WWEV Blum 02 Buch EN TEXT 14
Transcription
WWEV Blum 02 Buch EN TEXT 14
Proceedings of International scientific and historical Conference named after academician L. Blumentrost №2 Wissenschaftliche Welt, e.V. 2014 Scientific publication Proceedings of International scientific and historical Conference named after academician L. Blumentrost. № 2. – Berlin: Wissenschaftliche Welt e. V., 2014. -132 p. This volume presents scientific works of participants at the International scientific and historical conference named after academician L. Blumentrost spring session (25-28. Mai, 2014, Mühlhausen, Thüringen, Germany). The subject of the Conference is devoted to the history of ancient world, Middle Ages, New and Contemporary; science, technology and education, culture and architecture, state, germ and results of wars and world conflicts, great historical personalities and dynasties. The goal of the conference is to organize multi-language exchange of scientific knowledge. Working languages of the Conference are Russian, German and English. Realization conditions of the Conference provide free publication of scientific works of postgraduate students. The Proceedings is published at the same time in Russian (ISSN 2307-7360 print, ISSN 2307-7379 on-line), German (ISSN 2307-7387 print, ISSN 2307-7395 on-line) and English (ISSN 2307-7344 print, ISSN 2307-7352 on-line) and can be accessed freely through Internet at the site of the Conference www.ikbl.org. © Authors of articles, 2014 © Science and production institution “Federal information system” (dummy), 2014 © Wissenschaftliche Welt, e.V. (preparation), 2014 Publisher: Wissenschaftliche Welt, e.V. Geibelstraβe 42, 26721, Emden, Deutschland Printed in Germany ISSN 2307-7344 (print) ISSN 2307-7352 (on-line) Contents Organizing Committee of the Conference 5 Editorial Board of periodical "Proceedings of International Scientific and Historic Conference named after academician L. Blumentrost" 7 1. Bykovskaya G.A., Miroshnichenko E.A. Regional policy priorities development applying to national minorities 9 2. Dushkova N.A. Personnel maintenance of new industrialisation of Russia: experience of the past and the present 15 3. Fedorov K.V. The struggle for the independence of the court in russia and the judicial reform of 1864 24 4. Khairutdinov R.R. The Outstanding Universal Value of the Bolgar Historical and Archaeological Complex, a unique cultural and natural heritage of the Republic of Tatarstan 29 5. Kolesnikova M.E. The Main Periods of the North Caucasus Studies from the Second Half of the 18th Century to the Early the 19th Century 33 6. Kortunov A.I., Ivanov V.A., Protsenko A.S. The Policy of the Russian Governance to Settle the Territorial Disputes between the Ural Cossacks and the Kazakhs ("the Bukeyev Kirghiz") in the 40-70s of the XIX Сentury 38 3 7. Lizunova I.V. Regional publishing space at the beginning of the XXI century: ways of development 46 8. Mazaeva T.A. Stone towers of Chechnya. To a question of architectural form interpretation 52 9. Sarpova O.V. Attitude to labour in West European and Old Russian medieval cultures 76 10. Venidiktova E.A. The problem of dating and creation of the union between Argos and Corinth in the period of the Corinthian War (395-386 B.C.) 83 11. Vorobjeva L.V. Engineering education as worldmodeling structure (on a material of E.I. Zamyatin’s novels) 88 12. Yudina E.V., Schadeberg R. Die Ärztedynastie Blumentrosts in Russland 92 Information about the authors 4 127 Organizing Committee of the Conference Stadt Mühlhausen/Thüringen (Germany) (general partner) Scientific Institution “Academy of Historical Science” (institutional arrangements) Gnezdilov Vladimir Alekseevich (co-financing) Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research Universuty) (co-financing and host) Research and Manufacturing Institution “Federative Information System” (making-up) Wissenschaftliche Welt e.V. (publisher) Chairmen Sholl Eugeny I. President of Scientific Institution “Academy of Historical Science” Members Dr. Bruns Johannes Oberbürgermeister Stadt Mühlhausen/Thüringen (Germany) 5 Gnezdilov Vladimir A. Honoured Designer of Russian Federation, Founder of LLC "Mir Desing" Shevtsov Viacheslav A. Vice-rector for research and development Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University) Lidyaeva Natalia I. Deputy Director General of "Scientific-Production Association 'Federative Information System'" Bögel Ludmila Deputy Director of Publishing House Verain «Wissenschaftliche Welt» 6 Editorial Board of periodical "Proceedings of International Scientific and Historic Conference named after academician L. Blumentrost" Scientific degree, rank Chaiman Bykovskaya Galina Alekseevna doctor of history, professor Dean of Faculty of Liberal Education, Head of the Department of History and Political Science at Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies Members Aleksandrov Dmitry Nikolaevitch Glaziev Vladimir Nikolaevitch Dushkova Natalya Aleksandrovna Makedonskaya Vera Aleksandrovna Filonenko Sergey Ivanovitch Fursov doctor of history, professor Academician, member of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Russia doctor of history, professor Head of the Department of History at Voronezh State University Head of the Department of History and Political Science at Voronezh State Technological University doctor of history, professor Director of Cultural and Historical Center at Moscow Institute of Physics and Engineering doctor of history, professor Pro-rector on International Relations of Voronezh State Agricultural University doctor of history, professor 7 Vladimir Nikolaevitch Sabirova Daniya Kiyamovna Ulianova Svetlana Borisovna Serebryanskaya Galilna Vladimirovna Utkin Anatoly Ivanovitch Zemtsov Boris Nikolaevitch Head of the Department of History of Russia at Voronezh State Teachers' Training University doctor of history, professor Director of the Institute of Social Technologies, Head of the Department of History and Public Relations at Kazan National Research University named after Tupolev – KAI doctor of history, professor Head of the Department of History at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University doctor of history, professor Professor at the Department of History at Nizhny Novgorod Architectural-and-Constructional University doctor of history, professor Head of the Department of History at the Institute of Advanced Training within Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov doctor of history, professor Head of the Department of History at Moscow State Technological University named after N.E. Bauman 8 Bykovskaya G.A., Miroshnichenko E.A. Regional policy priorities development applying to national minorities Russia is one of the world's largest multi-ethnic state formations, in which, according to the national census in 2010, live almost 200 nationalities. Therefore, the national policy for Russia is a priority. The problem of national minorities is common not only in Russia, but also has its manifestations in all multinational states, including Germany. There is no definition of national minority in today's international and domestic law[1]. However, at the doctrinal level, they are generally recognized as ethnic communities, which are composed of state citizens, living in it constantly, differing from the rest of the state population on their national characteristics (culture, language, religion, customs), united by a common name and identity and striving for self-identification. International legal instruments about national minorities (in particular, Document of the Copenhagen Meeting on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (1990) [2], the Declaration about the Persons’ Rights Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities [3] (1992), the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) [4], the Framework Convention for the National Minorities Protection (1995) [5], are being developed according to the Russian law. It should be noted that most agreements about national minorities contained points that the obligations of States to their national minorities take precedence over any laws and regulations which conflict with these obligations, what provided a legal case in causes. The process of national revival in Russia began in the early 1990s, it revealed in the creation of national and cultural organizations - communities and autonomies. They help to develop the formation of civil society and democracy in modern Russia. Communities and autonomies play leading role in social issues at the regional level. A major focus of their work is the formation of tolerant behaviour of younger generation. Meanwhile, the impact of national and cultural associations for social and economic life 9 depends on their cooperation with federal executive bodies, as well as with local authorities. There is a legal framework designed to ensure protection of the national minorities rights in the Russian Federation. Among the main there can be called the Law of the Russian Federation on the 25.10.1991 № 1807-1 «About the languages of the Russian Federation people", the Federal Law on the 19.05.1995, № 82-FZ "About Public Associations", the Law of the Russian Federation on the 17.06.1996 № 74-FZ "About the ethno-cultural autonomy"; the Law of the Russian Federation on the 30.04.1999, № 82-FZ "About Guarantees of Indigenous People Rights of the Russian Federation." The National Security Concept of the Russian Federation is one of the fundamental laws in the field of ethnic relation. It is long-term and defines the main objectives, strategic and operational objectives of domestic and foreign policy. National interests are provided by government institutes realizing its functions, including cooperation with the existing Constitution and Russian Federation laws, public organizations. At the regional level, a number of regulations governing the national policy of the Federation has adopted in Voronezh region. The Advisory Council on Interreligious Affairs was created in the regional Duma on the 30.05.1996 № 102, the Council has been established for cooperation with religious faiths in Voronezh Regional Duma on the 27.09.2001 № 0178-III-OD. Then both the councils have been converted into Interfaith Advisory Council at the regional Duma by the Board in 2005. This Council has a prominent role in the formation of tolerance in the region. It aims at creating the atmosphere of peace and harmony between diasporas and faiths. The council deals with all situations that could lead to conflict between the diasporas and confessions, and take appropriate steps to localize causes of disagreement [6]. The Decree of Voronezh region Governor "about the establishment of the National Chamber at Voronezh Region Governor " [7] was adopted in 2010, which defines the legal status, powers, authority, formation, organization of the National Chamber of Commerce and other items. In early 2013 Voronezh region Governor A.V. Gordeev met with the representatives of Governor National Chamber of Voronezh region [8]. The experience of the National Chamber of 10 the first convocation showed its relevance. The Chamber has body coordinating implementation of a uniform national policy in Voronezh region, a discussion forum to discuss the region's full range of issues related to inter-ethnic dialogue. "Round tables", conferences and meetings organized by the Chamber, contributed to the elimination of inter-ethnic conflicts, build trust and understanding between the nations of Voronezh region. The results of the National Chamber activity became the basis for a number of decisions of the legislative and executive authorities, aimed at implementing the strategic objectives of the state national policy. The example can be the response of the Department of Education, Science and Youth Policy departmental target program "Prevention of extremism among young people and tolerance culture in Voronezh region (2012 - 2014 years)." The National Chamber created eight working groups at different fields of work. Their work is aimed at the harmonization of interethnic relations, the strengthening of civil unity, maintenance and integration of young people in national socio-cultural life of Voronezh region, as well as the promotion of inter-regional, international, inter-ethnic relations, ethnic communities and national projects in various fields. Among the priorities are: strengthening youth work and participation in the organization to improve the process of labor migration. One of such events was the second regional festival of art collectives and creators "Voronezh multinational". The most tangible result of the national Chamber, is that there weren’t very serious crimes motivated by racial, national or religious hatred or enmity in the Voronezh region in recent years. The establishment of the regional Duma Committee on culture and historical heritage was adopted in 2010. The programs that are fundamental for the work of the legislative and executive authorities of Voronezh region in the field of cultural relations with the national associations were developed and approved. Also in 2010, with the participation of the regional Duma representatives and the Government of the Voronezh region, a meeting of Internal Affairs Ministers of Ukraine and the Russian Federation took place. Support and preservation of Ukrainian culture is very important for Voronezh Region, because there are significant numbers of the Ukrainians in the southern border areas 11 of the region. In 1999 an agreement "On the inter-regional cooperation between the Lugansk region of Ukraine and Voronezh region of Russia" was signed. Annually, the plan designed to solve family and youth, culture and art is realised. Russia-Ukraine events are held regularly in rural areas of the region, and at the regional level, such as inter-regional festival of Russia-Ukraine friendship "in a single family" take place. At the initiative of public organizations of ethnic Ukrainian language is taught at a boarding school in Boguchar and at school number 91, and on the basis of municipal school number 75 there was established an Ukrainian class, where school children are taught their own language, literature and history [9]. Besides Ukrainian diaspora, there is a Sunday school of Armenian diaspora. A Sunday four-year school works successfully during 13 years. They study not only their native language, literature, geography but history of Armenia, folk dances and music. It should be noted that the school is attended not only by Armenians, as well as among the students there is Russian, Ukrainian, and other nationalities. Nowadays, the school has about 50 people of all ages from 7 to 50 years. Sunday Armenian schools also exist in Boguchar, Semiluki and Lisky. With the participation of legislative and executive power representatives of Voronezh region, the scientific community in the grant program "Historical memory of Russian people (in the context of youth patriotic education): structure, influence, evolution and prospects" held "round table" "Orthodox Russia: From the Past to the Future. " The main topics were: interfaith cooperation in the Voronezh region, humanitarian cooperation with Luhansk region in Ukraine, Orthodox culture as a social phenomenon. The result of the "round table" was the adopting of the resolution, in which the participants have identified the most important area of public policy in the development of national cultures - the formation of today's young people the moral law concepts, the creation of a holistic outlook on the basis of traditional cultural values. In this regard, the participants of the "round table" recommended in a policy framework to overcome the cultural and political tensions in society lay strengthening of Russian statehood, 12 the statement of spiritual values, ethnic harmony, to offer the Ministry of Education and Science, the Department of Culture, Education, Science and Youth Policy of Voronezh region to consider questions of the measures incorporation of cultural dialogue organization, overcoming cultural and political divisions of the Slavic peoples and the consolidation of spiritual values in the University curriculum. During the work of "Friendship of Nations - the Unity of Russia" forum in the Voronezh Regional Duma there was a "round table" "patriotism among young people", where the most debatable questions have been raised. It was organized by the Youth Assembly of the Russian People "We - the Russians", the Coordinating Council of the people of the Caucasus and the Committee for Patriotic Education and International Relations of the Youth Parliament of Voronezh region. During the "round table" there was adopted a resolution, which refers to the intentions of the Youth Assembly of Russian People set up a committee on interethnic and inter-religious issues and youth policy, to develop a regional target program of civil and patriotic education of Voronezh region youth in the spirit of respect for the cultures and traditions of the people living in the region, to create a common cultural and information center for people of all diasporas. Inter-regional conference "Formation of inter-ethnic tolerance, prevention of xenophobia and nationalism among young people" that took place in 2012 in Voronezh gathered about 100 experts on interethnic interaction, including representatives of 20 major regional and Russian national associations. "Round tables" are hold within the framework of inter-regional conference in Voronezh leading universities and municipal districts of the region, allowed to form a platform for further discussion of international cooperation. The conference generated a positive response at both the regional and federal levels, particularly- in the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation. The important events of recent years are meetings with representatives of the national-cultural autonomy, community and religious organizations, with the participation of representatives of the Voronezh Regional Duma, Voronezh City Duma, the administration of Voronezh city. 13 Much of the work is carried out in the direction of the regional national policies helped to avoid conflicts with human victims, based on inter-ethnic confrontation, as it was in the mid 1900's and early 2000's. Bibliography 1. Макаров А.В. Объединение субъектов Федерации: этнонациональный и территориальный факторы в зеркале права // Государственная власть и местное самоуправление. 2012. - N 2. - С. 3 - 10. 2. Международные акты о правах человека: Сборник документов / сост. д.ю.н., проф., В.А. Карташкин, д.ю.н. Е.А. Лукашева. - 2-е изд., доп. - М.: Изд-во НОРМА (Издательская группа НОРМА-ИНРФРА-М), 2002. - С. 107-111. 3. Аналитический вестник. - 2010. - № 21 (407) 4. Молодой коммунар. - 2010. - № 101 (от 11.09.2010). 5. Молодой коммунар – 2008. - № 131 (от 29.11.2008). 6. http://www.communa.ru/news/detail.php?ID=67847 Key word National politics, tolerance, ethnic identity. Annotation The priorities of regional policy towards national minorities, ethnic and cultural factors and the development of ethnic conflicts prevention principles are analyzed in the article. <Translated from Russian> 14 Dushkova N.A. Personnel maintenance of new industrialisation of Russia: experience of the past and the present Now the world has entered a new coil of a global competition. Also it is shown in an aggravation of economictechnological and ideologically-information rivalry, in militarypolitical opposition, in degree of growth of intellectualization of a society, in rates of development of its qualitative characteristics, etc. But all the same the main thing that will define power of the state, is its economic component, and also material welfare and spiritual unity of the people. In these conditions before our country there is an uneasy problem - it is necessary to restore simultaneously industrial potential and to carry out the new industrialisation, allowing to pass to the sixth technological way. Otherwise it is possible to remain for ever as a raw appendage of the advanced countries of the world. And though recently the situation in economy of Russia has become complicated, from stagnation it is necessary to leave exclusive nevertheless on a way of new industrialisation and the innovative policy. In this connection questions of personnel maintenance of economy appear in all their variety. For us are necessary not only scientists and the engineers operating difficult technological processes, but also in the big weight workers of a different skill level. However problems in the given direction recently has collected much. And this with the fact that for our country the weakest link in economy, in innovative activity always was and there is a person. Backlog from the developed industrial countries on a skill level of workers has reached already critical size - 15-25 years. And this rupture continues to increase. The difficult situation remains in a domestic scientific complex. The share of the workers who are carrying out researches and workings out in an aggregate number of the population of Russia has decreased for last 20 years in 2,5 times and makes now only 0,52 % (in 1990 - 1,3 %). 15 Many the negative moments have collected and in sphere of higher education which urged to prepare experts for all branches of an economy of the country, and also shots for schools of thought. For last three decades there was a warp of a professional training towards the humanities that finally has caused a severe shortage of engineering specialities, so necessary now in the conditions of revival and development of industrial potential. Is even worse business with preparation of working trades is. The former system of training to working trades is destroyed, and new is not created. Therefore qualified workers - in deficiency. It would Seem, for last 8 years a share of the workers occupied mainly with physical work, in economy has risen to 49 %, and personnel hunger of working trades exists. It is caused by that people of work are required not simply, namely qualified workers, in conditions when manufacture modernisation has begun. At the enterprises began to establish the difficult equipment, frequently not only machine tools, and the whole processing centres. For them specially trained workers are required. And the retraining and improvement of professional skill system does not work. Besides, work propagation at all does not operate. The negative influence has rendered manufacture curling in the nineties the last century, a delay and salary nonpayment. People, leaving factories, began to be engaged in so-called "shuttle" activity. As a result now the low motivation to work at a considerable part of youth and unfairly high expectations concerning working conditions and salary level is observed. In spite of the fact that on all country there are no workers on such specialities as the turner, the mechanic, the mason, the assembler, the welder, etc. with quite worthy salary, wishing to occupy vacancies are not present. The youth does not go on factories as considers it not prestigious. Not casually, in July, 2013 In Leipzig in the world competition among representatives of working trades the modular Russian Federation among commands from 47 countries has occupied only 44 place [1]. Thus, becomes obvious that the main economic problem of Russia not only and is not so much today in a lack of investments "in general", how many in a concrete lack of investments into the person. It has already led to quickly progressing intellectual and physical disqualification of labour. It is a little more - and no 16 capital investments any more will help manufacture, because the people, capable to master the new technics and modern technologies at world level, simply does not remain. And nevertheless to break a situation in personnel selection nevertheless it is possible. Despite many difficulties, in Russia still remains considerable (10-12 % from world level) scientific potential. At constant leak of shots at us nevertheless on ten thousand persons it is necessary 37 scientists and engineers - as much, how many in the USA, and in 1,5 times more than in Germany [2]. Have remained at us both working dynasties, and workers of high qualification. All it should become a basis for formation of the new personnel selection which is meeting the requirements of modern economy. Important value will have also past experience though it has been saved up in other social and economic conditions. Similar we have tested something in 30th years ХХ century at industrialisation realisation. Solving a problem of radical technical reconstruction of all branches of a national economy, the country has faced a personnel problem. And then the slogan «the Shots which have seized technics has been put forward, solve all!». It was a question not of tens and hundreds thousand, and about millions the people, capable to actuate and completely to use the new technics in the industry, on transport, in agriculture, in army everywhere where it arrived. Realisation of the given slogan has demanded efforts of all people. In all areas of a national economy movement of the advanced workers for revision of out-of-date technical norms was developed, movement for development of new technics was developed, there was a whole system of training of shots and increase of their qualification. Visually it is possible to show it on an example of Central Black Earth area which of agrarian region fast rates turned to the agrarian-industrial. Here, in the conditions of the overwhelming majority of the agricultural population, all constructed industrial enterprises have been provided by necessary shots. For this purpose in CChO the wide network of establishments of technical training of workers has been created. It has been presented by schools of a factory apprenticeship, mugs of a technical minimum, establishments of individual training, and also schools on liquidation of semi-illiteracy [3]. 