No description available.

《漢俄合璧韻編》是十九世紀末俄羅斯漢學研究的重要里程碑。該詞典由巴拉第主筆、柏百福增補，前後費時十餘年，1888年於北京同文館出版。《韻編》廣泛收集口語與書面材料的字詞，書中記錄的漢字皆附有以俄文字母拼寫的漢語讀音。本論文即以俄文拼音為基本語料進行語音分析。《韻編》全書以俄文字母排序、以漢語的韻母分組。同一組內的漢字，有相同的聲母和韻母拼音，但沒有形式上的聲調標記；根據歸納結果，隱約依照「陰平、上、去、陽平」的聲調順序分組。本論文將《韻編》的俄文拼音調整為漢語音韻的格式之後，配合相關漢語音韻材料進行音位分析，試圖呈現《韻編》所記錄的語言；並且透過跨材料的比較，整理出本字典音系的語音特點和歷史意義。 　 　　一、平面音系分析。從時空背景和音韻特點來看，《韻編》所記錄的語言，應屬清末的官話。以下呈現漢語音位分析的結果。 聲母：　　p　pʰ　m　f　v　　t　tʰ　n　l　　k　kʰ　x　 　　　　　ts　tsʰ　s　　tʂ　tʂʰ　ʂ　ʐ　　ø 韻母：開　a　aj　aŋ　an　ɨw　ɨ　ɨŋ　ɨn　ə　ɨj　ɚ 　　　齊　jɨ　jɨŋ　jɨn　jə　jɨw　ja　jaj　jaŋ　jan　jaw 　　　合　wə　wɨ　wa　waj　waŋ　wan　wɨj　wɨŋ　wɨn 　　　撮　jwan　jwə　jwɨ　jwɨŋ　jwɨn 其中，有幾個韻母音位（如/jwə/）對應到兩組俄文拼音，只是因為聽感不同而有不同的拼音記錄，沒有系統上的對立。在聲韻配合方面，比較顯著的特色為：唇音不與合口呼、撮口呼韻母相配（除了合口呼單元音韻母）；軟齶音不與齊齒呼韻母相配；捲舌音不與撮口呼、齊齒呼韻母相配（除了齊齒呼單元音韻母）。 　 　　二、歷史比較。本論文將《韻編》音系與中古漢語和《中原音韻》比較，並與其他近現代外國對音材料比較。《韻編》與中古漢語的比較，有幾點特色。1.濁音聲母清化，平聲送氣、仄聲不送氣；2.知、莊、章系聲母多讀為捲舌音；3.不區分尖團音；4.沒有中古的入聲韻尾（塞音韻尾），而併入陰聲韻尾；5.陽聲韻尾則只有軟齶鼻音和齒齦鼻音兩類；6.[io]類韻母來自中古江、宕攝入聲韻。《韻編》與《中原音韻》的比較，比較明顯的是[m]韻尾讀為[n]韻尾，且《韻編》可以呼應若干條《中原音韻》的詞彙讀音註解。《韻編》與其他外國材料比較，不論俄、法、德、葡、英、美，經過音節比對，該時期官話在音韻系統上是相當一致的，沒有巨大的結構上的改變。不過就讀音變體而言，從清末至今，部分讀音漸趨弱化、消失，如韻母[io]弱化而與[üe]併合，但這類讀音的弱化或消失，並不影響整體音位系統。 / One of the most outstanding achievements of Russian Sinology during 19th century was “Chinese-Russian Dictionary” published in 1888. It was compiled by P. I. Kafarov and finished by P. S. Popov. A large number of Chinese characters, words and phrases were collected in this Dictionary, and Russian alphabets were supplementary to each written character for showing Chinese pronunciation. It is the Russian-Chinese transliteration that becomes our basic corpus. 　 　　In the Dictionary, the principle of listing order was by sequence of Russian alphabets, and principle of grouping was by Chinese finals (rhyme). In a group, every character had the same Russian transliteration. However, there was no marker of tone, which is important to distinguish meanings in Chinese language. To solve the problem, the editor or author indistinctly arranged the characters as Yin-ping (陰平 “dark level”), Shang (上 “rising”), Qu (去 “departing”) and Yang-ping (陽平 “light level”) four kinds of tones. After revising the Russian-Chinese transliteration to phonology form, phonetics analysis is possible. We would like to show the language recorded by this Dictionary, and summarize the feature of this language by comparing with different phonetic documents. 　 