No description available.

This thesis analyses Russia's military, economic and diplomatic policies towards the newly independent states, particularly towards the members of the CIS, during Boris Yeltsin's first term as President of an independent Russia (December 1991 to July 1996). The objective is to determine whether after the collapse of the Soviet Union the new Russian state tried to restore a sphere of influence or informal empire over the former Soviet republics - as the French did in sub-Saharan Africa after decolonisation - or whether instead Russia's policies reflected a genuine desire to establish normal state-to-state relations with the new states. Chapter one analyses the underlying principles of Russia's foreign policy towards the former Soviet states and examines the debate on Russian foreign policy priorities which took place during the first years of Russia's independence. This section also overviews Russia's policies towards the Russian minorities that inhabit the Baltic states, in order to determine whether Russia attempted to use this diplomatic tool to further its own interests in the area. Chapter two analyses the peculiar structure of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the extent to which Russia used this political framework to achieve hegemony over the former Soviet republics. Chapter three looks at Russia's participation in the wars in Transdniestria, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabagh, and Tajikistan, and Chapter four analyses Russia's energy trade with Ukraine, Belarus, and the Caspian states. The thesis reaches the conclusion that during 1992- mid 1996 Russia's policies only partially reflected an attempt to reassert the country's influence over the republics of the former Soviet Union and create an informal empire in the post-Soviet space. Russia's behaviour was particularly assertive in the military field as well as in its attempts to build a Russian dominated CIS military infrastructure. However, Russia's policies were less aggressive in the economic sphere, except probably as far as energy policy is concerned, and regarding the fate of Russians living beyond the new borders. More often than not, though, Russia's policies followed an ambivalent and incoherent pattern, a result of the weak and fragmented character of the Russian state.

This study investigates the process of creation in Boris Pasternak's Doktor Îivago (1957), both as depicted in and as realized by the novel. Statements on art, on literature in general and on specific texts are found to have a bearing on the novel itself, thus providing clues to its own poetics and philosophy of art. Ch. 1 examines the protagonist's understanding of art as dopisyvanie, or 'continuational writing.' This notion is applied to the relationship between Doktor Îivago and the Book of Revelation. One text appears to proceed from another as a continuation involving creative distortions. Such a manner of writing creates a literary continuum corresponding to the sensation of wholeness inherent in Pasternak. Ch. 2 examines the main hero's own creative activity, viewed as a process of articulation stretching throughout the novel. The analysis shows that writing is persistently modeled as painting: the semantics of the Russian word for painting, Ïivopis' ('life-writ'), is in various ways exploited narratively in the work. Ch. 3 provides a case study of the novel's 'continuation' of another literary work: Dostoevskij's The Brothers Karamazov. Convergences on the level of character description and plot form a background to thematic lines of pertinence to both novels: the protagonists' articulation of a mute word as an "answer to death," the notion of immortality as "life in others," the memory theme conveyed by the image of the slanting rays of the setting sun. Ch. 4 shows how the biological notion of mimicry connects with the implicit aesthetic discussion in Doktor Îivago. Mimicry appears as an image of the essence and existential mode of art, comprising some of the features analyzed in the previous chapters: the novel's relationship with other texts, the relationship between its poetry and prose sections and the question of its genre. Finally it is suggested that the forest serves as a stage for the demonstration of constitutive features of the novel's poetics and philosophy of art.

Throughout the twentieth century, Boris Goldovsky (1908-2001) played a significant role in training the operatic singer-actor. One of his most significant contributions was integrating music and drama. He taught his students how to develop a character, how to find dramatic clues in the music, and to become expressive artists free from monotonous operatic gestures and posturing. As author of the first textbook for training the operatic singer-actor, his curriculum was developed from experience, acting traditions, and mentor-student relationships. A new forum, Opera Workshop, allowed him to experiment and test his methods. Although Goldovsky is known to some scholars as the “Father of Training the Operatic Singer-Actor,” his presence in modern day training material is almost non-existent. How can we understand the needs of educating today’s operatic singer-actor without knowing the very foundation upon which it was built? This paper applies Goldovsky’s method of training to a staging and performance of Act II scene I from Humperdinck’s Hansel and Gretel. Providing this modern application of his training will demonstrate the relevance of his contributions for educators in a contemporary university setting. My findings suggest that Goldovsky’s approach and philosophy to training the young singer-actor provides practical and valuable knowledge that is still viable for today’s university singer-actor educator.

No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, 1985. / Typescript. Abstract precedes thesis as 2 preliminary leaves. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-06, page: 2853. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [80]-84).

No description available.

<p>[inget abstract finns]</p>

L'adoption d'un pseudonyme, du point de vue de la création littéraire, peut être motivée par diverses raisons. Ce choix suscite toujours une interrogation sur les effets concrets recherchés par ce jeu de masques. On peut donc se questionner non seulement sur les motivations qui poussent le créateur à fractionner ainsi sa production, mais aussi et surtout sur les espoirs et le succès d'une telle entreprise. C'est qu'un travestissement de l'écriture qui appelle une autre signature n'est pas sans laisser des traces (stylistiques ou thématiques) qui permettent de déchiffrer et de reconnaître dans les textes de l'auteur et de ses pseudos une matière commune. C'est en tout cas l'hypothèse que l'on veut faire ici pour entreprendre l'étude de deux romans du personnage coloré qu'a été Boris Vian qui a publié sous les noms d'Hugo Hachebuisson, Bison Ravi et Vernon Sullivan. Si les deux premiers pseudonymes sont plutôt le fruit de néologismes vianesques et ne singularisent pas vraiment les œuvres, les textes de Sullivan donneraient quant à eux l'impression d'avoir été écrits par une tout autre personne. Cette impression est renforcée par Boris Vian lui-même qui minimise la valeur littéraire des romans de Sullivan au moment où il prend conscience du fait que les succès commerciaux et la mauvaise publicité qui leur est faite font ombrage aux réalisations qu'il signe de son nom et qui lui apporteront le succès posthume. Même s'il ne fait aucun doute qu'un roman comme J'irai cracher sur vos tombes (1946) de Sullivan n'est pas de même facture que le roman d'amour fantastico-moderne L'Écume des jours (1947), même si le premier se veut manifestement un pastiche de polar noir américain et qu'il fut écrit en à peine deux semaines, alors que le second témoigne d'un travail pour lequel Vian espérait gagner le prix de la Pléiade, tous les deux participent d'une œuvre qui semble retrouver dans le temps une certaine unité. Il y a donc, de Sullivan à Vian, des traits qui appartiennent aux deux styles, aux deux écritures; voire aux deux univers. C'est précisément ces traits ou ces résonnances que je me propose de retracer et de travailler dans le cadre de mon mémoire. ______________________________________________________________________________

Boris Kozhevnikov was a preeminent composer for the wind orchestras of the Soviet military. His Third Symphony is well known in the United States, but the rest of his compositions, and most of the Soviet wind band repertoire, remain unstudied and unperformed outside Russia. This document will explain how Soviet composers carried out their musical obligations as dictated by Communist Party mandates. Further, the functionality and prevalence of Soviet military bands will be explored. Finally, Boris Kozhevnikov will be investigated as a composer who wrote for military ensembles while adhering to Party ideals. American editions of two pieces--the Fourth Symphony and March for Ceremonial Passing--have been created as representative examples of Kozhevnikov's contribution to the genre.Socialist Realism is the term used to describe the Soviet government's mandate for "appropriate" music. Composers were expected to write music that was accessible to the masses, contained programmatic inferences, and aroused sentiments of patriotism and nationalistic pride. Rejected were any pieces displaying formalistic tendencies, including non-programmatic, overly chromatic, or atonal works.Three thousand military wind orchestras were performing in the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. These ensembles played original Russian and Soviet music, the vast majority of which is unknown outside Russia. Composers such as Dmitri Shostakovich, Nikolai Miaskovsky, and Sergei Prokofiev wrote for the military ensembles, providing marches and programmatic works.Boris Kozhevnikov taught at the Moscow Conservatory and Institute of Military Conductors for over forty years. He was a highly respected professor, composer, and conductor, and received praise from both Miaskovsky and Shostakovich. One of the first composers to write multiple symphonies for band, Kozhevnikov composed over forty pieces for winds, all exhibiting fundamentals of Socialist Realism. Among his techniques were the incorporation of folk, worker, and revolutionary songs; compositions specifically written and titled for commemorative events; and the composition of works for functional purposes, such as marches and ceremonial music. For his efforts, Kozhevnikov was awarded as a Distinguished Artist of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the Red Star, the Red Banner, the Alexandrov Award, and the Order of the Badge of Honor.