post, not the privacy, not Monkhood will save his sons, but blessing [7, page 99], became steady tradition. Accepted before death Alexander Nevsky, Dimitrii Svyatoslavich, Daniil Aleksandrovich, Simeon Gordy, Ioann Ioannovich tonsured [8, page 54, 67, 94, 163, 173]. Remained Dmitry Donskoy is faithful to the ancestor's precept, believing, "that several days or hours of Monkhood before death will not save soul and that to the Sovereign pristoyny to die on a throne, than in a cell" [1, page 62].

Dynastic problems of the expanding family of Ryurik dynasty added to cares of priests a mission of liberating of any given prince from "internal" captivity. The formula "The Metropolitan and Clergy Asked to It Freedom" designated under 1101 [7, page 82], symbolizes this peculiar component of church activity. The metropolitan Nikolay "went the Ambassador to Monomakh from the Kiev citizens in 1098 to Svyatopolk's reigning and interceded for the unfortunate nephew Svyatopolkov" [7, page 88-89]. The metropolitan who was speaking "a people name" [7, page 77], opposed actively princely civil strifes - the spokesman of will of the people, the intercessor for the people before the power reminding to her of the forgotten debt. Directly joining in the peace talks stopping for a while internal wars, the clergy created the precedents allowing secular participants of games of politics to count on its interested participation. Under 1148 Karamzin wrote down: "The grand duke sent Ambassadors to Chernihiv of the Belogorodsky Bishop Feodor, the Pechersky Abbot Feodosiya and Boyars who made the solemn peace", allowed Izyas-lavu to unite with recent opponents of Davidovichami against Georgy Suzdalsky as that "took away tributes from Residents of Veliky Novgorod and disturbed them borders" [7, page 139-140]. On representatives of clergy also the regrettable, hard mission laid down to accompany bodies of the victims a mezhdousobiya to the place of burial" [7, page 358, 359, 370].

At the same time priests considered a duty to inspire on fights of the soldiers protecting the country from attacks opposed as supporters of military expeditions steppe nomads. In the heading "Well-known campaign" Karamzin noted: "The most peace Monks excited Princes to strike spiteful adversaries, knowing that God of the world is as well

God of troops, podvignuty love for the fatherland benefit". Priests, "which Monomakh ordered itt before troops with crosses", accompanied with church singing this campaign against Cumans in 1111 [7, page 86]. The orthodox ceremonialism became a significant element of daily occurrence, psychologically strengthening during an era of disasters. "Russians, - Karamzin wrote in the heading "Happy War with Cumans", - prepared for fight by a prayer and pious vows; some swore an oath, in case of a victory, to award poor; others to decorate churches and monasteries with deposits. Calmed by warm belief, they went with cheerfulness and fun" [7, page 84]. Most brightly the importance of clergy for society of that era in the context of continuous wars, the internal conflicts is presented and quite rationally explained in the episode devoted to the well-known fight between Novgorodians and residents of Suzdal in 1170. Having reproduced annalistic data on a role of an icon of the Mother of God which is taken out by the archbishop Ioann accompanied with everything the Choir in the result of battle, Karamzin will sum up the result: "The feeling living Vera, excited by the general affection, sacred church ceremonies and jealous assistance of Clergy, could make very naturally this miracle, that is, install in hearts courage which, amazing the enemy, overcomes his force" [7, page 361].

Priests actively conducted negotiations with princes and on affairs ordinary. Also the archbishop Ioann going "on council" in Vladimir to Andrey Bogolyubsky who "itself solved their major cases" is brought by the intermediary between Novgorodians and the princely power [7, page 82, 139-140, 77, 88-89, 363]. It is possible to speak about identity of a role of orthodox clergy of a role of the so-called gatekeepers (according to D. Iston's approach) accumulating the most essential requirements and informing of them the mighty of this world, probably. If priests as participants of games of politics, were not always protected by the holy order from capture [8, page 130], then the church monastery in time oversaturated by collisions was a reliable shelter [8, page 128]. Karamzin it is very realistic will separate wordly from spiritual at an explanation of the reasons which caused rapid growth of the monastic population: "Except the devotion of that time connected to a high concept about the advantage of Monastic life, some wordly advantages attracted people with crowds from villages and the cities in silent safe Monasteries... where the citizen took cover from violence and poverty, did not sow and reaped" [1, page 209].

A princely formula "I Am a Christian and I Love the Russian Land" [7, page 139] is quite correlated in the text of "Story" with value reference points of community in general. Understanding by Mongols "authorities of Clergy over conscience of people, in general

diligent to Vera" caused their aspiration "to cajole it that it did not excite Russians to confront a yoke Tatar", having released from "the general tribute only churchmen and Monks" [8, page 46-47]. Giving posthumous characteristic to the prince Georgy Vsevolodovich, Karamzin will notice: "Georgi in reckless arrogance allowed Tatars to the capital. but he had virtues of the time: liked to decorate churches, fed the poor, gave Monks - and citizens blessed his memory" [8, page 8]. Under 1262 the historian placed data on two sign events in this context: about killing in Yaroslavl "some zlochestivy turncoat, a name Zosima, the former Monk, which, having accepted Vera Magometanskaya. swore over the Christianity shrine" and about forgiveness of "The Mo-golsky official" in Ustyug, strength of the citizen who took the daughter in the concubine, for fear of punishment who announced desire to be christened and deserved general love [8, page 53]. As we see, the dilemma "the - the stranger" in that and other case was solved according to sign of religious affiliation; other personal characteristics were perceived as less significant.

Horrors of mezhdousobiya, the Mongolian invasion or plague [1, page 161] only strengthened Russians in their belief as, according to Karamzin, "Vera triumphs in disasters, and softens it" [8, page 13]. Both the event row built by the historian, and infrequent estimated judgments brought the reader to a thought that the behavior models which are acquired by domestic orthodox clergy in minutes, critical for flock, created a positive image of this layer at contemporaries. It was the image of the intermediary between the terrestrial and heavenly worlds and the active associate of the princely power in its so expanded function of the defender both certain lands, and the orthodox world in general. Outstanding personalities among clergy created those moral guidelines which allowed to feel pride of belonging to Orthodoxy.

Idea of salutariness of Orthodoxy predetermined spent the specific period rejection of decisions of the Florentine cathedral which designated formation of new option of the consciousness in Moskovia fixed in the lines of the chronicler given by Karamzin: "Any more now there is no left no uniform Kingdom of the Orthodox Christian, except Russian" [1, page 198]. Comparison of structure and keeping of two generalizing heads who were summing up the results of different stages of the specific period ("A condition of Russia from XI to the 13th century" and "A condition of Russia from invasion of Tatars to John III"), allows to allocate the Mongolian era as that chronological boundary from which for Karamzin the concepts "Russian" and "Orthodox Christian" become identical [1,

of page 203, 208-209]. Putting end under this period of national history, Karamzin will isolate that basis which besides claims of the Moscow dynasty, contrary to all local ambitions cemented unity of Russian lands: "... in abasement of a name of Russian we ennobled ourselves a name of Christians, and loved the fatherland as the country of Orthodoxy" [1, page 203]. This triumph of the orthodox church created at the beginning of statehood according to the solution of temporal power was triumph of institute civil about -

shchestvo. An opportunity to create safer living space in monasteries offered to clergy absolutely new prospects of influence on flock. The revenge of the power of princes, whose status of the chief defenders of the population of Russia was undermined by internal wars of the premongolian period, personal vulnerability at Mongols, will become, according to Karamzin, possible only by the beginning of the next period of national history [9, page 37-38].

Came to edition 09.11.2006


1. Karamzin of N.M. Istoriya of the state Russian. M, 1993. T. V.
2. I.N. Danilevsky. Ancient Russia eyes of contemporaries and descendants (1X-X11 centuries). Course of lectures. M, 1998.
3. I.E. Rudkovskaya. N.M. Karamzin and Anglo-Scottish historiographic tradition of the second half of the 18th century//Vestn. The Tomsk state. un-that. Series "Istoriya. Study of local lore. Ethnology. Archeology". 2004. No. 281.
4. E. Istoriya's gibbon of decline and destructions of the Roman Empire. SPb., 1997. Part II.
5. N.M. Karamzin Istoriya state Russian. M, 1989. T. 1.
6. I.E. Rudkovskaya. Change of priorities of the princely power in connection with adoption of Christianity in N.M. Karamzin's interpretation//Orthodoxy and development of the Russian spiritual culture in Siberia. Tomsk, 2004. T. 2.
7. N.M. Karamzin Istoriya state Russian. M, 1991. T. I-highway
8. N.M. Karamzin Istoriya state Russian. M, 1992. T. IV.
9. I.E. Rudkovskaya. N.M. Karamzin about sources and scales of influence of ideology of the orthodox kingdom on domestic traditional culture//Patristical traditions in the Russian literature: Sb. mat fishing nauch. - prakt. konf. Part II. Russian literature as cultural phenomenon. Omsk, 2005.
10. T.N. Granovsky. Lectures on Middle Ages history. M, 1986.

UDC 93/99 (571.1/.5)

E.Yu. Verzhbitskaya


Altai state university, Barnaul

In modern Russia very is particularly acute about- from 1990th and up to 1917 there were questions,

blema of reforming of local management. As hardly mentioned in the 1860-80th. Characteristic feature

the Siberian researcher A.V. Remnev noted, in a late oblastnichestvo became raised to Inta -

the present of significant adjustment tre- res to problems of economic development of Siberia.

but our understanding of historical sources and opy- In the social and political sphere late oblast-

that solutions "center region" [1]. In this nicknames offered projects of territorial self-government,

communications there can be useful a studying views federal structure, the Siberian autonomy.

representatives of a late oblastnichestvo. Important line of activity of representatives dvi-

The fundamental idea of this direction zheniye these years became attempts practical re-

public life representation about a sheniye of many questions raised teoretiches-was

Siberia as about colony of the European Russia. Oblas- ki in the 1860th. Followers Siberian patrio-

the tnichestvo arose at the beginning of the 1860th and passed t of the 1860-80th mastered new forms the figure -

several stages in the development. From 1990th, on Nosta - participated in work State

to our opinion, it is possible to tell about a late oblas- thoughts, cooperated with various political

tnichestvo. To number of characteristics dvi- parties. Around the largest representative of the movement at this stage changes in G.N. Potanin's zheniye belonged his circle was created

ideology, activity and the list of supporters adherents, where entered P.M. Golovachev,

oblastnichestvo. In the foreground of their program I.I. Serebrennikov, V.I. Anuchin, N.Ya. Novomberg-

Katherine Collins
Other scientific works: