The Views of Russian Officials on the Administration of the Pamirs Outskirts of the Empire (Setting of the Problem)

Who Is to Blame and What Is to Be Done? The Rise and Fall of Russian Authority in the Olympics

Reviewed by: Imperial Russian Rule in the Kingdom of Poland 1864–1918 by Malte Rolf Theodore R. Weeks (bio) Malte Rolf, Imperial Russian Rule in the Kingdom of Poland 1864–1918, Trans. Cynthia Klohr (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2021). 441 pp., ill. Bibliography. Index. ISBN: 978-0-8229-4701-1. For the Russian Empire, the Poles were always a problem. Catholic, arrogant, with a well-developed historical identity, and living between "Russia" and "Europe," the Poles gave Russian officialdom and the tsars themselves heartburn. For official Russia, the uprisings against Russian rule in 1830–1831 and 1863–1864 corroborated their view of persistent Lechite perfidy and an eternal "hatred for all things Russian" (a phrase that one encounters with Kilroy-like frequency in official documents) among the Polish people. And yet the Russian Empire had to deal with this obstreperous nation and the region it occupied. A generation or two back, Russian policy in this region (and in general in the western regions of the empire) tended to be summed up with the rather murkily understood concept "Russification." Happily, since the pathbreaking works of Edward C. Thaden and in many excellent studies in the past few decades, a more nuanced portrait of the complex give-and-take between local population [End Page 307] (here, the Poles–but also the Jews!) and Russian officialdom has developed. And one significant contributor to this more nuanced understanding of Russian policy in the "Vistula Land"– or Kingdom of Poland–is the Bremer historian Malte Rolf. The publication of his book on Russian officialdom in Warsaw and the Polish provinces of the Russian Empire is thus a cause for celebration among historians of the Russian Empire whose German is not quite up to snuff. Rolf divides his book into four parts. First, he provides an excellent overview of Russian rule there in the final half century of Imperial Russia. In particular his coverage is strong at showing the various ways in which official Russia had an impact on these provinces, including censorship and religious policy. The second part of the book considers the city of Warsaw–one of the largest cities in the Russian Empire at this time and by all accounts a flourishing urban center– and the paradoxical situation of a modern city that was administered in an entirely bureaucratic manner. A separate, though rather short section focuses on Russian Warsaw specifically. The impact of the Revolution of 1905 is then examined and the "calm of the graveyard" period up to 1914. The book concludes with remarks on the peculiar nature and development of the "Vistula Land" as a "kingdom within an empire." The longest part of the book looks at imperial rule, in particular the tsar's servitors in the Polish provinces. As is well known, after 1863 ethnic Poles (and often anyone of Catholic faith or married to a Catholic) were barred from highest administrative positions in these provinces. As Rolf points out, salaries paid to these bureaucrats were considerably higher than to those in similar positions within the empire; as one contemporary remarked, the Polish provinces were a Beamtenkalifornien for Russian bureaucrats.1 In official documents one constant complaint concerns the low quality of these men (all men, I'm afraid) who often left positions in the Russian provinces under pressure because of their lackluster performance. At the same time, Russian officials here complained of high prices, hostility expressed in direct and indirect ways, and the distance from their homes and families back in central Russia. Rolf provides excellent short biographies of the governors-general (and others), showing that while they had much in common (such as previous military careers), their outlook on [End Page 308] the "Polish question" often differed quite significantly. As Rolf makes clear, building on previous studies, Russian administrators quite consistently denied a plan to "Russify" the Polish population. Their main task, rather, was to maintain order and prevent threats to imperial sovereignty. One may ask: "Why should we take their word for it?" Of course we should not–but we should also not ignore how these officials saw their own role and policy. In particular Rolf gives a number of excellent and telling details showing...

