Dissertation--Fachbereich Geschichte und Soziologie--Universität Konstanz, 2001/2002. / Bibliogr. p. 303-319.

The purpose of this thesis is to establish the importance of Panteleymon Romanov in Soviet literature. Even though Romanov began writing many years before the Revolution, he became known as an author only after the Revolution when he published "Childhood", his first work, in 1920. Little success attended this effort. However, like any true artist he was not interested in writing merely to gain fame, but more to express his philosophy of life. He adopted the realistic style of the classical writers of the 19th Century and applied it to the conditions created by the Revolution and post-Revolutionary period. Thus he mirrored the life around him. At the time of War-Communism, 1917-1921, when most of the writers were engaged in political and internal struggle to define the path that the new literature was to take, Romanov wrote several volumes of humorous short stories on how the peasants greeted the political changes. By rewriting these humorous stories in a serious vein, he incorporated them into his greatest work under the title "Rus". His stories about the younger members of society and their attitudes toward love were also very popular. In these stories on love Romanov described the new attitude towards sex relationships between young people, the position of the unmarried mother, and the new family life without the sacrament of the church. His best stories on this theme are: "Without Cherry Blossom", "The Big Family", "The Right to Love" and the novel "The New Commandment". These were all widely read and discussed among the Komsomols and npn-Komsomols alike. Towards the end of the N.E.P. period, Romanov became more interested in the social conduct of the old intelligentsia as applied to its relationship with the new government. One of his best known stories of this period is "The Right to Live" which deals with a non-Party writer who tried unsuccessfully to conform to the demands of the Party. Romanov has developed this theme further in his novel "Comrade Kislyakov". In these two novels, Romanov expressed his regret that intellectuals did not have heroic qualities, energy, and will power to fight for their political and human rights. Romanov has often been regarded as a controversial writer both by the Soviet and the emigreé critics. The latter accused Romanov of slandering the morals of the old intelligentsia, while most of the former accused him of being blind to the growth of the Soviet masses because he had not accepted the Revolution. In studying literary life in the first decade of the Soviet government, one can say that Romanov and his works occupied a singular position of importance in Soviet literature. Romanov's style being easy and old-fashioned appealed to the masses. The humorous incidents in his stories, unlike those of Zoshchenko or O'Henry, follow one another continuously. Romanov also differs from Zoshchenko in the description of his heroes. Whereas Zoshchenko emphasises the individual characters, Romanov, on the contrary, develops the importance of the people, as a whole. He can truly be regarded as a popular sociological writer. After the Revolution, Romanov took the position of an independent creative writer and he maintained it as such until 1936. He insisted on his freedom to write what his conscience dictated and he never changed his position. For this reason a conflict between himself and the Soviet government was inevitable. After the confiscation of his work, "Comrade Kislyakov" in 1930, the doors to the publishing houses were closed for Romanov. However, through the intervention of Bukharin, the ban was lifted in 1936 when some of his short sketches about his excursion to the Molotov automobile factory in Nizhni-Novgorod were published. When Romanov died in 1938 of heart disease, there was no obituary notice from the Writers1 Union. Thus a bright star faded from the galaxy of Soviet literature, without any literary astronomer noticing it. Even today none of his works is published in the U.S.S.R. and he is not counted among those who have made a worthy contribution to Soviet letters. / Arts, Faculty of / Central Eastern Northern European Studies, Department of / Graduate

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 145-148). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

This work provides an account of the Crimean residency of Nicholas II's mother, Dowager Empress Maria Fedorovna, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich, former Commander--in-Chief of the Russian Armies, and other members of the Romanov dynasty, from the abdication of the tsar (March 1917) until their departure aboard the H.M.S. Marlborough (April 1919). The first two chapters provide a background of conditions within the Imperial Family during the reign of Nicholas II. The remainder of the work traces their lives from arrival in the Crimea until the Dowager Empress accedes to the request of her sister, Dowager Queen Alexandra, to emigrate to England. The study concludes that the Romanovs played no active role in the Russian Civil War, although they were considered dangerous counterrevolutionaries by the Bolsheviks.

Zugl.: Erfurt, Univ., Diss., 2007

Zugl.: Erfurt, Univ., Diss., 2007.

The main topic of the thesis is the investigation of the Polish influence on Russia during the Time of Troubles, as it's described by the Russian writers of the first half of 17th century in their Historical narrations. In the first part of the work there is introduced the Time of Troubles as a phenomenon that significantly influenced all its contemporaries. The thesis also pays attention to the historical sources, to their causes and circumstances of creation and also some of their authors. In the most extensive part of the work there are, based on extensive source material, discussed various topics that are focused on the Polish factor on the Russia during the period. There is mentioned the Polish support of False tsars, who aspire to the tsar title, the king's Zikmund military intervention and also the final victory of Russian militia over foreign interventionists. In conclusion there are compared individual historical narrations with each other, if there are any different topics that they describe or if they describe any element of Polish intervention in the same way or if there is any connection between the authors' lives and their works.

<p>In 1917, the Romanov dynasty in Russia came to an end as Tsar Nicholas II abdicated during the February Revolution and the First World War. The Romanovs ruled Russia for over three-hundred years as absolute monarchs and until 1917, Nicholas II and his wife Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna fervently clung to their autocratic rule and projected an image of power and stability. Yet, their choices not only shaped Russia itself but also dictated Russia’s diplomatic and cultural relationship with their future allies in the First World War: Great Britain, France, and the United States of America. From 1896 to 1917, Tsar Nicholas II floundered amid a series of crisis and this dissertation considers five key moments in his reign that illustrate the complex relationship between Russia and the allies of the First World War. These events are: the Coronation of Nicholas II in 1896; Bloody Sunday and the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1905; the Romanov Tercentenary in 1913; the role of Tsarina Alexandra in the First World War from 1914-1917; and the abdication of Nicholas II and asylum request by the Romanovs in 1917. All of these events showcase the diplomatic and media representations of the Romanovs among allied nations and how Nicholas performed and presented his view of himself to the rest of the world. Each Tsar of Russia fashioned himself into a mythic and ceremonial figure to the Russian people and this dissertation argues that the governments of Great Britain, France, and the United States accepted Nicholas’ self-representations for many years and ignored his autocratic rule in favor of their own military and financial interests. In 1917, after years of excusing his behavior, they finally rejected him. Ultimately, the Romanovs held great power at home and abroad and were major players in international events in the early twentieth century but they were unable to reconcile their autocratic regime with modern democracies. In the end, Nicholas’ and Alexandra’s failure to adapt and perform their roles effectively cost them their throne and left Russia in a state of war and disarray.</p>