Понятийно-терминологический аспект практики откровения помыслов в традиции египетского и палестинского монашества IV — VII вв.

What happened to the tremendous legacy of juridical knowledge left behind in Italy in the 6th century? Into what labyrinth did it plunge only to re-emerge after the silent age of the early Middle Ages into the light of day, and effectively come to shape the renewal of the jurisprudence at the beginning of the 12th century? One-and-a-half centuries after the fanciful writings of Hermann Fitting, legal historians are still looking for the answers to these questions. Considering the new information we have (especially coming from the paleographical research), this paper re-examines the existence as well as the activities of the school of Rome both during the Justinian Age and in the two centuries thereafter. The aim of this essay is to verify whether Rome, during the very early Middle Ages, continued to represent a centre of juridical culture. According to the hypothesis developed in this contribution, Rome – at that time – not only played a very important role with regard to the material conservation of the Justinian’s libri legales, but also in the initial establishment of the new (i. e., Justinian) imperial law in the West and creation of its image as a significant juridical centre. The absence of such a centre as well as its wide-spread image would truly make the Bolognese renovatio appear ›miraculous‹ and very difficult to explain. After Justinian, the 7th and 8th centuries can truly be characterised as ›silent‹ in the history of Roman law in the West. However, by studying the medieval manuscript tradition, in particular, that of the Institutiones and the Novellae, we can gather together a series of elements helping us to clarify the situation. Also quite useful is an examination of the manuscript tradition of the Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum. Through the spread and use of these Late Antique works, we can see how – in conjunction with the actions of the papacy – Rome, toward the end of the 8th century, returned to being a centre of world politics and – given that law follows politics – of the legal culture. Recommended citation: Loschiavo, Luca, Was Rome still a Centre of Legal Culture between the 6th and 8th Centuries?. Chasing the Manuscripts, in: Rechtsgeschichte - Legal History Rg 23 (2015) 83-108, online: http://dx.doi.org/10.12946/rg23/083-108

This paper aims to reconstruct the origins of the so-called Decretum Rubiconis (CIL XI 30*) and the ancient sources that inspired it (Cicero’s Philippics; Vergil; Seneca; the lex de imperio Vespasiani). The text was significantly manipulated by Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli before the mid 15th century and was identified as false already by Antonio Agustín (Diálogos, 1587). Despite this prompt identification, the forged epigraphic document had a wide circulation in the manuscript tradition and (at least) two different engravings after the 16th century. A copy of the inscription is now kept in the Museum of Cesena.

The Biomedical Library of the University of Florence boasts a prestigious group of books collected at first in 1679 at the hospital "Santa Maria Nuova" and then continuously enriched in the course of time up today. The "Antique Collection" consists of 13 incunabola, hundreds of 16th-century books, more than one thousand books on medical subject from the 1600's, about six thousand 18th-century volumes and several large, valuable anatomical atlases. In this paper the most important, curious and fascinating books dealing with human ontogeny (from embryo generation to birth) and with female anatomy (mostly concerning pregnancy and childbirth) are reported in chronological order starting from the work of Hippocrates. Among the ancient sources useful for the reconstruction of the opinions about obstetrics there are also outstanding handbooks specifically edited for midwives. Many of these antique books are especially precious because they embed a great number of didactic pictures, some of which may compete against any modern book of anatomy, embryology and obstetric. Selected images from these books are shown.

Miscellanea Attributed to Kurbskii:The 17th Century in Russia Was More Creative Than We Like to Admit Brian J. Boeck (bio) Konstantin Erusalimskii , Sbornik Kurbskogo (Kurbskii's Miscellany), 2 vols. Moscow: Znak, 2009. 1: Issledovanie knizhnoi kul´tury (A Study of Book Culture). 888 pp. ISBN-13 978-5955103051. 2: Issledovanie knizhnoi kul´tury (Intended title Publikatsiia tekstov [Publication of the Texts]). 536 pp. ISBN-13 978-5955102894. Nearly 40 years after Edward L. Keenan questioned the dating, attribution, and authenticity of Istoriia o kniazia velikogo moskovskogo delekh (the History of the Grand Prince of Moscow, henceforth the History), the first comprehensive study of its manuscript tradition and its reception in Russia has appeared in print. Konstantin Erusalimskii has devoted over a decade to carefully studying and comparing the manuscript miscellanies that contain the History. Sbornik Kurbskogo is more than a study of the History but less than a study of all the texts associated with the different miscellanies containing works attributed to Kurbskii (sborniki Kurbskogo). Even the publication's title, which in the singular either overemphasizes the putative contribution of Kurbskii or presumes the existence of an "original" miscellany, belies many of the larger problems and ambiguities of this important study. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a second-generation skeptic trained by Keenan, and I am preparing a study that argues against the probability that any version of the History could have been written by Kurbskii. Since this review is paired with one by a proponent of the traditional view, which no doubt outlines the publication's merits and addresses its flaws from that perspective, here I mainly address the arguments of Sbornik Kurbskogo from a skeptical perspective. Like other skeptics, I contend that most historical narratives about 16th-century Russia have been hopelessly compromised and [End Page 955] seriously contaminated through the indiscriminate use of late and unreliable sources.1 As four decades of lingering controversy have demonstrated, most scholars of Russian history, regardless of their country of origin, have disengaged from a debate that relies heavily on meticulous, technical arguments. Nonetheless, the age of Ivan the Terrible can only be reimagined by reexamining the dating, attribution, and provenance of all sources about the period. Therefore, the first section of my review is addressed to the field in general and keeps discussion of technical matters to a minimum. The second section of the review, a technical assessment, evaluates a number of key issues that did not receive satisfactory treatment in the book due to the author's conviction that Kurbskii was indeed the author of works attributed to him by either 17th-century compilers of miscellanies or 19th-century scholars. General Assessment To state my own conclusion plainly, Erusalimskii has not proven that Prince Andrei Kurbskii put together a miscellany of his own works some time before his death in 1583 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Nor has he established that Kurbskii's authorship of the History in the late 16th century is a more probable proposition than its fabrication in the late 17th century. He has not subjected the two texts that most overlap in contents with the History—the unpublished tale of persecutions and Lyzlov's source (see below)—to the levels of scrutiny that they merit in an argument that hinges entirely on the dating of the History. And he has not analyzed all the texts that one finds in the miscellanies. On the positive side, this publication has numerous merits that will make it central to all future discussions of early modern Russian history. Erusalimskii has conducted a more extensive analysis of the manuscript tradition than any of his predecessors. He has uncovered new information about connections between the History and other texts that have been attributed to Kurbskii. He has proven that the late 17th century was a vital, generative time for the manuscript tradition in Russia. He has established that, regardless of the History's origins, literate late 17th-century Russians embraced the idea of a dissident Kurbskii who rebuked misuse of autocratic authority. Finally, he has [End Page 956] thoroughly examined the reception of the History in learned circles since the moment of its appearance in Russia to...

INES JERELE National and University Library Turja ka 1, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: ines.jerele@nuk.uni-lj.si In the 16th century, printed book becomes a unique designed art work. There is almost no distinction of printed elements in books from the beginning of the 16th century and ones printed in the incunabula period as the thinking about book production was still under the influence of the manuscript tradition. But throughout the 16th century and especially at the end of it, the basic thinking about books changed. The modified role of books in High Renaissance and Mannerism could be seen as a consequence of social and technical changes in society on the one hand and as a reason for the newly born and formatting reading culture on the other. Mass production was at that point primarily introduced to the Western World. In spite of all transformation that our society has been gone through in these past five centuries, some of the basic elements of printed books, which were acknowledged already in the period under study, are still used not only in printed media, but also in other accompanying production. There was a research made on books printed till 1600. Inserted graphic works which are all illustrations, secondary decoration and initials, were analyzed. All books embraced by the research are kept in two Slovenian libraries. However, as Slovenia had almost no printing production of its own in the 16th century, the picture we get from the research can be regarded as an overview of printing production in Renaissance Europe.