Introduction. In the XIX century the processes of agrarization of the Jews were a characteristichistorical phenomenon only for the countries of Eastern Europe, in particular for the Russian Empire, which isa certain phenomenon in the history of the Jewish people of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, the policyof autocracy in general. The modern historiography of the problem, which is presented in the researches of M.M. Shytiuk, V. V. Shchukin, D. Z. Feldman, D. A. Panov, O. Pachkovskaya, Yu. M. Goncharov, L. V. Kalmina, Ya.O. Pasyk and D. Meshkov, is analyzed. Despite the general study of the processes of agrarization of the Jewishpopulation in the Russian Empire, in modern, in particular Ukrainian, historiography, the political aspects ofthese processes require further study.Purpose. To cover the policy of agrarization of the Jews of the Russian Empire; to identify the factors thatinfl uenced the Russian government’s attempts to convert a certain part of the country’s Jewish population intofarmers and analyze their consequences in case of Novorossia, Siberia and the western Russian provinces.Results. The policy of agrarization of the Jewish population in the Russian Empire, carried out by theautocracy with some breaks during 1804-1866, aimed to encourage the Jews to engage in agricultural activities,to turn them into farmers (“free grain farmers”) in a way of colonizing the virgin state and landlord lands of theRussian Empire. If in the fi rst stage (1804-1835) the policy of agrarization of the Jews was characterized by itsuncertainty and some contradictions in solving the problems of the Jewish colonists, in the second one (1835–1866)the Russian offi cials’ position was pragmatic and partly cynical. The local offi cials were skeptical of the policyof agrarization of the Jews, did not believe in its success, but due to the efforts of the Minister of State PropertyCount P. D. Kiselyov and Novorossiysk Governor-General Count M. V. Vorontsov, the processes of the Jewishcolonization covered a large part of Southwestern Russia until the mid-XIX century. However, after the defeatin the Crimean War, the public policy priorities changed. There was taken a course to modernize the country.The processes of agrarization of the Jewish population against the background of the aggravation of the Jewishquestion, especially during the reign of Alexander III, became irrelevant. However, even after the offi cial cessationof the above policy on May 30, 1866, the government made some attempts to resume its long-standing projectand even found understanding among the educated Russian Jews, who believed that a successful experiment toturn Jews into farmers would contribute to the emancipation of the entire Jewish people in the Russian empire.In general, in the late XIX century, in the Russian Empire there were no more than 150,000 Jewish colonists whowere directly engaged in various spheres of the agricultural activity. Although more than 160 thousand Jews wereformally recognized as farmers in the Russian Empire.Conclusion. The policy of agrarization of the Russian Jews proved to be generally successful, although itwas not deprived of certain contradictions, which, for example, were refl ected in the failed project of the Jewishcolonization of Siberia. However, the Russian government’s strategy was clear: to resolve the Jewish question ina way that would gradually assimilate the Jews, which was associated with long-standing religious prejudicesand perceptions of the Jews as a self-isolated ethnocultural group within the state. The Jews did not show aspecial desire to become farmers, even with the persistence of such well-known Russian reformers as Count P.D. Kiselyov. A lack of experience in agricultural activities, uncertainty of conditions, and most importantly, theprospects of living in a non-Jewish environment of the colonies deterred many Jews from participating in thisgovernmental experiment. However, at the time of the cessation of the agrarian policy in 1866 about one hundredthousand Jewish colonists (3% of the total Jewish population of the Russian Empire) became farmers, mastered anunusual practice of the socio-economic life, which can certainly be considered a successful government policy. Itis obvious that this result did not satisfy all the ambitions of the Russian reformers. The Jewish colonists preservedtheir national and cultural identity. However, in the general context, the policy of agrarization of the Jewishpopulation of the Russian Empire, and especially its results, proved that the autocracy tried to integrate Jews intothe socio-cultural space of the empire in its domestic policy. And it succeeded, because despite the fact that inthe second half of the XIX century the Russian government pursued a course of modernization that acceleratedthe country’s industrialization, the Jewish agricultural colonies in Novorossiysk fl ourished, and the notion of theJewish agrarianism became a political argument in the Jewish people’s struggle for their national rights.

The relationship between soldiers and local actors is key to the successful development of Peacekeeping Operations (PKO). In the last decade, an emphasis has been placed on these actors mainly local authorities, populations and NGOs-acceptance of the international missions in order to ensure greater effectiveness. Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore military actions in PKO from a micro-level, focusing on the multiple forms of interaction with those local actors from the point of view of the PKO officers. The most important conclusion drawn is, to these officers, relationships were mainly positive; which in turn provides more information on two important issues: it is possible that positive perceptions add trust to international missions and it shows a general acknowledgement of the army’s leadership role and its empathy towards local populations.

The purpose of the article is to highlight the process of transition of the Danubian Sich to the Russian Empire in 1828 based on the analysis of documentary sources that represent the activities of the Russian imperial authorities and thus to demonstrate how a fullscale war and a change in the state border affected the fate of the local frontline population. Methods: historical and chronological, historical and genetic, historical and comparative, as well as methods of source analysis. Main results. Empirical observations made on the basis of the analysis of documents of border institutions, correspondence of Russian officials and military leaders of various levels for the period 1816–1828 allow us to speak about the pre-thought-out, prepared and well-organized transition of the Danubian Sich into the Russian Empire. It was due to the changing geopolitical situation in the region, the general crisis of the Ottoman Empire, and the foreign policy successes of the Russian Empire. The Greek uprising of the 1820s had a significant impact on the fate of the frontline people in the Ottoman Empire. Russian imperial officials of the time (M. S. Vorontsov, S. O. Tuchkov) managed to create and popularize favorable conditions for the living of the Zaporozhian Cossacks within the southern Ukrainian lands. The last Cossack ataman, Y. M. Hladkyi, although he played an exceptional role in the transition of the Sich, actually successfully completed the processes that had begun much earlier and indicated a general change in the situation in the region. Intuition, good orientation to foreign policy weather vanes, and the ability to use these changes for their own career achievements are the features that characterize the image of the last ataman of the Danubian Sich.