1. Phonetic analysis on the Dictionary. 　 　　Considering time, space and phonology feature of the Dictionary, we could claim that the language was Mandarin of late-Qing Dynasty. Here are the achievements of phonetic analysis. Initial: 20 initials grouping by place of articulation. 　　p　pʰ　m　f　v　　t　tʰ　n　l　　k　kʰ　x　 　　ts　tsʰ　s　　tʂ　tʂʰ　ʂ　ʐ　　ø Final: 35 finals grouping by jie-yin (介音 “medial; head of rhyme”), in order: kai-kou (開口“open mouth”) with no medial marker, qichi (齊齒“even teeth”) with medial marker /j/, hekou (合口“closed mouth”) with medial marker /w/ and cuokou (撮口“round mouth”) with medial marker /jw/. 　　a　aj　aŋ　an　ɨw　ɨ　ɨŋ　ɨn　ə　ɨj　ɚ 　　jɨ　jɨŋ　jɨn　jə　jɨw　ja　jaj　jaŋ　jan　jaw 　　wə　wɨ　wa　waj　waŋ　wan　wɨj　wɨŋ　wɨn 　　jwan　jwə　jwɨ　jwɨŋ　jwɨn A few of Chinese phonemes of rhymes like /jwə/ matched two Russian spellings. That was just the matter of listening difference and did not influence the phoneme system. Here are some remarkable features about the combination of initial and final. For example, labial consonants did not combine with “closed mouth” and “round mouth” rhyme, except monophthong of “closed mouth” rhyme; velar consonant did not combine with “even teeth” and “round mouth” rhyme, except monophthong of “even teeth” rhyme. 　 2. Historical comparison. 　 　　The Dictionary is compared with mid-ancient Chinese system and Mandarin document “Zhong-yuan Yin-yun”. Here are some remarkable features. First, total voiced initial consonants became devoiced, aspirate as level tone (平聲), while unaspirate as oblique tone (仄聲). Second, retroflex consonants were from Zhi (知), Zhuang (莊), Zhang (章) series in the mid-ancient Chinese. Third, there was no difference between sharp and rounded sounds (尖團音). Fourth, checked tone (entering tone) and its ending consonant were lost. Fifth, nasal endings were only [-n] and [-ŋ], while mid-ancient ending [-m] was lost. Sixth, rhyme [io] was from entering tone of Dang (宕), Jiang (江) rhyme group. Besides, we take some foreign documents in comparison. Our conclusion is that the structure of syllable and language system did not immensely change in that period. We can see that [io] rhyme became weak. Whether [io] rhyme existed or not did not influence the phoneme system.