This paper argues that many methodological approaches that currently dominate in the field of literary studies accept (more or less tacitly) the myth of anthropogenesis established in the works of Jean Jacques Rousseau. The myth is a specific elaboration of the myths on the origins of man as a social creature present in the humanistic tradition. Thus the narration of Rousseau distorts the way the older, especially humanist, literary works are now interpreted. It is also connected with the limited reception of such works within the new currents, which are declaratively non-anthropocentric and anti-essentialist. Not only the humanistic writings, but also their ancient sources, are commonly inscribed with the supposition about the separated status of man and the existence of the strict division between the human and the non-human. The aim of the aforementioned new studies is to challenge such division. The role of the thought of Rousseau in the modern reception of ancient texts has been acknowledged in the works of Denise Leduc-Fayette and Ralph A. Leigh. However, even the very first interpreters of Rousseau’s ideas pointed to his powerful employment of the plots taken from the ancient authors, especially the stoics. In contrast to the existing research literature, the aim of the paper is not to be an exhaustive comparative analysis of the ideas of Seneca and Rousseau. Such analyses have been largely presented within the existing literature, i.e. in the works of Georges Pire, Raymond Trousson, Lucien Nouis, Mikolaj Olszewski. Instead, the author attempts to identify the specific elements of the ancient antropogenetic myth, which were ignored by the 18th century philosopher in his devastating criticism of humanistic literary culture. The first section of the paper is devoted to the reconstruction of the plot with Rousseau in mind. It is illustrated with the analyses of the educational treatise Emile. The following sections refer to the ancient texts whose authors in varied ways employed Hesiod’s myth of the origins of humanity. The analyses include not only the commonly addressed Letter XC of Seneca, but also (inter alia) the multiple fragments of the works of Cicero and the Platonian dialogue Protagoras. The author adopted the assumption that only such wider comparative analyses of different versions of the myth disclose its interesting but seriously overlooked elements. The paper emphasizes the role of common metaphors referring to maternity. They appear functional for expressing the relation between human arts and the social condition of man. It also describes the internal hierarchic relations between various realms of human actions and creations. Rousseau, as well as the ancient authors, recreates the rituals relating to childbirth and nurture. The author argues that all such descriptions have a similar function in the analysed texts. As a specific metaphor they express the ambiguous, ontological status of a human community. They also imply that such a community should not be perceived as a durable social structure but as a constantly recreated experience. At the same time, the analyses provide an interpretation of the widespread humanistic motif of the arts (and later literature) as “bounding the community together”. In the conclusion of the paper, the ancient metaphors are related to the concepts of modern anthropology, such as the idea of liminality in the works of Victor Turner. The author stresses the necessity to read the old metaphors anew. She claims that they express enthralling but still seriously under-read ideas about human experience, creations and communities.

The history of tuberculosis as a worldwide fatal illness traces back to antiquity, a well-known disease in ancient civilizations. However, its causative agent remained unidentified until the last decades of the 19th century, when discovered by Robert Koch. In due course, preparation of the BCG vaccine, application of the Mantoux intradermal diagnostic tuberculosis test and administration of proper antituberculosis medications eventually controlled tuberculosis. However, despite these significant advancements tuberculosis remained uneradicated, particularly in developing countries after the emergence of both multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and HIV co-infection. Presented here, is a brief review of the history of tuberculosis in the world as well as its historical background in Iran, mainly during the 19th and 20th centuries.

In present Japanese periodization, the Kofun to Nara periods are bookended by the emergence of monumental tumuli across the Japanese archipelago in the 4th century and the abandonment of the short-lived “permanent” capital, Nagaoka-kyō, to the newly established Heian-kyō (present day Kyoto) in 794. The period generally corresponds to the rise of the Yamato polity in the 4th and 5th centuries. The “Great Kings” of Yamato amassed allies and campaigned to subjugate the “barbarians” to the north and south of the archipelago, while organizing diplomatic missions to the kingdoms and dynasties on the Korean peninsula and China. In 663, it dispatched the first organized military expedition across the sea to fight alongside Baekje against the combined forces of Silla and Tang, suffering a monumental loss. Since then, Yamato spearheaded active adoption and implementation of Chinese-style polity, eventually succeeding in establishing a planned city and administrative structure in Heijō-kyō (710–784). Through the latter half of the 7th into early 8th centuries, the educated elites increasingly gained proficiency in the Chinese writing system, as the first phonetic system of representing Japanese developed. The period was also when Buddhism was embraced and disseminated, and the mythological origins of the Great Kings (later “emperors”) and their powerful allies were established, providing new philosophical foundations that defined and legitimized their political authority. In short, Kofun-Nara was a dynamic incipient period of state formation, which required massive construction projects from tombs, temples, and shrines, to gridded cities. What remains still standing, however, are just a handful of examples. The scholarship on architectural history of this period, thus, inevitably overlaps with archaeology. Due to ongoing robust excavation projects and advancement in scientific technology, any study of this period is now quickly surpassed by new research. Unfortunately, there are not enough scholars working in this field outside of Japan to keep up with the rate of new discoveries published each year in Japanese. Ancient Japanese art and architectural history remains one of the fields with the greatest gap between what research is available in Japanese and any Western language. The intent of this list is to introduce a selection of foundational studies in English (with few accessible Japanese works to supplement), which can serve as a springboard for future research in other languages for interested students and scholars.

Reviewed by: Greek Military Service in the Ancient Near East, 401–330 by Jeffrey Rop Matthew A. Sears Jeffrey Rop. Greek Military Service in the Ancient Near East, 401–330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Pp. xxviii, 265. $99.99. ISBN 978-1-108-49950-7. Writing a revisionist history is a difficult task, especially for ancient historians. Almost always, the literary sources, such as we have, are entirely in the favor of the orthodox view of things, and old opinions die hard. In the volume under review, Rop sets himself just such a daunting job, to dismantle the notion that the Achaemenid Persian Empire ran into trouble in the 4th century largely because of its lack of heavy infantry and a related reliance on Greek mercenaries. Rop chalks this idea, which he calls "the Greek Thesis," up to self-serving Greek sources, who, through literary devices such as focalization, and motifs including the "Tragic Advisor" and the "Dynamic Subordinate," wildly overstate the importance of Greek soldiers to Persian (and Egyptian) armies, and understate the influence of Persia and other powers in the Greek world. Where Rop succeeds most is in forcing us anew to read the surviving Greek literary sources as they are: one-sided and biased. Rather than reassess the 4th-century history of Greco-Persian interactions by turning to sources such as Achaemenid literary and epigraphic records or the results of archaeological excavations of Achaemenid and Achaemenid-related sites, Rop takes a new look at the same Greek literary works on which ancient historians have traditionally relied. For example, to provide a new take on the Battle of Cunaxa in 401, in which the Ten Thousand Greeks fought for the rebel Persian prince Cyrus the Younger against his brother, King Artaxerxes II, Rop examines only the account of Xenophon's Anabasis. By reading between the lines, Rop suggests, we can spot where Xenophon distorts events in such a way as to make the Greeks appear more tactically dominant than they were, and the Persian infantry more vulnerable to hoplites than was really the case. Rop argues that, rather than the Greek hoplites in Cyrus' army causing the Persians arrayed against them so much fear that the Persians ran away, the Greeks were fooled by a well-executed feigned retreat that removed them from the battle's main action, in which Cyrus was killed. Artaxerxes is thus rehabilitated as a subtle tactician, and Cyrus' Greeks are revealed as hardly the decisive shock troops most students of history have thought them to be. Rop argues that Cyrus hired the Ten Thousand not because Greek hoplites were invincible on the battlefield, but because his Greek xenoi could be trusted far more than his Persian troops, all of whom quickly defected to Artaxerxes after the battle. Rop gives the rest of 4th-century Greco-Persian history, up to the death of Darius III, the same treatment. Diodorus Siculus is especially scrutinized as a biased source who focuses so much on the actions of Greeks in the armies of Persians and Egyptians that the far greater number of Persian and Egyptian troops, and their far more consequential actions, are virtually ignored. The reader of Diodorus and other ancient sources is therefore left with the impression that battles and entire campaigns were won and lost because of the actions and advice of Greek soldiers and generals. Rop concludes that 4th-century history does not show that Greek mercenaries were essential to the Persians, much to the latter's detriment, but rather that the Persian Empire continued to have tremendous influence in mainland Greece. Despite having very little to say about Persian and other non-Greek and non-literary sources, Rop adds many important arguments to the growing trend [End Page 240] of scrutinizing the biased—and sometimes deceptive—nature of ancient Greek historical writers. The Greeks were not uniformly strategic and tactical geniuses any more than the Persians were merely hubristic blunderers, and the interaction between the two peoples was far more nuanced than the most-read sources indicate. However, by analyzing just these same sources, Rop can offer only speculative alternative reconstructions of events and motivations. Rop's...

Reviewed by: Tekstologiia drevnei Rusi, and: Tekstologiia russkikh letopisei XI–nachala XIV vv., and: Galitsko-Volynskaia letopis′: Tekst. Kommentarii. Issledovanie Donald Ostrowski Sergei Alekseevich Bugoslavskii, Tekstologiia drevnei Rusi [The Textology of Old Rus′]. 2 vols., ed. Iurii A. Artamonov. 1: Povest′ vremennykh let [The Tale of Bygone Years]. 2: Drevnerusskie literaturnye proizvedeniia o Borise and Glebe [Old Rus′ Literary Works on SS. Boris and Gleb]. 312, 656 pp. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul′tur, 2006–7. ISBN 5955101551. Andrei Leonidovich Nikitin, Tekstologiia russkikh letopisei XI–nachala XIV vv. [A Textology of Rus′ Chronicles from the 11th to the Early 14th Centuries]. 1: Kievo-Pecherskoe letopisanie do 1112 goda [Chronicle-Writing at the Kievan Caves Monastery before 1112]. 400 pp. Moscow: Minuvshee, 2006. ISBN 5902073464. M. F. KotliarV. Iu. FranchukA. G. Plakhonin, eds., Galitsko-Volynskaia letopis′: Tekst. Kommentarii. Issledovanie. [The Galician–Volynian Chronicle: Text, Commentary, Research]. 424 pp. St. Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2005. ISBN 58932975613. Until Aleksei Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov (1864–1920) began his scholarly work in the late 19th century, the main goal of chronicle studies was to extract historical information from chronicle texts. Thus if two chronicles had basically the same information, it was thought unnecessary to publish the full text of the second chronicle. Likewise, it was thought unnecessary to provide variant readings from other copies in any systematic way. The editor simply chose one representative copy to edit. Shakhmatov was a major influence in revolutionizing the study of Rus′ chronicles by exploring the language, alternative readings, and relationship of chronicles to one another. Chronicles then became an object of study in their own right. Editing of chronicles began in the 18th century when German scholars at the Academy of Sciences realized their importance and began their systematic study and publication. In the middle of the 19th century, the series Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (Full Collection of Rus′ Chronicles, hereafter PSRL) was begun with the goal of publishing all Rus′ chronicles. Early editions tended to reflect the pre-Shakhmatovian view of the purpose of chronicle study. As a result, the first six volumes of the series had to be re-edited later. The total [End Page 939] number of published volumes, now at 43, includes some volumes in more than one edition.1 In publishing a chronicle text, the editor has the choice of a number of ways to present it, depending on the goals of the edition and on the circumstances of the manuscript copies themselves. If one copy is clearly the best representative of the archetype or authorial text, then it should be used as the copy text and variants provided from the other copies only to show the history of the development of the text. If no single copy is best and if the manuscript tradition is “open” (i.e., no clear genealogical relationship can be established among the copies), then picking and choosing readings from different copies based on the knowledge, skill, and intuition of the editor is to be preferred. If the manuscript tradition is “closed” (i.e., a clear genealogical relationship can be determined), then a stemma should be used. A stemma is a genealogical representation of the relationship of copies of a text. One creates a stemma by comparing the similarities and differences in readings among the various copies and by grouping the copies accordingly. One can then use the stemma to help figure out the primacy of readings in cases where there is a difference among those readings. In addition, when only one manuscript copy of a chronicle text exists or when a “best representative” copy exists, then the editor has the choice of simulating the morphologic and paleographic features of that copy, including abbreviated forms, superscripts, titlos, accents, punctuation marks, specialized characters, ligatures, and so forth (note that even in this attempt at manuscript verisimilitude, the editor is expected to make choices of word division). When Shakhmatov prepared the Hypatian Codex (which includes the Povest′ vremennykh let [The Tale of Bygone Years, hereafter PVL], the Kievan Chronicle, and the Galician-Volynian Chronicle) in 1908 for the second edition of volume 2 of PSRL, he used the Hypatian manuscript as his copy text (replicating many of its morphologic and paleographic features) and provided...

This thesis provides a comprehensive study of the textual tradition of Plato’s Euthydemus, tracing the transmission of the text from its earliest stages to the present. It is based on new collations of all known (complete and fragmentary) manuscripts, as well as early printed editions, and includes first-hand examination of nearly all these sources. In addition to detailing the manuscript tradition, the thesis examines the modern editorial history of the dialogue from the 19th to the early 21st centuries. A final chapter presents selected critical notes on textual problems in the Euthydemus. After introductory materials including a list of abbreviations, an index of sigla, a stemma codicum, and a methodological introduction, the body of the thesis is structured as follows: Chapter 1 outlines the modern editorial history of the Euthydemus. It tracks the evolving approaches of editors over the 19th and 20th centuries and their assessments of key manuscripts. Chapters 2–4 cover the manuscript tradition. Chapter 2 focuses on the primary manuscripts, including two papyrus fragments and three complete medieval witnesses (B, T, and W), with a possible fourth (P) containing only excerpts. Each is described in terms of codicology, palaeography, and historical context. The chapter analyses how B, T, and W relate to one another, concluding that they derive independently from a shared archetype, thus rejecting the idea of a bipartite stemma. Chapter 3 examines the secondary manuscripts that preserve the complete text. These are analysed both individually and as part of the broader tradition, showing that they fall into three families headed by B, T, and W respectively. Chapter 4 deals with the excerpt manuscripts. Though their brevity limits precise classification, none appear to derive from an independent source. Chapters 5 and 6 turn to the earliest printed editions. Chapter 5 focuses on Marsilio Ficino’s Latin translation and analyses its possible Greek sources. Chapter 6 deals with four 16th-century Greek editions: the Aldine editio princeps, the two Basel editions, and the edition by Henri Estienne (Stephanus). Chapter 7 focuses on textual criticism. It offers a series of critical notes addressing problematic passages in the Euthydemus, weighing manuscript evidence and editorial choices to argue for or against a particular reading. In sum, this thesis reconstructs the complex transmission history of the Euthydemus, offering new insights into both its manuscript tradition and editorial development. It contributes not only to our understanding of this particular Platonic dialogue, but also to the broader field of classical textual criticism.

Two conferences in 1986 and 2004, have been devoted to the first two books on Eunomius, namely, Against Eunomius I and II. This chapter draws attention to many important questions which are easy to forget when immersed in reading this complex work. It is necessary to keep in mind that Against Eunomius III, as Against Eunomius I and II (and refutation), is followed by a rebuttal opponent text. The chapter assesses the relevance of the divisions of the work as has been transmitted. It presents this from the manuscript tradition and ancient sources, before considering the matter from an internal point of view at work. The chapter proposes two perspectives concerning, the literary form of the work, and the content that does not report directly on the controversy with Eunomius. It also describes the contents of Against Eunomius III. The original text of the chapter is in French. Keywords: Against Eunomius III; Gregory of Nyssa; manuscript tradition; rebuttals

The article is devoted to references to ancient history in the scientific works and university lectures of V.O. Klyuchevsky when he considered issues of a source study. Noted is the use of V.O. Klyuchevsky's experience in comparing texts accumulated by specialists in ancient history as he points out significant differences in the source base of Greco-Roman and Russian history. The main rules (techniques) for working with ancient sources identified by Klyuchevsky were restoration and interpretation of the ancient text, determination of the author's point of view, interpretation of the meaning inherent in the text. He noted that historical criticism acquired a masterful skill precisely in the analysis of the works of ancient authors. The main difference between the sources on the medieval history of Rus' and the ancient narrative tradition is according to V.O. Klyuchevsky that the written monuments of the ancient world, on which historical criticism developed its techniques, are all marked by individuality, are works of personal creativity, while the sources on Russian history before the 17th century are “impersonal works of writing”, that is, chronicles and acts. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that the model for Klyuchevsky's development of source study techniques for studying medieval Russian texts was the methods of working with ancient Greek and Roman sources, methods of their criticism and interpretation, as they had developed by the second half of the 19th century. When creating the scientific history of Russia, V.O. Klyuchevsky relied not only on the works of his predecessors in Russian history, but also on the methodology of studying general, especially ancient history.

Marin Getaldić – preteča novovjekovnog pristupa istraživanju prirode

The article focuses on the historiography of Russian memoir literature of the 17th– 18th centuries. The authors turned to general studies in humanities (literary, historical, cultural, and philosophical) which discuss theoretical problems of classification and internal systematization of the varieties of memoir literature. The evolution of the terminological apparatus used within memoir studies is shown separately. A special aspect, reflected in the article, concerns attention of the researchers to the manuscript culture and the existence of monuments of memoir literature within this culture. Considering the history of the question chronologically, the authors of the article identify several periods, describe major research schools within the framework of traditional research, and discuss the studies in the field of the “new” methodological paradigm. Addressing the problem of classification in historiography demonstrates the need for further study of key problems in the memoir studies. In conclusion, the authors identify perspective direction towards creating adequate principles of classification, defining genre delimitations and criteria for selecting memoir monuments that exist in the manuscript tradition.