Please read the abstract in the section, 00front, of this document / Thesis (PhD (New Testament Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2008. / New Testament Studies / PhD / unrestricted

This study presents a history of education in Russia.

No description available.

In the year 1504 the grand prince Ivan III convened a Council of the Church to try several Muscovites and Novgorodians accused of heresy. The Council found the men guilty and they were burnt at the stake in public executions in Novgorod and Moscow. The 1504 trial and execution was the last of three trials of a group of men accused of a 'judaizing' heresy and known to historians as the Zhidovstvuyushchie, or Judaizers. The first trial of the heretics had taken place in 1486 and the second in 1490. The evidence compiled for these trials by Archb'shop Gennady of Novgorod, who claimed to have discovered the heresy, the chronicle accounts for 1486 and 1490, the documents produced by the Councils of 1488 and 1490, and the Prosvetitel' of Iosif of Volokolamsk, a polemical work against the heresy of the 'Novogorod heretics who philosophize judaistically' provide much material for a study of the first documented heresy in the Russian Church. Many historians have been attracted to such a study for, as a review of the historical background and historiography of the heresy in Chapter I shows, the involvement of many of the alleged Judaizers in the affairs of the Church and State during a period of important changes affecting both the Church and the State and the relationship between them, makes an understanding of the heresy important to our view of Russia in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. But the many studies of the heresy of the Judaizers undertaken by historians from the nineteenth century to the present day have failed to yield agreement on the origin and nature of the heresy. It is seen variously as the result of Jewish propaganda in the Russian Church, of the influence of Western Renaissance and Reformation ideas in Russia or, and this is the view which has dominated recent Soviet historiography, as a symptom of an indigenous Reformation (or proto-Reformation) movement affecting the whole of Russian society in the late fifteenth-early sixteenth centuries. The present work is an attempt to resolve the questions posed by studies of the heresy on the basis of a re-examination of primary published and manuscript sources. These fall into two categories: sources presenting the evidence against the Judaizers (evidence of the accusers), and sources associated with the heretics themselves. Chapter II examines the evidence of the accusers in connection with the trials of 1488 and 1490 (the so-called Novgorod stage of the heresy). Most of this evidence comes from the pen of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod - consideration of the pre-1490 writings of Iosif of Volokolamsk shows that these do not have a direct bearing upon the subject of this study. Gennady's evidence has not received the attention it deserves, for it provides valuable information not only about the heresy he discovered in Novgorod, but also about the procedures accepted in the Russian Church in this period for discovering and identifying any heresy. His evidence explains his choice of the 'judaizing' label and shows that heretical acts had been committed in Novgorod, though not necessarily by the men condemned in 1488 and 1490. Gennady's letters are complemented by the official documents issued by the Councils of 1488 and 1490, and it is clear that the heretics were tried according to properly accepted procedure and that evidence and condemnation was obtained by Gennady with the full co-operation of the grand prince. Gennady remained Archbishop of Novgorod until 1503, but a study of the works produced at his court after 1490 (in Chapter III) provides little evidence of a continuation of his campaign against the heresy. For evidence against the heretics tried in 1504, historians have had to rely on the writings of losif of Volokolamsk, but an examination of his polemical tracts (later incorporated in the Prosvetitel') and letters written before 1504 yields little reliable information about the beliefs of the Judaizers. Even the Prosvetitel', written probably after, and not before the Council of 1504, as has been generally accepted, does little more than reiterate the accusations raised originally against the Novgorod heretics condemned in 1488 and 1490. The evidence of the accusers between 1490 and 1504 thus provides little information on the case presented against the heretics condemned by the Council of 1504. Such information has also been sought in the so-called 'literature of the Judaizers', works written by, or associated with, the men labelled by the accusers as 'judaizing' heretics. Chapter IV examines such works, most of which are associated with the Moscow Judaizers. Several survive in MSS. of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries and it is clear that most were not considered heretical at the time. On the contrary, they belonged to the category of instructive Orthodox literature. Chapter V draws some conclusions from the evidence of the sources. If it is accepted that a heretic is someone whom the established Church recognises as such, the Novgorodians condemned in 1488 and 1490 by a body representative of the Church and according to accepted Orthodox procedure were heretics. However, the available evidence about the Novgorod heretics and about the methods used in identifying and naming the heresy suggests that they were not guilty of a departure from Orthodox Christian beliefs: only of offences against ritual and of criticism of ecclesiastical and, perhaps, secular authority. There is little evidence that the men accused of heresy in 1504 were condemned in accordance with the precedent established by the-case of the Novgorod heretics of 1488 and 1490, or by a body representative of the established Church. The accepted view that they were heretics is not substantiated by the evidence available and the reasons for their condemnation were probably not religious but political.

From Tempera to Ink to Code traces the remediation of Orthodox icons. It examines icons’ unexplored, other media: cheap print, the book and digital media. Its interdisciplinary, cross-medial approach draws upon the fields of media studies, art history, art practice, religious studies, history and bibliography to establish an alternative way of viewing and understanding the icon beyond its original medium. The study focuses on the Vladimir icon of the Mother of God as one of the most venerable Russian Orthodox icons. It traces the Vladimir icon’s process of remediation from tempera on wooden panel to loose print, to bound codex and to digital form. It brings into focus the icon’s less researched, mass-produced media and applies the methods of art historical and bibliographic research to all media in question with equal scrutiny and attention. The dissertation provides a new way of looking at the storage, handling and display of icons in all their media. It categorizes the icon’s media into two groups: display media (tempera icons and loose prints) and storage/cache media (books and digital images). The display media invite veneration and thereby retain an “aura,” in the terminology of Walter Benjamin and David Morgan. Storage media, on the other hand, discourage veneration and, so, accrue no such aura. The study concludes that the loss of an object’s aura happens in unexpected aspects of remediation—in the binding, coding and, in a word, storing of information. The relationship that the study draws between the codex and hard drive has important implications for both book history and media studies, whereas its discussion of remediation, veneration and aura offer valuable contributions to the fields of iconology and iconography.

This dissertation aims to explain how Soviet national historiographies were constructed in Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, in 1936-1953 and what the political and ideological reasons were behind the way they were written. The dissertation aims to contribute to current scholarship on Soviet nationality policies; on Stalinist nation-building projects; and to the debate on whether the Soviet period was a project of developmentalist modernization or not. This dissertation aims to examine the process of national history writing in three republics from the local point of view, by using the local archival sources. For this research, archival materials that have been overlooked by scholars up to this point from the archives of the communist parties, academy of sciences, and central state archives in Kiev, Ukraine, Baku, Azerbaijan, and Almaty, Kazakhstan have been collected. The timeline starts with Zhdanov’s commission in 1936, which summoned historians and ideologues of the Communist Party in Moscow to write an all-Union history because a parallel campaign of writing national histories had been initialized by the local communist parties. The first two chapters cover the pre-war (1936-1941) period, when national histories were written after the demise of Pokrovskiian historiography. Although there was one ideology, there were different preferences in solving the problem of ethnogenesis, defining national heroes, and also different preferences among the sections of the past that national histories emphasized. The third chapter explains the construction of national histories during the war period (1941-1945). The chapter also presents how national histories were used for wartime propaganda. Finally, the last chapter is about the post-war discussions and the shift of emphasis from ‘national’ to ‘class’ that occurred in the non-Russian national narratives in the Zhdanovshchina period. While there was an ‘imperial design’ for the necessities of managing a multi-national state, the Soviet Union also appears as a modernization project for all three cases by constructing national narratives. Though non-Russian Soviet historiographies produced contradictory narratives in different decades, they also homogenized, codified and nationalized the narrative of the past. Regional, dynastic, religious, tribal figures and events incorporated into grandiose national narratives. Nations were primordialized and their national identities armed with spatial and temporal indigenousness within the borders of their national republics. Modern national identities of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gained from this homogenization and codification by the Soviet regime. Although modernism is not only about construction of national narratives, the latter points out the developmental and modernizing character of the Soviet period.

