Mikhail Slonimski

Mikhail Slonimski

Mikhail Slonimski is in 1897 in Rusland gebore. Hy het in die vroeë 1920's begin met die skryf van kortverhale en toon die sterk invloed van Yevgeni Zamyatin.

In 1922 help om die literêre groep, die Serapion Brothers, te stig. Geïnspireer deur die werk van Yevgeni Zamyatin, het die groep hul naam gekry uit die verhaal van Ernst T. Hoffmann, die Serapion Broers, oor 'n individualis wat beloof om hom te wy aan 'n vrye, verbeeldingryke en nie-konformistiese kuns. Ander lede was Nickolai Tikhonov, Mikhail Zoshchenko, Victor Shklovsky, Vsevolod Ivanov en Konstantin Fedin. Rusland se belangrikste skrywer van die tydperk, Maxim Gorky, het ook meegevoel met die standpunte van die groep.

Slonimski se verhaal, Emery se masjien, oor die toekoms van die kommunisme, verskyn in 1923. Daarna volg die roman, Die Lavrovs (1926), oor die probleme wat intellektuele ondervind het om 'n plek in die Sowjet -samelewing te vind.

Ander romans deur Slonimski sluit in Sredni Prospect (1928), oor die Nuwe Ekonomiese Beleid en Foma Kleshnyov (1931).

Na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog het Slonimski Eerstejaars (1949) geskryf, 'n hersiening van Die Lavrovs. Hy het probeer om die ideologiese foute van die werk reg te stel deur die klem te lê op die Februarie -rewolusie tot die Oktoberrevolusie.

Mikhail Slonimski is op 8 Oktober 1972 oorlede.


Geskiedenis

Die geskiedenis van die Serapion Brotherhood begin in 1919, toe die House of Arts in Petrograd onder die leiding van Maxim Gorky geopen is. In die literêre ateljee van die nuwe fasiliteit het jong skrywers die geleentheid gekry om byeen te kom vir voorlesings en besprekings en om seminare by te woon deur ervare skrywers en digters soos Yevgeny Zamyatin en Nikolai Gumiljow. Gedurende die tydperk gekenmerk deur rewolusie, burgeroorlog en politieke druk op kunstenaars, was hierdie huis een van die sentrums van die vrye intellektuele lewe in Petrograd. In hierdie omgewing ontstaan ​​stadig die kring van jong skrywers wat hulself "The Serapion Brothers" noem met 'n naam wat geleen is van die Duitse romantikus ETA Hoffmann. Die groep is amptelik in 1921 gestig, en op die eerste Februarie van daardie jaar het die broers vir die eerste keer ontmoet. Die Serapion -broers was Lew Lunz, Nikolai Nikitin, Mikhail Slonimski, Ilja Gruzdev, Konstantin Fedin, Vsevolod Ivanov, Mikhail Soschtschenko, Weniamin Kawerin, Viktor Shklowski, Nikolai Radishchev, Vladimir Pozner, Nikolai Tichonow en Jelisaweta. Schklowski en Gruzdev was literêre kritici, Tikhonov, Radishchev en Polonskaya, die enigste Serapion -suster, het poësie geskryf, die oorblywende lede was prosaskrywers en publisiste. Die toelating van nuwe lede is byna gelyktydig met die stigting gestaak. Baie ander skrywers wat in die gees of as ware vriende naby die Serapions was, mag aan die gereelde vergaderings deelneem en ook hul mening sê. Die groep het geen amptelike standpunte en geen statute nie, hoewel notules van die vergaderings opgestel is. Die broers ontmoet gereeld privaat, meestal in Slonimsky se klein kamer op Nevsky Prospect, waar die skrywers hul werke voorhou en bespreek. Die meeste lede van die groep was nog baie jonk en het geleef uit die finansiële steun van Maxim Gorki, wat die groep geborg het, hoewel die Serapions die realistiese fiksie as verouderd beskou het en dus ook die werk van hul beskermheer bevraagteken het.


Mikhail Leonidovich Slonimskii

Gebore op 21 Julie (2 Augustus), 1897, in St. Petersburg, oorlede op 8 Oktober 1972 in Leningrad. Sowjet -Russiese skrywer.

Slonimskii studeer aan die fakulteit geskiedenis en filologie aan die Universiteit van Petrograd. Sy eerste boek. Sesde Infanterieregiment (1922), was 'n bundel kortverhale oor die Eerste Wêreldoorlog (1914 en ndash18). Die roman Die Lavrovs (1926 2e druk, 1953) het 'n jong intellektueel uitgebeeld wat aan die kant van die rewolusie gewen is. Die roman Foma Kleshnev (1930) beeld die heropvoeding van die voor -evolusionêre intelligentsia gedurende die Sowjet -tydperk uit. Dieselfde tema is behandel in die belangrikste werk van Slonimskii en rsquos, waarvan die trilogie bestaan Ingenieurs (1950), Vriende (1954), en Tydgenote (1959), gewy aan die vorming van die Sowjet -tegniese intelligentsia gedurende die eerste jare van Sowjet -mag.

In sy vroeë werke gebruik Slonimskii 'n opvallende styl en deurspek met metafore, die styl van sy latere werke was bondig en realisties. Aan Slonimskii is drie ordes en verskeie medaljes toegeken.


Totsiens aan dit alles?

Leszek Kolakowski is 'n filosoof uit Pole. Maar dit lyk nie heeltemal korrek nie & mdashor voldoende & mdash om hom so te definieer. Net soos Czeslaw Milosz en ander voor hom, het Kolakowski sy intellektuele en politieke loopbaan gesmee in teenstelling met sekere diepgewortelde kenmerke van die tradisionele Poolse kultuur: klerikalisme, chauvinisme, antisemitisme. Gedwing om sy geboorteland in 1968 te verlaat, kon Kolakowski nie terugkeer huis toe of daar gepubliseer word nie: tussen 1968 en 1981 was sy naam op die Pole & rsquos -indeks van verbode skrywers en baie van die werk waarvoor hy vandag die bekendste is, is in die buiteland geskryf en gepubliseer.

In ballingskap woon Kolakowski meestal in Engeland, waar hy sedert 1970 'n Fellow was van All Souls College, Oxford. Maar soos hy verlede jaar in 'n onderhoud verduidelik het, is Brittanje 'n eiland Oxford is 'n eiland in Brittanje All Souls ('n kollege sonder studente) is 'n eiland in Oxford en dr. Leszek Kolakowski is 'n eiland in All Souls, 'n vierkantige eiland. of Jesaja Berlyn. Maar 'n voormalige Marxistiese Katolieke filosoof uit Pole is meer eksoties, en ondanks sy internasionale bekendheid is Leszek Kolakowski grotendeels onbekend en kan hy eienaardig onderwaardeer word en in sy aannemingsland.

Elders is hy egter beroemd. Soos baie Sentraal -Europese geleerdes van sy generasie, is Kolakowski veeltalig en gemaklik in Russies, Frans en Duits, sowel as Pools en sy aangenome Engelse en mdashand, en hy het baie lof en pryse ontvang in veral Italië, Duitsland en Frankryk. In die Verenigde State, waar Kolakowski jare lank onderrig gegee het oor die komitee oor sosiale denke aan die Universiteit van Chicago, is sy prestasies mildelik erken, met 'n hoogtepunt in 2003 met die toekenning van die eerste Kluge -prys van die Library of Congress en dit is bewys vir lewenslange prestasie in daardie vakgebiede (veral die geesteswetenskappe) waarvoor daar geen Nobelprys is nie. Maar Kolakowski, wat homself meer as een keer in Parys as die beste verklaar het, is nie meer Amerikaans as Engels nie. Miskien word hy behoorlik beskou as die laaste roemryke
burger van die twintigste-eeuse letterrepubliek.

In die meeste van sy aanneemlande is Leszek Kolakowski veral bekend (en op sommige plekke slegs) Die belangrikste strome van die marxisme, sy merkwaardige geskiedenis van marxisme met drie volumes: gepubliseer in Pools (in Parys) in 1976, in Engeland deur Oxford University Press twee jaar later, en nou herdruk in 'n enkele bundel deur Norton hier in die VSA. 2 Dit is ongetwyfeld soos dit moet wees Hoofstrome is 'n monument van moderne humanistiese geleerdheid. Maar daar is 'n sekere ironie in die prominensie daarvan onder Kolakowski en rsquos -geskrifte, want die skrywer daarvan is allesbehalwe 'n marxoloog. & Rdquo Hy is 'n filosoof, 'n historikus van die filosofie en 'n Katolieke denker. Hy bestudeer jare lank vroeë moderne Christelike sektes en dwaalleer en het hom die grootste deel van die afgelope kwarteeu toegewy aan die geskiedenis van Europese godsdiens en filosofie en aan wat die beste beskryf kan word as filosofies-teologiese bespiegelinge. 3

Kolakowski & rsquos & ldquo Marxistiese periode, sedert sy vroeë bekendheid in die na-oorlogse Po-land as die mees gesofistikeerde Marxistiese filosoof van sy generasie deur sy vertrek in 1968, was eintlik redelik kort. En vir die grootste deel van die tyd was hy reeds 'n andersdenkende: al in 1954, sewe en twintig jaar oud, word hy daarvan beskuldig dat hy hom uit die marxisties-leninistiese ideologie verwerp het. van die & ldquoPolish October & rdquo en amptelik deur die partyleier Wladyslaw Gomulka tereggewys as die ideoloog van die sogenaamde revisionistiese beweging. & rdquo amptelike neiging van die land. & rdquo Teen die tyd dat hy in die Weste aankom, was hy 'n paar jaar later nie meer 'n Marxis nie (tot die verwarring van sommige van sy bewonderaars), nadat hy die belangrikste boek oor marxisme geskryf het van die afgelope halfeeu het Kolakowski wat 'n ander Poolse geleerde beleefd 'n afnemende belangstelling in die onderwerp noem. & rdquo 4

Hierdie trajek help om die kenmerkende eienskappe van Die belangrikste strome van die marxisme. Die eerste bundel, The Founders, & rdquo is tradisioneel gerangskik as 'n geskiedenis van idees: van die Christelike oorsprong van die dialektiek en die projek van totale redding deur die Duitse romantiese filosofie en die impak daarvan op die jong Karl Marx, en tot die volwasse geskrifte van Marx en sy kollega Friedrich Engels. Die tweede bundel is onthullend (en nie, dink ek, ironies genoeg) getiteld & ldquoThe Golden Age. & Rdquo idees en debatte, gevoer op 'n gesofistikeerde vlak deur 'n merkwaardige generasie Europese radikale denkers.

Die voorste marxiste van die eeu & mdashKarl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Eduard Bernstein, Jean Jaur & egraves en V.I. Lenin en mdashare het almal hul voorneme gegee, elkeen het 'n hoofstuk gegee wat die belangrikste argumente en hul plek in die verhaal met onomwonde effek en duidelikheid saamvat. Maar van groter belang, omdat dit gewoonlik so prominent voorkom in sulke algemene verslae, is hoofstukke oor die Italiaanse filosoof Antonio Labriola, die Pole Ludwik Krzywicki, Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz en Stanislaw Brzozowski, saam met Max Adler, Otto Bauer en Rudolf Hilferding: die & ldquoAustro-Marxiste. & Rdquo Die relatiewe oorvloed van Pole in Kolakowski & rsquos-rekening van Marxisme is ongetwyfeld deels te danke aan die plaaslike perspektief en 'n mate van vergoeding vir verwaarlosing in die verlede. Maar net soos die Austro-Marxiste (een van die langste hoofstukke in die hele boek), verteenwoordig hulle 'n immer tydige herinnering aan die intellektuele rykdom van Sentraal-Europa en rsquos fin de si & egravecle, vergete en dan uitgehou uit 'n verhaal wat lank deur Duitsers en Russe oorheers is. 5

Die derde volume van Hoofstrome en mdashdie deel wat aanspreek waarna baie lesers sal dink as & ldquoMarxisme, & rdquo, dit wil sê die geskiedenis van die Sowjet -kommunisme en die Westerse marxistiese denke sedert 1917 & mdashis is stomp gemerk & ldquoThe Breakdown. & rdquo Eerder is minder as die helfte van hierdie afdeling gewy aan Sowjet -marxisme, uit Stalin vir Trotsky handel die res oor verskillende teoretici uit die twintigste eeu in ander lande. 'N Paar hiervan, veral Antonio Gramsci en Gy & oumlrgy Luk & aacutecs, is van voortdurende belang vir studente van die twintigste-eeuse denke. Sommige, soos Ernst Bloch en Karl Korsch (Luk & aacutecs & rsquos Duitse tydgenoot), het 'n meer antiquariese aantrekkingskrag. Ander, veral Lucien Goldmann en Herbert Marcuse, lyk nou nog minder interessant as in die middel van die sewentigerjare toe Kolakowski hulle op 'n paar bladsye ontslaan het.

Die boek eindig met 'n opstel oor ontwikkelings in marxisme sedert Stalin en die dood, waarin Kolakowski kortliks oor sy eie ldquorevisionistiese en rdquo -verlede gaan, voordat hy opneem in 'n toon van byna onophoudelike minagting van die verbygaande modes van die eeu, van die hoër dwaasheid van Sartre & rsquos Critique de la raison dialectique en sy & ldquosuperfluous neologisms & rdquo aan Mao Zedong, sy & ldquopeasant Marxisme, & rdquo en sy onverantwoordelike Westerse bewonderaars. Lesers van hierdie afdeling word vooraf gewaarsku in die oorspronklike voorwoord van die derde volume van die werk: terwyl hulle erken dat die materiaal wat in die laaste hoofstuk behandel is, tot 'n verdere volume uitgebrei kan word, sluit die skrywer af, en ek is nie oortuig dat die onderwerp intrinsiek is nie waardig om so lank behandel te word. & rdquo Dit is miskien die moeite werd om hier op te teken dat terwyl die eerste twee dele van Hoofstrome verskyn in 1987 in Frankryk, is hierdie derde en laaste bundel van Kolakowski & rsquos -meesterwerk nog steeds nie daar gepubliseer nie.

Dit is redelik onmoontlik om in 'n kort oorsig die verstommende omvang van Kolakowski en rsquos se geskiedenis van die Marxistiese leerstelling oor te dra. Dit sal beslis nie vervang word nie: Wie sal ooit weer weet dat die sorg en sorg genoeg is om in so 'n detail en met so 'n analitiese gesofistikeerdheid oor hierdie grond terug te gaan? Die belangrikste strome van die marxisme is nie 'n geskiedenis van sosialisme nie, maar die skrywer gee slegs aandag aan politieke kontekste of sosiale organisasies. Dit is onbeskaamd 'n vertelling van idees, 'n soort beeldungsroman van die opkoms en ondergang van 'n eens magtige familie teorie en teoretici, wat in skeptiese, ongeskonde ouderdom verband hou met een van sy laaste oorlewende kinders.

Kolakowski & rsquos -tesis, wat deur 1 200 bladsye uiteensetting gedryf is, is eenvoudig en ondubbelsinnig. Marxisme moet volgens hom ernstig opgeneem word: nie vir sy stellings oor klasstryd (wat soms waar was, maar nooit nuus nie), en ook nie vir die belofte van die onvermydelike ineenstorting van kapitalisme en 'n proletariese oorgang na sosialisme (wat heeltemal misluk het as voorspelling), maar omdat die marxisme 'n unieke en oorspronklike mengsel van prometiese romantiese illusie en kompromislose historiese determinisme gelewer het.

Die aantrekkingskrag van die Marxisme wat so verstaan ​​word, is duidelik. Dit bied 'n verduideliking van hoe die wêreld werk en die ekonomiese analise van kapitalisme en sosiale klasverhoudinge. Dit het 'n manier voorgestel waarop die wêreld die etiek van menseverhoudinge moet werk, soos voorgestel in Marx & rsquos se jeugdige, idealistiese bespiegelings (en in Gy & oumlrgy Luk & aacutecs en rsquos se interpretasie van hom, waarmee Kolakowski, vir al sy minagting vir Luk & aacutecs en rsquos grootliks sy eie loopbaan aangetref het), . En dit het onweerlegbare gronde aangekondig om te glo dat dinge sal werk so in die toekoms, danksy 'n stel bewerings oor historiese noodsaaklikheid wat deur Russiese dissipels van Marx en rsquos verkry is uit sy (en Engels & rsquos) eie geskrifte. Hierdie kombinasie van ekonomiese beskrywing, morele voorskrifte en politieke voorspelling was intens verleidelik en diensbaar. Soos Kolakowski opgemerk het, is Marx nog steeds die moeite werd om te lees & mdashif slegs om ons te help om die veelsydigheid van sy teorieë te verstaan ​​wanneer dit deur ander opgeroep word om die politieke stelsels waartoe hulle aanleiding gegee het, te regverdig. 7

Oor die verband tussen marxisme en kommunisme en wat drie generasies Westerse marxiste dapper probeer het om te minimaliseer, is Marx uit sy & ldquodistortion & rdquo uit die hande van Stalin (en Lenin) en mdashKolakowski eksplisiet. Om seker te wees, Karl Marx was 'n Duitse skrywer wat in die middel van Victoriaanse Londen gewoon het. 8 Hy kan kwalik in 'n verstaanbare sin verantwoordelik gehou word vir die twintigste-eeuse Russiese of Chinese geskiedenis, en daar is dus iets wat oorbodig sowel as nutteloos is oor die dekades lange pogings van Marxistiese puriste om die grondleggers vas te stel en vas te stel wat Marx en Engels sou gedink het oor toekomstige sondes wat in hul naam gepleeg is, alhoewel hierdie herhaalde klem op terugkeer na die waarheid van die heilige tekste die sektariese dimensie van die marxisme illustreer waaraan Kolakowski spesiale aandag skenk.

Desondanks kan die marxisme as leerstelling nie geskei word van die geskiedenis van die politieke bewegings en stelsels waartoe dit gelei het nie. Daar is werklik 'n kern van determinisme in die beredenering van Marx en Engels: hul bewering dat die laaste analise en dinge soos hulle moet wees, om redes waaroor mans geen finale beheer het nie. Hierdie aandrang is gebore uit die begeerte van Marx en rsquos om ou Hegel sy kop te verander en onomstootlik materiële oorsake (die klassestryd, die wette van kapitalistiese ontwikkeling) in die hart van historiese verduideliking te plaas. Dit was teen hierdie maklike epistemologiese agtergrond dat Plekhanov, Lenin en hul erfgename die hele gebou van historiese en noodsaaklikheid en die gepaardgaande handhawingsmasjiene moes leun.

Boonop het Marx en rsquos, ander jeugdige intuïsie, en die proletariaat 'n bevoorregte insig in die uiteindelike doelwitte van die geskiedenis danksy sy spesiale rol as 'n uitgebuite klas wie se eie bevryding die bevryding van die hele mensdom en mdashi sal toon wat intiem geheg is aan die uiteindelike kommunistiese uitkoms, danksy ondergeskiktheid van proletariese belange aan 'n diktatoriale party wat beweer dat hulle dit geïnkarneer het. Die sterkte van hierdie logiese kettings wat die marxistiese analise aan die kommunistiese tirannie verbind, kan beoordeel word uit die vele waarnemers en kritici en Mikhail Bakunin tot Rosa Luxemburg en mdash, wat die kommunisme en totalitêre uitkoms verwag het, en daarteen gewaarsku, lank voordat Lenin naby die Finland -stasie sou kom. Marxisme kon natuurlik in ander rigtings gegaan het: dit kon ook nêrens heen gegaan het nie. Maar die Leninistiese weergawe van Marxisme, hoewel dit nie die enigste moontlike was nie, was redelik aanneemlik. & Rdquo 9

Sekerlik het nóg Marx, nóg die teoretici wat hom gevolg het, bedoel of verwag dat 'n leerstelling wat die omverwerping van kapitalisme deur 'n industriële proletariaat verkondig, die mag sou gryp in 'n agterlike en grootliks landelike samelewing. Maar vir Kolakowski beklemtoon hierdie paradoks bloot die krag van marxisme as 'n geloofstelsel: as Lenin en sy volgelinge nie op die onuitwisbare noodsaaklikheid van hul eie sukses sou aandring nie (en terugwerkend geregverdig), sou hulle vrywillige pogings nooit geslaagd gewees het nie. Hulle sou ook nie 'n prototipe vir miljoene bewonderaars van buite gewees het nie. Om 'n opportunistiese staatsgreep, vergemaklik deur die Duitse regering en vervoer van Lenin na Rusland in 'n verseëlde trein, te omskep in 'n & ldquoinevitable & rdquo -rewolusie, verg nie net taktiese genialiteit nie, maar ook 'n uitgebreide uitoefening van ideologiese geloof. Kolakowski het beslis reg: politieke marxisme was bo alles 'n sekulêre godsdiens.

Die belangrikste strome van die marxisme is nie die enigste eersteklas weergawe van Marxisme nie, hoewel dit verreweg die mees ambisieuse is. 10 Wat dit onderskei, is die Poolse perspektief van Kolakowski en rsquos. Dit verklaar waarskynlik die klem in sy weergawe op Marxisme as 'n moderne eskatologie en moderne weergawe van apokaliptiese verwagtinge wat in die Europese geskiedenis deurlopend was.

Die duiwel is deel van ons ervaring. Ons generasie het genoeg daarvan gesien om die boodskap uiters ernstig op te neem. Kwaad, meen ek, is nie voorwaardelik nie, dit is nie die afwesigheid, of vervorming, of die ondergang van deug (of wat ons ook al mag dink as die teenoorgestelde daarvan nie), maar 'n hardnekkige en onverlosbare feit. 11

Geen Westerse kommentator oor marxisme, hoe krities ook al, het ooit so geskryf nie.

Maar dan skryf Kolakowski as iemand wat nie net binne die marxisme geleef het nie, maar ook onder kommunisme. Hy was getuie van die transformasie van marxisme en rsquos van 'n intellektuele stelling na 'n politieke lewenswyse. Marxisme word van binne af waargeneem en ervaar, en dit word moeilik om te onderskei van kommunisme en dit was immers nie net die belangrikste praktiese uitkoms nie, maar ook die enigste. En die daaglikse ontplooiing van marxistiese kategorieë vir die vulgêre doel om vryheid te onderdruk, wat hul primêre gebruikswaarde vir kommuniste aan bewind was en van tyd af trek van die sjarme van die stelling self.

Hierdie siniese toepassing van dialektiek op die verdraaiing van gedagtes en die breek van liggame is gewoonlik verlore op Westerse geleerdes van Marxisme, opgeneem in die nadenke oor die verlede se ideale of toekomstige vooruitsigte en onaangeraak deur ongerieflike nuus uit die Sowjet -hede, veral wanneer dit deur slagoffers of getuies. 12 Sy ontmoetings met sulke mense verklaar ongetwyfeld Kolakowski en rsquos se bytende minagting vir baie van die Westerse Marxisme en sy progressiewe akoliete:

Een van die oorsake van die gewildheid van marxisme onder opgeleide mense was die feit dat dit in sy eenvoudige vorm baie maklik was, selfs [sic] Sartre het opgemerk dat marxiste lui en hellip is. [Marxisme was] 'n instrument wat dit moontlik gemaak het om die hele geskiedenis en ekonomie onder die knie te kry sonder om ook eintlik te hoef te studeer. 13

Dit was maar net so 'n ontmoeting wat aanleiding gegee het tot die opstel van die sardoniese titel in die pas gepubliseerde versameling Kolakowski & rsquos -geskrifte. In 1973, in Die sosialistiese register, het die Engelse historikus E.P. Thompson publiseer 'n Ope brief aan Leszek Kolakowski en rdquo waarin hy die voormalige Marxis op die been gebring het omdat hy sy Westerse bewonderaars in die steek gelaat het deur die revisionistiese kommunisme van sy jeug te skend. Die & ldquoOpen Letter & rdquo was Thompson op sy mooiste, Klein-Engelandse ergste: grimmig (die brief strek tot honderd bladsye gedrukte teks), neerbuigend en heilig. In 'n pompagtige, demagogiese toon, met meer as 'n halwe oog op sy aanbiddende progressiewe gehoor, skud Thompson sy retoriese vinger na die verbanne Kolakowski en vermaan hom vir afvalligheid:

Ons was albei stemme van die kommunistiese revisionisme van 1956 en hellip. Ons het albei oorgegaan van 'n frontale kritiek op Stalinisme na 'n standpunt van Marxistiese revisionisme en hellip. Daar was 'n tyd toe jy, en die oorsake waarvoor jy gestaan ​​het, teenwoordig was in ons diepste gedagtes.

Hoe durf u, veronderstel Thompson, uit die veiligheid van sy blaarstam in die middel van Engeland, ons verraai deur u ongemaklike ervarings in die kommunistiese Pole te laat belemmer om die siening van ons gemeenskaplike Marxistiese ideaal te belemmer?

Kolakowski & rsquos -reaksie, & ldquo My korrekte sienings oor alles, en rdquo is moontlik die perfekste uitgevoerde intellektuele sloping in die geskiedenis van politieke argumente: niemand wat dit lees, sal ooit E.P. Thompson weer ernstig. Die opstel verduidelik (en illustreer simptomaties) die groot morele kloof wat oopgemaak is tussen & ldquoEastern & rdquo en & ldquoWestern & rdquo intellektuele deur die geskiedenis en ervaring van kommunisme, en wat vandag nog by ons bly. Kolakowski ontleed genadeloos Thompson en rsquos se inspannende, selfbedienende pogings om die sosialisme te red van die tekortkominge van marxisme, om die marxisme te red van die mislukkings van die kommunisme en om die kommunisme te red van sy eie misdade: alles in die naam van 'n ideaal wat oënskynlik gegrond is in 'n materialistiese en realistiese realiteit geloofwaardigheid was afhanklik daarvan om onberispelik te bly deur die werklike ervaring of menslike tekortkominge. & ldquoJy sê, & rdquo Kolakowski skryf aan Thompson, en dit is belangrik om te dink in terme van 'n & lsquosystem & rsquo lewer uitstekende resultate. Ek is seker dat dit nie net uitstekend nie, maar wonderbaarlik is, dit los al die probleme van die mensdom in een slag op. & Rdquo

Die probleme van die mensdom in een slag oplos, op soek na 'n allesomvattende teorie wat tegelykertyd die hede kan verduidelik en die toekoms kan waarborg dat die intellektuele of historiese en stelselkwessies hulself gaan gebruik om die irriterende kompleksiteit en teenstrydighede van werklike ervaring te navigeer idee of 'n ideaal uit sy vrot vrugte: sulke kortpaaie het 'n tydlose aanloklikheid en is beslis nie die monopolie van marxiste (of inderdaad die linkses nie). Maar dit is begryplik aanloklik om ten minste die marxistiese variant van sulke menslike dwasehede te verwerp: tussen die ongeskonde insigte van voormalige kommuniste soos Kolakowski en die eiegeregtige provinsialisme van & ldquoWestern & rdquo-marxiste soos Thompson, om nie te praat van die uitspraak van die geskiedenis self nie, die onderwerp dit wil voorkom asof dit selfvernietigend is.

Dalk so. Maar voordat ons die nuuskierige verhaal van die opkoms en ondergang van marxisme aan 'n vinnig terugtrekkende en nie meer relevante verlede toevertrou nie, sou dit goed wees om die merkwaardige sterkte van die marxisme en rsquos in die twintigste-eeuse verbeelding te herinner. Karl Marx was miskien 'n mislukte profeet en sy suksesvolste dissipels 'n kliek tiranne, maar die marxistiese denke en die sosialistiese projek het 'n ongeëwenaarde houvas op sommige van die beste geeste van die vorige eeu gehad. Selfs in die lande wat die slagoffer sou word van die kommunistiese bewind, is die intellektuele en kulturele geskiedenis van die eeu onlosmaaklik van die magnetiese aantrekkingskrag van Marxistiese idees en hul revolusionêre belofte. Op die een of ander tyd sou baie van die twintigste eeu en die interessantste denkers sonder twyfel Maurice Merleau-Ponty en rsquos encomium onderskryf het:

Marxisme is nie 'n filosofie van die geskiedenis nie die geskiedenisfilosofie en om daarvan afstand te doen, is om die graf van die rede in die geskiedenis te grawe. Daarna kan daar nie meer drome of avonture wees nie. 14

Marxisme is dus onlosmaaklik verweef met die intellektuele geskiedenis van die moderne wêreld. Om dit te ignoreer of af te wys, is opsetlik om die onlangse verlede verkeerd te interpreteer. Oud-kommuniste en voormalige marxiste & mdashFran & ccedilois Furet, Sidney Hook, Arthur Koestler, Leszek Kolakowski, Wolfgang Leonhardt, Jorge Semprun, Victor Serge, Ignazio Silone, Boris Souvarine, Man & egraves Sperber, Alexander Wat, en tientalle ander en mdashhave het 'n paar van die beste verslae van twintig geskryf eeuse intellektuele en politieke lewe. Selfs 'n lewenslange anti-kommunis soos Raymond Aron was nie skaam om sy onbeperkte belangstelling in die kwosekulêre godsdiens van die Marxisme te erken nie (tot die besef dat sy obsessie om dit te bekamp, ​​neerkom op 'n soort getransponeerde antiklericalisme). En dit is 'n aanduiding dat 'n liberaal soos Aron veral trots was daarop dat hy baie beter gelees is in Marx en Marxisme as baie van sy self-gestileerde & ldquoMarxistiese en rdquo-tydgenote. 15

Soos die voorbeeld van die fel onafhanklike Aron suggereer, gaan die aantrekkingskrag van marxisme veel verder as die bekende verhaal, van antieke Rome tot hedendaagse Washington, van skrywers en vleitrekkers wat tot despote getrek is. Daar is drie redes waarom die marxisme so lank geduur het en sodanige magnetisme op die beste en helderste uitgeoefen het. In die eerste plek is marxisme 'n baie groot idee. Sy blote epistemologiese wang & mdashits Promethean toewyding om te verstaan ​​en te verduidelik alles& mdash doen 'n beroep op diegene wat idees hanteer, net soos dit om hierdie rede 'n beroep op Marx self gedoen het. Boonop, sodra u 'n party vervang wat beloof om in sy naam te dink vir die proletariaat, dan het u 'n gesamentlike organiese intellektuele (in die sin van Gramsci) geskep wat nie net vir die revolusionêre klas wil spreek nie, maar om die ou heerskappy te vervang klas ook. In so 'n heelal is idees nie net instrumenteel nie: dit oefen 'n soort institusionele beheer uit. Hulle word ingespan om die werklikheid op goedgekeurde lyne te herskryf. Idees, in Kolakowski & rsquos-woorde, is kommunisme en quospiratoriese stelsel (wat dit toevallig onderskei van andersins soortgelyke tirannieë van fascistiese oorsprong wat nie 'n vergelykbare behoefte aan intelligent-klinkende dogmatiese fiksies het nie). In sulke omstandighede is intellektuele en kommunistiese intellektuele nie meer beperk tot die spreek van waarheid aan die mag nie. Hulle het power & mdashor, ten minste, volgens die woorde van een Hongaarse verslag oor hierdie proses, is hulle op pad na mag. Dit is 'n bedwelmende idee. 16

Die tweede bron van Marxisme en rsquos se aantrekkingskrag is dat Marx en sy kommunistiese nageslag nie 'n historiese afwyking was nie, Clio & rsquos genetiese fout. Die marxistiese projek was, net soos die ouer sosialistiese droom wat dit verplaas en geabsorbeer het, 'n deel van die groot progressiewe vertelling van ons tyd: dit deel met die klassieke liberalisme, sy antithetiese historiese tweeling, die vertelling en rsquos optimistiese, rasionalistiese weergawe van die moderne samelewing en die moontlikhede daarvan . Marxisme en rsquos kenmerkende wending & mdash die bewering dat die goeie samelewing wat kom, 'n klaslose, post-kapitalistiese produk van ekonomiese prosesse en sosiale omwenteling sou wees, was teen 1920 reeds moeilik om te erken. Maar sosiale bewegings wat voortspruit uit die aanvanklike Marxiaanse analitiese impuls, het nog baie dekades lank voortgegaan om te praat en op te tree asof hulle steeds in die transformerende projek glo.

Om dus 'n voorbeeld te neem: die Duitse Sosiaal -Demokratiese Party het effektief verlaat voor die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, maar eers in 1959, tydens die kongres van Bad Godesberg, het dit amptelik die verband van die Marxistiese teorie wat op die taal en amptelike doelwitte van hom was, opgehef . In die tussenliggende jare, en inderdaad nog 'n geruime tyd daarna, het Duitse sosiaal -demokrate en mdashlike Britse Labouriete, Italiaanse sosialiste en vele ander voortgegaan om te praat en te skryf oor klassekonflik, die stryd teen kapitalisme, ensovoorts: asof, ondanks hul milde en hervormende dagblad praktyk, het hulle nog steeds die grootse romantiese verhaal van Marxisme uitgeleef. So onlangs as in Mei 1981, na die verkiesing van Fran & ccedilois Mitterrand en die president in die presidensie, sou uiters gerespekteerde Franse sosialistiese politici & mdashw wat hulself nie beskryf het as & ldquoMarxist, & rdquo veel minder & ldquoCommunist & rdquo & mdash praat opgewonde van 'n revolusionêre & ldquogroot soir& rdquo en die komende oorgang na sosialisme, asof dit in 1936, of selfs 1848 was.

Marxisme, in kort, was die diepste struktuur van die progressiewe politiek. Marxistiese taal, of 'n taal wat parasities is vir marxistiese kategorieë, het vorm en implisiete samehang gegee aan baie soorte moderne politieke protes: van sosiale demokrasie tot radikale feminisme. In hierdie sin was Merleau-Ponty korrek: die verlies van marxisme as 'n manier om krities met die hede om te gaan, het werklik 'n leë ruimte gelaat. Met marxisme het nie net wanfunksionele kommunistiese regimes en hul misleide buitelandse apologete gegaan nie, maar ook die hele skema van aannames, kategorieë en verduidelikings wat die afgelope 150 jaar geskep is waaraan ons gedink het toe ons weg is. & Rdquo Enigiemand wat die verwarring waargeneem het van die politieke linkses in Noord -Amerika of Europa die afgelope twintig jaar en hulself afgevra & ldquoMaar waarvoor staan ​​dit? Wat wil dit hê? & Rdquo sal die punt waardeer.

Maar daar was 'n derde rede waarom die marxisme 'n beroep op hom gehad het, en diegene wat die afgelope paar jaar vinnig op die lyk gestap het en die geskiedenis van die geskiedenis, of die finale oorwinning van vrede, demokrasie en die vrye mark verkondig, kan wys wees daaroor te besin. As geslagte van intelligente mans en vroue van goeie trou bereid was om hul lot in te sit met die kommunistiese projek, was dit nie net omdat hulle in 'n ideologiese verdwaasing verswelg is deur 'n verleidelike verhaal van rewolusie en verlossing nie. Dit was omdat hulle onweerstaanbaar aangetrokke was tot die onderliggende etiese boodskap: die krag van 'n idee en 'n beweging wat kompromisloos geheg is aan die voorstelling en verdediging van die belange van die ellendiges van die aarde. From first to last, Marxism&rsquos strongest suit was what one of Marx&rsquos biographers calls &ldquothe moral seriousness of Marx&rsquos conviction that the destiny of our world as a whole is tied up with the condition of its poorest and most disadvantaged members.&rdquo 17

Marxism, as the Polish historian Andrzej Walicki&mdashone of its more acerbic critics&mdashopenly acknowledges, was the most influential &ldquoreaction to the multiple shortcomings of capitalist societies and the liberal tradition.&rdquo If Marxism fell from favor in the last third of the twentieth century it was in large measure because the worst shortcomings of capitalism appeared at last to have been overcome. The liberal tradition&mdashthanks to its unexpected success in adapting to the challenge of depression and war and bestowing upon Western democracies the stabilizing institutions of the New Deal and the welfare state&mdashhad palpably triumphed over its antidemocratic critics of left and right alike. A political doctrine that had been perfectly positioned to explain and exploit the crises and injustices of another age now appeared beside the point.

Today, however, things are changing once again. What Marx&rsquos nineteenth-century contemporaries called the &ldquoSocial Question&rdquo&mdashhow to address and overcome huge disparities of wealth and poverty, and shameful inequalities of health, education, and opportunity&mdashmay have been answered in the West (though the gulf between poor and rich, which seemed once to be steadily closing, has for some years been opening again, in Britain and above all in the US). But the Social Question is back on the international agenda with a vengeance. What appears to its prosperous beneficiaries as worldwide economic growth and the opening of national and international markets to investment and trade is increasingly perceived and resented by millions of others as the redistribution of global wealth for the benefit of a handful of corporations and holders of capital.

In recent years respectable critics have been dusting off nineteenth-century radical language and applying it with disturbing success to twenty-first-century social relations. One hardly needs to be a Marxist to recognize that what Marx and others called a &ldquoreserve army of labor&rdquo is now resurfacing, not in the back streets of European industrial towns but worldwide. By holding down the cost of labor&mdashthanks to the threat of outsourcing, factory relocation, or disinvestment 18 &mdashthis global pool of cheap workers helps maintain profits and promote growth: just as it did in nineteenth-century industrial Europe, at least until organized trade unions and mass labor parties were powerful enough to bring about improved wages, redistributive taxation, and a decisive twentieth-century shift in the balance of political power&mdashthereby confounding the revolutionary predictions of their own leaders.

In short, the world appears to be entering upon a new cycle, one with which our nineteenth-century forebears were familiar but of which we in the West have no recent experience. In the coming years, as visible disparities of wealth increase and struggles over the terms of trade, the location of employment, and the control of scarce natural resources all become more acute, we are likely to hear more, not less, about inequality, injustice, unfairness, and exploitation&mdashat home but especially abroad. And thus, as we lose sight of communism (already in Eastern Europe you have to be thirty-five years old to have any adult memory of a Communist regime), the moral appeal of some refurbished version of Marxism is likely to grow.

If that sounds crazy, remember this: the attraction of one or another version of Marxism to intellectuals and radical politicians in Latin America, for example, or in the Middle East, never really faded as a plausible account of local experience Marxism in such places retains much of its appeal, just as it does to contemporary anti-globalizers everywhere. The latter see in the tensions and shortcomings of today&rsquos international capitalist economy precisely the same injustices and opportunities that led observers of the first economic &ldquoglobalization&rdquo of the 1890s to apply Marx&rsquos critique of capitalism to new theories of &ldquoimperialism.&rdquo

And since no one else seems to have anything very convincing to offer by way of a strategy for rectifying the inequities of modern capitalism, the field is once again left to those with the tidiest story to tell and the angriest prescription to offer. Recall Heine&rsquos prophetic observations about Marx and his friends at the midpoint of the nineteenth century, in the high years of Victorian growth and prosperity: &ldquoThese revolutionary doctors and their pitilessly determined disciples are the only men in Germany who have any life and it is to them, I fear, that the future belongs.&rdquo 19

I don&rsquot know whether the future of radical politics belongs to a new generation of Marxists, unmoved by (and perhaps unaware of) the crimes and failures of their Communist predecessors. I hope not, but I wouldn&rsquot bet against it. Jacques Attali, one-time political adviser to President Mitterrand, last year published a large, hastily penned book on Karl Marx. In it he argues that the fall of the Soviet Union has liberated Marx from his heirs and freed us to see in him the insightful prophet of capitalism who anticipated contemporary dilemmas, notably the global inequalities generated by unrestrained competition. Attali&rsquos book has sold well. His thesis has been widely discussed: in France, but also in Britain (where in a 2005 BBC Radio poll listeners voted Karl Marx &ldquothe greatest philosopher of all time&rdquo 20 ).

Of course one could respond to Attali as Kolakowski responded to Thompson&rsquos analogous claim that the good ideas of communism might be saved from its embarrassing actuality:

For many years I have not expected anything from attempts to mend, to renovate, to clean up or to correct the Communist idea. Alas, poor idea. I knew it, Edward. This skull will never smile again.

But Jacques Attali, unlike Edward Thompson and the recently resurfaced Antonio Negri, is a man with sharp political antennae, finely tuned to changes in the mood of the hour. If he thinks that the skull might smile again, that moribund, system-building explanations of the left may indeed be due for revival&mdashif only as a counterpoint to the irritating overconfidence of contemporary free-marketeers of the right&mdashthen he is probably not wholly mistaken. He is certainly not alone.

In the early years of this new century we thus find ourselves facing two opposite and yet curiously similar fantasies. The first fantasy, most familiar to Americans but on offer in every advanced country, is the smug, irenic insistence by commentators, politicians, and experts that today&rsquos policy consensus&mdashlacking any clear alternative&mdashis the condition of every well-managed modern democracy and will last indefinitely that those who oppose it are either misinformed or else malevolent and in either case doomed to irrelevance. The second fantasy is the belief that Marxism has an intellectual and political future: not merely in spite of communism&rsquos collapse but because of it. Hitherto found only at the international &ldquoperiphery&rdquo and in the margins of academia, this renewed faith in Marxism&mdashat least as an analytical tool if not a political prognostication&mdashis now once again, largely for want of competition, the common currency of international protest movements.

The similarity, of course, consists in a common failure to learn from the past&mdashand a symbiotic interdependence, since it is the myopia of the first that lends spurious credibility to the arguments of the second. Those who cheer the triumph of the market and the retreat of the state, who would have us celebrate the unregulated scope for economic initiative in today&rsquos &ldquoflat&rdquo world, have forgotten what happened the last time we passed this way. They are in for a rude shock (though, if the past is a reliable guide, probably at someone else&rsquos expense). As for those who dream of rerunning the Marxist tape, digitally remastered and free of irritating Communist scratches, they would be well-advised to ask sooner rather than later just what it is about all-embracing &ldquosystems&rdquo of thought that leads inexorably to all-embracing &ldquosystems&rdquo of rule. On this, as we have seen, Leszek Kolakowski can be read with much profit. But history records that there is nothing so powerful as a fantasy whose time has come.


Inhoud

Ḥayyim Selig Slonimski was born in Bialystok, in the Grodno Governorate of the Russian Empire (present-day Poland), the oldest son of Rabbi Avraham Ya'akov Bishka and Leah (Neches) Bishka. [5] His father belonged to a family of rabbis, writers, publishers and printers, and his mother was the daughter of Rabbi Yeḥiel Neches, an owner of a well-known beit midrash in Bialystok. [6] Slonimski had a traditional Jewish upbringing and Talmudic education without a formal secular education, Slonimski taught himself mathematics, astronomy, and foreign languages. [7]

An advocate for the education of Eastern European Jews in the sciences, Slonimski introduced a vocabulary of technical terms created partly by himself into the Hebrew language. At age 24, he finished writing a textbook on mathematics, but due to lack of funds, only the first part of which was published in 1834 under the title Mosedei Ḥokhmah. [8] : 180 The following year, Slonimski released Sefer Kokhva de-Shavit (1835), a collection of essays on Halley's comet and other astronomy-related topics such as the laws of Kepler and Newton's laws of motion. [8] : 180

In 1838, Slonimski settled in Warsaw, where he became acquainted with mathematician and inventor Abraham Stern (1768–1842), whose youngest daughter Sarah Gitel he would later marry in 1842. There he published another astronomical work, the highly popular Toldot ha-Shamayim (1838). [9]

He also tried his hand at the applied sciences, and a number of his technological inventions received recognition and awards. [10] The most notable of his inventions was his calculating machine, created in 1842 based on his tables, which he exhibited to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, and for which he was awarded the 1844 Demidov Prize of 2,500 rubles by the Russian Academy of Sciences. [11] [12] He also received a title of honorary citizen, which granted him the right to live outside of the Pale of Settlement to which Jews were normally restricted. [13] In 1844, he published a new formula in Crelle's Journal for calculating the Jewish calendar. [14] [15] In 1853 he invented a chemical process for plating iron vessels with lead to prevent corrosion, and in 1856 a device for simultaneously sending multiple telegrams using just one telegraphic wire. The system of multiple telegraphy perfected by Lord Kelvin in 1858 was based on Slonimski's discovery. [16]

Slonimski lived between 1846 and 1858 in Tomaszów Mazowiecki, an industrial town in central Poland. He corresponded with several scientists, notably Alexander von Humboldt, and wrote a sketch of Humboldt's life.

In February 1862 in Warsaw, Slonimski launched Ha-Tsfira, the first Hebrew newspaper in Poland, and was the publisher, editor, and chief contributor. It ceased publication after six months due to his departure on the eve of the January Uprising from Warsaw to Zhitomir, the capital of the Ukrainian province Volhynia. [17] : 6 There Slonimski was appointed as principal of the rabbinical seminary in Zhitomir and as government censor of Hebrew books. After the seminary was closed by the Russian government in 1874, Slonimski resumed the publication of Ha-Tsfira, first in Berlin and then again in Warsaw, after he obtained the necessary permission from the tsarist government. [18] The newspaper would quickly become a central cultural institution of Polish Jewry. [10]

He died in Warsaw on May 15, 1904.

In 1952, Josef Stalin made a speech in which, among other things, he claimed that it was a Russian who had beat out America in the 19th century in the development of the telegraph. [19] While Stalin's claim was mocked in the United States, Slonimsky's grandson, the musicologist Nicolas Slonimsky, was able to confirm the accuracy of some of Stalin's claims. [20]


Slonimsky S.

Slonimsky was born in 1932 in Leningrad, studied composition onder Shebalin, Evlakhov, polyphony - under Nicolai Uspensky, the author of the reading book "Samples of Oud Russian Vocal Art", piano - under Artobolevskaya, Savshinsky, Nilsen.

The modern Russian composer, professor of St. Peterburg conservatoire named daarna Rimsky-Korsakov and Samara Pedagogical University, Winner of the Glinca staat Prize and of the St. Petersburg Regering Prize, Academician of the Russian Akademie van Onderwys, the People's Artist of Rusland. He was born in 1932 in Leningrad, studied composition under Shebalin, Evlakhov, polyphony - under Nicolai Uspensky, the author of the reading book "Samples of Ancient Russian Vocal Art", piano - under Artobolevskaya, Savshinsky, Nilsen.

Sergey Slonimsky is the author of such operas as "Virinea" (1967), "The master and Margarita" (1972), "Mary Stuart" (1980), "Hamlet" (1990), "Tsaar Ixion" (1993), "Ioann the Terrible's vision" (1995) of ten symphonies (The Tenth - "Circles of Hell" after Dante - recorded on CD in Rusland), the ballet "Icarus".

"Virinea" was staged in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Samara, Perm his opera "The Master and Margarita (chronologically the eerste adaptation for stage of Bulgakov's novel) had been prohibited for stage gedurende seventeen jaar after the performance of the first act in the Leningrad huis of Composers conducted by Gennady Rozhdestvensky. "Mary Stuart" was staged in Samara, St. Petersburg, Leipzig, Olomouts, Alma-Ata. Dramma per musica "Hamlet" is on in Samara and Krasnoyarsk. The ballet "Icarus" was shown in Bolshoi Teater, on the stage of the Kremlin paleis van Kongres (choreographer and performer - Vladimir Vassiliev), in the Mariimsky Theatre of St. Petersburg (choreographer Igor Belsky) and in Brno (choreographer Daniel Visner).

Sergei Slonimsky the author of more than a hundred compositions, among them - Concerto-Buffo (performed several times in the USA and England conducted by Yuri Temirkanov), Organ, Violin, Oboe, Balalaika, Electric Guitar Concerts, recently finished Piano Concert ("Jewish Rhapsody"), Cello Concert, 24 preludes and fuges, which are played in Rusland and abroad and are in the pedagogical and concert repertoire of pianists.

Theatre and symphony opuses of the composer were perfomed by such famous conductors as Kondrashin, Yansons, Grikurov, Rozhdestvensky, Chernushenko, Sinaisky, Simonov, Ermler, Chistyakov, Talmi, Krents, Class, Sondetskis, Dalgat, Nesterov, Provatorov, Kovalenko, Shcherbakov and many others.

One of the new compositions by Slonimsky is "Petersburg's Visions" after Dostoevsky was perfomed by Yuri Temirkanov in eight cities of the USA, including New York (Carnegi Hall), Boston, San-Fransisco, Los-Angeles in 1996.

Slonimsky is also the author of many vocal compositions: the cantata "Songs of Vryheid" based on Russian folk songs (1959) "A Voice van the Chorus", woorde by A. Block (1963) "Song of Song of Solomon" (1973) "One Day of Lewe of ancient Indian book Dhammapada" (1998 this cantata is dedicated to Alfred Shnitke, Slonimsky's naby friend) "David's Psalms" (1968) "Minstrel Songs" (1975) chamber vocal ensembles lyrics by Akhmatova, Brodsky, Kushner, Rein, Kharms, Antony Slonimsky. In the list of his works there are sonatas - Piano, Violin, Cello, Viola suite, Piano pieces for children music to the filmes by G. Poloka "SHKID Republiek" and "Intervention" (Vladimir Vysotsky, who plays the main character, sings the song by Slonimsky in this film) by F. Emler "Before the Hof van Geskiedenis" (Monologue of the Russian anarchist Shulgin).

In the 1960-1970s Slonimsky went to several folklore expeditions to the Novgorod, Pskov, Leningrade, Perm regions, he recorded a lot of texts and melodies of ancient and modern Russians folk songs. The composer is a constant organiser of a cycle charity concerts in the Peterburg Fund of Culture, reviving unjustly forgotten works by Russian composers from Balakirev to Shcherbakov, Shebalin, Klusner, Prigozhin.

Slonimsky finds congenial fantastic realism, "swart" humour and tragic grotesque of such classical writers of Russian art as Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Bulgakov, Kharms, Zoshchenko. In some of his compositions he follows the style of avantgarde music ("Antiphones" for String Quartet, "Polish Verses" , "Dialogues" for Wind Quartet, "Concerto-Buffo", "Colour Fantasy",simphonic poems "Appolo and Mars", "Peterburg Visiors", "The Tenth Symphony" and other opuses. In most of his prominent works Slonimsky strives for creative refraction of untouched archaic layers of Russian "melos".

Sergei Slonimsky constantly lives in St. Peterburg. Characteristic features of Peterburg culture one felt in his works.

Frow the begining of the 70's the composer has worked in cooperation met theatres, the Philharmonic Hall, the Pedagogical University and Samara musical college. The festival dedicated to the music of Slonimsky was held in the old Russian town of Samara in 1994. In 1999 the wêreld first night of "Ioann the Terrible's vision" took place in Samara, staged by Robert Sturua under the musical conduction of Mstislav Rostropovich. The house was full 13 times during 3 months of 1999 and is on with puik success.

Slonimsky often takes part in concerts of young musicians and children, he composes music as a pianist-improvisator, reviving the old tradition of improvisation on the philharmonic stage.

The defining feature of Slonimsky's creative activity is universality. This is evident, above all in complete freedom of nasionaal cultures, historical periods, expressive means with the reeks and diversity of the individual style.


Family tree


( July 20, 1997 July 20, 1997 Gregorian
July 7, 1997 Julian
Tammuz 15, 5757 Hebrew , Saint Petersburg - October 8, 1972 October 8, 1972 Gregorian
September 25, 1972 Julian
Tishrei 30, 5733 Hebrew , Saint Petersburg)


( 1850 1850 Gregorian
1849 Julian
5610 Hebrew - 1918 1918 Gregorian
1917 Julian
5678 Hebrew )


( 1857 1857 Gregorian
1856 Julian
5617 Hebrew - 1944 1944 Gregorian
1943 Julian
5704 Hebrew )


( 1903 1903 Gregorian
1902 Julian
5663 Hebrew - 1999 1999 Gregorian
1998 Julian
5759 Hebrew )


History of Grodno

Originally in Lithuania/Litwa/Litva/Lita, Grodno guberniya was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, connected with Poland, and then annexed by Russia. The first mention of Lita occurs in the fifteenth century responsum of Israel Isserlein who refers to "Tobiah" who had returned from Gordita (Grodno) in Lithuania and said, "…It is rare with our people from Germany to go to Lithuania." (Israel Bruna, Responsa, **25, 73)

Grodno, one of the oldest cities in former Lithuania, began as a village founded by a Russian price. The village is first mentioned in the Chronicles of 1128. Lida was founded at the same time as Vilna, about 1320. These cities had no Magdeburg Rights or gilds. However, following the death of Gedimin in 1341, his grandson Witold ascended to the throne. The Jews of Brest received a Charter of Privileges on 1 July 1388. Grodno obtained the same in 1389. These charters represent the earliest documentation of organized Jewish communities in the region.

"The preamble to the charter reads as follows:

"In the name of God, Amen. All deeds of men, when they are not made known by the testimony of witnesses or in writing, pass away and vanish and are forgotten. Therefore, we, Alexander, also called Witold, by the grace of God Grand Duke of Lithuania and ruler of Brest, Dorogicz, Lusk, Vladimir, and other places, made known by this charter to the present and future generations, or to whomever it may concern to know or hear of it, that, after due deliberation with our nobles we have decided to grant to all the Jews living in our domains the rights and liberties mentioned in the following charter." [The Jewish Encyclopedia. NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1916, Vol. VIII, p. 120.] The charter contains thirty-seven sections concerning all aspects of legal, business, and social relationships between Jews and Christians and proscribed punishments for its violation. This document closely resembles those granted by Casimir the Great and Boleslaw of Kalisz to the Jews of Poland, based on the charters of Henry of Glogau (1251_, King Ottokar of Bohemia (1254-1267), and Frederick II (1244), and the Bishop of Speyer (1084). These charters grant privileges to a Jewish populace largely engaged in money lending. The Grodno Charters of 18 June 1389 and 1408 grant privileges to a community engaged in a variety of occupations including handicrafts and agriculture in the town that was the residence of the ruling Grand Duke. The 1389 document reflects that Jews had lived there for many years, owned land, a synagogue and a cemetery near the Jewish quarter and lived in social and economic parity with Christians. The Jews belonged to the freemen class equal to lesser nobles ["shlyakhta"], boyars, and other free citizens. The starosta (official representatives of the Grand Duke) was called the Jewish Judge and decided all civil and criminal cases between Christians and Jews. Jews had complete autonomy over religious matters. The Jewish communities thrived under this system. Each community had a Jewish elder [title after the sixteenth century] as its head who represented the community in all external relations and in tax matters.

Under the regime of the Jagellons, Jews became tax-farmers. Between 1463 and 1478, Casimir granted to Levin Schalomich certain lands in the vovoidship of Brest together with the peasants living on them. In 1486, Bryansk custom duties were leased to Mordecai Gadjewich and Perka Judinovich, residents of Kiev. In 1487 Brest, Drohycin, Byelsk, and Grodno customs duties were leased to Astashka Hyich, Onotani Ilyich, and Olkan, all Jews from Lutsk. In 1488 some taxes of Grodno were released to Jatzkovich and his sons. In 1489, custom duties of Vladimir, Peremyshl, and Litovishk were leased to the Jews of Brest and Hrubieszow. According to the historian Jaroszewic in "Obraz Litwy", Lithuanian Jews of that time developed the country’s commerce, even with business ventures reaching the Baltic Sea and export trade to Prussia.

When Alexander Jagellon succeeded to the throne, he confirmed the Charter of Privileges. Four Jewish tax-farmers of Brest continued to lease the customs of Brest, Drohoczyn, Grodno, and Byelsk affirmed on 14 October 1494. However, in 1495, Alexander expelled all the Jews from the country either because of personal animosity from Alexander Jagellon or his wife Grand Duchess Helena (daughter of Ivan III of Russia), or due to influences of the Spanish Inquisition, or because of Judaizing heresies. At this time, Jews who converted to Christianity automatically attained noble status. Property of the expelled Jews was allotted to various cronies of the Grand Duke. A nobleman named Semashkowich received the properties abandoned by the Jews of Grodno. On 4 October 1495, the estates of the Enkovich brothers of Brest were given to Alexander’s secretary. On 27 January 1497, the estate Kornitza belonging to the Jew Levon Shalomich was given to the magistrate of Brest-Litovsk. This property distribution continued until mid 1501 when Alexander assumed the throne of Poland. At this time, the Jews were allowed to return to Lithuania and their properties and possessions were to be returned to them. Prince Alexander Juryevich, vice-regent of Vilna and Grodno, was to oversee the restoration of property and settlement of debts owed to them however, they were required to repurchase their former property, pay for all improvements and mortgages, and equip annually a 1,000 horse cavalry regiment at their own expense.

Sigismund I (1506-1548) improved conditions for Jews. In 1508 when Prince Glinski rebelled, two Jews of Brest, Itzko and Berek, furnished him with information. The leading Jew of the country, Michael Jesofovich excommunicated them publicly, prompting eventually an improved tax collection system that he oversaw for Sigismund as prefect over all Lithuanian Jews [1514]. The communities of Brest en Grodno flourished along with Troki, Pinsk, Ostrog, Lutsk, and Tykotzin. According to new statutes of 1529, the life of a Jew was valued at 100 kop groschen as was that of a nobleman while burghers were only valued at 12 kop groschen. Apparently, the Jewish tax-farmers overstepped their legal authority leading to a Brest Jew named Goshko Kozhchich being fined 20-kop groshen for illegally imprisoning the nobleman Lyshinski. Relationships between Jew and Christian were cordial, with shared participation in dining, athletics, and festivals.

Around 1539 a baptized Jew spread rumors about converts to Judaism harbored in the Jewish community. Sigismund ended the harassment of Jews in 1540 when he declared them free of any suspicion. His wife Bona Sporza settled a quarrel between the Grodno Jewish community and one of its powerful families (Judah-Yudicki) over the appointment of a rabbi named Mordechai [ben Moses Jaffe, rabbi of Cracow?], son-in-law of Judah Bogdanovich. (Another man, Mordechai ben Abraham Jaffee was rabbi of Grodno in 1572. See below)

In 1544, Sigismund II, August became Grand Duke of Lithuania and Polish king in 1548. He treated Jews and Lutherans/Calvinists with liberality. At that time, the rabbi of Brest, Mendel Frank, was called "the king’s officer" while prominent Jews were called "Pany" or sirs. Until 1569 with the union with Lublin, Lithuanian Jews lived on grand ducal lands and enjoyed his protection.

After the mid-1500’s, relationships between the minor nobility and the Jews deteriorated. The prevalence of mixed marriages disturbed the clergy. The shlyakhta resented Jews as middlemen in agricultural dealings, the Jewish exemption from military service, and the wealth/power of the Jewish tax-farmers. Living on the protected lands of the king, Jews avoided some of the conflict with the resentful nobility. However, in 1555, the nobility began to attain more power. A blood libel controversy arose in 1564 but was squelched by Sigismund August in a declaration of 9 August 1564. In 1566, however, the nobility finally attained power. They were allowed to participate in the national legislature and produced the repressive Act of 1566. That act stated: "The Jews shall not wear costly clothing, nor gold chains, nor shall their wives wear gold or silver ornaments. "The Jews shall no have silver mountings on their sabers and daggers they shall be distinguished by characteristic clothes they shall wear yellow caps, and their wives kerchiefs of yellow linen, in order that all may be enabled to distinguish Jews from Christians." [p. 126] About twenty years later, however, the nobility withdrew these restrictions.

Stephen Bathori from Transylvania attained the throne about [1570?] via an election and confirmed the privilege. Mordechai Jaffe, author of Lebushim" went to Grodno, built the large synagogue with an ark inscription showing the building was completed in 1578. He was active in the Council of Four Lands and developed methodical study of rabbinical literature.

During the reign of Sigismund III (1587-1632), Saul Judich, representative of the Jews of Brest in 1593 addressed the commercial rivalry between the Jews and the burghers encouraged that decrees of Sigimund III that declared inviolable Jewish autonomy in religious and judicial matters. The illegal assumption of magistrates of Brest over kalah or royal matters was stopped. Saul Judich was a prominent tax-farmer and "servant of the king" who is first mentioned in a decree of 1580 as defending, with other community leaders, the rights of Brest Jews against Christian merchants. He was a favorite of Prince Radziwil, a Calvinist. This same privilege was then extended to the Jews of Vilna in a charter permitting Jews to purchase real estate, engage in trade equally with Christians, to occupy houses belonging to nobility, and to build synagogues. They were exempt from city taxes as tenants of nobility and subject to the king’s vovoidship jurisdiction rather than that of local magistrates. Sigismund also demonstrated negative attitudes toward Jews when he provided for the elevation of Jewish converts to Christianity to noble status, leading to what was called "Jerusalem nobles." That law was repealed in 1768.

As Jesuits gained power in Lithuania, the Jews of Grodno faced increasing restrictions until the reign of Ladislaus IV (1632-1648.) No fan of the Jesuits, he confirmed the Charters of Privileges of the Jews of Lithuania on 11 March and 16 Mar 1633. For all his good intentions, Ladislaus was unable to enforce his will. After 1648, the Cossach uprisings effectively mark the end of Jewish economic security in Lithuania. By May 1676, King John Sobieski received numerous complaints from the Jews of Brest led by their rabbi, Mark Benjaschewitsch who received jurisdiction over criminal cases involving Jews in his community and the power to impose corporal punishment and the death penalty. Die Lithuanian Council [Jews were taxed as a single body, pro rata agreements made among their representatives meeting frequently at Brest-Litovsk, Vilna, Pinsk, and Grodno] brought some order to chaotic conditions faced by the Lithuanian Jews. Yet, the kahals were insolvent by mid-1700.

References to the yeshiva at Brest are found in the writings of Solomon Luria (d. 1589), Moses Isserles (d. 1572), and David Gans (d. 1589).

On the December 14, 1795, Slonimskaya Guberniya was formed consisting of eight uezds: Slonimski, Grodnenski, Brestski, Kobrinski, Pruzhanski, Volkovyski, Novogrudski, en Lidszki. In a year, Slonimskaya en Vilanskaya guberniyii were united in one and were given the common name: Litovskaya Guberniya. After this, in five years, Slonimskaya Guberniya was separated again and was named Grodnenskaya Guberniya. The decree about the foundation of a new Guberniya in Lithuania came after the 9 th of September, 1801 and was carried out in the course of the next year, 1802.

The Guberniya stayed in such condition for the next forty years. In 1843, to the previous guberniya, Belostokskaya Guberniya was added. This new province was acquired by Russia according to the Tilsit Agreement of 1807 and consisted of four uezd: Belostokski, Sokolski, Belski, en Dragichinski. Belski en Dragichinski were united into one Lidski uezd became part of Vilenskaya Guberniya. Novogrudski uezd became a part of Minskaya Guberniya. Thus, Grodnenskaya Guberniya consisted of nine uezds: Grodnenski, Sokolski, Belostokski, Belski, Brestki, Kobrinski, Pruzhanski, Slonimski, en Volkovyski.

Grodnenskaya Guberniya covered 704.5 square miles, the "smallest" guberniya, larger only than Russian provinces of Moskovskaya, Tulskaya, Kaluzhkaya, and Yaroslavskaya (if not considering provinces in Poland, Finland, and Ostzeiskaya). Compared to the countries of Western Europe, the guberniya had almost the same territory as Switzerland, larger than Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands although it yielded in population. There were 1,842 men per sq. mile in the territory and 37 men in one sq. verst (wiorst). As gevolg daarvan, Grodnenskaya was average among the other Russian gubernii. For example, Podolskaya, Poltavskaya, and Kurskaya gubernii, as well as the provinces of Poland and others, exceeded Grodnenskaya in population density by 1.5 times, Western European countries (France and Austria) by two times, Germany by 2.5 times, Italy by 3 times, and England by 3.5 times.

The Council of Lithuania evolved from the Council of the Four Lands and was the Jewish comunities governing body from 1623 to 1764. Various seventeenth and eighteenth century records exist from the council, with signatures, for community representatives. Grodno towns that were the site of these meetings include: Brisk, Chomsk, Grodno, Krinki, Mezeritch, Mir, Seltz, Zabladova, Zelva. Rabbi Saul Wahl of Brest and Rabbi Abraham Katzenelnbogen of Brest participated in the Council of Lithuania..

The Great Lithuanian Principality, Grodno region :

Second half of the 13th century:

1568 - Rech Pospolitaya (Polish Principality and Lithuanian principality united)

1795 - Grodno was in Russian Empire.

1796 - Grodno was the center of Lithuanian Guberniya (Litovskaya Guberniya), Russian Empire.

1801 - Grodno was the center of Grodnenskaya Guberniya, Russian Empire.

September 3, 1915 – Grodno was occupied by German troops

March 25 1918 - Grodno was in the Belorussian National Republic.

1919 - Grodno was in Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic.

April 27, 1919 - Grodno was given to Burzhuaznaya Polsha (Poland).

July 19, 1920 - Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic.

1921 – Grodno was given to Panjska Polsha (Poland)

September 1939 - Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic.

1944 - Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic

1990 - Republic of Belarus

Grodno region: Great Lithuanian Principality (13 th to first half of the 14 century.)

The capital was Navagrudak.

Berestya (Brest), Belsk, Braslav, Borisov, Dobrovitsa, Dragichin, Drutsk, Gorognya (Grodno), Kernava, Kletsk, Klutsk, Kobrin, Kovna, Kremenets, Lida, Lumom, Lagoisk, Lutsk, Mensk, Orsha, Polatsk, Pinsk, Raiylj, Slonim, Turov, Upita, Viljkamir, Vilnya, Vitebsk, Volkovysk,

Grodno region: Great Lithuanian Principality (Second half of 14 century and 15 century)

Astrog, Beljsk, Berestje (Brest), Bransk, Brest, Broslav, Brotslav, Chechersk, Chernigov, Chernobyl, Cherkasy, Eljnya, Glinsk, Gomel, Gorodnya, Gorodok Davidov, Kanev, Kiev, Kletsk, Kobrin, Korots, Kovna, Krichev, Kremenets, Lida, Lubech, Lutsk, Merach, Mensk, Mogilev, Mozyrj, Novogrudok, Novrogod-Severski, Oshmyana, Pinsk, Putiulj, Polotsk, Puni, Rasiunya, Rechitsa, Roslav, Smolensk. Stislav, Trubchevsk, Propoisk, Ratna, Rogachov, Ryljsk, Slonim, Starodub, Svir, Troki, Turov, Upita, Vilnya, Vilkamir, Vinnitsa, Vitebsk, Volkovysk

The Great Lithuanian Principality was established around Novogorok Province that incorporated vast Belarusian and Lithuanian territories. The establishment of a principality around Novogorodok (presently Novogrudok, Grodno province) enabled the two nations to retain their independence and provide resistance to Mongol-Tatar raids and German expansionist claims. In 1569, the Great Lithuanian Principality and the Kingdom of Poland signed the Lublino Treaty to become a single federal state--Rzeczpospolita. The Great Principality of Lithuania kept its own bodies of state administration, legislation, state language, financial system, and military. The supreme power in the Rzeczpospolita belonged to the Polish landlords. The alliance managed to survive for over two hundred years. As a result of the three partitions, Rzeczpospolita ceased to exist with Belarus territory going to Russia.