17 Work even more became more active after the concrete program of modernisation of system of the technical training, confirmed by country directing bodies has been developed. According to it on training of workers to address with the difficult technical equipment considerable money resources have been allocated. Only in 1929 Central Black Earth area have received 2,5 million roubles on preparation of qualified workers, masters and engineers, and in two years - 6,5 million more [4]. Besides state financing, training payment has been assigned and to workers who bought loans of technical study. They represented the bonds got by the population, often under compulsion. Huge work was spent on liquidation of full and partial illiteracy. In 1929 by a network of circles of an educational program it has been captured 260 thousand persons, and the next year quantity trained in them has exceeded 1,3 million. As to schools FZU they were, as a rule, three types. The first - prepared controllers. Assistants to masters, etc. the Second mechanics, turners, milling-machine operators. The third - working mass trades. It is known that only in 1930-1931 in such schools across the Central Chernozem region has arrived 28,5 thousand persons [5]. Often educational institutions, courses, schools and even high schools were created directly at the enterprises, or functioned not constantly, and is temporary, for performance of specific targets. The mechanisation Institute, food-processing industry Institute, Institute of land management and others [6] were such high schools, for example. The example of the Voronezh factory of a name Dzerzhinsky is rather indicative. On it in 1930 has been organised, so-called educational industrial complex. In 1931 2594 persons there were trained. The industrial complex included three steps. The first prepared qualified workers, heads of groups, foremen of shops and departments of factories. The given step corresponded to school FZU level. The second step of industrial complex let out masters, inspectors of products, technical norm setters, technicians of departments and shops, opischik steam locomotives, masters and their assistants. It was equated to railway technical school. The third, higher step, prepared engineers-organizers and production 18 workers of a narrow speciality (managing departments, mechanics of the factory, responsible persons on technical safety etc.). The third step corresponded to railway technical college [7]. Study in such form tried as it is possible to connect with manufacture problems more closely. And to the workers, having training corresponding preparation, some privileges gave. So, for example, to the workers studying at factory of a name Dzerzhinsky, kept average earnings, gave additional day of rest, reduced to an hour the working day, guaranteed work only in the first change, allocated first of all permits in sanatoria and rest houses. At the same time for study and strictly asked. Admissions of employment were equated to industrial infringements and had corresponding consequences: a neopayment of preferential days and hours, deprivation of grants, etc. Besides the specified establishments of technical training of workers, engineers and managers of the enterprises, existed also рабфаки, called were to prepare a proletarian contingent for receipt in high schools. On them were accepted as the persons who have already passed the lowest steps of training, and semiliterate entrants. In this connection shortly examination tests at reception on рабфаки have been replaced by examination arriving already in the course of training [8]. The program on technical training of workers in the Central Chernozem region, as well as on all country was consistently carried out. Certainly, at all it, there were many problems and difficulties. Not all arriving in the educational institutions mentioned above successfully finished them. The skill level and teaching structure was not high enough. Not always completely trainees have been provided by the educational literature, there were no premises etc. And nevertheless the wide network of establishments of technical training in territory of the Central Chernozem region has been created. It has provided the enterprises of region with the shots, capable to solve the problems put by the state on industrial development. That is they have justified the purpose of the creation [9]. The Voronezh region was especially allocated in this respect. To the middle of 30th years ХХ century it became one of the most developed industrial territories in CChR. 1024 industrial 19 enterprises, total of workers on which exceeded 110 thousand persons Here operated. It in 6-7 times more, than in 1913 [10]. For achievement of such jerk the considerable money resources allocated from the budget of the country, and also obsession and enthusiasm of weights had crucial importance. In 30th years has development udarnichestvo, Stakhanov movement, movement of multimachine operators, etc. If in 1931 of competing workers there were only 35,5 % from their total number across the Central Chernozem region by 1934 udarnichestvom, and also by other kinds of socialist competition have been captured about 2/3 working regions. As to light industry there this indicator has changed from 71,1 % to 89,9 % [11]. Stakhanov movement has especially widely extended: Stakhanov days, five-day weeks, decades. Labour productivity at the competing increased from 145 % to 246 %. But on occasion even to 300 % [12]. Unprecedented industrial growth, that forced industrialisation of 30th years ХХ the century which fruits we use till now has been as a result reached on all country. Also there was it possible thanks to a state firm position - huge respect for the working person. And though sometimes it was expressed преувеличенно or is primitive, but it - was. And it was felt, since there was such public atmosphere. Now, of course, in our country - other conditions, other possibilities. But the purpose is put forward similar - to provide new industrialisation by necessary shots. As before, considerable means be required. However hardly it is necessary to count that the similar measure will be quite sufficient. Last experience testifies that if and it is possible to provide with the big financial injections break in any direction of managing in due course the effect from it is lost. Really, in 30th years it was possible to carry out by means of large financial assets industrialisation and to put into practice the unprecedented program of preparation scientific, technical and personnel. However subsequently results are not become adequate to capital investments. For example, from the middle 60 to the middle of 80th years expenses on a science then still have increased in the USSR more than in 3 times, number of research assistants has doubled. At the same time quantity of annually created samples of 20 new types of cars, the equipment, devices and devices it was reduced. Having 1,5 million science officers, i.e. the fourth part of all science officers of the world and twice more than in the USA, allocating for a science of the national income of 5 % (the USA, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, France - 2-3 %), we tested backlog in this area. Similar discrepancy has been caused by low efficiency of research sector of economy. The spent checks of activity of branch scientific institutes showed that at times 60 % from them at all did not give out scientific production. Thus, hardly it is necessary to repeat past errors. Certainly, without the state support not to manage, but it should be combined with economic stimulus, assume business financing within the limits of state-private partnership. Problems of personnel maintenance of new industrialisation demand modernisation of all education system. At the same time there was a necessity and for revival of some forms of a professional training which have positively proved in the past, but for the unknown reasons have been curtailed or reduced. It is a question of training to working trades at the enterprises, about technical training colleges, etc. it is expedient to make active propagation of prestige of a working trade, to help the enterprises to develop the mechanism of formation of the positive image as the employer, to involve youth on the enterprises by means of their presentation in educational institutions etc. Something in this respect is already undertaken. For example, the state competition of working trades is founded in 2012, the rank of the Hero of work is entered, it is offered to create the register of the employers doing the investments into shots, in 2013 on Baikal has passed the International forum «Engineers of the future», have started development of system of vocational guidance etc. there were no without attention educational institutions, and also high schools which prepare experts for manufacture. All carried out transformations here are aimed at training and education improvement of quality. At all it and presently not to do without enthusiasm of weights that allows to develop innovation, technical creativity of workers and engineers, gives rise to useful rivalry. And in this 21 respect the idea uniting people for the sake of achievement of an overall aim can help. This problem just also puzzles now a management of our country. Besides, formation of new personnel selection is impossible without changes in social structure of a society. It is necessary to mean that anyway, but the quantity of workers constantly decreases. While deficiency in labour is not present. But shortage of labour can arise, as it is predicted by experts if in time not to undertake corresponding measures. The certain part of people is involved in the new spheres of employment connected with computer and information technology. It is so-called «a creative class». Moreover, in the country there were many businessmen, at the majority of them the social status is still very unstable. Unlike last century, social changes occur today spontaneously. However there is a sense to stimulate going positive changes, to help them corresponding measures with economy, political and legislative spheres, and also to eliminate consequences of changes negative, such as negative demographic dynamics, a warp as a part of labour towards workers of physical work etc. And, nevertheless, what grandiose problems would not face the country, and as though quickly it would not be desirable them to realise, use repressive management methods in no event it is impossible. Unacceptably economic failures to write off on separate employees, dismissing them or opening criminal cases as it was in the past. Are not necessary now both imaginary results, and doubtful leaders, and formal forms of activization of workers of manufacture. And the more so are not admissible human a victim. New personnel selection carefully developed and scientifically well-founded will allow to prepare real soil not only for transfer of the Russian industry from a survival condition in a development condition, but also will allow to carry out new industrialisation of the country. 22 Bibliography 1. Gurdin K. The Olympic record of working class / K.Gurdin //Arguments of week. 2013. № 28. With. 6. 2. Formation of new economic system//the Russian economic magazine. 2000. № 4. With. 6. 3. GAOPIVO (the State archive of political history of the Voronezh region). F.2. Оp.1. D. 205. L. 26. 4. GAOPIVO. F. 842 Op. 4. D. 217. Ll - 13-14. 5. Klimov И.М. From history of formation of working class of the Central Chernozem region / I.M.Klimov. Voronezh: The Voronezh state university, 1977. With. 27. 6. GAOPIVO. F. 2. Оp. 1. D. 1617. Ll.-73-83. 7. GAOPIVO. F. 2. Оp. 1. D. 1617. L. 103. 8. GAOPIVO. F. The River-1636. Оp. 1. D. 155. Л.1. 9. GAOPIVO. F. 2. Оp. 1. D. 1617. L. 65. 10. GAOPIVO. F. 2. Оp. 1. D. 2285. L. 35. 11. GAOPIVO. F. 199. Оp. 1. D. 476. L. 87 about. 12. GAOPIVO. F. 3. Оp. 1. D. 894. L. 10. Key words Industrialisation, shots, a policy, qualification, past lessons, scientists, experts, motivation of work Annotation In article questions of a condition and prospect of development of scientific and technical personnel potential in Russia in the conditions of modern modernisation of economy are considered. Thus on an example of Central Black Earth region it is shown, what lessons are necessary for taking from past experience at carrying out of industrialisation of 30th years of the XX-th century <Translated from Russian> 23 Fedorov K.V. The struggle for the independence of the court in russia and the judicial reform of 1864 In 2014, Russia will celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Judicial Reform of 1864. The reform takes an important place in the history of Russia and the great reforms of the mid-nineteenth century. First, the Judicial Reform was the most progressive among the reforms of Alexander II. It was even ahead of its time. Second, many of problems that sought to solve the reformers 150 years ago remain relevant in today's Russia. One of such problem is the provision of real independence of the court. The old pre-reform of the court was completely dependent on the administration. According to apt expression of the Minister of Internal Affairs S. Lanskoy, "the administration rode on justice". One can cite many examples of bureaucratic arbitrariness. Once, someone complained on Moscow commercial court to the Governor-General of St. Petersburg Prince A.A. Suvorov. Without thinking twice, Suvorov ordered the arrest of all members of the court and released them only after the intervention of the Minister of internal Affairs. Infrequently, a significant court case in St. Petersburg was not accompanied by the intrusion of the authorities, and often their direct orders. In province the situation was about the same. Once, in Arkhangelsk the Chairperson of the Trial Chamber had to flee from the Governor, who decided to "teach" him with a stick (1) . Representatives of the enlightened bureaucracy addressed for the separation of the court from the administration. The first Professor of Law in Russia S.E. Desnitsky (1740-1789) presented to Catherine II the project, which argued that "the judicial power" should be absolutely independent (2) . In the basis of conversion plans of M.M. Speransky (1772-1839), the principles of legality and the separation of powers took place. In "Introduction to the Code of state laws", the judicial power of the Emperor was limited to the act of approval (3) . Member of the State Council Admiral N.S Mordvinov performed for the separation of powers. In 1827 year, he wrote to V.P. Kochubey: "...Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of power should be separated in the exercises 24 and their actions. One should not be the responsibility of another" (4) . A.N. Radischev, N.M. Muravyev, N.I. Turgenev, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, and representatives of the revolutionary populism criticized the pre-reform judicial system. N.P. Ogarev wrote: "courts departments patronize for robbery and they rob, governors patronize pillage and plunder, to interfere in the activities of the judicial places, moreover, that the separation between administrative and judicial authorities are highly uncertain " (5) . Start of practical preparation of judicial reform is the summer of 1857 year. Chief-steward of the II Department of the Imperial Chancellery D.N. Bludov supervised the initial work. His first notes were very careful and inconsistent. However, it was soon realized that limitation to half-measures would not succeed. The suggestions on the separation of the judiciary from the administrative, reducing the judiciary, introduction of orality and publicity of process of court, the adversarial trial process, the creation of the advocacy, suspension police from the production of the investigation were proposed. In 1860 year, D.N. Bludov presented to the State Council the draft of the new process of court to which he made a detailed note with overview of the history of the Russian court. He made in it the conclusion about the necessity of the separation of the court from "administrative authorities" (6) . However, the intention to introduce the independence of the court provoked fierce resistance reactionaries, headed by the Minister of Justice V.N. Panin. V.N. Panin sharply objected to a complete separation of the court administration, withdrawal of preliminary investigation of the police jurisdiction, and the introduction of a guilty start and trial by jury. After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, it was impossible to delay with the reform. It was necessary to neutralize its opponents. February 18, 1860 Alexander II tactfully demissed from the management the Ministry of Justice Panin, which greatly weakened the opposition of the Judicial Reform. In the autumn of 1861, Alexander II ordered to convey the preparation of legal statutes "with assigned to her lawyers" in the State Chancellery. This meant that the supervision of the work on the new Court Statutes passed from D.N. Bludov to progressive configured S.I. Zarudny. 25 From January to April 1862, intensive work occurred in the State Chancellery, in which the best Russian lawyers S.I. Zarudny, D.A. Rovinsky, N.A. Butskovski, N.I. Stoyanovskii, K.P. Pobedonostsev, A.M. Plavsky participated. The work results in 6 documents, the most important of which were: 1) "On the basic principles of civil process of court", 2) "On the basic principles of criminal process of court", 3) "On the basic principles of the judicial system". They are contained new principles of justice, which formed the basis of the Judicial Statutes of 1864. In accordance with the highest order of April 9, they were placed for consideration by the united departments of criminal and civil State Council. From April to July 1862, 16 meetings of the united departments took place. During discussions of the criminal process of court, reactionaries gave battle on the issue of the separation of the judiciary authorities from the administrative one. V.N. Panin with the support of the Prince of Oldenburg suggested that there may be cases when for the protection of public order and security, it will be possible to arrest to imprisonment, the restraint house, the castle by an administrative order, without referring the case to the court. Realizing the inevitability of change, V.N. Panin continued to cling to the past. It was a rare case when his proposal was approved, was the inclusion in the Charter of the criminal proceedings provisions on the representation of some sentences on the Highest approval, although most members of the General Assembly was against him (7) . General meeting of the State Council considered the "The main principles" in three meetings, on August 27, September 3 and September 4 of 1862. Almost all of their provisions were adopted unanimously. Suddenly, V.N. Panin himself gave the protection of the jury. September 29, Alexander II approved "The main principles". Preparation of new Legal Statutes entered into its final phase (8) . November 20 of 1864, Alexander II signed the new Legal Statutes, which proclaimed the principles of justice only by the courts, the independence of the court from the administration, the irremovability of judges. According to the eminent lawyer A.F. Koni, these Statutes were "the fruit of the sublime work, imbued with the consciousness of responsibility compilers them before 26 Russia" (9) . The independence of the court was enshrined in articles 1, 2, 9, 10 of the Charter of civil proceedings and in articles 1 to 5, 12 and 13 of the Charter of criminal process of court (10) . However, the representatives of revolutionary opposition criticized the reform. They argued that a number of qualifications and exceptions, the government helped to keep the administration influence on the court. First, this was expressed in fact that all judges except magistrates were appointed by the administrative. Second, the governors can control the election of magistrates by excluding from the lists of candidates of political suspects. "Where is the independence of the judiciary, – exclaims N.P. Ogarev, – when at the root of the judicial selection interfere administrative Governor's power" (11) . On the other hand, the principle of independence of the court was subjected to severe criticism by conservative part of the Russian political elite. Special discontent caused the trial of Vera Zasulich 1878. The Murder of Alexander II on March 1 of 1881, and the ascension to the throne Alexander III was the beginning of the period of counter-reforms. A strong blow at the independence of the court struck the "Regulations on measures for the protection of public order" on August 14, 1881. On May 20 of 1885, the law in fact committed with the irremovability of judges was published. The Law on Zemsky Chiefs July 27 of 1889 crowned the judicial counterreform. Its reactionary orientation was so obvious that the overwhelming majority of members of the State Council voted against it. But the Emperor Alexander III sided with the minority (12) . Finally, even this fact did not mean the complete elimination of achievements of Judicial Reform of 1864. This occurred only as a result of the revolution of 1917 and the coming the Bolsheviks to the power. Bibliography 1. Hessen I.V. Judicial reform. Saint-Petersburg, 1905, p.1213. 2. Azarkin N.M. History of legal thought in Russia: Course of lectures. M, 1999, p.178. 27 3. Tomsinov V.A. Speransky. At the service of the law. Moscow, 2013, pp. 138-139. 4. Dzhanshiev G.A. Framework of judicial reform. Moscow, 1891, p. 60. 5. Vilensky B.V. Judicial reform and counter-reform in Russia. Saratov, 1969, p.92. 6. Dzhanshiev G.A. Framework of judicial reform, p.60. 7. Judicial reform, Ed. N.V. Davydov and N.N. Polanski. Vol. 1. Saint-Petersburg, 1915, p.312; ibid pp. 329-332. 8. Dzhanshiev G.A. Epoch of great reforms. Vol.2. Moscow,2008, p. 30. 9. Koni A.F. Fathers and children judicial reform. Moscow,2003, p. 33. 10. Vilensky B.V. Judicial reform and counter-reform in Russia, p. 335. 11. “Kolokol”, 1862, November 15, p. 1240. 12. Vilensky B.V. Judicial reform and counter-reform in Russia, pp. 339-344. <Translated from Russian> 28 Khairutdinov R.R. The Outstanding Universal Value of the Bolgar Historical and Archaeological Complex, a unique cultural and natural heritage of the Republic of Tatarstan The Bolgar Historic and Archaeological Complex (Republic of Tatarstan) is a unique site of world importance the outstanding universal value of which was recognized by the decision of the 37th Council of the Committee of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (2013). Bolgar settlement together with the ramparts and graffs is located in the European part of Russia on the left bank of the Volga River 40 km south of its confluence with the Kama on the edge of the original Volga terrace. In the east it is adjacent to the modern town of Bolgar, the administrative centre of Spassky district of Tatarstan. The town of Bolgar was founded on the headland spit of the high Volga terrace. It was well fortified naturally and artificially, the view of the Volga was good. The distinct outline of the settlement comprises several lines of fortifications built at different times. The authentic ruins of the fortifications surrounding the town have been preserved thus forming an integral historical and cultural landscape of the settlement. By the middle of the 14th century the fortified part of the settlement had reached a considerable size. At present the area of the Bolgar Complex is 443 hectares. An important confirmation of the desire of the state to preserve the integrity of the site was the decision to expand the boundaries of the buffer zone of the Complex, to incorporate the older settlements excavated on the first river island, and the expansion of the Complex to the north for the sake of the panorama of the Volga River. Currently, the Buffer Zone of the Complex occupies an area of 12,101 hectares. This does not only allow to fully cover the entire territory of Bolgar settlement, the adjacent historic areas, all their elements and values, and unique scenery spots and perspectives, but also to exclude any large multistory construction here as well as the interference with the visual historical perception of the site. 29 The Bolgar Historic and Archaeological Complex is an outstanding example of geopolitical and historical changes in Eurasia in the 10th – early 21st centuries. It played a key role in the formation of states and civilizations, the spread of Islam and Orthodoxy, interaction of customs and cultural traditions of the modern Tatars and other peoples of Eurasia. For over 15 centuries this site has had stable influence on the development of architecture, technology, monumental and decorative art, urban planning, and spiritual culture of Eurasia. Over the period from the 10th century till the 21st century in Bolgar a long process of historical development was not only fixed but also took place. It formed the very essence of national, regional and local identity as an integral part of modern life of Tatarstan, and Russia thus characterising its outstanding universal value. The terms “universal cultural value” and “the outstanding universal cultural value” were introduced without the definition by the “Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” adopted in Paris on November 16, 1972 at the 17th Session of the General Conference of UNESCO. [1] The historical, archaeological and architectural heritage of Bolgar, the collective memory of the ancestors of modern Tatar people - the second largest nation in the Russian Federation, the sacredness and successive development of Muslim and Orthodox culture is indispensable and provides a basis for the conservation and development of the area. An important specific feature of Bolgar and its culture is the spirit of the place, its character and the quality of the area where Islam was adopted which defined the choice of the state, the people and most importantly had an outstanding and symbolic meaning. In 922, the Embassy of Baghdad Caliphate, having travelled for over 2.5 thousand km, reached Bolgar. The secretary of the Embassy, Ahmed Ibn Fadlan, left fascinating notes of the journey which was exceptional in itself. As a result, the Bolgars officially and out of free will accepted Islam. The Islamic faith was spread further to the north, far away from the centre of Islamic civilization. Bolgar is the oldest and northernmost Muslim enclave of peace. The very fact of penetration of Islam that far to the north is a universal event. Located at an unimaginable at the time distance away from the centres of Islamic civilization, very quickly Bolgar became one of 30 the outstanding examples of the medieval Muslim culture of the Renaissance. To date this has determined the nature of faith, customs, traditions, social norms and moral life, culture and spirituality in this geo-cultural region. The Embassy of Baghdad Caliphate contributed not only to the formal adoption of Islam but also to the diplomatic recognition of Volga Bolgar as a Muslim state. The ethno-confessional situation that defined for many centuries the identity reflected in all the aspects of life - economy, culture, science, education, and spiritual life, changed quickly in the Volga-Ural area. Ahmad Ibn Fadlan’s travel notes is a masterpiece of the medieval Muslim literature in the genre of “Rizal” as reflected in numerous publications in Tatar, Russian, German, French, English and other languages, works of art, world cinema and other spheres of culture. The unique identity of the cultural heritage of Bolgar is based on the fruitful mutual influence of local, Turkic, Eastern, European and Russian traditions. These stylistic features in the architecture of the Bolgar Historic and Archaeological Complex interacted with one another and reflect the diverse effects over a long period of time. The monuments of Bolgar are a good example of a creative and favourable use of various construction traditions that were skilfully adapted by the Bolgar architects to the local conditions. Their ideas embodied in stone - mosques, minarets, mausoleums and baths, did not only play an important role in the appearance of Bolgar but also significantly influenced the urban culture of the Kazan Khanate, and later the Russian state [2]. The Bolgar Historic and Archaeological Complex is the world's northernmost monument of Islamic architecture and the only complex in the world where the architectural and archaeological monuments of the Golden Horde civilization have been preserved. The Cathedral Mosque, the Eastern and Northern Mausoleums, the Khan's Tomb, the Minor Minaret, the Black and the White Chambers, the Khan's Palace - these and other monuments are the Bolgar pearls, a proof of the uniqueness of the medieval town life expressed not only in the variety of architecture but also in town planning. It must be emphasized that the historical landscape of Bolgar settlement is an excellent example of a millennium-long 31 conservation of medieval monuments, fortification constructions, religious and public monumental buildings, artisan quarters, residential areas, cemeteries, and town improvement facilities in their intact state. The settlement also includes a village founded in the 18th century and the Assumption Church. These various authentic monuments as well as the cultural layer of the settlement do not only clearly demonstrate the unique location of Bolgar in the scale of Eastern Europe but also open up the enormous potential to generate new knowledge about the historical processes in the vast Eurasian continent. The awareness of the uniqueness and value of Bolgar is reflected in numerous medieval Eastern and European chronicles, manuscripts of the 17th, 18th centuries and the documents of subsequent eras. Bibliography 1. UNESCO International Regulations. Moscow: Logos, 1993. pp. 290 - 302. 2. Valeev R.M Outstanding Universal Value of the Kazan Kremlin as a World Heritage Site // - Kazan. Journal “Herald of Kazan State University of Culture and Art”. Number 1, 2013, pp. 18-23. Key words Cultural heritage sites, outstanding universal value, Republic of Tatarstan, Bolgars, conservation, to turn a site into a museum, UNESCO. <Translated from Russian> 32 Kolesnikova M.E. The Main Periods of the North Caucasus Studies from the Second Half of the 18th Century to the Early the 19th Century The historiography of the North Caucasus Study is the unit of the Caucasus Study, which was started in processes of the Russian colonization of this region in the second half the 18thcentury. The research of the potential of this territory and the North Caucasian society was complicated the mountainous people from the metropolitan centers of science as well as the specific socioeconomic, military, political and socio-cultural conditions of this region. There were three interrelated ways of the North Caucasus researching which could been conventionally denoted as "governmental", "scientific" and "non-governmental". The governmental way was represented by activities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Military Department and other state institutions and structures (the military-scientific expeditions, the provincial and the local statistical Committees, etc.). The scientific way was represented by the studies of the Academy of Sciences, the Archaeological Commission, the Archaeological Institute of the Caucasian Archaeographic Commission. The nongovernmental way was represented various scientific societies, as the metropolitan, and the provincial. The government way was dominant. It was due to the official policy of incorporation of the North Caucasus in the Russian imperial system, whereby the priorities of scientific research investigations were determined primarily by the interests of the Russian authorities. There were three main periods of the formation and the development of domestic Caucasiology as the unit of the Russian History: – the first period was from the second half of the 18th century to the beginning of the 19th century; – the second period was in the first half of the 19th century; – the third period was from the first half of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. 33 The North Caucasus studies were due process of incorporation of this territory to the Russian state system. This circumstance impacted to the development of the historical knowledge and the research, the expansion of the metropolitan and the provincial scientific centers to research the North Caucasus. There were provincial and local historians, which had differed by varying degrees of their activity in these centers. From the second half of the 18th century to the beginning of the 19th century the North Caucasus policy of Russia was very intensive and in that period the accumulation of information about the North Caucasus ethnicities started; the first multidisciplinary academic expeditions were carried out and the North Caucasus historiographical tradition was developed. The historians fulfilled the authorities’ order because the methodology of their studies was encyclopedic principles. They sought to gather as much information about the new region to coincide with the practical needs of the state: the scope and objectives of the North Caucasus studies were closely related to the official policy. The beginning of the North Caucasus study had due to the activities of the Russian Academy of Sciences and its multidisciplinary expeditions, during which the various information of the North Caucasus history and culture was collected and the Caucasiology problems were determined. Those expeditions were one of the elements of "scientific" way. The specialists in various branches of scientific knowledge (geographers, geologists, historians, ethnographers, linguists, economists, etc. ) were participants of those expeditions because each of them was complex and multi-purposes. There were J.A. Hildenshtedt, S.-G. Gmelin, I.P. Falk, P.-S. Pallas, G.Y. Klaproth, I.F. Parrot, M.F. Engelhard, E.I. Eichwald, A.D. Nordman who had the most significant contribution to the North Caucasus studies [1]. The second stage was the "peaceful" and "power" periods in the Russian colonization of the North Caucasus. The historical books about the North Caucasus were published in the first half of the 19th century. There were descriptions, reports and travel notes, written by participants of the North Caucasus expeditions. Mainly military personnel and officials were among them, because there were many military- topographical, military statistics descriptions. Thus, the Russian Military took part to the North Caucasus studies. 34 Military scientific expeditions (for ex, General Emanuel’ expedition to Elbrus and the Upper Kuban in 1829) and mission were one of the elements of the "government" way of the organization of research in the North Caucasus and a kind of cultural integration in the 19th century. The North Caucasian intelligentsia, educators and public figures S.B. Nogmov, Giray Khan, Gazi Giray, M. Kodzokov, B. Aidemirov, S.-B. Abaev were the former militaries. The third period was from the half of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. In that time Russia continued the development of new the North Caucasus territory and the authorities were still interested in scientific information about this region. The metropolitan researches were very active in that period. But not only they. The provincial researches were active too. There were the North Caucasus statistical committees, Stavropol provincial scientific and Archives Commission of the North Caucasus scientific societies, which researched the North Caucasus. The "non-government" societies had a special significance at this stage of the North Caucasus studies. The local administration supported these studies financially because the regional socialpolitical situation was choose and now the provincial intelligentsia and military were very active in historical, archeological and ethnographic researches. The main centers of the North Caucasus researches were largest scientific societies in Russia: the Russian Geographical Society and its Caucasian Department; the Society of the Natural Science Fancier of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University and its Ethnography Department; the Moscow Archaeological Society. All of them were the important centers of the North Caucasus researches. Their structure, the specific activity and its contacts with the provincial research centers, its research programs, as well as research methods revived the scientific interest to the historical past of the region, consolidated the local research efforts and further development of the North Caucasus historiographical tradition. Inspired by the metropolitan researches the Archaeological Commission combined the research, the preserving and restoration-correlation functions. The researches of North 35 Caucasus statistical committees – the Stavropol province, the Terek province, the Kuban province and Dagestan – were very important. Their activities had helped to expand the source base of historical research and to recreate the historical processes and events that have occurred in the North Caucasus since ancient times to the early 20th century. The North Caucasian statistical committees were the first research centers that united the provincial intellectuals – archaeologists, ethnologists, historians. The activity of the metropolitan and the local research centers since the second half of the 19th to the early the 20th century contributed to found a number of the North Caucasus scientific societies. Those centers became a kind of "growth points" for a formation of an intellectual space (the Stavropol diocesan Church Archaeological Society, the Kuban Society of the Regional Studies, the Society of Fancier of the Cossack antiquities. Areas of their activities were archaeological, ethnographic and historical researches; preserving of ancient monuments; museums, education and publishing. They were independent regional historical centers, which had some organizational and financial resources. The research issues of these centers were determined with the specificity of local identity. Researches of these societies became the basis for further studies and the fundamental works of the North Caucasus the history of subsequent generations in the 20th century. Now then, the North Caucasian historiographical tradition was created the academic and the military expeditions, their participants accumulated the information about people of the North Caucasus. The creation of the provincial scientific societies consolidated the intellectual resources of academic and military researchers and the fanciers as in the province and the metropolitan. At least a whole stratum of historians, who researched the North Caucasus. The researchers perceive the Caucasus as the single historical and cultural region. The characteristic features of the North Caucasus historiographical tradition, as well as domestic Caucasiology, were the generally humanist tradition; the multidisciplinarity and the integration of the methods of the macro-region studies; the humanitarian focus of the researches; the comprehensive analysis of all available regional historical sources. 36 Bibliography 1. Lavrov LI. For the 250-th anniversary of academic Caucasian studies in Russia // Caucasian ethnographic collection. Мoscow, 1976. Vol. VI. P. 7. Key words History of Science, Caucasian studies, historiography, historiographical tradition, the Russian Empire, the Northern Caucasus, expedition, travelers, scientific society; statistical committee. <Translated from Russian> 37 Kortunov A.I., Ivanov V.A., Protsenko A.S. The Policy of the Russian Governance to Settle the Territorial Disputes between the Ural Cossacks and the Kazakhs ("the Bukeyev Kirghiz") in the 40-70s of the XIX Сentury One of the poorly studied issues on the history of the Urals in the Russian and foreign historiography remains the Cossack colonization of the region. The published historical sources indicate that the active resettlement of the Yaik Cossacks on the right bank of the Yaik, from the mouth to the middle reaches of the river, began in the XVIII century. In the first half of the XVIII century there arose a system of defensive lines. At all convenient points they built fortifications to repel invasions from the Kirghiz steppes. At the same time the middle part of military lands remained empty. The movement along the line lasted for about sixty years, but at the beginning of the XIX century it comes to an end due to extinction of mass raids from the steppe. As a result, the economic development of the Ural Cossacks begins. Inner lands started to be filled with people, outposts and umets (settlements) were built, there appeared public and private farms. This movement from the outer line to the Volga River had two main reasons: the development of other sectors of the economy, besides fishing, and the desire to protect their lands from immigrants’ intrusion. Since fishing could no longer feed the everincreasing mass of the Yaik Cossacks, part of them turned to arable farming and animal husbandry. In the places of husbandry development the Cossacks began to create separate winterings and farms. However, the steppes to the west and the east of the Ural River had been long a territory of nomadic Turkic tribes. In the era of the Golden Horde, here, in the mountains of Mugodzhary, there was a border between Batu Khan’s and his younger brother Shiban’s uluses. In summer Nomads of the eastern part of Ulus Batu (the Sary-Kipchaks ) dispersed along the steppe rivers, while in winter they lived in the vicinity of the lake Shalkar and the lower reaches of the Great and the Small Uzen Rivers, on the shores of the Sary Kamysh lakes. It is here that most of the nomadic mounds of the XIII-XIV centuries are localized. In the XV-XVI centuries 38 this territory belonged to the Great Nogai Horde , with its capital in the town of Saraichik in the lower reaches of the Ural River. In the XVII and early XVIII centuries, along the right bank of the Ural River (the Yaik) from the mouth of the Ilek river to the mouth of the Ural River there appeared stationary settlements of the Ural (Yaik) Cossacks, creating an obstacle to the free movement of nomads in the steppe. The river became the western border of the nomadic camps of the Kazakhs (Kirghiz-Kaysaks) of the Junior Juz [1; 2]. Since the boundary was not recognized by the nomads, between them and the Russian settlers, who considered the land “empty”, there were constant disputes and clashes [3]. The situation worsened after the Bukeyev, or the Inner Horde separated from the Junior Juz in 1801 and was given lands between the Urals and Akhtuba [4; 5]. Now the bukeevtsy, who had lacked pastures and watering, started wandering legally around the Uzen Rivers and Kamysh-Samarsky lakes. In response, in 1815 the Ural Military Office established three observation posts on the Small Uzen, later renamed into the pickets (Verbovsky , Talovskiy and Abinsky (or Obinsky ) ) [6]. By the beginning of the 30s of the XIX century, along the lower Small Uzen two more outposts were formed – Mokrinskiy and Glinyansky. The total Cossack population of the outposts was 563 people of both sexes in 114 farmyards [7]. By the middle of the XIX century the conflict developed into an open confrontation. In the 1840s, an attempt was made to separate Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky sites. AdjutantGeneral Perovsky considered it necessary not only to keep the Cossacks in these limits, but even add 1220000 acres on both sides of the Urals to their former possessions. It was supposed to draw a border between the Cossacks’ lands and the Bukeyev Horde from the southwest and the west so that: 1) the Small and the Great Uzen Rivers might become a natural boundary between the Kazakhs and Cossacks; 2) Kamysh-Samarsky lakes with their shore pastures were to be divdied so that the part of them, formed by the Small Uzen River, might be given to the Kazakhs, and the part formed by the Great Uzen – to the Cossacks [8]. A specially established board studied the problem comprehensively. In 1845, it made a final conclusion, indicating the impossibility of divestiture of a significant part of the Cossack 39 lands in the disputed areas, "For all these reasons, the lands of Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky sites are not only unnecessary for the host as providing its animal husbandry in the present and the future, but without them, at least without significant parts thereof, the host, with the proven need for the development of its husbandry, according to the opinion of the special board, can not manage, and so divestiture of these sites from the host will have adverse consequences for the latter..."[7]. In the same 1845, the Military Council found no reasons to reduce the limits of ownership of the Ural host: "Reducing the Cossack lands, although proposed by the Orenburg Military Governor in one respect, would be contrary to his own acknowledgement of shortage, already perceived by Cossacks, of the land allowance, according to his predecessors' opininon and the revealed needs of the host. Therefore the Military Council ... considered: the border of all the land of the Ural host should be appointed and approved for ever in the following way: ... the west one between the Kamysh-Samara Lakes and the Uzen Rivers should be laid along the estates of Adjutant-General Perovsky and his predecessors..."[8]. The issue seemed to have been resolved, but the Bukeyev Kazakhs ignored the established boundaries and continued to come to the disputed territory due to lack of fodder. The Orenburg military governor board reacted to it with understanding. Thus, the found in the archives order of the governor V.A. Obruchev allowed the Kazakhs to graze their cattle in winter on the banks of the Uzen Rivers and Kamysh-Samarsky lakes within the lands of the Ural Cossack host free of charge [9]. It was when Perovsky was the Governor-General that special Commission already suggested (according to the prior conclusion of the Military Council) splitting this disputed area equally between the parties in order to provide the Ural Cossacks with the lower part and the Kyrgyz of the Bukeyev Horde with its upper part. When considering these options, the Governor-General fully agreed with them and having supported them with the new evidence, presented his review in May 1856 [10]. It is worth noting that according to the statistics by the beginning of 1860s the Cossack population of Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky sites was small. On the left bank of the 40 Small Uzen there was Karakalpatskoe settlement as well as Talovskiy, Verbovsky, Abinsky, Mokrinskiy and Glyniany outposts. On the Great Uzen and in the Kamysh-Samarsky Lakes area there was Borodin farm, Slamihin farm, Uspa-Dzhulsky farm and Muhorsky post. The total population here was equal to 1374 people of both sexes (687 males and 687 females) [11]. The fate of the disputed land was finally resolved on February 12, 1865: "According to the highest statement of the Committee of Ministers the 35-year-long dispute between the Kirghiz and the Cossacks of the Ural host over the area between the Great and the Small Uzen Rivers was resolved. This decision was made in 1865-1866 by the special Board that planned the border between the two parties" [12]. The work on delimitation launched on July 20, 1865 from Berezovsky cordon was brought to Sakrylsky Lake. After that the planning stopped due to unclear understanding of the conclusions of the Committee of Ministers on the delimitation of the area between Sakrylsky and Kamysh-Samarsky lakes. In autumn the Board stopped the work and was called by the Orenburg GovernorGeneral N.A. Kryzhanovskii to Orenburg. Having explained the precise meaning of the conclusion of the Committee of Ministers, the Governor-General offered the Board to resume the work in the spring of 1866 [13]. Upon completion of delimitation of Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky areas the Orenburg Governor-General noted that the work of the special Board based on not quite correct principles and therefore denied its conclusions informing the Minister of the Military and the Interior. The main reason of the Governor-General’s opinion was the assertion that the Kirghiz as a nomadic people should be given the largest possible amount of land and the Cossacks as fishermen should be given the most of the water supply of Mezhdu-Uzensky area [14]. Formally, the work was continued, but now according to a new draft of the Orenburg Governor-General. As a result, on March 29, 1871 there appeared a highly approved decision of the State Council "On delimitation of the land between the Ural Cossack host and the Bukeyev Kirghiz". "Having considered the proposal of the Minister of Military on the division of the land between the Ural Cossack host and the Bukeyev Kirghiz, the State 41 Council, at the Department of State Economy and at the General Assembly, decided to put the border between the Ural Cossack host and the Bukeyev Kirghiz according to the line planned by the Orenburg Governor-General, Adjutant-General Kryzhanovsky..." [15]. On the basis of this document the Mezhdu-Uzensky area comprising 1024383 dessiatinas (dessiatina is a measure of land equal to 2.7 acres) was divided between the Ural Cossacks and the Kirghiz Inner Horde (the Cossacks were given 130529 dessiatinas i.e. about 13 % of the disputed territory). It was found necessary to give the area occupied by the Kirghiz on the Great Uzen to the Cossacks, but as the immediate compulsion of the Kirghiz to move with their winter huts could be accompanied by bad consequences for them, it was decided to leave the Kirghiz there for three years. Composed of officials of both concerned parties the Board under the chairmanship of the official appointed by the Governor-General decided to leave 2787 tents on the Cossack lands and provide them with 104,481 dessiatinas of land [16]. Thus, the struggle for the use of the land on the MezhduUzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky areas between the Ural Cossacks and the Bukeyev Kirghiz (the Kazakhs) lasted for more than fifty years. It was the beginning of the XIX century when the first Cossack outposts started being constructed on the Small Uzen that were intended to protect the Mezhdu-Uzensky and later KamyshSamarsky area from the newly formed the Bukeyev Kyrgyz (Inner) Horde and other nomads. The government needed to resolve land disputes that arose and that were to end with fair delimitation of these areas. However, the first attempts of this work did not remove all the contradictions. Therefore, in the 40s of the XIX century a special Board on the separation of two disputed areas was created. After a thorough study of the issue the Board concluded that much of the land of the Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky areas was necessary for the Ural Cossack host to enlarge the military capital and to provide qualified performance of their military duties. Although the approximate boundary line of the Ural host and the Bukeyev Horde for the disputed land was identified by V.A. Perovsky, the military governor of Orenburg, the disputes still continued later. The new 42 boundary line between the Ural Cossack host and the Bukeyev Horde was finally established only after 1865. In preparing the draft of the new border the opinion of the Orenburg Governor-General N. Kryzhanowsky was considered, who claimed that most of these areas should be given to the Kirghiz of the Bukeyev Horde that might suffer substantial economic losses without these lands, while the Ural Cossacks should get only those areas where they perform active economic activity. The work was continued, but according to the new draft of the Orenburg Governor-General. As a result, on March 29, 1871 there appeared a highly approved decision of the State Council "On delimitation of the land between the Ural Cossack host and the Bukeyev Kirghiz". On the basis of this document the disputed areas that comprised 1024383 dessiatinas were divided between the Ural Cossacks and the Kirghiz of the Inner Horde. At the same time the local Cossacks received only 130529 dessiatinas, that is about 13% of the total area. Bibliography 1. Rychkov P.I. Topografija Orenburgskaja. Chast' pervaja. – S-Pb.: Izdatel'stvo Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1762. P. 135136. 2. Georgi I.G. Opisanie vseh obitajushhih v Rossijskom gosudarstve narodov. – S-Pb.: Izdatel'stvo Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1799. P. 121. 3. Materialy dlja geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye oficerami General'nogo Shtaba. Ural'skoe kazach'e vojsko. Chast' 1. Sostavil General'nogo Shtaba poruchik A. Rjabinin. – S-Pb.: Tipografija Je. Vejmara, 1866. P. 104-105. 4. Aristov N.A. Zametki ob jetnicheskom sostave tjurkskih plemen i narodnostej i svedenija ob ih chislennosti // Zhivaja starina. Vypusk III i IV. – S-Pb.: Tipografija Imperatorskogo Russkogo geograficheskogo obshhestva, 1896. P. 385. 5. Polnoe Sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj Imperii Sobranie 1. Tom XXX. № 23164. – S.-Pb.: Tipografija II Otdelenija sobstvennoj E. I. V. Kanceljarii, 1830. P. 435. 43 6. Ural'skoe kazach'e vojsko. Statisticheskoe opisanie v 2-h tomah. Sostavil N. Borodin. Tom I. – Ural'sk: Tipografija Ural'skogo kazach'ego vojska, 1891. P. 24-25. 7. Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj istoricheskij arhiv. Fond 853. Opis' 1. Delo 38. List 1-41. 8. Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj istoricheskij arhiv. Fond 1291. Opis' 81. Delo 136a. List 251-251. 9. Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj istoricheskij arhiv. Fond 1291. Opis' 82. Delo 8. List 1. 10. Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj istoricheskij arhiv. Fond 853. Opis' 1. Delo 66. List 169. 11. Materialy dlja geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye oficerami General'nogo Shtaba. Ural'skoe kazach'e vojsko. Chast' 2. Prilozhenija. Sostavil General'nogo Shtaba poruchik A. Rjabinin. – S-Pb.: Tipografija Je. Vejmara, 1866. P. 101. 12. Gosudarstvennyj arhiv Rossijskoj Federacii. Fond 678. Opis' 1. Delo 622. List 25. 13. Gosudarstvennyj arhiv Rossijskoj Federacii. Fond 678. Opis' 1. Delo 617. List 19. 14. Gosudarstvennyj arhiv Rossijskoj Federacii. Fond 678. Opis' 1. Delo 625. List 23-24. 15. Polnoe Sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj Imperii. Sobranie 2. Tom XLVI. Otdelenie 1. № 49413. – S-Pb.: Tipografija II Otdelenija sobstvennoj E. I. V. Kanceljarii, 1874. P. 275. 16. Gosudarstvennyj arhiv Rossijskoj Federacii. Fond 678. Opis' 1. Delo 647. List 31-33. Key words The Ural Cossacks, the Bukeyev Horde, Mezhdu-Uzensky disputed area, Kamysh-Samarsky disputed area, delimitation. Annotation The article examines the process of delimitation between Mezhdu-Uzensky and Kamysh-Samarsky sites of the Volga and Ural region in 40-70-ies of the XIX century. Particular attention is paid to the activities of the government for resolving land conflicts in these areas between the Ural Cossacks and the Bukeyev Kirghiz. 44 *** The study was performed in the framework of the basic part of the State assignment for the research work of the Ministry of Education and Science (2014-2016). The Subject of the research: "Nomads of the Golden Horde in the XIII-XV centuries and Ural Cossacks in the XVI-XIX centuries: the problems of ethnic and socio-cultural continuity " (Project № 2936) <Translation from Russian Iksanova R.M.> 45 Lizunova I.V. Regional publishing space at the beginning of the XXI century: ways of development The Russian book market in early XXI century, entereing a period of relatively stable and gradual development, is characterized by: – the dominance of the publishing activity of private business; – intense competition between publishers; – expansion of information potential publishing environment while maintaining significant differences of publishing opportunities in regions which differ among themselves by geographical, social, economic, investment and innovation conditions, human, printing and financial resources, available social-cultural traditions; – search for new sale channels of published products – along with traditional forms of book distribution through wholesale and retail units it was developed various kinds of special sales: through non-book shops, associations, book clubs, Internat, remotely etc.; – segmentation of the book market related with differerentiation and niche formation of certain groups of readers and others. A modern regional publishing space has been formed in Siberia and the Far East at the beginning of the XXI century. It was characterized by the following features: – functioning of large publishing centers, expansion of geography of book production and distribution; – existing social-cultural and publishing traditions; – entrepreneurial activity of publishers and sponsors; – attention of the local authorities to this public sphere [1]; – state target support of publishing books in languages of indigenous peoples of Siberia, the Far East and the Far North; – priorities in output of socially valuable literature: local history, scientific and popular works on history, philology and folklore of the peoples living in the region, the best works of local artists, young writers and poets, children, adolescents and youth literature, national literature, etc. 46 The main base of the publishing space in post-Soviet Siberia remains Novosibirsk, developed centers are Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Tyumen. Leadership positions in publishing belong to Khabarovsk and Vladivostok at the Far East. At the beginning of the XXI century publishing activity in the region has become much more active. However, there is still a high concentration of the largest book business in the center of the country - more than a half of all publishers, especially in the capital cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Moscow accounts more than 60% in the total number of book titles manufacture and more than 80 % in terms of circulation of all published books and booklets in Russia (see Fig. 1). 2011 2008 Shares by number of issued publications Shares by circulation Other regions; 11% Other regions; 31% Moscow; 61% Saint Petersburg; 5% Saint Petersburg; 8% Moscow; 84% Other regions; 11% Other regions; 36% Moscow; 56% Saint Petersburg; 8% Saint Petersburg; 4% Moscow; 85% Figure 1. Shares of regions in the geography of the Russian publishing Monocentrism of the book market directly influences on the degree of publishing products richness in Siberia and the Far East, primarily by local production. Meanwhile the most part of published book titles and their circulation falls on Siberia in the structure of the regional publishing space. 73% of published books was the share of the Siberian Federal District (SFD) in 2001–2009, while the share of the Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD) was only 26.3%. With 47 respect to circulation the pattern of book publishing was the following: Siberia produced 77.3 % of the total regional editions of books and booklets, and the Far East – only 22.7%. (see Fig. 2, 3) [2]. 100 80 60 40 20 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 SFD 74,8 75,3 74,9 76,7 76,7 80,6 81,1 75,8 81,6 FEFD 25,2 24,7 25,1 23,3 23,3 19,4 18,9 24,4 18,4 Figure 2. Production of books and booklets by titles in the Siberian and Far Eastern Federal Districts in 2001–2010., % of the total production of books and booklets in Russia *SFD – Siberian Federal District, FEFD – Far Eastern Federal District It’s notable the assessment of the book market development level in Siberia and the Far East by local experts: "The Siberian publishing market is a phenomenon of a cultural rather than economic order. Deprived of the state support and opportunities to compete with the capital players on equal terms, the most Siberian publishers are struggling to make ends meet. Today the bookstore boom is marked in Russia. If by 2000 the turnover of domestic bookselling was about $1 billion, then in 2005, according to various estimates, this amount reached the mark of $1.7 to $2 billion. However, regional, including Siberian book publishing, remains on the periphery of this explosion as before, trying to survive and dodge on tiny and very specific segments of the book market" [3]. 48 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 SFD 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,5 0,7 0,8 1,5 0,7 FEFD 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,5 0,1 Figure 3. Production of books and booklets on circulations in the Siberian and Far Eastern Federal Districts in 2001–2010., % of the production of books and booklets in Russia Let us give the thoughts of publishing enterprises leaders on regional publishing indicators such as a number of publications and their circulation: "According to the statistics of the Russian Book Chamber, the total volume of products printed by Siberian publishers on the number of titles was 5802 units – shared 5.7% of the Russia's total annual volume of printed products. There are tiny amounts of production and only one relatively large publishing house in the entire region – a paradoxical situation sui generis considering the fact of existing a sufficient powerful printing base in Novosibirsk (capital of Siberia is the third after Moscow and St. Petersburg by a number of printing houses), and remembering that bookselling network "Top book", the Russian book market leader, is also in the native land" [3]. Experts call the reasons for which, in their opinion, the Siberian book publishing is in decline. First of all, all printing facilities, the sources of printing materials, financial and human resources are in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Consequently, it’s much easier and more profitable to publish books in the center of the country for the central publishing houses than beyond the Urals for regional publishers. In addition, the negative role plays the 49 irregular and inflexible system of state financial support of regional publishers. Besides to the mentioned above factors hindering the development of Siberian and Far Eastern book market one more can be called, namely the market limitation. Except to low bandwidth of modern bookstores, it can be noted disinterestedness of major bookselling companies in acquisition and promotion of small individual publications of Siberian companies. This, in turn, is a serious problem for many regional publishers, which do not have both own book-driving networks and the opportunities of outlet not only to the national book market, but even to the local one. Experts conclude that in comparison with the 1980's, when volumes of fiction were higher than in the whole of the USSR, the profitability of modern small regional publishers of a similar universal profile is extremely low, it remains at the level of elementary self-sufficiency. Generally for regional book publishing few attractive and unoccupied thematic segments of the market remains. They are local history, the fields of regional knowledge and interests: history, economy, nature, geography and local literary and artistic phenomena. Within the framework of regional issues many territorial and regional publishing centers of Siberia and the Far East are implemented: PH "Sova", PH "Istoricheskoe nasledie Sibiri", " Infolio" in Novosibirsk, "Sibirica" in Tomsk, publishing houses "Bukva", "Klaretianum" in Krasnoyarsk, "Mandry i K" in Tyumen, "Nasledie. Dialog-Sibir’" in Omsk, publishing and printing company "Kuzbass" in Kemerovo, PH "Priamurskie vedomosti" and "Chastnaya kollektsiya" in Khabarovsk , publishing office "Russky ostrov" in Vladivostok, etc. Formation of a multidimensional and diverse regional publishing space depends on many factors. First of all, thematic niches of regional publishers “sparsely inhabited a vast region" are much narrower than the central publishers [4]. Consequently, the abilities for maneuver, both economic, financial, human resources and printing and book-driving capacity are also low. Moreover, under conditions of growing economic and cultural attraction of the center on the background of intensifying competition in the publishing sphere the provincial book publishers have to choose 50 further ways of development: to identify and to take free specific market segments; to monitor readers' needs and to publish books in accordance with them; or to lose the independence and functioning due to financial support of the local ruling elite, entrepreneurs and sponsors, turning into actors of a certain regionally powerful order. Bibliography 1. Volkova V. N. Modern Siberian cities as centers of book publishing // The 4th Makushin reading. Novosibirsk, 1997. P. 191– 195. In Russ. 2. Printing in the Russian Federation in 2000–2010. Moscow: Russ. book chamber, 2001–2011. In Russ. 3. Goldberg S. Stay alive. Siberian publishing market analysis // Publisher Sapronov. URL: http://www.sapronovbook.ru/public/143-ostatsja-v-zhivykh.-analiz-sibirskogorynka.html. In Russ. 4. Posadskov A. L. What determines the independent publishers: some sore spots of regional book publishing // Regional book publishing in Russia. Moscow, 2008. P. 122–126. In Russ. Key words Publishing space, books, Siberia, the Far East, printing house, publisher, publishing organization, publishing industry, publishing business, regional book printing, book market, reform, modernity. <Translated from Russian> 51 Mazaeva T.A. Stone towers of Chechnya. To a question of architectural form interpretation Stone constructions were built in Chechnya at the foreseeable ancient history. Among them, the most common and well-known are the towers. Tower architecture of Chechnya has always attracted keen interest both travelers and researchers. Among them are A.P. Berger, A.P. Ippolitov, V.F.Miller, E.I.Krupnov, S.Ts. Umarov etc. Tower in the village Upper Lamey Tower in the village Shatoy Tower in the village Tsa –Kale The first architecturally aligned section of tower with the accompanying sketches was published in 1928. It belonged to the painter and ethnographer I.P. Shcheblykin. We can read about the impression that tower built in Chechnya and Ingushetia fired on I.P. Shcheblykin: “The form is perfectly simple and austere. With amazing harmony, proportion and quite a high altitude, they are stable and durable. We are struck by the skill of builders, their style and ability to resolve so gorgeous and translate into real shape their ideas and imagination "[Shcheblykin 1928: 17 52 In 1956, on the initiative of Eugeny Ignatievitch Krupnov, who headed the North Caucasian archaeological expedition to study the monuments of local architecture, a special Mountain (Argun) group was created, which had to describe the corresponding construction, measure them, sketch and photograph. These researches were headed by V.I. Markovin, who devoted to this work 10 years (1956-1966). In this researches, we will rely on materials of the most authoritative researchers Nakh tower architecture, and publications of recent years, which summarize all previous experience of studying these monuments. These authors are the following: - V.I.Markovin, who in the last fundamental monograph “The North Caucasus. Essays on Ancient and Medieval History and Culture”, published in 2003 in conjunction with R.M.Munchaev, in the chapter on medieval Nakh architecture, summarized the current state of academic research on these unique monuments; - Lecha Ilyasov, who conducted great research on Chechen tower architecture and published two monographs “Shadows of Eternity" and "The Culture of the Chechen people” in 2004 and 2009. - D.Yu. Chahkiev, who published two volumes in 2003 and 2009. There were published though very fragmentary, but still very 53 valuable for any researcher, “archaeological map” of a number of monuments of medieval Nakh architecture. The main forms and functions of Nakh towers were identified in these studies. According to these authors, residential, semi-combat and combat towers were built in Chechnya. Semicombat and combat towers were used as defensive structures and also served as escort and signal posts. The subject of our analysis are the most advanced in this series both from an aesthetic point of view and the level of architectural excellence and building techniques - the so-called “Combat” towers. Here is a description of these towers: V.I. Markovin: «Battle tower were erected ... near residential buildings, but often in the most inaccessible places - on rocky cliffs, steep slopes above the rivers and at places that occupies strategically important points - at the junction of roads at the entrance to the gorge. There are towers attached to the rocks niches (near the villages Nihaloy, Ushkaloy, Mutsaroy etc.). They are built without a foundation ... but their basement is always composed of most massive stones, sometimes exceeding the height of a man. Their masonry ... always have cornerstones. The area of a basement is 5x5 m; 4x4 m, it strongly narrows upwards (to 4x4 m, 3x3 m) ... Reaching a height of 20 meters or more, if they seems to be directed to the sky, this feeling is reinforced by strictly symmetrical arrangement of apertures on the vertical axis and by their harmonious pyramidal-ledged completion. Tower harmony is also emphasized by a rounded stone spire, which ends the pyramid of a roof. Magnificent proportions of “balconies” “mashikuli” also contributes to it. They are brought forward on consoles at four sides at the very top of the tower and lancet shaped apertures are always visible behind them ..... Nakh towers are always richly decorated: it is a kind of “rods” of a narrow girdle of jutting rocks, lines of stones set obliquely or on the edge, segments of notched masonry “with one stone missed”, give a bright light and shadow game "[Markovin, Munchayev 2003: 282-283]. Some refinements introduces L.Ilyasov in his description: “..... they have a quite big height (up to 25 m), a relatively small basement area (5x5 m), a fairly large taper angle upwards ... 54 mashikuli were basically of the same type, representing lined balconies of stone slabs that were attached to the two, three or more consoles, had no bottom. There were large shooting apertures in the tower walls on the mashikuli side. From these apertures defenders of tower could fight against besiegers. There were holes in the walls - loopholes and observational gap on all floors of the tower ... many towers with pyramidal and stepped roof had doorways on all floors, which decreased in proportion to the narrowing of the tower” [Ilyasov 2009: 225].... Virtually all combat towers described by D.Chahkiev “.... outside walls were abundantly treated with light yellow colour plaster” [Chahkiev 2009: 8]. Our first thesis concerning so-called “combat” stone towers of Chechnya, which are traditionally belonged to defensive structures, is in the fact, that they are not exactly defensive. In order to substantiate this statement let us refer to the structure of tower and its functional, or namely, defensive capabilities. Tower architecture is quite a widespread phenomenon in the world architecture. Starting from ancient times, towers either embedded in walls or stand alone as medieval donzhons in Europe, were used for defensive purposes. The most important conditions for their use for defense purposes were the following: - ability to concentrate inside the tower food and water sufficient to withstand a siege; - presence of an underground passage, which generally has access to a water source and simultaneously used to escape in case of destruction; - ability to hide at least for members of one family, which at the time consisted of 10 or more people; - ability to concentrate inside the tower arsenal of weapons sufficient to combat; - successful defense of tower, possibly for a long time, taken into account the strength and the means for attack in the arsenal of enemy at the moment. “Battle” towers in Chechnya do not match none of these conditions. 1. These authors argue that food supplies were concentrated in the stone bags-sections on the ground floor. 55 V.I. Markovin wrote: “Four-five-storey vainakh towers had cellars in which they store purveyance and kept captives, which were expecting decision of his fate in special stone”bags” [Markovin, Munchayev 2003:283]. Our reference: In most towers the first floor has no interior space, it was filled with stones and soil, and even if such a space exists, one can get into it only came down from the second floor. Stone bag – section In the so-called bags-compartments Chechens could store grain, flour, corn, dried meat, but it was hardly possible for several reasons: - Bags-sections are quite large in size and filling them with food at enemy approaching is unreasonable and quite dangerous. So, it was necessary to keep some minimal food rations permanently. It was also very problematic, because dampness and small rodents would lead to spoilage, and their stock would have to be constantly updated. This should be done by lifting it beforehand to the second floor and then moving it down to the first floor, which resembles in itself a “Sisyphean task”. And finally, even if in the beginning of a siege in these bags-sections the necessary supplies of flour, meat and other products would have been, there were no place to cook them, for there is no hint a hearth presence in the towers. Of course, in case of danger precipitated could bring already cooked food with them, but it could not be so much, that 56 there was the need to move it dawn to the first floor and load it in raw bags-sections. According to existing version, captives were kept in bagssections. It also seems to be unlikely. The internal space of the first floor is so small that could accommodate almost huddled together 5-7 captives. It is impossible neither to sleep nor to meet the natural needs; the food should have been down through the second floor, taking away the scraps in each case, that would otherwise rot in confined spaces. Attitude to prisoners was special in Chechnya. This is indicated by the data of folklore and numerous contemporaries who visited Chechnya. A decent captive soldier was given either freedom (the most striking example is the story of Prince Bagration ), or offered to stay and live among the Chechens (the legend of the Kabardian prince Tazite). Other prisoners were released for ransom. Before receiving this ransom prisoners lived in the Chechen families, where they were supposed to work on a par with the owners, but they also obtained life satisfaction on a par with the hosts. Mountains of Chechnya were too severe and the possibility of escape from the Chechen village was so dangerous that there was no need to put the prisoner in the beauty- tower, thereby significantly complicating his keep. In addition, the Chechen ethical standards also did not allow just to keep a healthy man, he necessarily had to work for his food. All of the above evidence in favor of the fact that the first floor of the tower had not been adapted neither for food stocks, nor for detention of prisoners. 2. As for the underground passage leading to the water source and allowing to leave the tower, none of construction, described in the scientific literature, has such a passage.. 3. Could Chechen family, consisting usually of three generations, hide in a tower and not only hide, but also to defend themselves? It can be assumed that the family, numbering 10 or more people could stay on the 3rd and 4th floors, for, as the researchers say, cattle was kept on the second floor during the siege. However, tower could neither to withstand a siege, nor to protect people hidden in it. Markovin wrote about the defense of tower:: 57 «A shooter could fight of flintlock or archery standing on a top of mashikuli walls”. Stones, boiling water etc. could be thrown dawn the bottom, since mashikuli had no floor» ”. [Markovin, Munchayev 2003: 283].. Our reference: Firearms appeared in the Caucasus only in the late XVI century the early XVII century, and became widespread only in the late XVIII century. In the monograph about Caucasian weapons we can read: «Armament of Caucasian highlanders have long been consisted of defensive armor, helmet and bracers and of offensive weapons - a bow and arrows, spears, darts, swords and daggers. Firearms spread in the XVIII century and for some time a bow and arrow, gun and defensive armor coexisted.» [http://www.spektr.info/articles/zanyatiya/16]. Strictly scientific dating of Chechen towers is not exist. According to the tradition established by the first explorers of these facilities since the XIX century, towers are dated from the XI-XIII centuries and till the early XVIII century. In the second half of the eighteenth century, these stone structures have not been built. Thus, the defense of towers could be held only with a bow and arrows. Besides, defenders could dump on enemy stones and pour hot tar. Ilyasov writes: - «…top floor was intended for firing, shooters located at apertures which held at gunpoint approaches to the tower. Archery was conducted over the balcony, which covered the shooter …… Narrowing tower upward allowed defenders to throw to stones by besiegers, the direction of their fall was unpredictable due to ricochet and Inflicts unexpected damage. If the enemy approached the tower close, then they poured boiling water through mashikuli, boiling tar” [Ilyasov 2009: 227] Our reference: - The area of the first floor by the outer perimeter is usually 5x5 or 4x4 m, as we move up it becomes narrower and to the fifthsixth floor reaches by the outer perimeter, as V.I. Markovin indicates, 4x4 or 3x3 meters. Interior space, given the thickness of the walls (95cm from the bottom to the top 45-50 cm) at the 4th floor and above has dimensions of 2.5 x 2.5 m and 2x2 m. Climbing to the top floor of tower was significantly hampered, in the absence of stone stairs, climbing was possible 58 only by nicks on the wooden beam. This implies that the supply of arms should be lifted in advance and in sufficient amount. Wooden stars It was almost impossible to do for several reasons: - to pour tar, throw stones, and archery were possible only from the top floor, where the defenders are protected by mashikulis. Constrained space on this floor, which had in addition wood flooring, did not allow concentrating here large rocks, boiling tar, which had no place to boil, and fighting archers with their ammunition - it was also impossible to bring means of tower defense during a fight because the approaches to it were not protected, and there were no underground tunnels. - keep stocks of arrows, stones, and boiling tar in the tower at the time was too expensive and it was hardly possible. The so-called loopholes in towers were also not suitable for defense, and not by accident in the monograph of Ilyasov we read: «……There were many loopholes and inspection holes in the walls of tower on each floor, they were often very difficult to 59 distinguish from each other. Such loopholes could not be used for archery, although it is also doubtful to use most of them in firing from firearm” [Ilyasov 2009: 227-228]. Besides, loophole serve for shooting in a given direction, i.e. assumes approach of enemy from the one side while the tower was open from all sides. The distance from which it was possible to shoot an arrow from a bow is 40-50 meters. In case if the archer shot over mashikuli, from the height of 18-20 meters and above, this is the distance, which is particularly difficult to sweep. None of the “archaeological maps” of “combat” towers made by D. Chahkiev, mention finds in the form of arrowheads, as well as no wall of extant towers have traces of spilled tar, although given the slope of tower and the fact that it was hot, tar was bound to leave such a trace. The researchers also never mention blockages of stones found near the towers. It is also very important that the towers were highly vulnerable to fire. Kindled arrow, hitting the inside of a tower, with its wooden floors and stair beams, would immediately led to a fire and there were no means to extinguish it. Smoke from a fire kindled at the outer walls of tower, also threatened the lives of those who hid there. We can add to the above the following: The researched towers are truly often located in hard-to reach areas, on steep slopes and cliffs, but this is not the rule. Many towers have been built on the plain, in the center of villages; they were usually part of the castle complex that is located inside the ramparts, surrounded by 5-7 residential towers. As follows from the scientific literature “combat” towers were built with particular intensity during and after the Mongol invasion and military expansion Timur. It is known that the Mongols widely have used Chinese rams, power of which could destroy easily much more powerful walls surrounding cities of Khorezm, and in 1239 the Mongols took Derbent, had easily destroyed its walls and towers during the storming. In 1395 Timur destroyed and burned Derbent. There is no doubt that none of the so-called “combat” Chechen towers could withstand this power, the more, their location often makes them excellent targets for battering rams. 60 And finally, this tower defense contradicts conventional military tactics that Chechens adhered in its reliably observable history. The Chechens almost never build stationary defensive structures, and in general rarely resorted to defensive combat tactics. During the Caucasian War, Shamil built the fortresses, but in most cases they do not decided the outcome of battle. In the case of obvious superiority of enemy Chechens went to the mountains and suddenly attacked, ambushing and taking advantage of the mountainous terrain. “Only feeling mountains by back and relying on them Chechen was fearless in battle”, - a famous poet in Chechnya Apti Bisultanov writes in one of his poems. Thus, all of the above leads us to believe that the so-called “combat” tower of Chechnya could not to withstand a siege, even short-lived, and protect people hidden in it. With what purpose Chechens persistently built these towers for centuries, protected them and without thinking of so large costs for that time, restored them in the case of destruction? In our opinion, the so-called “combat” Chechen towers are actually places of worship dedicated to the supreme god of the pagan pantheon of Chechens - the sun god Dela. As with many ancient temples, rituals took place here not inside, but outside, near the walls of the towers. To uncover this thesis we need to touch pre-Islamic beliefs of the Chechens. Knowledge about these beliefs stores folk memory even today; furthermore, separate elements of pagan cults exist in Chechen culture even today in the form of some relics. For example, sun oath was widespread until recently in Chechnya. Researches on this topic are also well represented in the scientific literature. According to scientists (S.-M. Khasiev, Z.Madaeva, etc.) in the pre-Islamic period, we have very coherent picture of the world in the spiritual culture of Chechens, with its cosmogony , mythology and the pantheon of gods headed by a triad - the god of the sun and light Dela, the god of thunder and lightning Sela and the goddess of fertility Tusholi. The material evidence of ancient religious practices of Chechens have also come to us - it is about the megaliths, the sculptured images of the fertility goddess Tusholi, the sanctuary-seling, dedicated to the god of thunder and lightning Sela, which were put in places of thunderbolt. As it has 61 already been mentioned, the folk memory stores knowledge of their true purpose even today. Statue of the goddess Tusholi Sanctuary-Seling in the village Oshni Certainly, the supreme god of the pagan pantheon of Chechens - god of the sun and light Dela had its temples-shrines too, which are, in the fact, the so called “combat" towers, namely tower with a pyramidal-stepped roof. Their construction demanded a huge effort but, nevertheless, they were widespread in medieval Chechnya. And further, one would like to continue argumentation in favor of this version and its development. To the provisions contained above, that these towers are not designed for fighting and not adapted for any effective defense, can be added the following: 1. Almost all investigated towers have solar signs on their walls. Large solid stones with solar signs are found in the walls of more recent residential towers, at the same time, it can be often seen that builders tried to knock signs of an alien religion from stones (for residential buildings in Itum-Khale ), apparently taken from the demolished older buildings. 62 Petroglyphs on the walls of the towers 2. 3. Internal walls of the towers are completely covered with a thick layer of soot. This is not traces of fire, but namely soot from the flames constantly supported, likely in luminaires with burning oil. There are two types of holes within the walls of the towers. The first are usually small-sized and resemble recesses. They have such a construction that lighted candle posed here does not extinguish. The second are wider apertures which have the form of ventilation shaft and apparently they are exactly shafts. 63 Vent Niches for lamps One can only admire the skill of tower builders, who had created a construction where in a rather cramped space on scattered by the walls niches the fire could be kept without fear that it will fade from the wind or lack of oxygen. It is hard to say today how lights standing in a recess looked like, but even the very limited archaeological survey, conducted at the walls of the towers gave samples of the so-called “cup” stones, which, in our view , erroneously been identified as tools for the gunpowder 64 manufacturing. Such “cup” stones are well known to the ancient archaeological materials and they served as lamps with burning oil. 4. Exterior walls of towers were covered with light yellow (sun symbol) plaster and strictly focused on parts of the world, i.e. the east-west direction is very clearly observed here, namely the sunrise-sunset. Last floor of the tower with its unique roof, wide windows, arches and mashikuli on four sides at the time of sunrise and sunset create a striking on beauty effect - a kind of “cradle” in which light is born and where returns to extinguish. 5. Мы We meet towers both on ledges, or almost fused to the mountain range, then suddenly on the open plains. The scientific literature explains it by the desire to make them inaccessible. However, in the case of fighting, most likely no one would “start to attack” them, the besiegers would just bypass the potential self-destroyers, leaving several soldiers for the siege. In our opinion, the place for the towers were chosen trying to adapt these “houses of the sun” to fix sunrise and sunset as accurately as possible. 6. It is significant that after the XVIII century throughout in Chechnya Islam was adopted and constructing of towers with pyramidal roof-speed was being ceased , although residential 65 and watch towers continued being built up until the end of the XIX century. "Pagan" symbols i.e. solar signs from these towers were being actively scraped off that solar symbols and began to use these facilities for other purposes. 7. Finally, in our view the important fact is that in the vast folklore heritage of the Chechens there were no mention of the siege and capture of so-called "battle" tower ("bIouv yakkhina"). Bekhaylinskaya Tower Village Nikaroy The next point in the chain of our reasoning is the question whether the form of Chechen towers has analogs in the world architecture? It turned out that has! Stone towers of Chechnya with pyramidal-stepped roof strikingly remind obelisks. 66 Tower in the village Khaibakh Obelisk of senusret i at Heliopolis Obelisk of Pharaoh Tuthmosis Obelisk of Queen Hatshepsut The form of obelisk is well known in the world architecture, in particular worldwide fame have obelisks of ancient Egypt. Preserved Egyptian obelisks belong to the era of the new kingdom and symbolize frozen sunbeam. However, the shape of the obelisk as a cult building appeared long before, in the era of the ancient kingdom, i.e. in III millennium BC. Here is what is written about these structures in the monograph “Art of the Ancient Orient”: “to the most remarkable ... sun temples of the pharaohs of V dynasty…belongs Niusirra temple at Abydos. A central place in this ensemble was assigned to a stone obelisk, which served as a main object of the solar cult. His needle covered with gilt copper, reflected the sun's rays”. [Afanasiev Lukonin, Pomerantseva 1976:223-231]. The encyclopedia of symbols on the obelisk says: «Obelisk is a symbol that was supposed to embody the power of light inherent god Ra. In the Ancient Kingdom obelisks, played the role of main cult images, according to one of the myths, symbolized the sacred stone Ben-Ben, on which Sun rose, born of the watery chaos. Pyramidal tops of columns, covered with copper or gold, was considered 67 the seat of the solar deity at noon "[Encyclopedia 2005 characters]. According to Egyptian legend in the world creation, the first rays of the sun dropped to the Benben stone, standing in the city On (Greek Heliopolis). Recognized as the first demonstration of Atum-Khepri god, he is considered the first of the sacred stone pillars and identified with the first hill. Later he was associated with the cult of the bird Benu (Greek Phoenix) – Ba of god Ra, living at the Benbene. The prototype of sacred bird Benu in ancient Egypt was considered heron, which was a symbol of the rising sun of the morning. Thus, a striking resemblance to the obelisk gives us the possibility to suppose that the stone tower with a pyramidal roofspeed are also places of worship associated with the solar deity, which in the Chechen ethno-cultural environment was the supreme deity of the pagan pantheon - god Dela. It should be noted that along with the obvious similarities with Egyptian obelisks, the Chechen towers have a significant difference from them. The Chechens are not solid stone monoliths, as in Egypt, and constructions with interior space, however, which is absolutely not functional. The reason of it is probably in following: in Egypt and natural resources (quarries) and human resources (huge reserve of slave labor), and peculiarities of the landscape (flat land and desert) allowed to carve the obelisk in the quarry in the form of a monolith and deliver it to the place of position. In Chechnya, in the mountains, in the absence of such a vast pool of slave labor - it would be impossible, and because obelisks were erected using internal forests, in connection with it, and there was virtually no functional interior space. There is also another hypothesis. Perhaps the Chechen tower- obelisk is much more archaic form of obelisks than Egyptian monuments. This issue requires a further study, although today we can make some observations. The latest sensation in Egyptology was the discovery by the French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin the presence in the bowels of the pyramid ramps, i.e. actually internal "forests", indicating that there is no solid masonry and inside the pyramid there is the same as in the Chechen towers not functional, associated with technology of construction interior space. 68 The unique architecture of the Chechen towers- obelisks finds analogies not only in the ancient Egyptian culture. In Lebanon in Dzhebeyl city, as scientists believe, there is very ancient but insufficiently nowadays explored the Temple of the Obelisks. This insufficiently explored temple is located in the city with a world-wide fame as the city Dzhebeyl - is an ancient Phoenician city of the Byblos. And, it is interesting, that the Byblos, from ancient times, was in close contact with Egypt. Even in the III millennium BC. Export of Phoenician goods to Egypt was done mainly through the Byblos. From Byblos to Egypt it was exported the valuable cedar of Lebanon, from which sarcophagus and other items were produced that were very important to the Egyptians, for mortuary cult. Egyptian kings of XVIII dynasty made the Byblos their main stronghold on the coast, and Egyptian culture took deep roots here. Temple of obelisks in Byblos As you can see, three very distant from each other locus cultures have unique religious buildings of the same or, at least, very close form. Is there a relationship between them? Connection, and most direct, exists between the city-state of the Byblos and Ancient Egypt. Moreover, the temple of Byblos obelisks and Egyptian obelisks arose in the bosom of one culture. In the case of towers - obelisks in Chechnya, in our opinion, there 69 is no direct connection, but almost certainly, a connection mediated. The origins of Egyptian culture go back to IV-III millennium BC. This was the time when the culture of Egypt phenomenally arose immediately in all its forms and types of images. The fact of absence of these culture usual stages of cultural genesis stressed by all Egyptologists, but still there is no intelligibly definitive explanation for it - there are a number of scientists appealing to extraterrestrial origins of this culture. Our point of view is that this phenomenon is quite understandable by Earth history. At the end of III and in the beginning of IV millennium BC, in the Early Bronze Age on the territory of the Caucasus and adjacent areas of the Middle East (eastern Turkey and northwestern Iran) extends the Kura-Araxes archaeological culture. Important place in the overall number of monuments Kura-Araxes culture occupy the Early Bronze settlements and burial structures of Dagestan and Chechnya. Assessing the historical and archaeological monuments in Chechnya identified and published by members of the North Caucasian expedition V.I.Markovin writes: « Defenite continuity of the historical process starts to be traced from the end of IV millennium BC, when, according to M.G. Gadzhiyev, in the northeastern part of the Caucasus there arise the world famous monuments of the Kura-Araxes culture. This is the time when it is possible to trace a certain continuity and development of the ancient population that lived in the mountains and in the plane of the modern region of the Vainakh1 country» [Markovin 2010: 25]. Thus, Markovin, like much of the scientists caucasiologists believes that the Kura-Araxes culture of the Early Bronze Age reflects the ancient ethnic substrate of the Caucasus, moreover, he specifically points out that it is precisely from this culture one can trace the ethnogenesis of Nakhs-Chechens The attempt to install a language belonging of Kura-Araxes culture native speakers has led researchers, including such eminent scientists as I. Dyakonov and S.Starostin to the following 1 Under this name since the 30-ies of XX century the Chechens and the Ingush, related to them by language and culture, were united 70 conclusion: "At the moment we think that relationship between the hurrian-urartian and East Caucasian languages can be considered proven ..." [Dyakonov, Starostin 1988: 204]. This kind of research has been summed up in the monograph of Markovin and Munchaeva: « Currently, a number of scientists believe that the tribes of the Kura-Araxes culture were carriers of the hurrian-urartian language. One can seriously think that hurrian-urartian language (or, more precisely, one of the languages of this group) in antiquity was extended to the Northeast Caucasus. No wonder, therefore, that the languages of the peoples of the given Caucasus region, in the so-called nakh-dagestan languages it can be traced striking connection with the hurrianurartian language. Such connections could be in this era, during the development of the Kura-Araxes culture carriers of which probably really spoke hurrian-urartian language…» [Markovin V.I., Munchayev 2003: 50]. So we have very important information for our research work: 1. modern Chechens are heirs of Kura-Araxes Culture 2. Kura-Araxes culture carriers were hurrian speakers that is confirmed by preserved proximity of modern EastCaucasian languages to the ancient hurrian language. The author of the book «Ancient people Hurrians Gernot Wilhelm reported that the penetration of the Hurrians from the Caucasus to the Middle East continued from the middle of the IV millennium BC. By the beginning of the II millennium they settled permanently in the south of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, North Mesopotamia and in the foothills of the Zagros. This nation was not only a full-fledged citizen of the Fertile Crescent - its culture became a buffer between the cultures of western and eastern Mediterranean and acquires the features of both [Wilhelm 1992]. It is not much is known of hurrians culture and for the most part, by Hittite and Egyptian sources. However, even these meager information contain information on the towers. It is known that typical hurrians housing was a tiered residential tower - dimtu. In the lower tier which were kept cattle, and in the upper one lived families [Civilization of the Ancient East in 2005: 1331]. Describing one of the roads that ran through the territory of the Hurrians residence by the Tiger river of Upper Mesopotamia to 71 the tin mines of western and southern Afghanistan, G.G.Giorgadze in his work «The Hittites and Hurrians on ancient hittites texts» wrote: «... the road was here from the east through the mountain» gates Fatkhu and crossing the city led to Marie on the Euphrates. Here, presumably on the east coast, on the terrace Hamrin was standing the tower city Unabshe "[Giorgadze 1969: 71]. О значимости хурритской культуры в мировой истории известный археолог и исследователь Л.Вулли пишет так: Completely assimilated sumerian tradition by themselves, they handed them over to the Hittites; and thanks, almost exclusively, to the Hittites the Hurrians learned the art of writing and adopted the cuneiform writing invented by the Sumerians. The hurrians may not have invented, but at least they have spread far beyond the region and in this state maintained the highest civilization, which people at the time reached "[Woolley 1986: 37] The great ancient city - Babylon was one of the centers of «the highest civilization» of antiquity and the achievements of which the Hurrians «spread far beyond the region». It is said in the Catholic Encyclopedia «The striking fact is that most Babylonian cities had ... tower-temples» and further... «Is it possible (in the light of the above said) Babylon was the inventor of religious towers? » Let us summarize: The Hurrians as authors and Kura-Araxes culture carriers stand at the origins of ethno genesis and cultural genesis of the Chechens. An extensive areal of distribution of the Hurrians, starting from the early Bronze Age , is , in our opinion , a hotbed of the culture, archaic forms of which are the Chechens as separate artifacts, particularly towers - obelisks, preserved to this day. On the territory of only one citadel Vaserkel, in the cult center of the of mountainous Chechnya - Maysti, on the high rocky cliffs, preserved the ruins of more than 20 towers. Of course, the given arguments in favor of religious purpose of the Chechen towers - obelisks suppose the further research. There many questions among which is elaboration of towers dating. However, there is obviously «no fighting ...» and «... no defensive» nature of these structures, today, with high probability, let us talk about their religious affiliation. 72 Confirmation of this is the fact that in the vast Chechens folklore heritage there was no mention of the siege and capture of the «battle» tower «b1ouv yakkhina». Bibliography 1. Afanasiev V., Lukonin V., Pomerantseva N.M. The art of the Ancient East. L. The art, 1976. 2. Berzhe А.P. Chechnya and the Chechen people, Tiflis, 1859 3. Wilkhelm G., the Hurrians - ancient people, М., Science, GRVL, 1992. 4. Vulli L. Л. Forgotten tsardom, «Science», Moscow, 1986. 5. Giorgadze G.G. Hittites and the Hurrians on ancient hittites texts. Journal of Ancient History, № 1, 1969. 6. Djakonov I.M., Starostin S.A. The Hurrian-Urartian and the East Caucasian languages. M., Science, 1988. 7. Ilyasov L. The culture of the Chechen people. History and modernity. М. 2009. 8. Ippolitov A.P. Ethnographic essays of Argun District / / Proc. information about the Caucasian highlanders; Issue 1. Tiflis, 1868. 9. Kroupnov E.I. The ancient history of the North Caucasus. M.1960 10. Markovin V.I. Archaeological aspect in the study of ethno genesis of vainakh. //Chechen archive. Grozny, 2010 Issue III. 11. Markovin V.I., Munchayev R.M. The North Caucasus. Essays on ancient and medieval history and culture. Moscow, 2003. 12. Miller V.F. Terskiy region: Archaeological tours / / Materials on the archeology of the Caucasus. - Vol.1, M., 1888 13. Umarov S.Ts. Architecture of the late medieval mountain Chechen-Ingushetia. / / Monuments of the fatherland, Moscow, 1975 14. Civilization of Mesopotamia and its neighboring countries in the II millennium BC.: Civilizations of the Ancient East. M., Directmedia Publishing, 2005. 15. Chahkiev D.Yu Antiquities of mountainous Ingushetia. Nalchik, 2009. 73 16. Shcheblykin I.P. Art of Ingush in artefacts // Proceedings of the Ingush Research Institute of Regional Studies; No.1, Vladikavkaz, 1928. 17. Encyclopedia of characters. Moscow-St. 2005 18. http://www.spektr.info/articles/zanyatiya/16 Illustrations 1. Village Upper Lamey 2. Shatoysky tower 3. Stone tower (cut, plans of 2nd floors, details) pic. of I.P. Shcheblykin, 1927 4. Bekhaylinskaya tower 5. Staircase 6. Stone bags section 7. Recess for lamps 9. Vent 10. The village Tsa- khale 13. Statue of the goddess Tusholi 14. Sanctuary in the village Oshni. 15-16. Petroglyphs on the walls of the towers 17. Window arched stone with petroglyphs 18. Cup stone 19. Temple obelisks in Byblos 20. Tower in the village Khaibakh 21. Obelisk of Senusret I at Heliopolis 22. Ancient Egypt. Obelisk of Pharaoh Tuthmosis. 23. Sunrise 24. Targimskaya revine Key words Chechens , nakhs, stone architecture, medieval, tower , fortification, sanctuary, temple, an obelisk, a pagan pantheon, ethno genesis, the Kura-Araxes culture, the Hurrians . 74 Annotation Stone structures that scientists traditionally referred to the Middle Ages preserved in a sufficiently large number in the mountains of Chechnya. We are talking about the towers, elevated and underground vaults, shrines and temples. These monuments have been little studied, their purpose, as well as dating, mostly indicative and have no scientific reasoning. In the article it is given the author version of functional belonging and history of one of the types of stone structures in Chechnya, namely towers with pyramidal speed roofs. <Translated from Russian> 75 Sarpova O.V. Attitude to labour in West European and Old Russian medieval cultures The public in Russia is widely discussing the problem of national identity revealing the origins and meanings characteristic of Russian culture. According to the concept of O. Spengler cultures differ in "totality of the sensory expression of soul in gestures and labour" [1]. Attitude to labour is an essential feature of the national mentality, the basis of society which is needed to be used as a spiritual support. Mental characteristics develop over a long period of time and depend on material and socio-cultural environment. Therefore, to identify attitude to labour it is necessary to turn to the historical past, in particular to the era of the Middle Ages, to take into account the spiritual foundations and the natural conditions of social development. Besides, revealing cultural identity comes more clearly when comparing it with other cultures. During the Golden Age of medieval time European and Russian cultures had common spiritual foundation in Christianity. Although there was division in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, the basic attitudes to labour were the same. In the period of early Christianity they were expressed in the Bible, in the writings of Church Fathers: St. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Maximus the Confessor, and others. Christianity shows man’s dual nature: on the one hand, the man is a sinful being; on the other hand, he is the image and likeness of God. Due to this dual nature, attitude to labour is contradictory. In prehistoric times labour was an inherent human need; physical manifestation of the labor process was filled with creativity but lacked in compulsion. In man’s terrestrial existence labour was contradictory. On the one hand, the sinfulness of the man makes labour a heavy duty, the means of survival. On the other hand, through labour the man expresses his divine nature, participating in creation. Labour helps the man construct his social world since other people use fruits of his labour. Besides, labour for the sake of other people can become the embodiment of love 76 for his neighbour - the greatest virtue of Christianity. Thus, labour plays an important role in man’s education and socialization. Through labour the man knows opposites, good and evil. In general, Christianity justifies labour. Even when performing a duty the man realizes the divine will and expiates his sins. However, the reality of European civilization in the Middle Ages was different. J. Le Goff, one of the most outstanding experts for medieval mentality in the world, notes that there was a hierarchy of professions in the public conscience when almost all occupations were characterized as forbidden or dishonest, that is without honour, and the workmen were despised by society. Criteria of dishonesty were different. Firstly, "very active remains of taboos preserved in medieval minds of primitive societies» [2] on blood, dung, etc. Thus, the work of butchers, surgeons, pharmacists who used bloodletting was condemned. The professions of textile workers, miners or dishwashers were called disgusting. Secondly, the Christian prohibitions on trade, "which cannot be done without committing a deadly sin” [3] For example, condemnation of gluttony led to conviction of cooks’ work. Some professions were particularly condemned. For example, the profession of a soldier was condemned for bloodshed, killing innocents and greed becoming apparent when capturing booties - army livelihood. Merchants did not produce anything; they sold God’s time; they were self-interested; they had to do with money that was not accepted by society which lived by subsistence economy. There were also restrictions depending on person, time or place. A cleric was not allowed to practice law, work at night or work in a bad place. In other words, nearly all labour activities were condemned. As a result, there was a "tendency to condemn any worldly occupation (negotium), and on the contrary, to encourage idleness (otium), implying belief in providence" [4]. Nevertheless, by the 14th century justification of professions occurred through division of labour and market relations. But the new contradiction appeared: "physical labor became the new border between respect and contempt. Reformation ... changed 77 little in this issue "[5]. In other words, there was a vertical hierarchy of professions: "those who did not work with their own hands” occupied a higher position [6], namely: the aristocracy, clergy, bourgeoisie and intellectuals. Thus, in reality the labour activity of population did not get proper respect in the West European medieval society. Different attitude to labour developed in Old Russian society. Old Russian sources clearly indicate honour of labor. In his "Pouchenye" (Instructions) Vladimir Monomakh emphasized the importance of compliance with Christian virtues and insisted on personal involvement in labour activities. Monomakh indicated that he "saw himself ", he "did himself" [7] that ought to be done by his servant; day and night, in the heat and cold, on war and hunt he did not allow himself to have a rest. After Monomakh, a ruler having the opportunity to be surrounded by servants should not delegate his responsibilities to them. "Do not be lazy in your home, but watch after everything; do not rely on a tiun or a boy ... "[8]. Monomakh indicated that God created him being "able to perform any labour activity» [9]. When enumerating a significant number of his deeds (83 marches - a difficult job; moreover hunting, farm management and other activities), Monomakh notes: "Having read the charter try to do all sorts of good deeds, glorifying God with his saints" [10]. For Monomakh labour activity is a good deed which nobody should be afraid of. "Youths, do not be afraid of death, a war or beast, it's in the Men as God sends you" [11]. Active participation in economic and administrative activities left no room for laziness and idleness which Monomakh condemned. "Laziness is the mother of all sins: who knows something, will forget it, and who does not know, will not learn… My blessed father and all good men did so" [12]. Anyone who wanted to be kind and good must work. In a life filled with work there was no place for uproarious feasts and fun. "Food and drink must be without great noise ..." [13]. Monomakh called for learning something, but not just work, "and if you do not know how, learn how to ..." [14]. According to Monomakh many skills give "honour" to people; it defines the dignity of a person respected by others. We must 78 consider that the rules of "honour" were higher for the upper classes and valued more than life itself. Thus, Vladimir Monomakh linked "honour", "labour" and morality in a single knot. For him there was nothing “dishonest” in labour. Labour and many skills were the "honour" of a noble man. In his "Domostroy" Sylvester generated the image of the ideal life where labour plays the major role. Every member of a family must work tirelessly. "In households and everywhere every man, a host and a hostess , a son and a daughter, servants , men and women, and every artisan and apprentices, old and young, must work" [15]. The hostess "makes everything with her hands ... she will contribute to her wealth ... she stretches out her hands for work ... The hostess is kind and hardworking ... " [16]. She never has a rest. "Whether her husband comes or a guest – she must always do needlework” and have conversations about domestic chores or some new needlework. The hostess should "know any needlework” to teach the servants what she knows" [17]. Despite the fact that "Domostroy" describes the rich man's household where there is plenty of everything, considerable attention is paid to “economy” and practical prudence. According to "Domostroy ", economy is not simply storage or warehousing - it is preservation. Preservation means introducing personality in this process which shows itself in significant daily and hourly extra labour. To preserve utensils, clothing or various household items, you need to perform simple operations (repair, darn, clean, put in places). You need to consider the use of things according to their intended purpose distinguishing holidays and weekdays. It is also necessary to organize housekeeping to ensure that resources are spent efficiently. This job is routine, and only those who understand its importance for the economy are able to see the sense in it and do it honestly. Hosts and servants are involved in all kinds of labour. The book repeatedly mentions labour as "righteous" and "blessed" that you need to prepare for: "clean yourself from any defilement, wash your hands and pray in order to start any work” [18]. In other words, after Prince Vladimir Monomakh and Sylvester, a native of Novgorod, labour is good and virtue. Both 79 authors separated by centuries showed respect for labour characteristic for Old Russian society. F. Braudel considers that there are three main levels of everyday life in history: short-term, and that is why "deceptive" [19], microhistory, i.e. longer cycles associated with the rhythms of economic life. The third level is the most significant. F. Braudel classifies it as "long-haul" structures, the "foundation of historical events ... the center of gravity around which everything revolves" [20]. This structure provides the mentality of society where attitude to labour is the most important. Life in ancient and medieval societies of Western Europe and Russia was different due to different natural conditions. Russian historians of the past and present (S.M. Solovyev, V. Klyuchevsky, L. Milov) and European researchers (R. Pipes) hold this view point. S.M. Solovyev pointed out that Russian people in contrast to European nations had no such major conditions for optimal development as "a favorable climate, soil fertility, numerous population in the vast and diverse country which make it possible to divide labour, to trade extensively, to communicate continuously with different localities or to make large cities prosperous"[21] . How did Old Russian society manage to offset the harsh conditions of existence? The French philosopher A. Bergson shows the historical process as a result of infinite interaction between the material world and spiritual sets of people: "Everything proceeds as if a matter has penetrated a wide stream of consciousness” [22]. Emergence and development of civilization depends on the degree of interaction. "In reality, life is movement, materiality is the inverse movement ... The second of these flows is against the first , but the first one still gets something from the second: therefore, modus vivendi, which is the organization, arises between them" [23]. Diversity of civilizations and their achievements is a consequence of collision between life and matter, human and natural environment. After I.I. Blauberg, where a man had to spend too much strength for mere survival, movement of life impulse slowed down, i.e. “intense became extensive" [24]. However, Old Russian society did survive; it developed quite successfully, overcoming difficulties and creating their own 80 culture. Old Russian state participated in the historical processes of the time: centralization, expansion of its territory and others. In the author’s opinion, one of the reasons for such development was particular attitude to labour not characteristic for Western Europe. Conjugation of material and spiritual life became apparent in attitude to labour. Old Russian society did not shun discourses on morality or perceive it as a speculative sphere, but as concrete practical recommendations for behavior in everyday life. Unlike West European society where "earthly" and "heavenly" were delimited, they joined in early Rus. This organic conjugation was necessary. Severe climatic conditions demanded enormous human efforts, i.e. spiritual support was needed for constant labour activities. Material and spiritual meanings and purposes of life were equally important. They gave stamina and the ability to overcome difficulties. In other words, "in Russian culture morality and spirituality were a part of material culture; they preserved and ennobled it not allowing the material sphere to become the dominant force that determines the image of people" [25]. Bibliography 1. Spengler O., Decline of the West. V.1 - Moscow, 1993. P.344. 2. Le Goff J., Other Middle Ages: Time, work and culture of the West.- Yekaterinburg: Ural publ. University Press, 2000. P. 64. 3. See 2. P. 65. 4. See 2. P. 66. 5. See 2. P.75. 6. See 2. P.75 7. Instructions for Vladimir Monomakh’s Children / Collection (Collected works of Ancient Russian literature). Moscow: Khudozh. lit.,1969. P.163 8. See 7. P.155. 9. See 7. P.163. 10. See 7. P. 163. 11. See 7. P.163. 12. See 7. P.155. 13. See 7. P.149. 14. See 7. P.155. 81 15. Domostroy. Moscow, Nauka, 1994. P.18. 16. See 15. P.18. 17. See 15. P.24. 18. See 15. P.18. 19. Braudel F., History and social sciences. Historical duration. // Philosophy and methodology of history. - Moscow: Nauka, 1977. P. 124. 20. See 19. P.127. 21. Solovyev S.M., Works. Book VII. History of Russia since ancient times. V. XIII. Moscow: Mysl’, 1991. P.25. 22. . Bergson A., Creative Evolution. - Moscow: CANON press Kuchkovo pole, 1998. P.142. 23. See 22. P. 246-247. 24. Blauberg I.I., Introduction //. Bergson A., Creative Evolution. - Moscow: CANON - press Kuchkovo pole, 1998. P.18. 25. Sarpova O.V., Spiritual and material values: the problem of their relation / Academic Gazette of TGAMEUP № 2(24). Tyumen: Tyumen State Academy of World Economics, Management and Law, 2013. P.251. Key words Labour, honest and dishonest professions, West European and Old Russian medieval cultures, Christianity, morality and mentality Annotation West European and Old Russian medieval cultures have the same religious foundations in Christianity. Different mental attitudes to labour developed in these societies under the influence of different climatic conditions. West European medieval society positioned its attitude to labour through a hierarchy of professions in which the vast majority of activities was outside social esteem. On the contrary, Old Russian society positioned labour as good and virtue. Conjugation of moral principles and practical activities allowed Old Russian society to exist and develop in severe climatic conditions. <Translated from Russian> 82 Venidiktova E.A. The problem of dating and creation of the union between Argos and Corinth in the period of the Corinthian War (395-386 B.C.) In V-IV B.C. Greek polises were involved in constant war conflicts (Peloponnesian, Corinthian War and so on). Argos polis also actively participated in interpolis relations. Despite the fact that Argives at the end of V century B.C. returned to their position of neutrality, already in IV century B.C. they had renewed active policy, directed on rivalry with Sparta. Thus, during the war of Sparta with Persia in 399 - 394 B.C., Persians supplied financial support to leading political figures in Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos in order that they incited their citizens to act against Sparta (Xen. Hell. III, 5, 1–2; Paus. III, 9, 4). Pausanias (III, 9, 8) named some Cylon and Sodam as political figures in Argos in 396 - 395 B.C., but details of their activity are not known. In the subsequent battles of Nemea and Koroneia in 394 B.C. Argives conducted warfare actively against Lacedaemonians, but met with failures (Xen. Hell. IV, 2, 17, 22; 3, 15, 17–18). According to Xenophon, starting from that time, from one side fought Athenians, Boeotians, Argives and their allies, having Corinth as a strong point, and from the other side Lacedaemonians with their allies, based in Sicyon (Xen. Hell. IV, 4, 1). Defeats in two battles had to alarm enemies of Sparta in Greek polises, as they perfectly understood that if they failed to eliminate peace supporters, their states again would be under the threat of danger to come under the influence of Laconia. That's exactly why they organized mess in Corinth in 392 B.C. resulting from which Corinth was annexed to Argos State (Xen. Hell. IV, 4, 2–14). The major difficulty is caused by the question of dating of Corinth accession to Argos, as controversy about it putting in special chronological context has already appeared at ancient authors. As per Xenophon, the earliest dating of Argos union with Corinth, established after the mess in Corinth, is 392 B.C. From the 83 report of Diodorus, it follows that Corinth accession to Argos happened not right after dramatic events in Corinth (Diod. XIV, 86), but only three years later, i.e. in 389 B.C., after inflicting defeat by Iphicrates to Spartan mora. Andocides's speech also allows to suppose that in 392 B.C. Corinth has not existed as independent state yet [1, 2, 3]. Besides, from the report of Plutarch (Ages. 21) it follows that in 390 B.C. Corinth has already belonged to Argos. There are several points of view in historiography about this question. Some research people (C. Taplin, D. Kagan) suppose, that Corinth accession to Argos State was in 392 B.C., basing on Xenophon's report [4, 5]. Other research people (G. Greffith, C. Hamilton) think that subjection of Corinth to Argos was in an evolutionary way [6, 7]. The first step, according to the named research people, is 392 B.C. when isopoliteía was concluded between Argos and Corinth; the final stage of accession is considered 389 B.C. when Corinth finally passed under the control of Argos [8]. The most probable is that Corinth accession to Argos State occurred by two stages. The first stage is 392 B.C. Thus, Xenophon describing the events preceding Corinthian War, reports that resulting from the mess in Corinth in 392 B.C. that polis was annexed to Argos State (Xen. Hell. IV, 4, 2-4). In C. Taplin’s opinion, there are no reasons to doubt that the union of two polises happened exactly in 392 B.C. [5], what seems not quite convincing. Thus, according to Xenophon, during the embassy in Persia in 392 B.C. representatives from Argos and Corinth were present and this allows to assume that Corinth in that period was an independent state (Xen. Hell. IV, 8, 13). Besides, from Andocides's speech follows that Corinth in 392/1 B.C. existed as independent state (Andoc. III, 41). Fairly consider C. Hamilton and G. Griffith that in 392 B.C. isopoliteía was just established [9, 10]. According to Xenophon, Argives were not happy with peaceful conditions of Antalcidas, proposed by Tiribazus, because they thought that at such peace treaty they lost any possibility to possess Corinth as a part of Argos State (Xen. Hell. IV, 8, 15). That suggests that up to this time some political agreement between Corinth and Argos has already existed. Confirmation to this judgement we can also find in Andocides's speech, in which it is told that in case of victory over 84 Lacedaemonians the Corinthians's region would became the property of Argos (Andoc. III, 26). One more argument that between Argos and Corinth was some mutual preliminary agreement, are reports of Xenophon and Plutarch, according to which Argives had already celebrated the Isthmian Games in 390 B.C., as Corinth then was a part of Argos State (Xen. Hell. IV, 5, 1; Plut. Ages. 21). Pausanias also mentioned that, but unlike Xenophon and Plutarch, Periegetes noted that Argives celebrated the Isthmian Games not alone, but together with Corinthians, but at that it is not told about accession of Corinth to Argos (Paus. IV, 10, 1). That's why quite true is explanation of G. Griffith, that the Isthmian Games holding by Argives in 390 B.C. became possible due to the fact that they had rights on that [1]. In M. Whitby's opinion, the case with the Isthmian Games is the act of isopoliteía or means that the limited form of union has been already achieved [11]. And, finally, total Corinth's accession to Argos State happened in 389 B.C. what became obvious from the reports of Xenophon and Diodorus, who connected that act with Iphicrates's expatriation from Corinth after inflicting defeat to Spartan mora in 390 B.C. and his mission in Hellespont, which was in 388 B.C. (Xen. Hell. IV, 8, 34; Diod. XIV, 86, 92, 1). After that, according to Xenophon (Xen. Hell. IV, 4, 14), great marches of both war parties stopped, all these states had to be content that guarded their fortresses, sending garrisons: ones to Corinth, others to Sicyon. But, on that military collisions of Argos with Sparta did not stopped, as Sparta worried about existing situation in Corinth; that's why already in 391 B.C. Lacedaemonians having paid attention that Argives easily obtained results of their land and war only made them happy, had undertaken a march on Argives under the command of king Agesilaus. Spartan king, having devastated their country, invaded Corinth region and seized the walls, which were built by Athenians (Xen. Hell. IV, 4, 19). Next year when in Corinth were Argives for offering sacrifices to Poseidon, Lacedaemonians again invaded Corinth region in order that Corinth exiles could execute offering sacrifices and participate in competitions in honour of Poseidon. After that Agesilaus with army left Corinth, and Argives with Corinthians celebrated the Isthmian Games (Xen. Hell. IV, 5, 1–2; 85 Paus. III, 10, 1; Plut. Ages. 21). Then in 389 B.C. Lacedaemonians under the command of another king Agesipolis again undertook the march on Argos, news about which worried Argives. That's why they sent two ambassadores with statement about armistice, referring to the beginning of holidays’ months. Despite that Agesipolis rejected their proposition; there was no military collision, as Lacedaemonians were soon given evil presages (Xen. Hell. IV, 7, 2–7). Such behaviour of Argives can be explained that in given period their state was shaken by unremitting collisions of supporters of oligarchical regime with democrats. Besides, soon Persian king Artaxerxes II became an ally of Lacedaemonians, and the march on Argos was announced in Sparta. Hell. V, 1, 29). That's exactly why Argives became inclining to peace, which was concluded in 387 B.C., having marked the end of the Corinthian War (Diod. XI, 5.1; Plut. Artax. 23). Immediately after the conclusion of Antalcidas peace, Lacedaemonians announced Corinthians and Argives that they would turned their arms against them, the first ones if they did not forced Argives to leave Corinth, the second ones if they did not do that themselves. That's why Argives were forced to withdraw garrison from Corinth as a result of which that polis again became independent (Xen. Hell. V, 1, 34, 36). Bibliography 1. Griffith G.T. The Union of Corinth and Argos (392–386 BC) // Historia. Bd. 1, Ht. 2, 1950. P. 249. 2. Tuplin C.J. The Date of the Union of Corinth and Argos // – Oxford: The Classical Quarterly. Vol. 32, № 1, 1982. P. 79. 3. Whitby M. The Union of Corinth and Argos: A Reconsideration // Historia. Bd. 33, Ht. 3, 1984. P. 301. 4. Kagan D. Corinthian Politics and the Revolution of 392 // Historia. Bd. 11, Ht. 4, 1962. P. 454. 5. Tuplin C.J. The Date of the Union of Corinth and Argos // – Oxford: The Classical Quarterly. Vol. 32, № 1, 1982. P. 76. 6. Griffith G.T. The Union of Corinth and Argos (392–386 BC) // Historia. Bd. 1, Ht. 2, 1950. P. 246. 7. Hamilton C.D. The Politics of Revolution in Corinth, 395– 386 B.C. // Historia. Bd. 21, Ht. 1, 1972. P. 30. 86 8. Cartlеdge P. Sparta and Laconia. A regional history 1300 to 362 BC. London, 2002. P. 241. 9. Griffith G.T. The Union of Corinth and Argos (392–386 BC) // Historia. Bd. 1, Ht. 2, 1950. P. 236-256. 10. Hamilton C.D. The Politics of Revolution in Corinth, 395386 B.C. // Historia. Bd. 21, Ht. 1, 1972. P. 31. 11. Whitby M. The Union of Corinth and Argos: A Reconsideration // Historia. Bd. 33, Ht. 3, 1984. P. 298. Key words Argos, Corinth, isopoliteía, Isthmian Games, union, war <Translated from Russian> 87 Vorobjeva L.V. Engineering education as worldmodeling structure (on a material of E.I. Zamyatin’s novels) Education of the person, his activity influences the personality, approves the majority of psychologists. It is considered that activity is the main prism through which the person perceives, estimates reality and other people. The city as a difficult, continuously changing product of human activity drew to itself attention of researchers. Developing methodology of functioning of text structures, the literary criticism relies on achievements in the field of linguistics where the concept "text" began to be used much earlier. Fundamental in studying of such phenomenon as "text", there were Yu. M. Lotman [1], V. N. Toporov [2], M. M. Bakhtin's works [3]. Change of a scientific paradigm, influence of ideology of F. Bacon [4] causes interest of the Russian culture to Britain. In Knowledge, in Science F. Bacon saw the powerful instrument of progressive social changes. Modernization of the London space pushes writers to look for a modern language at the city description. The technification of London, which is roughly proceeding in the XX century, leads to those writers at creation of an image of city space use the modernist principles and receptions. At the beginning of the XX century the modernism becomes a certain new outlook which is guided by identity and scientific knowledge. M. M. Fedorova [5] connects modernism development with Scientific Revolution. London as the center of a scientific, rationalistic method of knowledge becomes an embodiment of ideology of a modernism. Thus, we understand a modernism as a common cultural current, ideology of the end of the XIX-XX century, focused on the Present, that is recognizing a priority modern over the traditional. It is possible to tell, the modernism is "the present project" as Yu. Habermas [6] speaks about it. The description of space of the city within modernist poetics is brightly submitted in E. I. Zamyatin's creativity. It is essentially important that E. I. Zamyatin by training the engineer-ship builder. He graduated from shipbuilding faculty of 88 the Petersburg Polytechnic institute, was left at chair of ship architecture, was engaged in teaching at shipbuilding faculty, wrote scientific articles. At the same time Zamyatin is engaged in literary creativity. During World War I Zamyatin lived in England and was observing construction of ice breakers in Armstrong, on Uitvors's shipyards in Newcastle. Zamyatin was one of the chief Russian experts in construction of ice breakers, on its account construction of six such ships (including the Lenin ice breaker). In 1919-1922 years at the Petersburg House of arts Zamyatin gives lectures on "Equipment of art prose". Whether technical education affected a worldmodeling of art space of Zamyatin? Zamyatin's numerous feature materials in which he analyzes the creativity and creativity of the contemporaries help to answer this question, brings up questions of a condition of literature of the beginning of the XX century as in Russia, and in the West. Conceptually significant for Zamyatin's creativity there is a concept "experiment" as a necessary condition for work of the writer. Such laboratory, experiment for the writer is his work of art in which the talent of the author as the writer and his engineering education as methodology become the instrument of work. Zamyatin is confident in existence of the uniform beginning in science and in art, in his opinion, they are uniform in essence. In the article "About Literature, Revolution, Entropy and about the Other" Zamyatin claims that "the Science and Art are identical in world design «…". Various forms are only in distinction of coordinates" [7]. For Zamyatin's consciousness replacement of Euclidean model of the world by essentially new model of the world of Einstein, and not only in science, but also in literature too is characteristic. Creating the works, Zamyatin projects them as drawings of the ice breakers: the image, motive, the word, rhythmics, syntax is significant details of his prose. Purity of each element is pledge of successful operation of all mechanism. For Zamyatin engineering and exact work with the word is basic. Zamyatin focuses attention that the image has to become integrated and extend on all things from beginning to end. According to Zamyatin, the text has to stop being flat, "Euclidean", each word has to be "loaded". Such vision of creative 89 process is reflection of the modernist principles of modeling of space. Zamyatin creates images of heroes, "loading" them with multilayered meanings. Thanks to "not plane" heroes extend various connotations to space surrounding them. Such multistage construction creates difficult integrated images. The new scientific paradigm is actively used in the art text and allows to model space of London. Engineering education helps Zamyatin to rise over the text, to see and analyze as the text "becomes", to dismember a work of art on elements and to create essentially new form which is filled with the new contents. Relying on Zamyatin's journalism, and also analyzing his art heritage, it is possible to claim that technical, engineering education becomes conceptually significant in formation of the language identity of Zamyatin. Zamyatin's works are harmonious interaction of engineering education and the writer, the creator, the artist. Bibliography 1. Lotman J.M. Vnutri mysljatschich mirov: Tschek – Tekst – Semiosfera – Istorija. M., 1996. – 447 S. 2. Toporov V.N. Peterburgskij tekst russkoj liletarury.: Iskusstvo - SPB, 2003. – 616 S. 3. Bachtin M.M. Problema teksta v lingvistike, filologii i drugix gumanitarnyx naukax. Opyt filosovskogo analiza/M.M.Bachtin//Bachtin M.M. Esteika slovsnogo tvorchestva – M.: Iskusstvo, 1979.-S.281-307 4. Lechte J. Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers. From Structuralism to Postmodernity. London and N.Y.: Routledge, 1994. 5. Fedorova M.M. Modernizm I antimodernizm vo francuyskoj politicheskoj mysli XIX veka. M., 1997.-204 S. 6. Habermas J. Modern - nezavershennyj proekt // Voprosy filosofii- 1992. № 4. – S. 40-41 7. Samjatin E.I. Ja bojus: Literaturnaja kritika. Publicistika. Vospominanija./A.J. Galushkina, M.J. Ljubimova, V.A. Keldysh. M., 1999. – S. 96 90 Key words Engineering education, structuralism, modernism. experiment, entropy, city text, Annotation Article is devoted to the analysis of the London text of the Russian culture of the first half of the XX century on a material of creativity of E. I. Zamyatin. For the first time the image of the city is considered through the prism of engineering educations of the writer. London as the center of a scientific, rationalistic method of knowledge becomes an embodiment of ideology of a modernism that gives the chance to speak about multilevel system of perception of the city within the Russian mentality. In article is shown how the capital of the western civilization is acquired by the Russian consciousness and becomes included in the all-Russian literary and cultural context. <Translation Ksenia Jakobitz-Ivanova> 91 Yudina E.V., Schadeberg R. Die Ärztedynastie Blumentrosts in Russland 2012 jährte sich der Geburtstag von Laurentius Blumentrost dem Jüngeren [d. J.] zum 320. Mal (1692-1755). Lavrentij Lavrentjevich Blumentrost, so sein Name in Russland, war erster Präsident der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Leibarzt Peter des Großen sowie Leiter der kaiserlichen Bibliothek und Kunstkammer. Aber wo lagen seine familiären Wurzeln? Der rege kulturelle und wirtschaftliche Austausch zwischen Deutschland und Russland dauert bereits seit Jahrhunderten an. Deutsche prägten die Geschichte Russlands auf allen Gebieten ganz deutlich mit. Sie trugen zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Kunst ihrer zweiten Heimat bei, waren hochrangige Militärleute und Spitzenpolitiker. Zahlreiche Deutsche sind in die Geschichte der Medizin in Russland eingegangen. Die ersten deutschen Ärzte und Apotheker wirkten am russischen Hof schon im 15. Jahrhundert. Die Leibärzte des Großfürsten Wassili III. waren Dr. med. Nikolaj Bülow und Teophiles, beide aus Lübeck. Was bewog die ausländischen Ärzte, nach Russland zu gehen? Sie wurden großzügig bezahlt, genossen beträchtliches Ansehen und mehr Freiheit und Unabhängigkeit als in der Heimat. Viele machten eine steile berufliche Karriere und wurden wohlhabend. Bekanntlich waren die deutschen Leibärzte des russischen Regenten und späteren Zaren Boris Godunow besonders privilegiert (so C. Fiedler aus Königsberg, vordem Leibarzt des preußischen Königs und der französischen Königin, die Doktoren D. Vasmer und H. Schröder aus Lübeck, J. Hilschenius aus Riga u.a.). Einige von ihnen wurden zu engen Freunden und Ratgebern des Zaren. Aber nach Godunows Tod zerstörte und plünderte der wütende Mob ihre Häuser. Im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert leisteten deutsche Mediziner einen großen Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Gesundheitswesens in Russland. Viele Dokumente zeugen davon, dass das Apothekenamt am kaiserlichen Hof schon Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts entstand. Die wenigen Ärzte ausländischer Herkunft befassten sich hauptsächlich mit der Gesundheit des Zaren und seiner Familie 92 sowie anderer hoher Würdenträger. Im Laufe des 17. Jahrhunderts kamen zu dieser Aufgabe auch immer mehr militärmedizinische Aufgaben hinzu. Der bedeutendste Vertreter unter den ausländischen Ärzten war Laurentius Blumentrost der Ältere [d. Ä.] aus Mühlhausen in Thüringen (1619-1705). Er und seine drei Söhne, Laurentius Christian, Johann Deodatus und Laurentius [d. J.], beeinflussten fast ein Jahrhundert lang das russische Gesundheitswesen maßgeblich. Laurentius Blumenntrost [d. Ä.] Über die Vorfahren des Laurentius Blumentrost [d. Ä.] und seine ersten Lebensjahre gibt es widersprüchliche Quellenangaben. Eine wichtige Quelle ist ein im Archiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen in Halle vorliegendes Dokument mit dem Titel „Personalia“.51 Es ist unmittelbar nach dem Tod von Laurentius [d. Ä.] in Moskau verfasst worden. Viele der darin enthaltenen Aussagen werden auch durch andere Quellen gestützt, deshalb ist davon auszugehen, dass die Angaben authentisch sind und der Verfasser Laurentius [d. Ä.] sehr nahe gestanden hat und über sein Leben sehr gut Bescheid wusste. Danach lebten seine Eltern in Bothenheilingen. Sein Vater Wolfgang war dort Landsasse. Seine Mutter Dorothea, geb. Geisien, stammte aus dem Dorf Schönstedt bei Bad Langensalza. Am 29. Oktober 1619 wurde Laurentius [d. Ä.] in Bothenheilingen geboren.51 Einige Quellen geben an, dass ihn sein Vater selbst in Latein, Griechisch, christlicher Religion, Geschichte und Dichtkunst unterrichtete. 1640 wurde Laurentius [d. Ä.] an der Universität Helmstedt immatrikuliert.11 Er studierte dort Theologie sowie Medizin.4,5 Im gleichen Jahr ging er wieder nach Braunschweig, um als Hauslehrer zu arbeiten. Er unterrichtete dort die Kinder des Arztes Victor Gregorii.4 Hier machte er auch seine ersten praktischen Erfahrungen als angehender Mediziner. Von 1644 bis 1646 studierte er in Jena Philosophie und erlangte dort die Würde eines Magisters.2 Ein Jahr später führte er sein Medizinstudium in Leipzig fort.5 Er wechselte dann wiederum 93 nach Jena.4 Dort schloss er auch sein Medizinstudium im Jahre 1648 mit einer Dissertation über den Skorbut (De scorbuto“) ab.3,12 Nach seinem Studium ließ er sich zunächst als Licentiat in Braunschweig nieder, wo er am 29.08.1648 Anna Maria Gregorii geb. Donat, die Witwe des verstorbenen Arztes Victor Gregorii, heiratete.3,4 Sie brachte sieben Kinder in die Ehe mit ein.51 Ab 1649 war Laurentius [d. Ä.] als Stadtphysikus in Sangerhausen angestellt. 4 Am 12. März 1652 übersandte er seine Dissertation „De scorbuto“ mit einem in Latein verfassten Begleitschreiben an den Mühlhäuser Rat. Er bat um eine Anstellung, die ihm auch gewährt wurde.2 Bereits im April nahm er seine Tätigkeit als Medicus und zweiter Physikus mit einem Jahresgehalt von 50 Gulden auf.10, 14 Schon ein Jahr später wurde ihm von der Stadt Burg bei Magdeburg angeboten, die dortige Stelle des Stadtphysikus bei gleichzeitiger Verdopplung seines Gehaltes zu übernehmen. Seine „Probelektion“ vor dem Senat von Burg hatte er bereits abgelegt und mit Bravur bestanden. Seine diesbezügliche Eingabe beim Mühlhäuser Rat vom 14.09.1653 fand jedoch kein Wohlwollen, er erhielt den erbetenen Abschied nicht. Der Rat sah sich jedoch genötigt, Laurentius [d. Ä.] eine erhebliche Gehaltszulage zu gewähren und ihm und seiner Familie das unentgeltliche Bürgerrecht einzuräumen.10 Laurentius [d. Ä.] musste als Stadtphysikus auch ihm unangenehme Aufgaben erledigen, so etwa bei dem in den Jahren 1659 und 1660 gegen die Frau Anna Führ stattfindenden Hexenprozess. U. a. soll sie dem Bürger Nickol Braunschweiger eine Krankheit angezaubert haben. Laurentius [d. Ä.] wurde in seiner Eigenschaft als Stadtphysikus durch das Gericht beauftragt, den Fall zu begutachten. Dieses ärztliche Gutachten ist am 30. Dezember 1659 ausgestellt worden. Aus dem Schriftstück kann man entnehmen, dass es Laurentius [d. Ä.] spürbar unangenehm war zu entscheiden, ob die Krankheit des Patienten auf Hexerei zurückzuführen war oder nicht. Er kam deshalb zu folgendem sibyllinischen Urteil: Ob das von ihm diagnostizierte Krankheitsbild durch einen „schlechten Geist“ [d. h. Zauberei] hervorgerufen wurde „kann ich meines Teils weder bejahen noch verneinen, sondern stelle es vielmehr anderen Verständigeren, die 94 den Kopf auf dem rechten Fleck haben, anheim, darüber zu urteilen.“58 Im Jahre 1661 wurde Laurentius [d. Ä.] Bürgermeister von Mühlhausen (Mitratsfreund und „Praeses consitorii“).10,15 Zwischenzeitlich wurde er von Herzog Ernst dem Frommen auch zum Landphysikus des Herzogtums Sachsen-Gotha berufen.5, 14 Außerdem stand er im Dienste seines ehemaliger Landesherrn (Bothenheilingen gehörte zur Grafschaft Schwarzburg), dem Grafen Ludwig Günther von Schwarzburg.4,5 Laurentius [d. Ä.] war nunmehr im mitteldeutschen Raum ein bekannter und geachteter Mediziner, was auch im Jahre 1667 mit der Veröffentlichung seines 272 Seiten umfassenden Werkes „Pharmacotheca domestica et portatilis - Das ist: Haus- und ReisApotheken/ in welcher Die vornembste Chymische und etzliche andere Artzneyen/ so durch vielfältige Erfahrung bewehrt ... beschrieben werden - mit angehengten kurtzen Anmerckungen“ zum Ausdruck kommt.14 Eine zweite, erweiterte Auflage erschien im Jahre 1716.8 Zu seinem Bekanntenkreis gehörte u. a. Johann Francke, der Vater des bedeutenden Theologen und Pädagogen August Hermann Francke, dem späteren Begründer des Hallenser Waisenhauses.4 Die Fähigkeiten des Mediziners Laurentius Blumentrost [d. Ä.] fanden bald europaweite Beachtung. Als der russische Zar Alexei Michailowitsch auf der Suche nach einem neuen Leibarzt war, wurde ihm u. a. auch Laurentius [d. Ä.] empfohlen (nach einigen Quellen soll sich der in russischen Diensten stehende General Nikolaus Baumann4, 14, nach anderen Quellen der Generalleutnant Boldmack5 für Laurentius [d. Ä.] eingesetzt haben). Außer Frage steht jedoch, dass sein in Moskau als Pastor der evangelischen Gemeinde tätige Stiefsohn Johann Gottfried Gregorii vom Können seines Stiefvaters berichtet hat, ihm hat letztendlich Laurentius [d. Ä.] seine Berufung an den Zarenhof zu verdanken. Im Frühjahr des Jahres 1667 wurde Johann Gottfried Gregorii vom Zaren beauftragt, seinen Stiefvater als Leibarzt nach Moskau einzuladen. Gregorii wurden ein „Vocationsschreiben“ (Berufungsschreiben), welches am 12.03.1667 in Moskau 95 ausgestellt wurde,14, 15 und ein „Zarischer Sicherheitsbrief“ übergeben.5 Mitte Dezember 1667 traf Gregorii in Mühlhausen ein. Am 16. Dezember übergab Laurentius [d. Ä.] das Vocationsschreiben des Zaren und sein Demissionsschreiben dem Rat.16 In diesem Entlassungsgesuch führt er u. a. an, dass der Rat berücksichtigen möge, dass er früher ansehnliche, auch fürstliche Anträge abgelehnt habe. Jetzt aber glaube er, Gottes Willen nicht widerstreben zu dürfen. Der mittlerweile 48jährige war fest entschlossen, nach Moskau zu reisen. Die Familie feierte ihr letztes gemeinsames Weihnachtsfest in der Heimat. Dass die Trennung für immer sein würde, war wohl zu diesem Zeitpunkt niemandem bewusst. Am 29.12.1667 erhielt Blumentrost ein Geleitschreiben des Rates und einen „Paßport“ für sich und seine Mitreisenden ausgehändigt.17, 18 Seine Frau Anna Maria und sein ältester Sohn Johann Friedrich blieben in Mühlhausen zurück. Für sie wurde auf Bitten von Laurentius [d. Ä.] durch den Rat ein gerichtlicher Vormund bestellt.2 Gleich Anfang Januar erfolgte die Abreise. Unter den Reisenden waren neben seinem Stiefsohn Johann Gottfried Gregorii u. a. auch sein 13jähriger Sohn Laurentius Christian, seine 10jährige Tochter Elisabeth und die 36jährige Stieftochter Johanna Dorothea, die wohl die Aufgaben der daheimgebliebenen Mutter übernehmen sollte, sowie 10 Dienstboten.2 Zunächst begab man sich nach Gotha, wo man sich von Herzog Ernst I. verabschiedete, war doch Laurentius [d. Ä.] auch Landmedicus des Herzogtums Sachsen-Gotha. Herzog Ernst I. übergab bei dieser Gelegenheit 200 Taler für die Förderung des Kirchen- und Schulwesens der evangelischen Gemeinde in Moskau. Er sicherte zu, auch zukünftig die dortige Schule finanziell unterstützen zu wollen. Bei einem Zwischenaufenthalt in Leipzig wurde für die Kinder ein Hauslehrer namens Laurentius Rinhuber gewonnen.2, 4 Rinhuber war Medizinstudent und bereit, mit nach Moskau zu reisen. Die Reise führte weiter über Dresden, wo Laurentius [d. Ä.] und Johann Gottfried Gregorii am 21. Januar 1668 bei Kurfürst Johann Georg II. von Sachsen vorsprachen. Auf Veranlassung des Kurfürsten erhielt Laurentius [d. Ä.] ein am 22. Januar ausgestelltes Empfehlungsschreiben.5 Gegenüber Johann Gottfried 96 Gregorii machte der Kurfürst die Zusage, 1000 Taler für die Förderung der evangelischen Kirchengemeinde in Moskau bereitzustellen. Es war beabsichtigt, diese Summe über eine landesweite Sammlung, die in den Kirchen des Kurfürstentums Sachsen erfolgen sollte, einzunehmen.2, 14 Die nächste Station war Berlin. Hier traf man mit dem brandenburgischen Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm zusammen. Auch dieser gab die Zusage, die evangelische Kirchengemeinde in Moskau mit 1000 Talern zu unterstützen, das zugesagte Geld sollte über Kollekten in den Kirchen des Kurfürstentums Brandenburg gesammelt werden.2, 14 Die Reise führte nun entlang der Ostseeküste über Stettin, Danzig, die Frische Nehrung, Pillau, Königsberg, die Kurische Nehrung, Memel, Kurland und Livland zur russischen Grenze bei Pskow, das man am 02./12. Mai 1668 erreichte2, 14 (Zeitangaben: Julianischer Kalender/Gregorianischer Kalender). Die zuständigen Behörden in Pskow hatten bereits den Befehl des Zaren erhalten, die Reisegruppe in Empfang zu nehmen und auf schnellstem Weg nach Moskau zu bringen.5 Hier angekommen, meldete sich Laurentius [d. Ä.] bei der dortigen Gesandtschaftsbehörde am 24. Mai/03. Juni 1668.5,14 Er übereichte die Empfehlungsschreiben des Kurfürsten von Sachsen, des Grafen von Schwarzburg, des Rates der Freien Reichsstadt Mühlhausen sowie von Medizinprofessoren aus Jülich. Einen Monat später, am 26. Juni/6. Juli, wurde er dem Zaren Alexei Michailowitsch vorgestellt. und mit reichen Geschenken überschüttet: Zobelpelze, Silbergeschirr, feine Tücher, Schmucksachen und Geld. Laurentius [d. Ä.] erhielt nunmehr ein jährliches Salär von insgesamt 730 Rubel.5 Anfangs bestand seitens des kaiserlichen Hofes gegenüber Laurentius [d. Ä.] ein gewisses Misstrauen, denn jeder neue Arzt stand damals unter Verdacht, ein Spion oder ein Giftmischer zu sein. Der Leibarzt war nämlich in die intimsten Lebenssphären des Zaren und seiner Familie eingeweiht und wurde notgedrungen zu einer Vertrauensperson, zu einem engen Freund und Ratgeber. Oft spielte er auch bei politischen Fragen eine entscheidende Rolle. Die Nähe zum Herrscher bedingte seine besondere Stellung und Rolle in der Gesellschaft. Alle suchten Kontakt zu Leibärzten, auch Gegner des Zaren. Jeder Leibarzt war der ständigen Gefahr ausgesetzt, verleumdet, angeklagt und im schlimmsten Fall 97 hingerichtet zu werden. Auch Laurentius [d. Ä.] blieben diese Erfahrungen nicht erspart. Johann Gottfried Grigorii (1631-1675), Stiefsohn von Laurentius Blumentrost [d. Ä.], aus Merseburg stammend, lutherischer Pastor und Dichter in Moskaus „deutscher Vorstadt“, Gründer des ersten Theaters in Russland 1672 (aus "Tausend Jahre Nachbarschaft. Russland und die Deutschen" von A. Eisfeld, S. 245) Blumentrosts Situation wurde in der ersten Zeit seines Aufenthaltes dadurch erschwert, dass sein Stiefsohn Johann Gottfried Gregorii, der Pastor der lutherischen Gemeinde war, schon bald in Ungnade des Zaren fiel, weil er angeblich Aussagen zu Ungunsten Russlands bzw. der Zarenfamilie gemacht haben soll. Außerdem war Gregorii in Streitigkeiten innerhalb der deutschen Gemeinde in Moskau verwickelt, bei denen es um Spenden aus Deutschland ging. Diese Vorgänge warfen auch ein 98 negatives Licht auf Laurentius [d. Ä.]. Eigentlich sollte dieser regelmäßig Berichte über Gemeindeangelegenheiten an den sächsischen Kurfürsten schreiben, er schrieb ihm aber nur einmal und beantwortete nicht einmal dessen Briefe. Tat er das aus Solidarität zu seinem Stiefsohn Gregorii oder möglicherweise aus Angst, der Spionage beschuldigt zu werden? Einige Zeit durfte Laurentius [d. Ä.] kein hohes medizinisches Amt bekleiden. Trotz seines Doktortitels und aller Empfehlungen musste er sich einer erniedrigenden Examinierung seiner Qualifikation unterwerfen. Noch im Jahre 1672 wurde er wegen einer Anzeige aus der Apothekenbehörde entlassen, aber bereits ein wenig später wieder bei der zwischenzeitlich neu organisierten Apothekenbehörde eingestellt und zum Archiater (leitender Hofarzt) ernannt, d. h. er war nunmehr für die Angelegenheiten der gesamten staatlichen Medizin zuständig. In dieser Eigenschaft leistete er einen großen Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Apothekenwesens und zur Reorganisierung der Apothekerbehörde (russisch „Aptekarski prikas"), die damals eine Verwaltungsstelle für das Gesundheitswesen darstellte und sich später zur Medizinkanzlei und dann zum Medizinkollegium entwickelte.26, 27 Blumentrosts Lage verbesserte sich merklich, als sein Stiefsohn Johann Gottfried Gregorii, der auch in der Kirchenschule unterrichtete, wieder zum Günstling des Zaren wurde, indem er auf dessen Befehl seine Theaterstücke zu biblischen Themen inszenierte und somit Begründer des ersten russischen Hoftheaters wurde. Bereits nach wenigen Jahren seines Wirkens hatte Laurentius [d. Ä.] einen guten Ruf in Moskau. Er genoss nicht nur als praktizierender Arzt dank seiner medizinischen Erfahrungen und seiner Gelehrsamkeit ein großes Ansehen, sondern auch dank seiner Herzensgüte: Er verwendete sein Geld, um Bedürftigen zu helfen, kaufte auf dem Markt Leibeigene und gab ihnen die Freiheit, lehrte kostenlos arme Leute oder bekehrte Tataren und Türken zum Christentum. Er sprach und schrieb Griechisch und Lateinisch, war ein ausgezeichneter Philologe, widmete sich der Poesie und schrieb Gedichte, darunter Epigramme. Im Alltag war er bescheiden, gütig, anspruchslos und großzügig. Er war ein guter Familienvater, unterrichtete selbst seine Kinder, sorgte für 99 ihre Bildung und humanistische Erziehung. Zu den Hauslehrern gehörten u.a. Laurentius Rinhuber und Werner Pause, ein Dichter sowie Übersetzer der altrussischen Chroniken. 58 Laurentius [d. Ä.] und seine Familie gehörten der neuen lutherischen Gemeinde an. Er war Mitglied des Kirchenrates, später dessen Vorsteher und als solcher entwarf Laurentius [d. Ä.] eine neue Kirchenordnung, die aber nie in Kraft trat. Am russischen Hof war Laurentius [d. Ä.] Leibarzt von drei Zaren (Alexej, Fedor, Peter I), er war bis zu seinem Tode im hohen Alter tätig. Er behandelte auch die Angehörigen der Zarenfamilie. Überliefert sind zahlreiche Belege seiner ärztlichen Tätigkeit, darunter Diagnosen und Rezepte. Blumentrosts Rezepte wurden in jeder Familie sorgfältig aufbewahrt und wurden von Generation zu Generation weitergegeben. So ist bis zum heutigen Tage in Russland „Blumentrosts Salbe“ zur Behandlung von Gelenkbeschwerden sehr populär. Im Jahre 1682 wurden die Hofärzte der Vergiftung des Zaren Fedor beschuldigt, zwei von ihnen wurden von Aufständischen grausam ermordet. Laurentius [d. Ä.] blieb nur dank der Prinzessin Sofia am Leben, die ihn in ihrem Zimmer versteckt hatte.5, 6 Laurentius [d. Ä.] war eine bedeutende Persönlichkeit im Russland des 17. Jahrhunderts. Als Philosoph und Frühaufklärer vertrat er humanistische Ideen, begeisterte sich für den Pietismus und das Weltreformprogramm. Die Pietisten träumten von der Universalkirche, von der Vereinigung aller Christen zu einem harmonischen multikulturellen Ganzen. Man sah den Weg dazu in der Aufklärung und der Entwicklung von kulturellen und wirtschaftlichen Kontakten. Russland sollte als Missionsland eine wichtige Rolle dabei spielen. Die ersten Kontakte zwischen den Pietisten aus Halle und Russland knüpfte H. W. Ludolf (1655-1712), der als Diplomat nach Russland reiste. Er gewann den Leibarzt des Zaren, Dr. Laurentius Blumentrost [d. Ä.], für den Pietismus. Laurentius [d. Ä.] stand in engem Kontakt mit dem Theologieprofessor August Herrmann Francke, dem Leiter der pietistischen Bewegung und Gründer der Franckeschen Stiftungen in Halle, und machte auch Peter I. mit dessen Philosophie bekannt. Aufgeschlossen für alles Neue, zeigte der Zar großes Interesse für die Tätigkeit der 1695 entstandenen Frankeschen Stiftungen und 100 hoffte, dass diese ihm bei der Verwirklichung seiner Bildungsprojekte und beim Ausbau wirtschaftlicher und wissenschaftlicher Kontakte zu Deutschland behilflich sein würden. Tatsächlich strömten Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts viele deutsche Pädagogen und Theologen aus Halle nach Russland und wirkten in ausländischen und russischen Adelsfamilien als Kindererzieher und Lehrer. Sie beeinflussten auch die Entstehung der ersten öffentlichen Schulen und die Entwicklung des russischen Bildungswesens im Allgemeinen. So entstanden in Russland auch Waisenhäuser nach Franckes Vorbild.28 Laurentius [d. Ä.] war Förderer der Pietisten. Als Ältester des Kirchenrates der Neuen Deutschen Lutherischen Gemeinde in Moskau setzte er durch, dass J. S. Scharschmidt, mit dem das Wirken der Pietisten in Russland begann, zum Prediger der Neuen Deutschen Gemeinde, und Johann Werner Pause aus Thüringen im Jahre 1702 zum Leiter des Akademischen Glück-Gymnasiums gewählt wurden. Das berühmte Moskauer Akademische Gymnasium wurde von Ernst Glück aus Sachsen-Anhalt gegründet. Er war Anhänger des Pietismus, Theologe und Pädagoge und geriet als Kriegsgefangener während des Großen Nordischen Krieges nach Moskau. Durch die Vermittlung seiner Adoptivtochter Marta Skawronskaja, Liebhaberin und künftige Gemahlin Peterы I. und spätere Kaiserin Katarina I., wurde er befreit. Am GlückGymnasium lernte später auch Laurentius Blumentrost [d. J.]. Nach dem Tod seiner ersten Frau Anna Maria in Mühlhausen heiratete Laurentius [d. Ä.] am 15.02/26.02.1672 die aus Hamburg stammende Cäcilia Beermann, geb. Röver. Cäcilia starb am 05. März 1677 in Moskau.4 1678 heiratete er Anna Gosen (eine Tochter des kurländischen Kaufmanns Johann Gosen). Hochgeehrt, umgeben von seinen Kindern und Enkeln, starb er am 23. Oktober 1705 „sechs Tage vor seinem Geburtstag“ zu Moskau im Alter von 86 Jahren und wurde auf dem deutschen Friedhof begraben.51 Wie in Russland üblich, führte auch Laurentius [d. Ä.] einen Vatersnamen. In vielen Quellen steht Lawrentij Alferjewitsch. Es konnte nicht festgestellt werden, woher dieser Vatersname stammt. Sehr wahrscheinlich beruht dieser Vatersname auf einen Übertragungsfehler eines seiner frühen deutschen Biografen. 101 Blumentrost wohnte mit seiner Familie zuerst in der deutschen Sloboda (deutsche Vorstadt in Moskau), spätestens seit 1690 in seinem großen und schönen Haus in der Straße Mjasnitzkaja. In diesem Haus wurde im Jahre 1692 sein jüngster Sohn geboren. In dieser Straße, welche vom Kreml in die deutsche Siedlung führte, siedelten ausschließlich sehr wohlhabende Bürger. Erstaunlicherweise ist das Gebäude erhalten geblieben. Neben diesem gehörten Laurentius [d. Ä.] noch weitere Häuser und Grundstücke in Moskau. Das Haus von Laurentius Blumentrost [d. Ä.] in der Majsnitzkaja Str. 40 (Block 4) in Moskau, welches für ihn um das Jahr 1690 gebaut wurde (Foto: Daria Poskachey, Moskau) Das Apothekenamt, in dem Laurentius [d. Ä.] als Archiater tätig war, befand sich ursprünglich im Kreml (nur ein kleiner Rest von dem ehemaligen Gebäude des Apothekenamtes steht noch heute). Auf der Wiese neben der Kreml-Mauer (heute AlexanderGarten) war zu Blumentrosts Zeiten der Apotheken-Garten mit 102 Heilkräutern angelegt worden. Mit der Gründung des neuen Apothekenamtes befanden sich seit 1672 die Dienstgebäude in einem anderen Stadtbezirk, aber immer noch in der Nähe des Kremls. Ein Gebäude des Apothekenamtes (das ehemalige Refektorium) ist bis heute erhalten geblieben und gehört seit 2012 dem Architektur-Museum (heutige Adresse: Wosdwischenka, Haus 5). Im Erdgeschoß war ein Speiseraum, im Obergeschoß wurden im 17. Jahrhundert Kräuter getrocknet. Im Kellergeschoß lagerten Honig, Getränke u. a. m. Die heutige Ausstellung veranschaulicht die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Medizin in Russland. Sein ältester Sohn, Johann Friedrich Blumentrost, ist wahrscheinlich in den Jahren wurde im Jahre 1674 wird er in Mühlhausen zum zweiten Physikus ernannt. Zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt wird er erster Stadtphysikus.2,10 Seine medizinischen Fähigkeiten erlangten eine gewisse Berühmtheit.Im Jahre 1676 reist er nach Moskau zu seinem Vater. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt ist die Grund der Reise ist die Klärung der Eigentumsverhältnisse an den Mühlhäuser Besitztümern. Wosdwishenka 5 ,ehemals Aptekarskij Prikas (heute Museum für Architektur, Foto: Swetlana Kuroptewa) 103 Laurentius Christian Blumentrost Als zweiter Sohn aus erster Ehe wurde am 01.01.1655 Laurentius Blumentrost, später als Laurentius Christian Blumentrost bekannt, in der Marienkirche zu Mühlhauen getauft.9 104 Er reiste im Jahre 1668 mit seinem Vater nach Moskau. Dieser unterrichtete ihn in Griechisch, Latein und Medizin. Einer seiner Lehrer war Blumentrosts Medizinassistent Laurentius Rinhuber, der später im diplomatischen Dienst stand sowie Übersetzer und Schriftsteller war; bekannt wurde dieser durch sein Buch „Relation Du Voyage En Russie Fait En 1684“.29, 30 Seine Berichte über das Leben in Russland werden heute noch als historisch wertvoll angesehen. Laurentius Christian besuchte später die Gemeindeschule in Moskau und lernte dort bei seinem Stiefbruder Johann Gottfried Gregorii. Zar Alexej Michailowitsch, Vater Peters I., zwar überaus fromm und hielt treu an altrussischen Traditionen fest, aber dennoch war er aufgeschlossen für alles Neue. Als Kind spielte er mit allerlei deutschen mechanischen Spielzeugen, zeigte Interesse für Sprachen, hatte Neigung zur Philosophie und dichterisches Talent, wovon seine Gedichte und Schriften in Prosa zeugen, die im Staatsarchiv in Moskau aufbewahrt werden. Anlässlich der Geburt seines Sohnes Peter am 30. Mai /9. Juni 1672 beauftragte Zar Alexej Michajlowitsch Johann Gottfried Gregorii, der ab und zu mit seinen Schülern seine eigenen Theaterstücke für die deutsche Gemeinde inszenierte, ein Theater zu gründen. Die ersten Schauspieler waren vor allem Schüler der deutschen Kirchenschule, darunter Laurentius Christian Blumentrost. Das erste Theaterstück „Esther und Ahasvärus“ wurde von Gregorii und Rinhuber zunächst in deutscher Sprache geschrieben und anschließend zum Teil in Versen, zum Teil in Prosa ins Russische übersetzt. Die erste Aufführung fand am 17. Oktober 1672 in Anwesenheit des Zaren, seiner Familie und der Hofleute statt und dauerte 10 Stunden. Der Erfolg war außerordentlich. Die Aufführung wurde mehrfach wiederholt. Laurentius Christian spielte die Rolle des Mardochei mit großem Erfolg und war auch Sprecher des „Prologus und Epilogus“. Im Prolog wurde dem Zaren der Schutz der Deutschen empfohlen: „Sollte unser Mühsal, o Zar, Euch gefallen, dann wendet Euern Gnadenstrahl nicht nach Persien, des Artaxerxes Schutzbefohlenen (d.h. die Juden – Verf.) mögen Ihnen als Deutsche erscheinen.“ Es sei bemerkt, dass die deutschen Bediensteten sich dabei nicht als Untertan begriffen, sondern als freie Bürger. 50 105 Neben Rinhuber, der mit den Teilnehmern die Rollen eingeübt hatte, war Laurentius Christian außerdem Leiter der Schülergruppe und wurde nach der Aufführung Zar Alexej Michajlowitsch vorgestellt und von ihm belohnt. Der Zar war begeistert, und Gregorii bekam für diese Aufführung ein hohes Honorar: 40 Zobelpelze zu je 100 Rubel und 2 zu je 8 Rubel.30 Zwei Druckexemplare des Stückes „Esther und Ahasvärus“, das lange Zeit als verloren galt, wurden 1954 in den Stadtbibliotheken in Wologda und in Lyon gefunden und 1957 in Altslawisch sowie in Paris in Deutsch und Russisch herausgegeben. Auf Initiative des Mitgliedes der Moskauer lutherischen Gemeinde Vladimir Pudow wurde das Stück von Gregorii in die gegenwärtige Sprache übersetzt und anlässlich der Veranstaltungen „2000 Jahre Christentum“ am 31.01 2000 in einem Moskauer Theater aufgeführt. Laurentius Christian nahm an zahlreichen weiteren Aufführungen dieses ersten russischen Hoftheaters teil. Übrigens befand sich später dieses Hoftheater im Kreml über dem Apothekenamt. Von 1680 bis 1683 studierte Laurentius Christian Medizin in Leiden, an der Sorbonne in Paris und in Jena. Seit 1685 war er im russischen Staatsdienst als Arzt für die Töchter des Zaren tätig.4 In den Handschriften der Apothekerbehörde gibt es die Vermerke, dass er im Jahre 1687 den Fürsten J. Urussow behandelt habe und im Jahre 1692 sein jährliches Gehalt 460 Rubel betrug.5 Im Jahre 1705 war er Älterling der protestantischen Kirchengemeinde in Moskau. Sein letzter nachweisbarer Krankenbericht stammt vom 13. Oktober 1707. Mindestens bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt arbeitete er als Arzt für die Apothekenbehörde.4 Christian Laurentius war spätestens seit 1693 mit einer Frau namens Anna verheiratet und hatte Kinder.4 Anna wird nochmals bei der Taufe eines Enkels seines Stiefbruders Johann Gottfried Gregorii im Jahre 1704 genannt.14 Unklar bleibt jedoch, wie viel Kinder Christian Laurentius hatte sowie wann und wo er verstarb. 106 Johann Gottlob Deodatus Blumentrost Johann Gottlob Deodatus Blumentrost, in Russland genannt Ivan Lavrentjewitsch/Iwan Bogdanowitsch, wurde in Moskau geboren. Sein Geburtsjahr wird in den Quellen unterschiedlich angegeben: 1672, 1676, 1678, 1679, 1680. Der lateinische Name Deodatus heißt «von Gott geschenkt». Daher der russische Name „Bogdan“ mit gleicher Bedeutung, der üblicherweise als Vatersname „Bogdanowitsch“ neben „Lavrentjewitsch“ gebraucht wurde. In manchen russischen Quellen steht statt Deodat bzw. Deodatus Theodor.31 Im Jahre 1698 wurde Deodatus zum Studium nach Deutschland geschickt. Das Staatsarchiv in Moskau besitzt den Brief von seinem Vater Laurentius [d. Ä.] vom 18. Januar 1698 mit der Bitte, seinem Sohn das Studium in Deutschland zu erlauben.5, 32 Es gibt noch eine weitere Bestätigung für das Jahr 1698: Erst 1697 wurde der Königsberger Vertrag unterzeichnet, nach dem u. a. russische Studenten an der Albertine studieren durften. Wenn man vom Geburtsdatum 1672 ausgeht, so wäre Deodatus im Jahre 1698 26 Jahre alt gewesen. Viel zu spät für einen begabten Jungen, das Studium aufzunehmen! Auch das Jahr 1676 scheint aus demselben Grund zweifelhaft, zumal alle Quellen darin übereinstimmen, dass Deodatus ein Sohn von Anna Gosen gewesen ist, die Laurentius [d. Ä.] jedoch erst 1678 heiratete. Außerdem wird in manchen Quellen mitgeteilt, dass Deodatus mit 19 Jahren ins Ausland verreist ist. Sehr wahrscheinlich ist Deodat demzufolge in den Jahren 1678 oder 1679 geboren worden. Die undeutlich geschriebenen Ziffern 8 bzw. 9 konnten fälschlicherweise als 2 identifiziert werden. In der „Geschichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften“ von P. Pekarski, die als eine zuverlässige Quelle gilt, ist das Jahr 1679 als Geburtsjahr von Deodatus aufgeführt.49 Andere Quellen geben als konkretes Geburtsdatum den 05.08./15.08.1678 an.4, 35 Als russischer Student studierte Deodatus seit 1698 auf staatliche Kosten in Königsberg. Auf Verfügung Peters I. schrieb er im Jahre 1700 in Königsberg seine „Abhandlung über die Praxis des Feldarztes und seine medizinische Aufsichtspflicht im Moskauer Heer“, die im gleichen Jahr auch veröffentlicht wurde. Die 2. Auflage erschien im Jahre 1703. Ein Original befindet sich 107 in der Dresdner Bibliothek.14 Dieses in Latein verfasste Werk (Originaltitel „Medicus castrensis exercitui Moscovitarum praefectus“) mit 39 Kapiteln auf 80 kleinformatigen Seiten war die erste Veröffentlichung zum Thema Feldchirurgie in Russland.5, 14 Die Kapitel 28-34 sind von besonderem Wert, denn sie enthalten praktische Hinweise zur Behandlung von Wunden sowie auf verschiedene Arzneien und Rezepte. Lehrreich ist auch das Kapitel 35, in dem Deodatus den Ärzten und Chirurgen wertvolle allgemeine Ratschläge gibt. Lange Zeit galt das Buch in Russland als verschollen und wurde erst Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts in der Öffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg entdeckt. In den 50er Jahren des 20.Jh. wurde die Schrift von dem Medizinhistoriker G. Jakowlew sorgfältig ausgewertet. Deodatus setzte sein Studium ab 1701 in Halle (dortige Immatrikulation am 04.01.1701)34 und Leyden fort und promovierte 1702 in Halle mit einer Dissertation über Pulsmessung („Pulsum theoria et praxis“)14 Als Doktor der Medizin noch im gleichen Jahr nach Russland zurückgekehrt, diente er einige Zeit als Militärarzt und begleitete mehrmals Zar Peter I. auf seinen Feldzügen, später als dessen Leibarzt auch auf Reisen ins Ausland. Sein Gehalt betrug anfangs 300 Rubel jährlich.4 Im Jahre 1712 wurde das neugegründete Petersburg zur russischen Hauptstadt. Neben allen Verwaltungen übersiedelte auch das Apothekenamt nach Petersburg und befand sich einige Zeit auf dem Gelände der Peter-Pauls-Festung, später in der deutschen Siedlung an der Ecke der Großen Deutschen Straße (heute Millionnaja 4/1) und einer Gasse. Die Gasse trägt noch heute den alten Namen - Aptekarskij (Apothekengasse). Auf Befehl von Peter I. wurde im Jahre 1714 auf einer Insel der erste Apothekengarten in Petersburg angelegt, wozu Deodatus einen beachtlichen Beitrag leistete. Die Insel wurde daraufhin „Aptekarskij“ genannt. Aus dem Apothekengarten, in dem zuerst vorwiegend Heilkräuter und seltene Pflanzen gezüchtet wurden, entwickelte sich im 19. Jahrhundert der berühmte Botanische Garten. 1714 heiratete Deodatus zunächst Agatha (Tochter des Moskauer Bankiers Paul Westhof, Witwe des Hofarztes Gottfried Klemm und des Kaufmanns Johann Rudolph Poppe). Nach ihrem 108 Tod heiratete er 1747 Charlotte Magdalene Struve (1717 in Jena geboren - 1756 in Petersburg, nach anderen Quellen 1759 in Narva gestorben, Tochter eines Professors für Recht aus Kiel und Witwe des Leibarztes Ernst Gotthold Struve). Noch im gleichen Jahre wurde seine Tochter Maria Elisabeth geboren.35 Diese heiratete später Gottfried Ephraim von Opitz.55 Im Jahre 1718 wurde Deodatus zum Archiater ernannt. In diesem Amt erstellte er ein Projekt für medizinische Reformen und leitete umfangreiche Neuerungen ein. Auf seinen Vorschlag hin und dank seiner Bemühungen wurde im Jahre 1721 die Medizinkanzlei errichtet, deren Aufgabe darin bestand, die Aufsicht über die Spitäler und Apotheken, die Zulassung und Tätigkeit der Ärzte sowie die Überwachung von Arzneien und medizinischen Maßnahmen während der Epidemien auszuüben.33 In diesen Jahren wurden 10 Spitäler und rund 500 Lazarette in Russland eingerichtet. Im Jahre 1722 wurde er zum Staatsrat und zum Präsidenten der Medizinkanzlei ernannt. Er behielt dieses Amt bis 1731 inne. 1728 gründete er auch eine Ambulanz für Arme bei der Hofapotheke in Moskau. Das war gewissermaßen die erste Poliklinik in Russland. 6 In Petersbug wohnte Deodatus nicht weit von der Medizinkanzlei in der Millionnaja Str. (heute Haus 22, umgebaut) in der Nähe des Winterpalais von Peter I. (heute befindet sich an dieser Stelle das Ermitagetheater). Unter Zar Peter I. wurde Deodatus reichlich belohnt, ausgezeichnet und befördert. 1716 war er Besitzer von 58 Anwesen. 1719 betrug sein Jahresgehalt 3000 Rubel. Der Zar schenkte ihm sein mit Diamanten besetztes Porträt, das Deodatus am Halsbande trug, sowie das Gut Gatschina. Dieses Gut war zwischen 1718-1732 im Besitz von Deodatus. Neben seinem Sommerhaus ließ er den ersten regulären Apothekengarten anlegen.36 Nach dem Tode Peters I. und Katharina I. begannen unter Kaiserin Anna Intrigen gegen ihn: Ihm wurden Unregelmäßigkeiten in der Hofapotheke zur Last gelegt, und 1730 wurde er aus allen seinen Ämtern verdrängt. Die Ländereien in Gatschina gingen in Staatsbesitz über. 1731 zog er nach Moskau, während eines Brandes verlor er auch sein gesamtes dortiges 109 Vermögen. Von allen Anwesen blieb ihm nur das Gut Kummolowo bei Petersburg (5 Dörfer, 18 Hektar). In Kummolowo wurde von ihm eine Branntweinbrennerei errichtet und in künstlich angelegten Teichen wurden Forellen gezüchtet. Die Ruine des Herrenhauses steht noch heute. Die Teiche sind zugewachsen. Das Dorf ist unbewohnt. Das Grundstück steht zum Verkauf. In der Sowjetzeit war im Dorf ein Fliegerregiment stationiert. Millionnaja 22 in der Nähe des Winterpalais. Hier wohnten Deodatus und Laurentius [d. J.] (Foto: Elena Yudina) Nach seinem Tod gehörte das Gut seiner Tochter Marie Elisabeth (russisch Мария Ивановна), welche zunächst mit Gottfried Ephraim von Opitz verehelicht war und nach dessen Tod Friedrich Johann von Gersdorf heiratete und im Jahre 1775 verstarb. 125 Jahre wohnten dort Vertreter dieser Familie.37, 38 110 Haus in Kummolowo (Foto: Elena Yudina) In den Jahren 1748-1749 war Deodatus stellvertretender Präsident des Kirchenkonvents der Petrikirche in Petersburg, beruflich war er nicht mehr tätig und starb 1756 in Petersburg. In einigen Quellen wird als Todestag der 11.3./22.03.1756 angegeben.35 Er wurde neben seinem Bruder Laurentius dem Jüngeren auf dem Friedhof an der Simpsonkirche begraben. In den Grabstein wurde folgender Satz in Latein eingemeißelt: „Memoria generis et sanguinus Blumentrostiadiem prorsus deleta“ (Das Gedächtnis an die blut- und nahverwandten Blumentrosts ist erloschen). Das Grab ist nicht mehr vorhanden.39 Die Grabinschrift nimmt nur Bezug auf die männliche Linie der Blumentrosts, die mit Deodatus erloschen ist. Er hinterließ aber Nachkommen: seine Tochter Marie Elisabeth Gersdorf, ihre Kinder und Enkel. (Robert) Laurentius Blumentrost der Jüngere Der hervorragendste Vertreter der Familie Blumentrost Robert Laurentius/Lorenz Blumentrost - ist 1692 als der jüngste 111 Sohn von Laurentius Blumentrost d. Ä. und Anna Gosen in Moskau geboren worden. In manchen Quellen wird als Geburtsdatum der 29.10./10.11 angegeben, es handelt sich hierbei möglicherweise um eine Verwechslung mit dem Geburtstag von Laurentius [d. Ä.].2 Laurentius [d. J.] bekam eine vortreffliche Ausbildung. Seine Hauslehrer waren bedeutende Gelehrte der damaligen Zeit und Freunde der Familie: außer L. Rinhuber auch J. W. Pause (Philosoph, Dichter und Übersetzer, persönlich bekannt mit Peter I.) und J. S. Scharschmidt (Theologe, Informator, Pietist). In Griechisch, Latein und Medizin wurde er von seinem Vater unterrichtet, später besuchte er das Glück-Gymnasium in Moskau. Bereits mit 14 Jahren wurde er im November 1706 an der medizinischen Fakultät der Universität zu Halle immatrikuliert, später studierte er auch in Oxford und Leiden.40 In Leiden promovierte er 1713 mit dem Thema „De secretione animali“5 zum Doktor der Medizin. Nach Aussagen von Zeitgenossen kam er nach Begabung und Gelehrsamkeit ganz nach seinem Vater. Er beherrschte Latein, Griechisch, Deutsch, Französisch und Russisch. Er wurde als ein leutseliger und höflicher Mensch gerühmt. Nach seiner Rückkehr nach Moskau 1714 ernannte ihn Peter I. zum Leibarzt seiner Schwester Natalia. 