The article deals with the reconstruction of the political governance in Novgorod from the first half to mid-11th century, which was being interpreted very differently due to significant discrepancies in the sources. The Novgorod prince was usually the son of the Kiev one, but not necessarily the eldest (who could also occupy another see, e.g., of Turov), or even, perhaps, the son of his deceased older brother: Novgorod received special significance also as the previous throne of the most powerful Kiev princes (Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav Vladimirovich). Any prince in Novgorod of this period always ruled alone, without a posadnik, whom the Kiev prince (often the former Novgorod prince) usually appointed there in those situations when he did not have a sufficiently adult son, and who was his relative, but not a Rurikid. Contrary to the text "And behold [the princes] in Novgorod", Konstantin Dobrynich was removed and exiled not during the accession of Vladimir Yaroslavich in 1036, but in 1019, 1020, or perhaps even 1021. No later than the war with Mstislav in 1023-1024 begun, Novgorod was ruled again by Yaroslav Vladimirovich himself, and from 1026, when he returned to Kiev, until 1036, it was apparently ruled by his posadnik. The description of the reign of Ilya Yaroslavich coincides with the facts of the reign of Vladimir Yaroslavich, and Ilya could have been his Christian name. After the death of Vladimir Yaroslavich (1036-1052), Novgorod came back to his father Yaroslav, who did not pass it on to his next eldest son Izyaslav, since he was reigning in Turov in 1054. Yaroslav, who was in Southern Rus' in 1052-1054, could only have appointed his posadnik to govern Novgorod in 1052-most likely, Ostromir, whose family was closely connected with Vladimir Yaroslavich. After Yaroslav's death in 1054, Izyaslav, who received both Kiev and Novgorod, reappointed Ostromir as posadnik, which he remained until at least 1057: he was possibly the last posadnik to rule Novgorod independently, without a local prince. It is quite possible that the Novgorod was in possession of Rostislav Vladimirovich between 1061 (or even earlier) and 1064, and then Mstislav Izyaslavich ruled there only in 1064-1067.
The foot washing ceremony performed on Maundy Thursday recreates the events described in the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John: a clergyman, usually a bishop or an abbot of a monastery, washes the feet of twelve clerics or monks, just as Christ, according to the Gospel of John, washed the feet of his twelve disciples (apostles). One of these apostles was Judas. In the modern foot washing ceremony, none of the participants represent Judas. The situation was different in pre-Petrine Russia, where each participant was given the name of one of the apostles, and one of them had to play the role of Judas. As it is demonstrated in the present paper, the ceremony itself was a liturgical drama, a theatrical performance: the foot washing ritual was presented as a reenactment of the Gospel story. The evolution of this ritual was largely associated with the elimination of the role of Judas from the cast of characters.
The article examines the famous political metaphor: Russia resembles an unshakable cliff against which the waves of European revolutionary sea break in vain. This image is well known from Vassily Zhukovsky's To the Russian Giant (1848) and Fedor Tyutchev's The Sea and the Cliff (1848-1851), but it was invented earlier, being wide-spread in the political rhetoric of the time. The article reconstructs the pre-history of the metaphor and reveals its association with other political metaphors. It tries to explain why the image of a cliff in stormy sea was so widespread in conservative journalism and poetry. The author of the article seeks to find out, what kind of political imaginary could stand behind such rhetorical figures and what kind of political expectations could be inspired by this rhetoric. The article also tries to outline in general the methodology of investigating social, political and ideological metaphors.
In accordance with the principles of imitatio and aemulatio Derzhavin saw himself not only as a translator of Horace, but also as an Horatian poet in his own right. Reading Horace not in Latin, but in German, modifying this tradition under the specific conditions of eighteenth-century Russian culture as well as of his personal inclinations. In addition to the general analysis of Derzhavin's use of Horace, the article offers detailed comparisons of three of Derzhavin's Horatian poems with the original texts. It concludes with a reflection on the fundamental change in Derzhavin's conception not only of translation, but also of poetry which he experienced in the last years of his life under the possible influence of Herder's aesthetics and early Russian historicism.
The article presents new archival data that provide reconstruction of the history of two secular French and German teachers who worked at the Trinity Seminary in the 1780s: Antoine Orenov and Mikhail Vysheslavtsev. Despite their different backgrounds (a foreign pastor and a Russian nobleman), both of them were anomalies in the clergy environment. New archival findings allowed rectifying the age and details of a poet and translator of the late 18th and early 19th centuries Mikhail Vysheslavtsev's biography. The article reconstructs the reasons for their appearance in the seminary as teachers, their position, and their involvement in teaching French, German, and other subjects. This reconstruction reveals an interesting model of cultural and social interaction that was not typical of the seminary environment during this period, but was, as it turns out, possible.