Russia and Iran have been subject to mutual influence since the reign of Shah Abbas I (1588-1629). For most of the time this relationship was not one of equals: since the early nineteenth century and lasting at least until 1946, Russia and then the USSR, in strong competition with Britain, had been gradually, and for the most part steadily, increasing its political, cultural and economic influence within Iran up to very high levels. Nevertheless, the history of Russian/Soviet-Iranian relations still remains understudied, particularly in English-language scholarship. One of the main reasons for this gap must be sought in the hampered access of Western researchers to Russian archives during the Soviet time, which made them draw on Russian-language literature, traditionally pre-occupied with the history of social movements, and with the mechanical retelling of political and economic processes. Thus the cultural and political ties of the two countries on institutional and individual levels (especially during the period surrounding 1917), the influence of Russia, and then of the USSR, on Iran and vice versa, in political, economic and cultural spheres through the activities of individuals, as well as the methods and tools used by the “Big Northern neighbour” during the execution of its foreign policy towards Iran did not receive proper attention, and thus lack detailed analysis. This research addresses the lack of detailed analysis of the power/knowledge nexus in relation to Russia’s Persian/Iranian Studies – the largest and most influential sub-domain within Russia’s Oriental Studies during the late Imperial and the early Soviet periods. The specific focus of this study is the involvement of Russian ‘civilian’ (academic) and ‘practical’ (military officers, diplomats, and missionaries) Persian Studies scholarship in Russian foreign policy towards Persia/Iran from the end of the nineteenth century up to 1941 – a period witnessing some of the most crucial events in the history of both countries. It is during this period that Persia/Iran was the pivot of Russia’s Eastern foreign policy but at the same time almost every significant development inside Russia as well as in her Western policies also had an immediate impact on this country – the state of affairs that ultimately culminated in the second Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941. My thesis is based on extensive research in eleven important political, military and academic archives of Russia and Georgia, which allowed me to consult a significant amount of hitherto unpublished, often still unprocessed and only recently declassified, primary sources. While engaging with notions such as Orientalism, my analysis aims at transcending Edward Said’s concept of a mere complicity of knowledge with imperial power. My theoretical approach builds on Michel Foucault’s conceptualisation of the interplay of power/knowledge relations, his notion of discourse, and his writings on the role of the intellectual. While demonstrating the full applicability of the Foucauldian model to the Russian case through the study of the power/knowledge nexus in late Imperial and early Soviet Russia’s Persian Studies, or Iranology, I focus on the activities of scholars and experts within their own professional domains and analyse what motivated them and how their own views, beliefs and intentions correlated with their work, how their activities were influenced by the hegemonic discourses within Russian society. I analyse the interaction of these intellectuals with state structures and their participation in the process of shaping and conducting foreign policy towards Iran, both as part of the Russian scholarly community as a whole and as individuals on the personal level. For the first time my work explores at such level of detail the specific institutional practices of Russia’s Oriental Studies, including the organisation of scholarly intelligence networks, the taking advantage of state power for the promotion of institutional interests, the profound engagement with Russia’s domestic and foreign policy discourses of the time, etc. In addition, the thesis presents a detailed assessment of the organisation of Iranology as a leading sub-domain within the broader scholarly field of Oriental Studies in the period from the end of the nineteenth century to 1941 and analyses the principles and mechanisms of its involvement in Russia’s foreign policy towards Persia/Iran.

This Master’s thesis explores Jewish masculinity and identity within early twentieth-century literature (1903-1925), using texts written by Jewish authors in late imperial Russia and the early Soviet Union. This was a period of change for Russia’s Jewish community, involving increased secularization and reform, massive pogroms such as in Kishinev in 1903, newfound leadership within the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions, and a rise in both Zionist and Revolutionary ideology. Subsequently, Jewish literary masculinity experienced a significant shift in characterization. Historically, a praised Jewish man had been portrayed as gentle, scholarly, and faithful, yet early twentieth century Jewish male literary figures were asked to be physically strong, hypermasculine, and secular. This thesis first uses H.N. Bialik’s “In the City of Slaughter” (1903) and Sholem Aleichem’s “Tevye Goes to Palestine” (1914) to introduce a concept of “Jewish shame,” or a sentiment that historical Jewish masculinity was insufficient for a contemporary Russian world. It then creates two models for these new men to follow. The Assimilatory Jew, seen in Isaac Babel’s Red Cavalry cycle (published throughout the 1920s), held that perpetual outsider Jewish men should imitate the behaviour of a secular whole in order to be accepted. The Jewish Superman is depicted in Vladimir Jabotinsky’s “In Memory of Herzl” (1904) and Ilya Selvinsky’s “Bar Kokhba” (1920), and argues that masculine glory is entirely compatible with a proud Jewish identity, without an external standard needed. Judith Butler’s theories on gender performativity are used to analyze these diverse works, published in Hebrew, Yiddish, and Russian by authors of varying political alignments, to establish commonalities among these literary canons and plot a new spectrum of desired identities for Jewish men. / Graduate / 2020-04-10