1715 wurde Laurentius [d. J.] beauftragt, die Symptome und den Verlauf der Krankheit des Zaren zu beschreiben. Das Untersuchungsergebnis teilte er weiteren angesehenen Ärzten in Europa mit, um von diesen fachliche Ratschläge einzuholen. Als Hofarzt reiste er in den Jahren 1715-1717 im Auftrag von Peter I. nach Europa (Deutschland, Frankreich, England, Holland), um das Medizinwesen kennenzulernen. Er studierte Anatomie in Paris bei I. Duvernoy, dann in Amsterdam bei dem bekannten Gelehrten Friedrich Ruysch. Er erlernte die Kunst, anatomische Präparate anzufertigen. Auf Rat von Laurentius [d. J.] und dank seinen Bemühungen wurde 1717 das berühmte anatomische Kabinett F. Ruyschs von der russischen Regierung erworben. Nur Blumentrost wurde ins Geheimnis der Konservierung und Erhaltung der biologischen Präparate eingeweiht. Diese Sammlung befindet sich in der Petersburger Kunstkammer. 112 1718 starb Zar Peters Leibarzt R. Areskin, mit dem der junge Blumentrost eng befreundet war. Areskin vermachte Laurentius [d. J.] seinen Landsitz bei Petersburg. Auch seine Ämter gingen an ihn über. Seit 1719 war er Leibarzt von Peter I. und seiner Familie und gleichzeitig Leiter der kaiserlichen Bibliothek und der Kunstkammer. Museum "Martialwasser" In Karelien, im Ort Olonez, wurde eisenhaltiges Wasser entdeckt. Laurentius [d. J.] untersuchte seit 1717 als erster dessen Eigenschaften und schrieb 1719 die ersten balneologischen Anleitungen zur Behandlung mit Mineralwasser41 sowie die Abhandlung „Beschreibung der Mineral-Wasser von Olonez“.42 Auf Erlass von Peter I. wurde 1719 der erste Kurort in Russland – „Martialwasser“ – gegründet. Der Kaiser besuchte mehrmals diesen Kurort und ließ sich mit Mineralwasser behandeln. In der Sowjetzeit wurde der Kurort „Martialwasser“ (russisch «Марциальные воды“) neu eröffnet (1964). Die damals von 113 Laurentius [d. J.] erstellten Anleitungen zur Behandlung gelten noch heute. Aus der Anfangszeit erhalten geblieben ist eine kleine Kirche, die auf Anordnung von Peter I. im Jahre 1721 errichtet wurde. Die Kirche in Olonez . Laurentius [d. J.] stellte medizinische Hinweise für Peter I. zusammen, dessen Gesundheit angeschlagen war. Überliefert ist eine Belehrung für den Zaren, welche im Original in der veralteten russischen Sprache vorliegt. 43 Die Zeitgenossen hielten Laurentius [d. J.] für eine große Kapazität der Medizin der damaligen Zeit. Er blieb der erste Leibarzt und Vertrauter von Peter I. bis zu dessen Tod. Als der Kaiser im Sterben lag, tat Laurentius [d. J.] sein Bestes, um den Zaren zu retten: Er berief alle Ärzte von St. Petersburg zu einem Consilium ein und sendete bereits am 16. Januar 1725 die ganze Krankengeschichte an H. Boerhaave in Leyden und Ernst Stahl in Berlin, um von diesen einen ärztlichen Rat einzuholen.6 Im Auftrag Peters I. sollte Laurentius [d. J.] das Projekt der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste ausarbeiten. Warum gerade er für diesen Auftrag gewählt wurde, 114 erklärt das Akademiemitglied Kunik (1860) wie folgt: „Bei allen diesen Unternehmungen und auszuführenden Arbeiten zwischen ihm und sämtlichen Angestellten Vermittler zu machen, mochte dem Kaiser nicht leicht jemand besser geeignet scheinen als der ihm ohnehin nahe stehende Blumentrost, da ihm Wolff als Vizepräsident nicht nur zur Seite stehen, sondern, wie es scheint, einen großen Teil der schweren Bürde auf sich nehmen sollte“.44 Erlass Peters I. über die Gründung der Akademie der Wissenschaften Ende 1723 ging Laurentius [d. J.] an den Entwurf des Projekts und legte es dem Zaren schon am 08.01.1724 zur Bestätigung vor. Innerhalb von drei Jahren korrespondierte Laurentius [d. J.] mit vielen Gelehrten in Europa. Besonders produktiv war sein Briefwechsel mit Prof. Chr. Wolff aus Halle. Blumentrost hoffte ihn für das Amt des Vizepräsidenten zu gewinnen. Aus persönlichen Gründen verzichtete Wolff am Ende auf dieses Amt. Doch sein Beitrag zur Gründung der russischen Akademie war erheblich. Durch seine Vermittlung gewann die Akademie eine Reihe von begabten jungen Wissenschaftlern: Büllfinger, Hermann, Brüder Bernoulli, Goldbach, Euler u. a. Laurentius [d. J.] schloss mit allen Akademiemitgliedern Verträge ab und bestimmte die Aufgaben und Gehälter. In erster Linie wurde um deutsche Gelehrte geworben. Neun der ersten 13 Akademiemitglieder waren deutsche Gelehrte: der Botaniker und 115 Zoologe I. Buxbaum, die Mathematiker Ch. Martini und Ch. Goldbach, die Historiker J. Kohl und G. Bayer, der Chemiker M. Bürger, der Jurist J. Beckenstein und der Physiker und Philosoph G. Büllfinger. Von 14 Vorlesungsreihen der Akademie der Wissenschaften wurden zehn von Deutschen gehalten. Seit den zwanziger Jahren des 18. Jahrhunderts leiteten deutsche Gelehrte mehrere Expeditionen in entfernte Gebiete des Landes. Laurentius [d. J.] kümmerte sich nicht nur um die Angelegenheiten der Akademie, sondern auch um das Leben ihrer Mitglieder, deren Unterkunft und Verpflegung. Davon zeugen seine Briefe sowie die Aussagen der ersten Akademiker, die vom Leben in St. Petersburg berichten.45 Der Historiker J. Kohl versicherte seinem Kollegen G. Müller in einem Brief, die Lebensbedingungen seien hier genauso gut wie in Deutschland, die Bibliothek sei ausgezeichnet und er werde in der russischen Hauptstadt die Gelegenheit zum Austausch mit bedeutenden Gelehrten haben. Russland wurde für den angehenden Historiker G. Müller zur zweiten Heimat. Er war 58 Jahre lang an der Akademie tätig.46 Die ersten Jahre der Präsidentschaft waren sehr erfolgreich. Laurentius [d. J.] schrieb in einem Brief an Wolff: „Obwohlen die Akademie einen viel vornehmeren und gelehrteren Präsidenten hätte bekommen können, so weiß ich doch nicht, ob sie einen eifrigeren hätte finden können, welcher mit solcher Begierde als ich vor derselben Wohlfahrt würde gestanden haben“.48 Laurentius [d. J.] setzte durch, dass Katharina I. zwei Grundstücke auf der Wassili-Insel für die Errichtung des Gebäudes der Kunstkammer und das nebenliegende Palais (gebaut für die Gemahlin des Zaren Iwan V, der Mutter von Anna Ioanowna) der Akademie sowie ein konfisziertes Palais von Baron Schafirow für die Unterkunft der ausländischen Akademiker zur Verfügung stellen ließ. Er musste u. a. die Bautätigkeit beaufsichtigen, die kaiserliche Bibliothek und die Raritäten-Sammlungen Peter I. sowie den Gottorper Globus (Sommerschloss, Sommergarten) im neuen Gebäude unterbringen, allerlei Geräte und Instrumente im Ausland einkaufen sowie Büchersammlungen erwerben. In einem auf den 31. Mai 1726 datierten Brief teilt er seinen Plan mit, was im Gebäude der Kunstkammer untergebracht werden soll: das anatomische Institut, der Globus, die Sternwarte. Die 116 Unterbringung des riesigen Globus war ein besonders schweres Unternehmen. Im Jahre 1728 fand die Einweihung der »Akademischen Kammer« statt.48 Weiterhin wurde das Palais der Praskowja Fedorowna umgebaut. In diesem wurden der Konferenzsaal, die Druckerei, das Archiv, die Buchhandlung, die Mal- und Gravurwerkstatt sowie das geografische Departament der Akademie untergebracht (heutzutage Zoologisches Museum). Laurentius [d. J.] musste sich ständig um die Finanzierung kümmern. Zwecks der Selbstfinanzierung ließ er Im Jahre 1727 die akademische Druckerei mit zwei Druckanlagen mit lateinischer, deutscher und russischer Schrift errichten. Die Gelehrten konnten so ihre Monografien, Lehrbücher und populärwissenschaftliche Bücher veröffentlichen. Bereits 1728 erschienen 11 Titel. Außerdem wurden Periodica gedruckt: die erste russische Zeitung «Ведомости» (seit 1728 «Санктпетербургские ведомости»), Kalender, die Sammelbände „Kommentare“, welche die Ergebnisse der wissenschaftlichen Konferenzen enthielten, u. a. m. Laurentius Blumentrost [d. J.], Lithografie von P. A. Andrejew 1837 (aus der Sammlung von Е. Е. Reithern, seit 1918 im Russischen Museum, St. Petersburg) 117 Am besten charakterisierte die Verdienste von Laurentius [d. J.] der Historiker P. P. Pekarski, der das vielbändige Werk „Die Geschichte der kaiserlichen Akademie in Petersburg“ im Jahre 1870 herausgab: „L. L. Blumentrost gründete nicht nur die Akademie, vielmehr die russische Wissenschaft selbst als ein einheitliches, sich entwickelndes und sich produzierendes System.“49 (Übersetzung von E. Yudina). Der Historiker G. Müller hinterließ uns eine ausführliche Charakteristik der Persönlichkeit von Laurentius d. J.: „Wenn man sein Gesicht betrachtete, so war es attraktiv, sein Umgang war höflich und freundlich. Er gab nie gegenüber den Wissenschaftlern der Akademie zu verstehen, dass er ihnen überlegen ist oder es als Präsident sein wird. … Als er es tatsächlich geworden war, änderte sich sein Umgang nicht. Er war von allen geachtet und geliebt, solange er in Petersburg war und die Akademie besuchte“.49 (Übersetzung von E.Yudina). G. Müller erzählt als Augenzeuge, dass Laurentius d. J. während der Sitzungen nicht vorn, sondern mal da und mal dort saß. Es gab keinen Ehrenplatz für den Präsidenten. Er verlangte keine Vorzüge für sich. Er sprach in den Sitzungen mit der jeweiliger Person die Sprache, die diese beherrschte.49 Акаdemie der Wissenschaften im 18. Jh. 118 Bereits im Jahre 1736 schrieb der bekannte französische Physiker J.J. Dortu de Meran, ein Ehrenmitglied der russischen Akademie: „Die Petersburger Akademie hatte bereits seit ihrer Gründung ein hervorragendes wissenschaftliches Niveau, das die Akademien zu Paris und zu London erst mit großer Mühe nach 60 Jahren erreicht haben.“56 (Übersetzung von E. Yudina). Manche Historiker werfen Laurentius [d. J.] vor, dass er in den letzten Jahren seiner Präsidentschaft die Akademie vernachlässigt hat und sein Projekt im Sinne Peters I. nicht realisieren konnte. Diese Vorwürfe scheinen unbegründet zu sein. Wie konnte Laurentius [d. J.], sonst tüchtig, eifrig und konsequent, seit 1728 plötzlich untätig und gleichgültig seinem eigenen Lebenswerk gegenüber werden? Es sei daran erinnert, dass es besondere Gründe für sein Verhalten nach 1728 gab. Bis zum Tod von Katharina I. Im Jahre 1728 handelte Laurentius [d. J.] immer im Namen des Kaisers und hatte kaiserliche Protektion. Dann änderte sich seine Lage. Als der erste Leibarzt sollte er mit dem Hof von Peter II. nach Moskau übersiedeln. Am 04.01.1728 unterzeichnete er eine Verfügung, in der er seinen Stellvertreter J. Schumacher gemeinsam mit einem jeweiligen Akademiemitglied beauftragte, die Leitung der Akademie zu übernehmen. Zu seinen Assistenten ernannte er drei Akademiemitglieder, die alle vier Monate einander ablösen sollten. 49 Schon bald beschwerten sich die Gelehrten über die Verschlechterung der Zustände in der Akademie, Intrigen nahmen überhand, überall herrschte Unordnung und hinzu kam der Despotismus Schumachers, der alle Mitarbeiter hochmütig behandelte. Unstabile politische Verhältnisse ließen viele Gelehrte in die Heimat zurückkehren. Als erste verließen die Akademie D. Bernoulli, G. Büllfinger und J. Hermann. Nach dem Tod von Peter II. 1730 und der Rückkehr von Laurentius [d. J.] nach Petersburg erschwert sich seine Lage noch mehr. Nicht nur der Pseudoakademiker J. Schumacher intrigierte heimlich gegen ihn, sondern die Umgebung der neuen Kaiserin Anna Ioannowna, weil er und sein Bruder Deodatus Loyalität gegenüber den Töchtern Peters I. bewahrten und somit zum Lager der Gegner gehörten. 119 Seine Protektorin und Herrin war in den Jahren 1731-1733 Catharina Iwanowna, eine Schwester der Kaiserin, Herzogin von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, deren Arzt Laurentius [d. J.] war und in deren Palais bei Petersburg er in den Jahren ständig wohnte, so dass er auch an den Sitzungen der Akademie nicht teilnehmen konnte und der Mathematiker Goldbach ihn oft vertreten musste. Ihr Tod 1733 gab seinen Feinden einen Vorwand, ihn zu stürzen. Da vorher auch einige andere Mitglieder der Kaiserfamilie in kurzer Zeit einer nach dem anderen starben, wurde dieser Umstand benutzt, um Laurentius [d. J.] wegen ungenügender Qualifikation anzuklagen und aus allen Ämtern zu entlassen. Laurentius [d. J.] hatte keine Macht, keine Protektion und keinen Einfluss mehr. 1733 begab er sich nach Moskau zurück und lebte fünf Jahre ohne Dienststellung als privat praktizierender Arzt. Erst 1738 wurde er durch die Fürbitte des damaligen Archiaters Fischer zum Chefarzt beim Moskauer Militärspital und Rektor der Spitalschule, die ca. 50 Schüler, meistens Russen, zählte und Militärärzte ausbildete. Diese Tätigkeit wurde von den Zeitgenossen hoch geschätzt. Unter Kaiserin Elisabeth fand Laurentius [d. J.] wieder Wertschätzung. 1742 wurde er von der Kaiserin zum wirklichen Staatsrat und 1754 in Anerkennung seiner Kenntnisse und Verdienste zum Kurator der neugegründeten Moskauer Universität ernannt, starb aber kurz darauf am 27. März/08. April 1755 an Brustwassersucht.5, 6 Er wurde im lutherischen Teil des ältesten Friedhofs an der Simpsonkirche in Petersburg begraben. Der Friedhof ist nicht mehr vorhanden. Laurentius [d. J.] war mit Anna Vassiliejwna Efremowa verheiratet und hatte mit ihr gemeinsam eine Tochter, die ebenfalls Anna hieß. Seine Frau und seine Tochter waren jedoch schon früher verstorben als er, so dass er keine Nachkommen hinterließ.49 Die Gestalt des berühmten Leibarztes der Zarenfamilie fand in mehreren literarischen Werken seinen Eingang, so u. a. im Roman „Peter und Alexej“ und dem Theaterstück „Zarensohn Alexej“ von D. Mereschkowskij, das in der sowjetischen Zeit auch verfilmt wurde. Iwan Fedorowitsch Blumentrost (so heißt er im Stück) ist als ein humaner Mensch mit fortschrittlicher Gesinnung dargestellt. Er muss die Wunden des Zarensohns nach jeder der zahlreichen Folterungen im Gefängnis behandeln und seine 120 Schmerzen mildern. Blumentrost tadelt Peters Grausamkeit gegenüber seinem Sohn, kritisiert in seinen Aussagen das rückständige Russland und sein geduldiges Volk. Auch im 20. Jahrhundert erschienen mehrere Romane und Erzählungen über die petrinische Zeit, in denen der Leibarzt und Vertraute des Kaisers, nämlich Blumentrost, als positive Gestalt vorkommt. Diese Romane und Erzählungen dienten im 21. Jahrhundert als Vorlage für folgende Filme: „Das Vermächtnis des Kaisers“, „Das Vermächtnis der Kaiserin“, „Der Tod des jungen Kaisers“, „Die zweite Braut des jungen Kaisers“. In der letzten Zeit wird in Massenmedien versucht zu beweisen, dass Peter I. nicht eines natürlichen Todes starb, sondern als Opfer der Europaverschwörung vergiftet wurde. In manchen Spekulationen wird auch Laurentius [d. J.] eine negative Rolle zugeschrieben.57 Die legendäre Gestalt des gelehrten Arztes und Begründers der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste lebt in Russland dennoch fort. Laurentius Blumentrost [d. J.], der letzte der Ärztedynastie, hat auch heutzutage Verehrer, besonders unter Medizinern. In sozialen Netzwerken findet man oft den Namen Blumentrost als Pseudonym. Bibliographie 1. MÖTSCH, DR. JOHANNES, Gemeinschaftliches Hennebergisches Archiv, Sektion VI, Thüringisches Staatsarchivs Meiningen, Bestandsnr. 410106, Nr. 425, 491, 579, Meinigen 2000 2. JORDAN, PROF. DR. REINHARD, Mühlhäuser In Rußland, In: Mühlhäuser Anzeiger Nr. 8 bis 10/1913, Mühlhausen in Thüringen 1913 3. STOLBERG-WERNIGERODE, OTTO ZU, Neue deutsche Biographie, Bd. 2, Verlag Behaim – Bürkel, Berlin 1955 4. DUMSCHAT, SABINE, Ausländische Mediziner im Moskauer Rußland, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2006 5. RICHTER, DR. WILHELM MICHAEL VON, Geschichte der Medicin in Russland – Zweiter Theil, Moscwa 1815 6. HEINE, DR. MAXIMILIAN, Medicinisch--Historisches aus Russland, Verlag von Eggers et Comp., St. Petersburg 1851 121 7. RAMMELMEYER, ALFRED, Aufsätze zur russischen Literatur und Geistesgeschichte, In: Opera Slavica, Neue Folge 37, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden 2000 8. HOYER, JOHANN GEORG, Laurentii Blumentrosts Haußund Reiß- Apotheck, Leipzig 1716 9. Taufbuch der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu Mühlhausen/Thür., Eintrag vom 01.01.1655 10. WAGNER, A., Laurentius Blumentrost, In: Thüringer Monatshefte „Pflüger“, Jahrgang 8 S. 72 ff, Verlag der Thüringer Monatshefte, Flarchheim 1931 11. HILLEBRAND, WERNER, Die Matrikel der Universität Helmstedt 1636 – 1685, S. 18, Verlag August Lax, Hildesheim 1981 12. Franckesche Stiftungen zu Halle (Saale) ), Studienzentrum August Hermann Francke, Archiv, Datenbank zu den Einzelhandschriften in den historischen Archivabteilungen, Blumentrost, Laurentius [d. Ä.], http://192.124.243.55/cgibin/gkdb.pl 13. Tauf- und Sterbebücher der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu Mühlhausen, Eintragungen der Jahre 1653, 1655, 1657, 1658 und 1659 14. KOCH, ERNST, Die Sachsenkirche in Moskau und das erste Theater in Rußland, In: Neues Archiv für Sächsische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Bd. 32, Dresden 1911 15. BRINKMANN, DR. ERNST, Mühlhäuser Bürgermeister und Ratsherren, In: Mühlhäuser Geschichtsblätter, 28. Jahrgang 1927/1928, Mühlhausen in Thüringen 1929 16. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür, Vokation des Laurentius Blumentrost nach Moskau an den Hof des Zaren Alexei Michailowitsch [Abschrif], fol. 53 17. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür., Demissionschreiben von Laurentius Blumentrost, fol. 49 ft., 16.12.1667 18. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür, Abschiedsbrief des Rates für Laurentius Blumentrost, fol. 365 – 366, 29.12.1667 19. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür, Erteilung eines Paßports für Laurentius Blumentrost und Johann Gottfried Gregory und die mitreisenden Personen, fol. 364, Dezember 1667 20. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür., Kataster der Stadt Mühlhausen 1643, 10/EE Nr. 10, 1643, Seite 376 122 21. Sterbebuch der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu Mühlhausen/Thür., Eintrag vom 24.10.1700 22. Sterbebuch der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu Mühlhausen/Thür., Eintrag vom 26.10.1705 23. Taufbuch der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu Mühlhausen/Thür., Eintrag vom 05.04.1657 24. Taufbuch der Kirchengemeinde St. Marien zu Mühlhausen/Thür., Eintrag vom 20.02.1659 25. BRÜCKNER, ALEXANDER, Geschichte Russlands bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts, Gotha 1896 26. BÜSCHING, ANTON FRIEDRICH, Beiträge zu der Lebensgeschichte denkwürdiger Personen in 6 Bänden, Bd. III, Hamburg 1783/1789 27. Staatsarchiv РГАДА, Moskau Fond 150, 1668, Akt 3; 1683, Akt 6 28. TAMMER, TERESA, Pietismus und die Modernisierung in Russland im 18. Jh. In: TABULARASA, Zeitung für Geschichte und Kultur, № 44, Jena 2009 29. BRÜCKNER, ALEXANDER, Rinhuber. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Rußlands im 17. Jh., In: Historische Zeitschrift. Bd. 52, H. 2., S.193-25, München 1884 30. Laurent Rinhuber, „Relation Du Voyage En Russie Fait En 1684", S. 30, Berlin 1883 31. Немцы в России. Энциклопедия, Москва 1999, 4 Bde, B. I. Blumentrost. S. 218. 32. Экземплярский А. В. Блументрост, Иван Богдан // Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона: В 86 томах (82 т. и 4 доп.). — СПб, 1890—1907. 33. ПСЗ. Т. VI, № 3811 (Полное собрание законов ) in: Валерий Кобеляцкий. Династия Блументростов. Гематологический научный центр российской академии медицинских наук (27 августа 2006) 34. Franckesche Stiftungen zu Halle (Saale), Studienzentrum August Hermann Francke, Archiv, Datenbank zu den Einzelhandschriften in den historischen Archivabteilungen, Blumentrost, Johannes Deodatus, http://192.124.243.55/cgibin/gkdb.pl?x=u&t_show=x&wertreg=PER&wert=blumentrost% 2C+johannes+deodatus++-+BIOGRAFIE&reccheck=,123569 123 35. Erik-Amburger-Datenbank, Johann Deodat Blumentrost, http://88.217.241.77/amburger/index.php?id=7622 und http://88.217.241.77/amburger/index.php?id=61944 36. БУРЛАКОВ A., Был в Гатчине Ботанический сад. Ист. журн. «Гатчина сквозь столетия». 2008 37. МУРАШОВА, Н.В. и П.П. МЫСЛИНА, Дворянские усадьбы Санкт-Петербургской губернии. Ломоносовский район. СПб. Блиц 1999. S. 87-95 38. ПЫЛЯЕВ, М. И, Забытое прошлое окрестностей Петербурга. СПб. «Паритет» 2008 39. САИТОВ, В.И.. Петербургский некрополь. СПб, 1912 40. Franckesche Stiftungen zu Halle (Saale), Studienzentrum August Hermann Francke, Archiv, Datenbank zu den Einzelhandschriften in den historischen Archivabteilungen, Blumentrost, Laurentius [d. J.], http://192.124.243.55/cgibin/gkdb.pl?x=u&t_show=x&wertreg=PER&wert=blumentrost% 2C+laurentius+%3C1692-1755%3E+++BIOGRAFIE&reccheck=,89032 41. Дохтурские правила как при оных водах поступать, Handschrift. CПб, 1719 (Fragmente dieser Schrift auch bei HEINE – Anmerkung 6) 42. Описание Олонецких вод, Handschrift. CПб, 1719 (Fragmente dieser Schrift auch bei HEINE – Anmerkung 6) 43. Aus MEDICINISCH-HISTORISGHES aus RUSSLAND, S. 110 (vgl. Anmerkung 6), Übersetzung von E. YUDINA 44. WOLFF, CHRISTIAN., Briefe aus den Jahren 1719— 1753. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der kaiserlichen Academie der Wissenschaften zu St. Petersburg [Hrsg. von A. Kunik], St. Petersburg, 1860 45. WOLFF, CHRISTIAN, Blumentrosts Briefe in: Briefe von Christian Wolff aus den Jahren 1719-1733. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der kaiserlichen Akademie. St. Petersburg 1860 46. ПЕКАРСКИЙ П.П., История императорской Академии наук в Петербурге. СПб. 1870. B. 1. S. 310 47. BLUMENTROST, LAURENTIUS [D. J.], Briefe von Christian Wolff aus den Jahren1719-1733. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der kaiserlichen Akademie, St. Petersburg 1860, Hier: Brief vom 04.12.1725, Blumentrost an Ch. Wolff (Brief Nr. 119) 124 48. КАРПЕЕВ ,Э.П., Большой Готторпский глобус. СПб 2003. S. 38, 39,40 49. ПЕКАРСКИЙ, П.П. История императорской Академии наук в Петербурге. СПб, 1870. B.. 1. S. 1-15 50. Die Deutschen und das russische Theater. In: Tausend Jahre Nachbarschaft, Russland und die Deutschen. München, Bruckmann [Hrs.], Stiftung Ostdeutscher Kulturrat Bonn, S. 240241 51. Personalia (handschriftlicher Lebenslauf von Blumentrost d. Ä.), Verfasser und Jahr unbekannt (wahrscheinlich unmittelbar nach dem Tod von Blumentrost aufgeschrieben), Franckesche Stiftungen Halle, ,AFSt/H D 83, 840-850 52. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür., Kataster der Stadt Mühlhausen 1643, 10/EE Nr. 9, 1626, Bd. 2 fol. 81 53. Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür., Kataster der Stadt Mühlhausen 1643, 10/EE Nr. 10, 1643, Bd. 3 fol. 136-137 54. EISFELD, A., Tausend Jahre Nachbarschaft. Russland und die Deutschen, Bruckmann Verlag München 1988 55. Erik-Amburger-Datenbank, Gottfried Ephraim von Opitz, http://212.114.133.101/amburger/index.php?id=1003745 56. ОСИПОВ, Ю.С., Академия наук в истории российского государства, Москва, Наука, 1999 57. On-line-Bibliothek: C. Десятсков «Смерть Петра Первого»; В. Точинов «Усмешки Клио-2“, S. 31—32 58. KAUFUNGEN, KUNZ VON, Mühlhäuser Hexenprozesse aus den Jahren 1659 und 1660. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Kulturgeschichte. In: Mühlhäuser Geschichtsblätter, Jahrgang 7, 1906/1907, S. 84-119. Des Weiteren im Stadtarchiv Mühlhausen/Thür., 10/BB 3 Nr. 2 fol. 48-48` Schlüsselwörter Laurentius Blumentrost, Lavrentij Lavrentjevich Blumentrost, Präsident der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Geschichte Russlands, Geschichte der Medizin, Mühlhausen, Thüringen, Moskau, Gottfried Gregorii, Laurentius Christian, Laurentius Rinhuber, Johann Gottfried Gregorii, Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm, August Herrmann Francke, Peter I, Deutschen Lutherischen Gemeinde in Moskau, Laurentius Christian 125 Blumentrost, Zar Alexej Michailowitsch, Johann Gottlob Deodatus Blumentrost, (Robert) Laurentius Blumentrost der Jüngere, der Petersburger Kunstkammer, Museum "Martialwasser", Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste, Büllfinger, Hermann, Brüder Bernoulli, Goldbach, Euler. Zusammenfassung 2012 jährte sich der Geburtstag von Laurentius Blumentrost dem Jüngeren [d. J.] zum 320. Mal (1692-1755). Lavrentij Lavrentjevich Blumentrost, so sein Name in Russland, war erster Präsident der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Leibarzt Peter des Großen sowie Leiter der kaiserlichen Bibliothek und Kunstkammer. Aber wo lagen seine familiären Wurzeln? Der rege kulturelle und wirtschaftliche Austausch zwischen Deutschland und Russland dauert bereits seit Jahrhunderten an. Deutsche prägten die Geschichte Russlands auf allen Gebieten ganz deutlich mit. Sie trugen zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Kunst ihrer zweiten Heimat bei, waren hochrangige Militärleute und Spitzenpolitiker. Zahlreiche Deutsche sind in die Geschichte der Medizin in Russland eingegangen. 126 Information about the authors Bykovskaya Galina A. Professor, PhD of history, the dean of fakultet gumanirary, Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies [email protected] Duskova Natalia A. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of Department of History and Political Science "Voronezh State Technical University" [email protected] Fedorov Konstantin V. Associated professor of “History” department of Bauman Moscow State Technical University, PhD in History, associated professor [email protected] 127 Ivanov Vladimir A. Head of the Chair of General History and Cultural Heritage at M.Akmullah Bashkir State Pedagogical University, professor, Doctor of historical sciences [email protected] Khairutdinov Ramil R. Director of the Institute of International Relations, History and Oriental Studies of Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Ph.D. in History [email protected] Kolesnikova Marina E. Head of the Department of history of Russia of the North-Caucasian Federal University, doctor of Historical Sciences, professor [email protected] 128 Kortunov Aljeksjej I. An associate professor of the Chair of Russian History at M.Akmullah Bashkir State Pedagogical University, Candidate of historical sciences, [email protected] Lizunova Irina V. Associate Professor Siberian State Academy of Geodesy, Ph.D. [email protected] Mazaeva Tamara A. The Chechen State University 364907 Grozny, 32 Sheripova St. [email protected] 129 Miroshnichenko Elena N. Ph.D. of Pedagogic, Associating Professor of Foreign languages Chair of fakultet gumanirary, Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies [email protected] Prozjenko Anton S. Postgraduate student at the Chair of Russian History at M.Akmullah Bashkir State Pedagogical University [email protected] Sarpova Olga V. Head of Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tyumen State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor [email protected] 130 Schadeberg Rolf Dipl.-Geograph, Fachdienstleiter bei der Stadtverwaltung Mühlhausen, Geschichts- und Denkmalpflegeverein [email protected] Venidiktova Elena A. Senior teacher of the Institute of International Relations, History and Oriental Studies of Kazan Federal University, candidate of historical sciences [email protected] Vorobjeva Ludmila V. Assistant professor of Russian Language and Literature Department of Institute of International Education and Language Communication, Tomsk Polytechnic University [email protected] 131 Yudina Elena V. Dipl.-Germanistin, Übersetzerin, Verfasserin (Wörterbücher, Lehrbücher, Beiträge über Geschichte der russischdeutschen Beziehungen Deutsche Gesellschaft, St. Petersburg, DtutschRussisches Begegnungzentrum bei der Petrikirche [email protected] 132