L’effondrement du communisme en 1991 en Russie a conduit à la révision des manuels scolaires d’histoire en Russie et dans les anciennes républiques de l’URSS. Ce travail propose d’évaluer l’histoire récente post-communiste enseignée dans les classes supérieures du secondaire dans trois pays post-communistes. Nous allons s’attarder sur la présentation des divers périodes historiques de l’histoire Soviétique dans les manuels scolaires d’histoire en Russie, Ukraine et Estonie. Ce travail tente également d’examiner les diverses approches dans l’enseignement d’histoire dans ces trois pays, ainsi que de répondre à la question comment les nouveaux manuels redéfinissent la perception de la culture et d’histoire des élèves dans chaque pays. / Our work will examine the crucial rupture between Soviet and Russian history from 1985 (1991 in some cases) through 2010, during which rival political leaders of Ukraine, Estonia and Russia had an opportunity to develop and attempt to impose their visions of their respective national identities and their history. The main goal of this study is to provide a new understanding of the connection between history, ideology, and development of national consciousness. The focus of the previous research in this domain concentrated on each studied country in particular. Mainstream historiography left unnoticed particularities in the development of new political discourse in the peripheral states that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union. The proposed study project will examine the consequences of the dissolution of the USSR on the socio-political situation in Eastern Europe. It should shed light on the effects the collapse of the Soviet Union had on the intensification of ethnic, nationalist and religious discourse in several former socialist republics. We conducted a comparative study of recent history textbooks in several countries of Eastern Europe (in Russia, Ukraine and Estonia) and analyzed the new content of post-Soviet history textbooks used in Eastern European Secondary schools. Each of these countries followed a distinct path; therefore we aimed to reveal their particular search for a new national identity and citizenship during the transitional period. / В рамках данной работы мы изучили преподавание истории в школах трех постсоветских государств: России, Украины и Эстонии. Было также уделено внимание восприятию истории ХХ века населением этих стран. Были собраны, частично переведены с национальных языков и проанализированы около 50 школьных учебников истории для старших классов из России, Украины и Эстонии. Изученные учебники являются наиболее массовыми и иногда даже единственными в своем роде в школах этих государств. Анализ школьных учебников истории, приведенный в этой работе, показывает, что в отличие от России, Украина и Эстония пошли по пути преподавания подрастающему поколению националистической трактовки истории, основанной на мифах о древности своего народа, о высокой культурной миссии предков и о «заклятом враге». Россия, в свою очередь, сделала ставку на патриотическое воспитание нового поколения, умалчивая неприятные эпизоды из прошлого и прелагая новый, «позитивный» подход к изучению истории. Эта работа ставит цель не только проанализировать сложившуюся ситуацию в школьном образовании в Восточной Европе после распада Советского Союза, но и оценить роль преподавания истории в создании особенной, уникальной и, зачастую, националистической идеологии.

L’effondrement du communisme en 1991 en Russie a conduit à la révision des manuels scolaires d’histoire en Russie et dans les anciennes républiques de l’URSS. Ce travail propose d’évaluer l’histoire récente post-communiste enseignée dans les classes supérieures du secondaire dans trois pays post-communistes. Nous allons s’attarder sur la présentation des divers périodes historiques de l’histoire Soviétique dans les manuels scolaires d’histoire en Russie, Ukraine et Estonie. Ce travail tente également d’examiner les diverses approches dans l’enseignement d’histoire dans ces trois pays, ainsi que de répondre à la question comment les nouveaux manuels redéfinissent la perception de la culture et d’histoire des élèves dans chaque pays. / Our work will examine the crucial rupture between Soviet and Russian history from 1985 (1991 in some cases) through 2010, during which rival political leaders of Ukraine, Estonia and Russia had an opportunity to develop and attempt to impose their visions of their respective national identities and their history. The main goal of this study is to provide a new understanding of the connection between history, ideology, and development of national consciousness. The focus of the previous research in this domain concentrated on each studied country in particular. Mainstream historiography left unnoticed particularities in the development of new political discourse in the peripheral states that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union. The proposed study project will examine the consequences of the dissolution of the USSR on the socio-political situation in Eastern Europe. It should shed light on the effects the collapse of the Soviet Union had on the intensification of ethnic, nationalist and religious discourse in several former socialist republics. We conducted a comparative study of recent history textbooks in several countries of Eastern Europe (in Russia, Ukraine and Estonia) and analyzed the new content of post-Soviet history textbooks used in Eastern European Secondary schools. Each of these countries followed a distinct path; therefore we aimed to reveal their particular search for a new national identity and citizenship during the transitional period. / В рамках данной работы мы изучили преподавание истории в школах трех постсоветских государств: России, Украины и Эстонии. Было также уделено внимание восприятию истории ХХ века населением этих стран. Были собраны, частично переведены с национальных языков и проанализированы около 50 школьных учебников истории для старших классов из России, Украины и Эстонии. Изученные учебники являются наиболее массовыми и иногда даже единственными в своем роде в школах этих государств. Анализ школьных учебников истории, приведенный в этой работе, показывает, что в отличие от России, Украина и Эстония пошли по пути преподавания подрастающему поколению националистической трактовки истории, основанной на мифах о древности своего народа, о высокой культурной миссии предков и о «заклятом враге». Россия, в свою очередь, сделала ставку на патриотическое воспитание нового поколения, умалчивая неприятные эпизоды из прошлого и прелагая новый, «позитивный» подход к изучению истории. Эта работа ставит цель не только проанализировать сложившуюся ситуацию в школьном образовании в Восточной Европе после распада Советского Союза, но и оценить роль преподавания истории в создании особенной, уникальной и, зачастую, националистической идеологии.

Doctorat en philosophie et lettres / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished