Price:
[GER] €69.00net €64.49[US] $79.00
Browse results
Abteilung III: 1871-1898, Band 9 1890-1898
Volume Editor:
Andrea Hopp
Band 9, „Schriften 1890–1898“ der „Neuen Friedrichsruher Ausgabe“ ist den acht letzten Lebensjahren Bismarcks nach seiner Entlassung gewidmet.
466 Dokumente, zahlreiche davon erstmals veröffentlicht, geben Auskunft darüber, wie der erste deutsche Reichskanzler trotz zunehmender Isolation und nachlassender Arbeitskraft vorging, um weiterhin auf die Tagespolitik Einfluss zu nehmen und sich die erinnerungsstrategische Deutungshoheit über sein Lebenswerk zu sichern. Zu dem breitgefächerten Spektrum an Schriftformaten, zählen Presseartikel ebenso wie Schreiben an Monarchen, Staatsmänner sowie neu hinzugetretene adelige und bürgerliche Kreise.
466 Dokumente, zahlreiche davon erstmals veröffentlicht, geben Auskunft darüber, wie der erste deutsche Reichskanzler trotz zunehmender Isolation und nachlassender Arbeitskraft vorging, um weiterhin auf die Tagespolitik Einfluss zu nehmen und sich die erinnerungsstrategische Deutungshoheit über sein Lebenswerk zu sichern. Zu dem breitgefächerten Spektrum an Schriftformaten, zählen Presseartikel ebenso wie Schreiben an Monarchen, Staatsmänner sowie neu hinzugetretene adelige und bürgerliche Kreise.
Abstract
The historiography of sixteenth-century Church parties may have arisen from historians’ misinterpreting the use of the terms “band of Josephian monks” (cheti Osiflianskikh mnikhov) and the “non-possessor way of life” (nestiazhatel’noe zhitel’stvo) by the author of The History of the Grand Prince of Moscow. But he does not juxtapose these terms against each other. Those monks who live the non-possessor way of life are, instead, directly contrasted with those who love possession (liubostiazhatel’nye), but neither they nor the Josephians are described as a Church party, let alone one that had an “ideology”. The monks in The History who loved possessions are not identified with the Josephians, nor are the monks who follow the non-possessor way of life identified with the Trans-Volga elders. Another attempt to find the antecedent of the Church parties model were historians who cite the use by Zinovii Otenskii of the term nestiazhatel’ in relation to Vassian Patrikeev, but he too was not using the term in the sense of a Church party. These attempts are examples of “thick interpretation”; that is, imposing on the source testimony an outside construct that is not contained within it.
In:
Russian History
Abstract
The dominant construct to explain early sixteenth-century internal Russian Church relations was for over a hundred years one of conflict between two parties – the Possessors (a.k.a. Josephians) and the Non-Possessors (a.k.a. Trans-Volga Elders). Source-based research challenged that conflict model by demonstrating that Iosif Volotskii, the presumed leader of the Possessors, and Nil Sorskii, the presumed leader of the Non-Possessors, and their disciples and followers were not antagonists but collaborators with each other. Nonetheless, the Church parties model has continued being used to explain Russian Church relations for the mid-sixteenth-century. Yet, it is just as faulty to explain the evidence of mid-century as it is for earlier. Evidence, instead of being analyzed, is shoehorned to fit the model. The Church parties-in-conflict model is a historiographical construct that obstructs rather than informs understanding the source testimony. That testimony is far more complex and nuanced than the simplistic Church parties model allows for.
In:
Russian History