著者

韓 貞淑 崔 在東

出版者

ロシア史研究会

雑誌

ロシア史研究 (ISSN:03869229)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.75, pp.3-20, 2004

---

<p>The wave of Leontev renaissance in Russia since Perestroika is a very interesting phenomena. Some scholars look up to Leontev as a prophet and foreseer who showed with keen insight the "Russian way" for his descendants lost in the whirlpool of epochal system change. This article rejects such an estimation of Leontev, but tries to analyze his view on cultural pluralism and the idea of cultural uniqueness of Russia. Leontev's thought of cultural pluralism was closely related with his characteristic aesthetricism He defined beauty as "diversity in unity." What matters for beauty is not the inner idea but the outer diversity and variety. In order to be beautiful, any being should contain different and unequal components. Leontev disliked most of all an aggregate of standardized and equal things. A culture should include different and unequal things; and the world should consist of different shapes of culture. In his discourse on the cycle of cultural development which foreruns Spengler's thought on stages (birth, growth, illness and death) of culture. Leontev insisted that a culture passes through three stages of development: In the first stage things are not differentiated and all the same; in the second and developed stage things become differentiated and unequal; the third stage is that of second simplification when all things show the same and standardized shapes again as when things are decaying and dying. Leontev identified equality with sameness and standardization. Thus a society where the principles of equality and democracy rule was in his view in the state of degeneration and decay. Traditional societies with non-egalitarian estate system were much healthier and more beautiful than an egalitarian democratic society. With its equalized mediocre petit-bourgeois style of life and gray industrial cities Western Europe was just in such a state, whereas Russia was keeping the traditional estate system including serfdom and presented a more beautiful type of society with colorful and various shapes of human life. In order to keep the beauty of Russian culture Leontev rejected democratization and reforms of Russian society and wanted to "freeze the society" so that his country could maintain autocracy and the estate system. Leontev thus insisted most stubbornly the necessity to preserve the cultural originality and uniqueness of a society. He contrasted the Russian culture to that of Western Europe in behalf of the former. In this sense he stood near to Muscovite Slavophiles of the 1840s and Pan-Slavists like Danilevsky. For Leontev however the blood tie of the Slavic peoples was not important. What mattered was a cultural tie. According to him the Russian culture was built on Byzantinism characterized by 1) autocracy, 2) Orthodoxy and 3) renunciation of secular utopianism. Thus Leontev had a special feeling of solidarity for the Orthodox Christians and emphasized the importance of the unity of all Orthodox. Hence his negative reaction to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church which strived for and gained independence from the Constantinople Patriarchate ( Greek Church). He saw in it the religious disunity of Orthodox Christians. In this context he wished that Russia would seize and own Constantinople (Istanbul). According to Leontev it would mean "the unity of political Russia and ecclesiastical Greece." This would enable the church unity of all Orthodox and the victory of the Eastern Church over the Western. This was for him the historical mission of Russia. Though he disliked political nationalism on the ground that it was a form of egalitarianism and liberalism, his wish for seize of Constantinople made no difference from the political nationalism of Pan-Slavism type. Thus a champion of the cultural independence of Russia became-though only in a limited sense-an advocate of aggressive expansionism. It was nonetheless beyond doubt</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>

著者

崔 在東

出版者

政治経済学・経済史学会

雑誌

歴史と経済 (ISSN:13479660)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.53, no.2, pp.15-31, 2011-01-30

---

From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, there was a ten-fold increase in fire incidents in rural Russia. In particular, from the beginning of the 20th century until right before WWI there was a two- to three-fold increase in fire incidents in comparison to the end of the 19th century. Arson was the cause of some 30 percent of these fires, but in some regions and provinces over 50 percent were caused by arson. Fires did not necessarily lead to bankruptcy for Russian peasants, but were an opportunity to receive a significant payment of insurance money that enabled them to reset their economic situation. Peasants in Moscow province actively purchased coverage in the higher zemstvo additional insurance program, the zemstvo voluntary insurance program and from fire insurance companies. As a result in 1904, more than 40 percent of those who purchased zemstvo compulsory insurance coverage received 70 to 80 percent of the registered value of the insured asset, the value of which was frequently overestimated two or three times. 50 percent of policy holders of zemstvo compulsory insurance received payouts in 1909, while more than 60 percent did so in 1914. Farmers in Russia did not consider it a shame or a crime to cause arson, if it was not harmful to others. They saw arson as a quicker and more secure way to resolve the economic difficulties of rural management than bringing issues to the courts, which took into consideration various interests, or by bringing issues forward for an administrative procedure. It was not only quicker and easier to receive a large insurance payout for fire and arson, but insurance payouts also resolved the problems more quickly. In addition, there were very few cases where a suspect of arson was tried and punished as a criminal. During WWI and the Russian Revolution in 1917, there was a sharp decrease in the number of fire incidents. The primary reason for this was that the economic gain from insurance payouts decreased remarkably due to the sudden rise of prices for building materials and of worker pay. For this reason, in contrast to the 1905 Revolution, farmers seeking to restart their businesses during the revolutionary period beginning in 1917 were extremely careful about fire and arson.