Send message to Author

Abstract

The paper examines historical, cultural and political aspects of Polish-Turkish strategic alliance in 18th and 19th century. The idea emerged in 1760s during first military reaction on Russian interference with Polish internal politics. The Polish-Russian war in years 1768-1772 was supported by Turks and tightly coordinated with Russo-Turkish war. In Turkish historiography the conflict is called “a Polish war” [Lehistan savasi] and it gave an impulse for the idea of cooperation between Poles and Turks against Russians, which lasted until the end of Crimean war in 1856. This period was a time of reassessment and reinterpretation of Polish history, especially when it comes to the relations with Ottoman Empire. Although the proposition of forming long term military alliance never entered mainstream of Polish politics, it remained alive and inspiring for various writers, historians and diplomats for around one hundred years, and even today it is a fundament, at least symbolic one, of good relations between modern, republican Turkey and Poland. The concept of alliance between Muslim Ottoman Empire and Catholic Poland-Lithuania was in many ways groundbreaking for European reality, which for centuries was based on unity against Turkish threat for Christianity. It can be interpreted as one of the major shifts in Eastern European politics, which anticipated the new balance between Western Europe and countries which can be without any doubts described as Eurasian (Turkey and Russia). In my paper I plan to present the most important texts from the period, which show evolution of the idea. It will be political texts, historical analysis from the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as pieces of literary fiction. As a conclusion, I will try to show how research on this subject may be helpful for understanding Polish and Turkish process of modernisation and entering the European political/diplomatic system. In my research I base on Polish and Turkish historians of Polish-Ottoman relations (e.g. Hacer Topaktas-Ustuner, Władysław Konopczyński, Adam Lewak) and historians of European identity in context of Eastern Europe and Asia such as Larry Wolff.

Send message to Author

Abstract

When one thinks of Napoleon Bonaparte, one primarily recalls his main theaters of war and political-diplomatic activity. These were notably Western Europe, Western Russia, and Egypt. However, Napoleon Bonaparte and his military and diplomatic policies have not often been considered from a so-called “geopolitical” perspective that could take into account the full scope of his attempt at global restructuring. Drawing on the few works that have ventured into the geopolitical dimension of Bonapartist strategic thought, and continuing along that line of inquiry, we will attempt in this paper to analyze this still unfortunately overlooked perspective. In doing so, we will rely on Napoleon’s own considerations about the future of the world and the political necessity of his endeavors. We will thus discover how the Bonapartist vision, which was a global vision by continents rather than a narrow national perspective, had already embryonically grasped elements of the Great Game that would later animate the struggle among various powers for control of Central Asia. The political and human dimension of Asia was, as we will see, of great importance to Napoleon, leading him to develop ideas of global partition that envisaged a broader “Eurasian peace”. This, however, can be considered only from the nascent “geopolitical” perspective that was emerging through Napoleonic thought. With this paper, we will better understand the role that geographic and political concepts such as Central Asia and Eurasia held for Napoleon, and the role these spaces assumed in a renewed global political dimension envisioned by the Corsican strategist.

Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper focuses on the investigation of the Khlysty, a Russian religious sect that emerged in the second half of the eighteenth century, that happened in the Tobolsk Eparchy from 1760 to 1765. The Khlysty emerged in the European part of Russia and consisted of several religious communities whose identity was based on the idea that the Holy Spirit would descend upon a person who performed specific rituals, such as gatherings and signing spiritual verses. The emergence of Khlysty adherents in the Urals region was connected to the persecution of this religious group in Moscow in the 1730s and 1740s, which resulted in the exile of more than a hundred convicts. The investigation against the Ural Khlysty was initiated by Tobolsk Metropolitan Pavel in 1760 and targeted 57 workers from the Ekaterinburg metal factories, who were arrested for its duration. Nuancing previous interpretations of this case, that focused on the general context of anti-schism policies in the region (Clay) and problem of religious ecstasy in Khlysty rituals (Konovalov), this paper offers a new perspective on role of Khlysty folklore texts in the persecution process. The paper shows that the texts of spiritual verses were transcribed during the interrogations of the Khlysty, but they were not included in the official investigation file preserved at the Tobolsk Spiritual Consistory. Contrary to standard bureaucratic procedure, clerks were prohibited from working with these texts, which Pavel considered godless (“bogoprotivnye”). Instead, Pavel tried to use these transcriptions to further his own goals, namely, to gain support from the Synod for his anti-schismatic campaign in the region. Although his attempts proved unsuccessful - the investigation ended in 1765 without a final decree on the punishment of those arrested - this case study demonstrates that textual inscriptions of oral sectarian culture acted as material artifacts in the eighteenth-century church hierarchy.