Grodno Pavet (region): Rech Pospolitaya (End of 16th century)

Avgustov, Berestovitsa, Berestovitsa, Dubna, Dubnitsa, Garadok, Glyadavitchi, Gorodnya, Glubokae, Indura, Kamenka, Kamenitsa, Kusnitsa, Kvasovka, Lasha, Lipsk, Lososna, Lunna, Malaya, Mosty, Netechi, Novy Dvor, Odelsk, Razhanka, Sakolka, Sapotskin, Schutchin, Skidel, Strubnitsa, Supraslj, Svyatsk, Vasilkov, Volkovysk, Zabludov, Zelva

Grodno region: Rech Pospolita (17th century)

Grodno’s capital was Vilna in the Lithuanian Principality

Braslav, Berestje, Borisov, Cherersk, David Gorodok, Drutsk, Garodnya, Gomel, Kobrin, Krichev, Mensk, Mogilev, Mozyr, Mstislav, Navagaradok, Orsha, Pinsk, Polotsk, Propoisk, Rechitsa, Slonim, Stolin, Turov, Vitebsk, Volkovysk

Grodno Pavet (region) (Second half of the 19th century)

Azery, Berestovitsa, Bershty, Boljshaya, Dubna, Galynka, Gozha, Grodna, Gudevichi, Kamenka, Lunna, Malaya Berestovitsa, Masty, Masalyany, Prakopavichi, Skidel, Vertelishki, Volpa, Zhydomlya

Grodnenskaya Gubernya (Beginning of the 20 century)

Azery, Belystok, Belsk, Brest-Litovski, Dambrova, Derechin, Domachevo, Dragichin, Dyatlovo, Garadets, Ganenz, Grodna, Homsk, Ivatsevichi, Kamenka, Kamenets-Litovski, Kartuz-Beresa, Karytsyn, Knyshin, Kobrin, Kosovo, Lunna, Malarita, Mosty, Motel, Parechej, Peski, Ozernitsa, Pruzhany, Rosj, Rozhanka, Ruzhany, Sakulka, Schutchin, Skidel, Slonim, Suhavolya, Surazh, Trastsyany, Tsehanovets, Vasiljkov, Volovysk, Volpa, Zabludavo, Zeludok

(Navagrudak was in Minskaya Gubernya)

Grodno Uezd and Town page

GRODNO UEZD INFORMATION:

and the towns of Bershty, Bershtovskaya, Bogordickaya, Brestov-Velik, Drusgeniki, Dubno, Dubnovskaya, Godevicheskaya, Golynka, Gozhskaya, Gozha, Grodno, Gornica, Gornickaya, Gudevichi, Indura, Indurskaya, Kamenka, Kamenskaya, Krinskaya, Krinki, Lashanskaya, Lunna, Lunnenskaya, Malo-Berestovickaya, M. Berestovica, Masalyany, Mosty, Mostovskaya, Ozerskaya, Ozery, Prokopovich, Skidel, Skidelskaya, Sobolyanskaya, Strupin, Veliko-Berestovickaya, Vel-Kovalichki, Vercelishki, Vercelishskaya, Volpyanskaya, Volya, Zhidomlya, and Zhidomlyanskaya


How The Café Reinvented Jewish Culture

Jewish literature is full of references to cafés, like the Café Fanconi in Odessa described by Sholem Aleichem’s hapless hero, Menachem Mendl, or the Café Royale on the Lower East Side, frequented by Jewish socialists, writers and artists.

These literary descriptions of café settings are often read merely as curious episodes but in fact, the café was an important cultural institution, especially before World War II. Professor Shachar Pinsker’s hefty new book, “A Rich Brew,” has an ambitious subtitle: “How Cafés Created Modern Jewish Culture.” The reader learns that the cafés in Europe, America and Israel were indeed highly productive spaces where people wrote, read and frequently debated questions of modern Jewish culture.

The love story between Jews and cafés had its start in 18th-century Berlin. The Gelehrtes Kaffeehaus was a new meeting place where educated individuals could meet, read newspapers, play chess and chat. Moses Mendelssohn, considered the father of Berlin’s Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, was among the café’s frequenters. The coffee was kosher and, the café, compared to other local institutions, evidenced no Christian influences. It was in the café that Mendelssohn was inspired to write the essays and books which were to became the platform for his philosophy of Jewish acculturation.

The blossoming of Jewish cafés continued from the mid-19th century until the Holocaust. Pinsker takes the reader on a journey across the important centers of modern Jewish culture: Odessa, Warsaw, Vienna, Berlin, New York and Tel Aviv, using a host of different sources and making for a captivating read. This book will be useful for professional researchers of Yiddish and Hebrew culture and literature and for the broader audience as well.

The Association of Jewish Writers and Journalists in Warsaw at Tlomackie 13 was the most famous Yiddish literary club between the two world wars, portrayed in many memoirs and literary works. But that wasn’t the first Jewish café in Warsaw. Cafés gained popularity at the beginning of the 20th century when Warsaw became a magnet for young, impoverished intellectuals, especially Lithuanian Jews. Some of them dreamed about a literary career in Yiddish or Hebrew. They felt comfortable in the home of Yekhezkl Kotik, the respected author of memoirs about Jewish life in Russia in the 19th century. They would sit there for hours and read newspapers, discuss literature and politics, even conduct business. Cafés were also warm in the winter, a valuable benefit for more destitute visitors.

Yiddish literature would surely have been less dynamic without these Warsaw cafés, and especially without the writer’s club on Tlomackie 13. In a way, Pinsker’s book reads like a history of Jewish literature, as seen from the perspective of the café table. The Warsaw cafés were important not only for those Jews who wrote in Yiddish, but also for those who penned their work in Polish, like Julian Tuwim or Antoni Slonimski.

The epilogue of the Warsaw Jewish café culture played out in the ghetto: “The ghetto café… was a complex site of collaboration, cultural survival, commercialism and elitism,” Pinsker concludes in his chapter about Warsaw.

Certain cafés in Vienna and Berlin actually served as sanctuaries for Jewish immigrants and refugees who arrived after World War I. These large German-speaking cities already had a rich culture of literary and artistic cafés. For many Jewish writers, the cafés became “stations on the transnational silk road” of emigration, which eventually led them to America or Israel. The writers brought elements of this café culture abroad to New York and Tel Aviv. New York cafés appear in a number of works of American Yiddish literature, as in Sholem’s Café, described in Dovid Ignatov’s novel, “In Keslgrub” (“In the Whirlpool”). Ignatov describes these locales as a “place of confrontation between various ideas of Yiddish literature.” Quite a few heated quarrels took place here, often about radical political views.

Pinsker closes: “The urban cafés served not only as centers of migrant cultural networks, but also as a respite for the homeless and for cosmopolitan multilingualism, which was in danger of being destroyed by nationalist ideologies.” Today, though, Pinsker surmises, cafés have come to play a less important role, as Facebook and other virtual spaces seem to have taken their place.


Sommaire

L'endroit a profité de la ligne de chemin de fer le long du golfe de Finlande allant de Saint-Pétersbourg à Vyborg en Carélie (chemin de fer Riihimäki – Saint-Pétersbourg) et les premières résidences secondaires de Pétersbourgeois et datchas se sont construites à la fin du XIX e siècle et le début du XX e siècle. La gare elle-même est inaugurée le 1 er mai 1903 qui marque la date officielle de la fondation de la station balnéaire. La bourgade s'est développée sur une colline appelée en finnois Kellomäki (qui signifie colline de la cloche, pour la cloche de la gare, ou selon d'autres sources pour la cloche que les vachers mettaient à leur troupeau) [2] dont elle a pris le nom jusqu'en 1948. Elle est renommée Komarovo [3] en l'honneur du botaniste Vladimir Komarov. Il y avait 800 datchas et villas in 1916. On comptait parmi les personnalités y possédant une résidence secondaire ou venues s'y reposer avant la révolution, Mathilde Kschessinska, l'écrivain Leonid Andreïev, la famille Fabergé, Anna Vyroubova, ou le chocolatier Georges Borman. Après la révolution d'Octobre, les propriétaires russes disparaissent, leurs maisons sont vendues à l'encan par les autorités finlandaises et certaines en bois reconstruites ailleurs par leurs nouveaux propriétaires, la région entrant dans la nouvelle république de Finlande. Une centaine de familles finlandaises y vivent alors. La population est totalement évacuée par les autorités finlandaises [4], au début de la guerre d 'octobre 1939 contre l'URSS. La victoire de cette dernière y a amené les premiers habitants soviétiques au printemps suivant, après le traité de Moscou (1940). La plupart d'entre eux doivent quitter l'endroit lorsque Léningrad est assiégée par les Allemands. Un monument aux morts des combattants van 1944 a été érigé en ville après la guerre.

Les autorités soviétiques on installé dans d'anciennes résidences secondaires d'avant la révolution des sanatoriums, ce qui en russe signifie maison de cure et de repos, pour les curistes et les vacanciers et en a fait construire de nouvelles, la plupart en bois. Elles se trouvent dans des bois de pins bordant la mer. Ek is 'n plus d'une dizaine aujourd'hui. Des datchas sont construites pour les membres de l'Académie des sciences, des personnalités du monde de l'art ou de l'intelligentsia. Parmi les propriétaires de datchas célèbres, l'on peut distinguer la poétesse Anna Akhmatova (qui est enterrée dans le cimetière), l'acteur Andreï Krassko, Viktor Reznikov (1952-1992), compositor en auteur de chansons.

Depuis les années 1990, des maisons luxueuses sont construites par des Pétersbourgeois fortunés à l'intérieur de la forêt de pins, en quelques datchas de bois anciennes ont été démolies. L'ex-gouverneur de Saint-Pétersbourg, Valentina Matvienko y habite en été, se vertant en ville pour travailler.


Kyk die video: Сергей Слонимский Русская песня и кавказская токката