Hepatic Encephalopathy (HE) is a frequent form of neurological deterioration mainly observed in cirrhosis, with obscure prognosis and clinical manifestations. Recent advances in the neuropsychological assessment of outpatients across countries have permitted the establishment of relatively valid diagnoses of minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) with covert cognitive impairment, undetected on routine clinical examination, but with fatal consequences at a functional level. Utilizing validated neuropsychological tools combined with clinical indicators of disease, neurophysiological measures and brain imaging data is advantageous for an objective detection at an early stage and for initiating treatment trials. At the absence of a reference population mean and normative standards in the local outpatient population with asymptomatic disturbance, a flexible and easily quantifiable neuropsychological battery is deemed necessary as a sound methodology to identify the pattern of cognitive impairment and eliminate alternative diagnoses. A local battery testing multiple domains of cognition which are impaired in MHE such as attention, working memory, executive functions and fine motor skills is highly recommended. In the general features, diagnostic cut-off scores, well-standardized parallel versions and adjustments for a range of demographic factors and premorbid performance should be included. Towards the establishment of a widely accepted consensus in the detection of MHE, the cross-cultural applicability of the battery in the local population should also be considered.

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Regulation of “Sodomy” in the Latin East and WestRuth Mazo KarrasRuth Mazo Karras Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe chronology of the widespread criminalization of same-sex activity in medieval Europe is generally agreed upon. John Boswell argued that up until the twelfth century, same-sex desire and activity were not a major concern to the church or to lay society (writing in the late 1970s he used the terms “homosexuality” and “gay people”).1 When Peter Damian wrote his Book of Gomorrah sometime around the middle of the eleventh century, the first major blast against same-sex relations among the clergy, the Pope declined to act on it.2 Boswell argued that this changed in the thirteenth century, when legal systems began to adopt strict penalties (and sometimes enforce them) and churchmen, following in particular the lead of Thomas Aquinas, used the discourse of “nature” to cast any nonreproductive sex as deeply deviant. Joan Cadden has demonstrated that the discourse of “nature” was far from unitary. “Nature” could be understood in different ways, and medical commentators thought that it was in some men’s natures to desire penetration; but while this demonstrates that the concept of “natural” was indeed very complicated, these writers had to work against a backdrop of church doctrine.3R. I. Moore adopted Boswell’s argument and connected it to a larger framework of the “formation of a persecuting society.”4 This was the era in which the church set up legal frameworks to investigate heretics and Jews, but not, Moore suggests, because heretics were becoming a worse problem. He argues these apparatuses were a way for the emerging secular powers, in concert with the church, to establish and exert authority. The categorizing and persecution of religious and sexual deviance were thus part of the logic of developing institutions of power. Moore suggests that the persecution of what he calls “male homosexuality” came somewhat later than that of heretics and Jews, but he notes the Council of Nablus in the early twelfth century and the connection of sexual deviance with Islam, as well as with heresy. As I will argue, this connection was indeed central to the shift in the central Middle Ages toward the persecution of same-sex activity by secular authorities. The criminalization of same-sex activity in the Latin West may have been an unintended consequence of Western European polemic against Muslim societies.This article will for the most part not deal with the church’s attitudes toward same-sex relations, nor with the more positive aspects of same-sex relations in medieval culture. Scholars of medieval sexuality, particularly in the field of literature, have demonstrated the existence of subcultures of same-sex sex, love, and desire, whether expressed through identity, writing (including rich traditions of love poetry in many medieval languages), or action. There is much in the Middle Ages that is distinctly queer, and accepting of the queer. Here I discuss a grimmer reality about same-sex activity during this period: state violence against it, or the threat thereof.Terminology in this area of study can be difficult. Michel Foucault famously connected the invention of the “homosexual” with bourgeois modernity: “Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.”5 In the realm of law, whence he originally derived it, Foucault’s distinction between acts and identities does hold up better than it does in some other areas. It was not homosexuality, as an identity or way of being, that was criminalized, it was particular acts. Therefore, while I occasionally use “homosexual” as an adjective (for acts rather than persons), I stay mainly with “same-sex sexual activity.” Sodomy is used here only where the Latin or medieval vernacular uses its cognate. It does not always refer to same-sex activity; indeed, Foucault called it an “utterly confused category” and suggested that, “as defined by the ancient civil or canonical codes, sodomy was a category of forbidden acts; their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them.”6 It could be used to denote any sort of sexual intercourse other than penis-in-vagina, man-on-top. It could also be used in a more generalized way to mean not specific activities but rather a general miasma of sexual sin.7 Therefore it must be considered carefully in