Send message to Author

Abstract

The Emancipation Reform of 1861 had inevitably ushered in a groundswell of diverse and increasingly radical public discourse surrounding the reform's polarizing effects, Russia's late arrival to the global arena of capitalist modernity, and the implications of its massive peasant population being elevated out of serfdom to participate in the life of the state. These discussions would in turn themselves become a crucible for ideologies both revolutionary and reactionary that would define Russian politics for the rest of the century in their engagement with a burgeoning Russian nationalism. Although Narodnik (Russian Populist) historiography had largely focused on its commitment to non-Marxist socialism, its ideological filiation from the radical democrat publicism of the 1860s makes Narodnik nationalism an imperative aspect of their politics to contend with and contextualize if we are to understand its historical role in Russia's transition to semi-peripheral status vis-a-vis Europe. Likewise, Fedor Dostoevsky's brief engagement in petty political polemics in his periodical Epoch is often underappreciated for how influential it was in shaping the writer's celebrated literary output - and, crucially, it is uniquely representative of an early attempt at co-opting "populism" for an unofficial yet distinctly conservative mode of politics in Imperial Russia. This article examines Dostoevsky's esoteric philosophy of pochvennichestvo, developed in collaboration with fellow writer Apollon Grigoryev, against the backdrop of their public conflict with the representatives of the 1860s radical intelligentsia, including Mikhail Saltykov-Schedrin, and the so-called "schism among the nihilists." The politics of narodnichestvo, emerging as it did in part out of the ruins of the 1860s' radical publicist tradition, is shown to be remarkably more compatible with pochvennik thought than the radical democrats' - in no small part owing to its fundamental raison d'etre in peripheral nationalist anxieties of an industrializing early capitalist society.

Send message to Author

Abstract

XIX century is characterised in Central Asian history as independence and colonised periods. The travelogues and memories of comers to Turkestan disclose that in the first half they felt more freedom and security than in the second half if Stoddart case is exceptional. Moorcroft, Wolff, Burns, Shakespeare, Abbott state that they were welcomed and their safety was highly considered. However, in the second half, much changed in the area for foreigners. After Russian Empire invaded Turkestan and established colonial despotism, it limited foreign policy in Turkestan even in receiving foreigners. Consequently, all foreigners, mostly Westerners had to get special permissions not only from the Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also General Governor of Turkestan and many others. This bureaucracy limited the access foreign travellers to freely hold their missions and expeditions.

Russian policy wasn't always transparent and open to foreigners in Turkestan. Due to restrictions, many foreigners had to cancel their trips or they were just stopped at the boundaries. For example, under the label of unfriendly people, David Kerr, a British journalist who came to witness Russian invasion of Khiva in 1873, was not allowed in. Secondly, Russian politicians sought ways to keep European entrepreneurs away from Turkestan. Thus sometime they requested levying taxes and customs tariffs from European, Turkish and Persian goods in the same amount they did with Indo-British goods. Secondly, they also requested limiting foreign people in businesses and mining, to acclimate some flora or fauna types in Turkestan.

When it comes to scholars and researchers, they needed an invitation letter from Russian scientific institutions and then permission from regional authorities. Besides that, they had to submit their route plan in advance. For example, Delmar Morgan, William Bateson from England, Ujfalvy from France, Hoserhauer from Holland, Futterer and Goldered from Germany and many others are example of that.

The third group includes migrants. Machi Mashanlo, a Chinese Dungan while coming to Turkestan with 26 books, his books were seized by customs officers to send them to higher bodies for censorship inspection. The office of Turkestan General governor was instructed to send the books to the Conference of Orient Institute in Vladivostok by the Censorship Office under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. Having been long inspected, the books were returned to the owner.

In conclusion, fear and hesitation by the Empire slowed down the globalization and integration to the world science and economy.