The Crimea Question in “Western” Projects, Political Treatises, and Correspondence from the mid-sixteenth century to 1783

IF 0.2 Q2 HISTORY
N. Khrapunov
{"title":"The Crimea Question in “Western” Projects, Political Treatises, and Correspondence from the mid-sixteenth century to 1783","authors":"N. Khrapunov","doi":"10.22378/2313-6197.2021-9-4.857-877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research objective: This paper aims at the revealing and analysing various documents, created in different countries of Europe prior to 1783, which suggested the change of the Crimea’s status and its accession to Russia, and the determination of interactions of these sources and general trends and principles behind discussions of the “Crimea question” in Russian and foreign public opinion. Research materials: This research addresses a large body of sources, created in Russia and the West from the sixteenth to eighteenth century, discussing the future of the Crimea – political treatises, memoranda, historical works, and correspondence. Research novelty and results: For the first time in the scholarship, the whole array of available sources on the planned accession of the Crimea to Russia has been analysed. It has been discovered that there were periods when the “Crimea question” was disputed in the West far more widely than in Russia. This “discussion” continued with the participation of very different authors, including the leading minds of the public discourse such as Voltaire or Francesco Algarotti. The attempts of the western intellectuals to influence the Russian government’s decisions have been demonstrated. Therefore, the accession of the Crimea is a product of not only “Russian imperialism”, as it is often suggested, but to a certain extent also of the Western Europe’s public mindset. Obviously, such a development was considered quite admissible in the West, and many authors viewed it positively both for international relations and for the internal perspectives of the region. The given article has exposed the dynamics in these arguments, with initial counter-Muslim rhetoric underlining the existential opposition of Christianity and Islam and the need for “returning” lands which had formerly belonged to Europe. When the Enlightenment era started, the further reason of Europe’s civilizing mission appeared. This mission was thought to be impeded in the Black Sea by the “backward” Islamic society. In Russia, the discussion of the future of the Crimea became topical in the second and third quarter of the eighteenth century, probably when the elite realized that the conquest of the peninsula had now become a reality.","PeriodicalId":41481,"journal":{"name":"Zolotoordynskoe Obozrenie-Golden Horde Review","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zolotoordynskoe Obozrenie-Golden Horde Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22378/2313-6197.2021-9-4.857-877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Research objective: This paper aims at the revealing and analysing various documents, created in different countries of Europe prior to 1783, which suggested the change of the Crimea’s status and its accession to Russia, and the determination of interactions of these sources and general trends and principles behind discussions of the “Crimea question” in Russian and foreign public opinion. Research materials: This research addresses a large body of sources, created in Russia and the West from the sixteenth to eighteenth century, discussing the future of the Crimea – political treatises, memoranda, historical works, and correspondence. Research novelty and results: For the first time in the scholarship, the whole array of available sources on the planned accession of the Crimea to Russia has been analysed. It has been discovered that there were periods when the “Crimea question” was disputed in the West far more widely than in Russia. This “discussion” continued with the participation of very different authors, including the leading minds of the public discourse such as Voltaire or Francesco Algarotti. The attempts of the western intellectuals to influence the Russian government’s decisions have been demonstrated. Therefore, the accession of the Crimea is a product of not only “Russian imperialism”, as it is often suggested, but to a certain extent also of the Western Europe’s public mindset. Obviously, such a development was considered quite admissible in the West, and many authors viewed it positively both for international relations and for the internal perspectives of the region. The given article has exposed the dynamics in these arguments, with initial counter-Muslim rhetoric underlining the existential opposition of Christianity and Islam and the need for “returning” lands which had formerly belonged to Europe. When the Enlightenment era started, the further reason of Europe’s civilizing mission appeared. This mission was thought to be impeded in the Black Sea by the “backward” Islamic society. In Russia, the discussion of the future of the Crimea became topical in the second and third quarter of the eighteenth century, probably when the elite realized that the conquest of the peninsula had now become a reality.
16世纪中期至1783年“西方”计划、政治论文和通信中的克里米亚问题
研究目的:本文旨在揭示和分析1783年以前在欧洲不同国家制作的各种文件,这些文件表明克里米亚地位的变化和加入俄罗斯,并确定这些来源的相互作用以及俄罗斯和外国舆论讨论“克里米亚问题”背后的一般趋势和原则。研究材料:本研究涉及大量来源,从16世纪到18世纪在俄罗斯和西方创造,讨论克里米亚的未来-政治论文,备忘录,历史著作和通信。研究的新颖性和结果:在该奖学金中,第一次对克里米亚计划加入俄罗斯的所有可用资源进行了分析。人们发现,在某些时期,“克里米亚问题”在西方的争议范围远比在俄罗斯大。这种“讨论”在不同作家的参与下继续进行,包括伏尔泰或弗朗西斯科·阿尔加罗蒂等公共话语的领军人物。西方知识分子试图影响俄罗斯政府决策的企图已被证明。因此,克里米亚的加入不仅是人们常说的“俄罗斯帝国主义”的产物,而且在一定程度上也是西欧公众心态的产物。显然,这种发展在西方被认为是完全可以接受的,许多作者对国际关系和该地区的内部观点都持积极态度。这篇文章揭示了这些争论的动态,最初的反穆斯林言论强调了基督教和伊斯兰教存在的对立,以及“归还”曾经属于欧洲的土地的必要性。当启蒙时代开始时,欧洲文明使命的进一步原因出现了。这一使命被认为在黑海受到了“落后”伊斯兰社会的阻碍。在俄罗斯,关于克里米亚未来的讨论在18世纪的第二和第三季度成为热门话题,可能是在精英们意识到征服半岛已经成为现实的时候。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信