context. Mark Jordan argued that it does not have a stable meaning in medieval theology but is associated with outsiders, and easily slips into metaphors of contagion.8 Often legal contexts do not use it at all. When it does appear in a legal context, it most often means sex between two men. To discuss same-sex relations as a sin in an ecclesiastical context, as in the enumeration of the various branches of lechery by late medieval moralists, writers most often used euphemisms: “sin against nature” or “unspeakable sin,” the former of longer standing and the latter coming into use in the twelfth or thirteenth century.9Sexual accusations as political tools against those in power were of course known in the Middle Ages, and not limited to same-sex relations.10 Henry IV, enemy of Pope Gregory VII and the church reform movement, was accused by churchmen of committing sexual sins with both genders.11 These were rhetorical rather than practical accusations. It is hard to know how much real concern with behavior was behind them, and how much they merely reflect partisan mud-slinging; but this sort of mud was available to sling. Similarly, when Orderic Vitalis complains about the sodomy rampant at the Anglo-Norman court, it cannot be taken as a true account of the behavior there, but it is noteworthy that it is an accusation of sodomy rather than some other form of debauchery that he chooses to level at William Rufus’s courtiers—a choice made clearer by the fact that he accuses the king himself of heterosexual debauchery.12 In any case, political accusations in this period, the eleventh to twelfth centuries, did not bring with them prosecution. For the most part, secular law in Latin Christendom up through the central Middle Ages was not especially concerned with same-sex behavior.The chronology in the Greek world is somewhat different, with Justinian issuing a novella in 538 calling for the death penalty for those engaged in crimes against nature.13 Justinian’s Institutes also followed some earlier Roman interpretations of the Lex Iulia de adulteriis, providing the death penalty for adultery, which included same-sex activity between males.14 Procopius reports that some men were punished with castration even though this was not provided in the law, and suggests that accusations of unnatural activity were used as a way of attacking political enemies.15 But Angeliki Laiou points out that although the death penalty for sodomy can be found in later Byzantine law, the examples are much earlier, and by the central Middle Ages commentators who read these passages were not providing contemporary examples, as they were for other crimes.16A turning point for the prosecution of same-sex activity in Western Europe, although it did not take place in Western Europe, came already in the twelfth century, well before Boswell’s invocation of thirteenth-century understandings of “nature.” An assembly at Nablus in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1120 provided for exile, mutilation, or death for a number of sexual offenses. This assembly, often referred to as a council in modern scholarship but called a conventus publicus et curia generalis by William of Tyre, the one chronicler to mention it, was called by both the patriarch and the king of Jerusalem and was attended by lay as well as ecclesiastical officials.17 The basic purpose of the council was to resolve the investiture conflict for the kingdom of Jerusalem: the first three canons constitute what is called the Concordat of Nablus, in which the king and nobility granted complete control of tithes to the church.18 The canons then continue, however, to regulate other activity, including what has been called the first dress code legislation in Europe (forbidding Franks from dressing in Saracen clothing) and a number of canons on sexual activity. The latter prescribe extremely harsh punishments. For example, canon 5 provides an unprecedented punishment for adultery on the part of a man: “Whoever shall be proved to have lain with the wife of another, the sentence of the court having been heard, shall be emasculated, and shall be expelled from this land. The adulteress shall have her nose cut off, unless her husband wishes to show mercy to her. If he does so, let them both cross the sea.”19 Roman law had given the husband the right under some circumstances to kill the couple if they were in flagrante, but the state provided only the punishment of exile. Leviticus did prescribe the death penalty, although it was not enforced in Jewish law after the destruction of the Temple; Christ’s admonition to the crowd, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” was a response to this law. The church condemned adultery by both men and women, set penance for it, and sometimes allowed a husband to repudiate his wife for it, although not to marry another.20 The canons of Nablus also provided castration or other maiming for other sexual crimes, in particular those across religious lines, for example, canons 12–13: “If a man is proved to have knowingly lain with a Saracen woman, let his penis be cut off, and let her nose be cut off. If a man rapes his own Saracen woman, let her be enslaved to the fisc, and let his testicles be cut off.”21The punishment for sodomy was even harsher: burning. The canons made a distinction between the active and the passive partner, although only to emphasize that both were to be subject to punishment (if adults): “If any adult is proven to have defiled themself willingly with sodomitical depravity, both the active and the passive partner shall be burned.”22 Canon 10 seems to imply that regardless of age the passive partner could be a victim of rape: “If someone, having suffered sodomitic wickedness by force, conceals it and permits themself to be polluted again and does not declare it to justice, and it shall afterward be proved, let them be judged as a sodomite.” Canon 9, however, suggests that this is more likely a child or old person: “If a child or aged person is defiled by force by a sodomite and raises an outcry, the sodomite shall be given over to the flames.”23 In medieval monasteries, as discussed by Elliott, or in the subculture of medieval Florence described by Michael Rocke, sodomy is an age-patterned offense, mature men or older boys with younger boys.24 The inclusion of elders as victims here suggests that this is perhaps not a matter only of desire, shaped by the cultural division into active masculine and passive effeminate, but also of physical strength. It is noteworthy in the canons of Nablus, as in so many other contexts, that the only sexual behavior by women that is a matter of explicit concern is with men, particularly men of other groups, but it is possible that the masculine singular is meant to be inclusive; burning, unlike castration, could be applied to either sex. The death penalty here suggests that sodomy was considered the most serious of the offenses, although burning was specified only for the third offense; the first could be expiated with penance, the second with penance and expulsion from the kingdom.We do not know to what extent these laws were put into force. One point that suggests that they were not is the use of the different language for mutilation for sexual crimes. Four different terms are used for the genital mutilation of men (eviretur, ementuletur, extesticulatur, eunuchizabitur), and two for the nasal mutilation of women (enasetur, naso curtetur). The different punishments are for different offenses and it is possible that things were so finely calibrated that a different kind of mutilation happened for different offenses, but not in all cases: “emasculate” and “eunuch-ize” must also be the same thing as removal of either the penis or testicles or both. Two different terms are also used for burning for sodomy: comburatur, flammis tradatur. This is very likely to be elegant variation, whether in terminology for the same thing or in thinking up an appropriate punishment that was not (as yet) practiced. As Klaus van Eickels suggests, the use of language is an indication that the canons were intended to be largely symbolic, a statement of the moral stance of the ecclesiastical and lay authorities, realigning the community with God by placing extremely harsh punishments on behavior believed to contradict God’s law.25 It sounds much too careful to be a codification of current practice. The fact that William of Tyre is the only chronicler to mention the council—Fulcher of Chartres says nothing about it—and that he does not list the canons but simply says that copies were placed in all the churches, suggests too that the canons were not intended to be practical law; for William it was important that the council or conventus had placed the king and patriarch of Jerusalem in positions as leaders of the Latin East.26 Indeed, it is not certain that the canons as found in the Sidon manuscript are exactly those enacted at the council.The context is important here, especially as the king’s predecessor Baldwin I may have, as Jay Rubenstein puts it, “lived in a chainmail closet” and had male Muslim or ex-Muslim lovers.27 Certainly sexual contact between members of the different communities in the Latin East was not unknown: Baldwin I and Baldwin II married Armenian Christians, as did many other Franks.28 Marriage between Christians of different communities, however, was very different from sexual relations between Christians and Muslims, which could not be recognized as marriage; in addition, it was different from sexual activities between two men. The major military defeat suffered by an Antiochene army in 1119 (the “Field of Blood”) may have prompted the attendees at the council to assert a particularly strong moral code of conduct, a performance of purity, particularly directed against sexual misbehavior with non-Christians, who could have been a threat in the case of invasion.29 But the focus on purity need not be solely a direct result of that battle. In the early years of Outremer there was a general sense of being a frontier society and a consequent concern about behavior that might put the community at physical or moral risk. The Franks thought of themselves as the heirs of Biblical leaders like Joshua, who had counseled the Israelites to remain pure (Joshua 23), refraining from intermarriage and idolatry among other things.30Benjamin Kedar has demonstrated that the canons of Nablus resemble Byzantine legal issuances, and suggests the direct or indirect influence of the Ecloga, dating from 741 on some of the punishments. This influence may have come via the local Greek Christian population. Castration as punishment appears in the Ecloga, though not specifically for the offenses for which the Nablus canons prescribe it. The punishment for adulteresses in Nablus—having the nose cut off—resembles that in the Ecloga, where the same punishment was applied to men as well for various offenses. Death by the sword is the punishment for male-male sex, although the “passive” partner may be spared if underage, and penectomy is the punishment for bestiality.31 Van Eickels points out that castration was practiced in Norman realms, although nowhere else, as a punishment for political offenses, and many of the lords and in the kingdom of Jerusalem have been with it from It is found occasionally in Western Europe for various offenses, as in a from the thirteenth century, or in of castration as punishment does not up in other legal from the Latin It could be that its use here, taken from Greek law, was an to the Latin leaders as leaders of all the Christians in the is a certain logic to castration as a punishment for sexual offenses. The point of harsh punishments for adultery in the ancient at was to the of the This is an under Roman law was a married who had sex with a man not her or a man who had sex with with it a of the sexual so that a married man who had sex with a not his wife could be considered an although this was not For the man who with castration as punishment was not the removal of the with which the had been although that was a for various of It also was a removal of the to The between intercourse and to what has called a in which the to not the of the was Castration for appeared in other European legal in laws to William the and in the although again it is not that this penalty was applied in between men in the canons of Nablus did not into this the punishment there was the first in Western European that this was the the law from one of the had provided castration and for men who had sex with other men know about the of a law, or indeed the behind do have the of that Justinian enforced his own the castration of men in same-sex relations, a century which may have the But Nablus was providing death like the is in the century that a punishment in Western The de et de in the thirteenth century in the sodomy by the penalty of burning as provided for sodomy in Nablus and castration as provided there for other crimes. This thirteenth-century in law may have been by laws and attitudes in The de et de is noteworthy as the first of secular law same-sex The sodomy is used here to that women perhaps be understood as included The canons of Nablus use masculine forms in about but it is possible it is intended in a like against can to both men and women, although the of have men, and modern work Boswell’s referred to “gay he mainly some of the have given for same-sex between women do not appear very often in the they did not because they did not women from to legal because they did not because they did not and because of that made women did not matter very of the for criminalization to men. has in late medieval but in the one he in most the was only not either or male and same-sex relations were to a where one partner the male and one the In some however, was used for a by has demonstrated this for the castration and then of for men in same-sex and of a for The is not one may that it is the penis for men. suggests that the of the passages on men and women that the an to the castration, as far as I can this is not as a medieval punishment for The Nablus with the of castration and for adultery, that the mutilation might be considered the which to the ancient world as a punishment for women, appears for in religious which to being and in (as in de in which the the nose of his It also was used as a punishment in Western Europe, as in the of of II of in a law of II from around it is a more punishment than being by her although if her husband did not to her be This may be a Byzantine as is the law of of from that an her nose and also seems to have used this punishment on a of as either or especially for sex both male and and suggests that it sometimes or was to It could also be an of the of the with which one this case, not the nose but the the being that a was the of of in via the and appears in medieval for in the at the as punishment for the the is to for the first and second may also be a or a and a man could be condemned to a the second may have been the the might not have had a of what was merely to The is not an although it to be the laws of the kingdom of it may have been made by a or for his own of it is a of Justinian’s as well as the of the The on sodomy is found in a set of punishments to be current in the of It is not that they reflect contemporary practice. There are other crimes as by a by burning but most by The only other one for which the punishment is mutilation, however, is where has to a and is punished by the of The both of castration as punishment for sexual and of secular punishment for sodomy are and here and could well have come from the de in the thirteenth century by de a not a the canons of Nablus, burning for and as punishment for or and for and it “Whoever against the and does not to to the way of or who he must be and all his of also provided death for The on sodomy is as to the penalty, but into much more with to the of sodomy sin that men with women do not come into and the extent to which God may have used sodomy with as an accusation against his political also the death penalty for sodomy in two late thirteenth-century in which and in which burning. In case, are included in a list of to be punished in this It is noteworthy that of these whether from or is a of legislation perhaps the which were not put into all are what to be but in an could have for and found them in the canons of is the between the canons of Nablus and these Western European suggests that the inclusion of the burning of what he calls in the Nablus canons a punishment for in the Middle This is not, however, the case until the thirteenth the canons of Nablus up The the law of the Kingdom of Jerusalem from the century, and not specifically on the of this or other crimes, but on the for the death penalty the of the says in a shall not to and then in and and will The as the of the on and the following in those and be put to The burning of was not, as points taken from law the of this it seems to have come from the canons of Nablus the can thirteenth-century from Europe have been by its I cannot that they but they could have Nablus was of its on John the of Nablus against as the same the Council a century which that and be from Christians in their dress and specified the as the of This could well have been not the same but on of the Nablus to William of Tyre, copies of the canons of Nablus were placed in church in the kingdom of even given to can that there were copies one has from the church of The other legal as up in the of the by the of who is known to have been in between and copies of the may have up in Europe earlier but are not As points however, there were a number of European who are in the Latin East for a of one or years at a and who may have to have been in Roman and canon rather than in or law, but as the de et de is in part a from or of Roman law, it is that the person who it had with a who had in it need not be a law or set of canons that known in Western could have been even if do not know the was not to Europe from the Middle nor I here that it more in the twelfth I that it at that to more because it was a of and for only in to sexual activity was often as a place where a must be in terms of might a that could not be This is in the canons of The sexual of and but often not, was a of Christian particularly in the context of against The of these accusations have to do with the of Christian women by Muslim that did in or in as did the of Muslim women by Christian men, and the of women by members of their own religious but widespread of the Muslim of especially the of and of the of men’s having sex with their in law, to this that or Christian boys or adult men were also current at the of the or and the

The author identifies the amount of Crimean Tatars who served as officials in Taurida Governorate in the first half of the 20th century. The article is based on archival data, address-calendars and mesyatseslovs of the Russian Empire. Russian politics in the region after the Crimean annexation was characterized by an active interaction with the local population. The imperial authorities gave the Crimean Tatars broad rights and involved them in civil and military service. Tatar murzas and beys who entered service closely interacted with Russian officials and thus got acquainted with the Russian language and culture as well as with the new legal system. While the largest number of Crimean Tatars were in service during the reign of Catherine II, their number began to decline under her successors. The author argues that the Russian authorities interaction with the Crimean Tatar nobility was based on mutually beneficial conditions. The state received the loyalty of local leaders, which provided stability and allowed for communication with the ordinary population. In turn, the murzas and beys received titles and ranks, which allowed them to increase their property and keep their social status. However, the number of Crimean Tatars in local government functions during the first half of the 19th century was low. They served in the governing bodies only by election from the nobility. This was a result of central policy but also of the low level of training among Tatar officials. Many of them were not familiar with legal procedures laws and could not read and write in Russian. Consequently, they preferred service in military formations, which was more prestigious and did not require special training.

Why did the Soviet Union use less force to preserve the Soviet empire from 1989 to 1991 than it had used in distant and impoverished Angola in 1975? This book fills a key gap in international relations theories by examining how actors' preferences and causal conceptions change as they learn from their experiences.Andrew Bennett draws on interviews and declassified Politburo documents as well as numerous public statements to establish the views of Soviet and Russian officials. He argues that Soviet leaders drew lessons from their apparent successes in Vietnam and elsewhere in the 1970s that made them more interventionist. Then, as casualties in Afghanistan mounted in the 1980s, Soviet leaders learned different lessons that led them to withdraw from regional conflicts and even to abstain from the use of force as the Soviet empire dissolved. The loss of this empire led to exaggerated fears of domino effects within Russia and a resurgence of interventionist views, culminating in the Russian invasion of Chechnya in 1994. Throughout this process, Soviet and Russian leaders and policy experts were divided into competing schools of thought as much by the information to which they were exposed as by their apparent material interests. This helps explain how Gorbachev and other new thinkers were able to prevail over the powerful military-party-industrial complex that had dominated Soviet politics since Stalin's time.

Topographies of Anticolonialism: The Ecopoetical Sublime in the Caucasus from Tolstoy to Mamakaev

This article examines the history of the liberation of General L. L. Bennigsen in the spring of 1814 the city-state of Hamburg from soldiers of the Great Army of Napoleon. After a grueling, almost year-long occupation of acrowdedcity that hassurvived the destruction of entire districts, the looting of a local bank, the expulsion of part of the local population from the city, an epidemic of typhus, which claimed the lives of several thousand people, the citizens welcomed the Allied Coalition Forces in the vicinity of theircity again. Incontrast to the first liberation of thecity from the French in the spring of 1813 local authorities now prepared for official celebrations more thoroughly. A special regulation was drawn up and the rules of conduct for the entry of Allied troops into the city were communicated to the citizens through the press. The main imperative of both the city and the Allied military command is to avoid revenge excesses. Also, the article, based on the analysis of sources of personal origin and the press of that time, reveals the perception of occupation by the allied troops of the city as a local population and Russian officers.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the conflicts of Russian soldiers with the Zaporozhian population in Kodatsky and Starosamarsky ferriage and to identify the causes of conflict.Methods: analysis, synthesis, induction, biographical, historical-genetic. In general, research is based on microhistory.The main results. Control over the ferriage brought appreciable profits to the Zaporozhian Cossacks. The ferriages, including Kodatsky and Starosamarsky, were under the strict control of the specifically appointed officials of the Kosh of Nova Zaporozhian Sich. These two ferriages were operated by the Kodatsky special manager – "shafar", and the control over the Starosamarsky ferriage was carried out by persons, authorized of the Kodatsky shafar. At the time of Nova Sich in the strategically important points of territory of the Zaporozhian Cossacks were established fortified points, which also located the Russian garrisons. Often such fortifications were formed at the intersection of roads, in important communication nodes. Russian officers, in breach of the law, are making efforts to control cash revenues from ferriage. Most of the conflicts are connected with the Starosamarsky ferriage, where there was a powerful Russian fortification with a significant garrison. In the Kodatsky ferriage, where the Russians had a small Kodatsky redoubt with a small garrison on the left bank of the Dnipro, the number of conflicts was much smaller. Zaporozhian Kish and the local Cossack administration counteracted of such actions through appeals to the top Russian leadership, the transfer of the crossing points to another place and force confrontation directly on the ferriage. Concise conclusions. The basis of the conflicts, in my opinion, were two reasons. First reasons is a common desire of man to money, and Russian soldiers behaved trivially. The second reason is their perception of oneself in Zaporozhian territories. Despite the declarative recognition of the rights of the Cossacks, Russian military, as soon as they have the power advantage for this, demonstrate disregard for these rights. They feel themselves higher than the Cossacks, the representatives and leaders of the power of the empire, so it is obvious for them, what they may quite reward themselves with the extra money seized from the local population. At the same time, the strength of the Cossacks returns Russian military to respect for the rights of others. Practical meaning.The results of the research can be used to study the wider problem of interaction between the Ukrainian Cossacks and Russian military in the middle of the XVII – XVIII centuries.Originality: for the first time systematically described and analyzed the interaction of the Zaporozhian population and Russian military on the Starosamarsky and Kodatsky ferriages in the days of Nova Sich.Scientific novelty: the causes of conflicts and key aspects of mutual perception Ukrainian Cossacks and Russian military are determined.Type of article: empirical.

Tashkent State Public Library of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic recently celebrated its 75th anniversary. Founded in 1870, it is now an important centre of culture and science in the Soviet East. The years of the library's existence may be divided into two periods, each differing widely from the other. Until the revolution, the library was hardly ever used by the local population, but by officials of the Tsarist administration, and Russian officers.

Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency traditionally diagnosed clinically with laboratory and imaging methods with a negative appendicectomy rate of 15-20%.These facts lead to the development of multiple scoring systems of them two commonly used RIPASA and Modified Alvarado score are being compared in the present study. Methods: In a hospital based longitudinal study, clinically suspected cases of acute appendicitis that underwent appendicectomy were included as cases. Pre-operative assessment Modified Alvarado score and RIPASA score were study factors. And Histopathology of the appendix was the outcome factor. Apart from descriptive statistic, diagnostic accuracy was calculated for both scores with validation of cut off score were carried out by plotting of ROC curve. Results: Total 129 patients with a mean age of 31±9.71, male to female ratio of 1.8:1 were enrolled. Negative appendicectomy rate was 6.2% and accuracy of the RIPASA score was 80.5% and Modified Alvarado score was 50.39%. The validated cut off for both scores was >7.5. Conclusions: RIPASA scoring system has higher sensitivity and specificity compared to Modified Alvarado score. It also has higher diagnostic accuracy and a better scoring system for accurate diagnosis of acute Appendicitis in the local population.

The premier platinum Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) stool antigen (HpSA) test is an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) that detects an H pylori antigen present in human stools. However, at present there is no uniformity about the cut off level required to consider the test as positive or negative. So we need the cut off level for our local population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the HpSA for the detection of H pylori infection in dyspeptic patients and to determine the sensitivity, specificity of the HpSA test in the diagnosis of H pylori infection, as compared to other standardized diagnostic techniques. Sixty-three dyspeptic patients were selected from patients who came to the Division of Gastrointestinal Clinic in Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia. H pylori infection was confirmed in all patients by histology and rapid urease test (CLO test). Positive results for H pylori were based on positive results from both rapid urea test and microscopic detection of H pylori. Stool specimens were analyzed for H pylori antigen using HpSA immunoassay. A total 63 patients consisted of 31 (49.2%) males and 32 (50.8%) females ranging in ages between 16 and 73 years with a mean age of 42.4+/-15 years. The mean age of men was 43.2+/-15.7 years and women was 41.6+/-14.4 years. Endoscopic findings in this study included gastric cancer 1.6%, peptic ulcer 4.8%, duodenal ulcer 7.9%, esophagitis 6.3%, gastritis 77.7%, and gastroduodenitis 4.8%. According to the predefined study criteria, 6 (9.5%) of 63 patients were positive for H pylori. In the diagnosis of infection, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the HpSA test was 0.722 (95% CI, 0.518-0.927). Using a cut-off value of 0.274 instead of 0.16 (as recommended by the manufacturer) the sensitivity and the specificity were 66.7% and 78.9% respectively. The HpSA stool test, using a cut-off value of 0.274, may be useful for the primary diagnosis of H pylori infection, its specificity is similar to other standard tests but its sensitivity was lower.