改革后提弗里斯神学院中的格鲁吉亚民族思想:俄罗斯语言文学的视角

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Julia Safronova
{"title":"改革后提弗里斯神学院中的格鲁吉亚民族思想:俄罗斯语言文学的视角","authors":"Julia Safronova","doi":"10.15826/qr.2024.1.875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the case of seminarian David Kezeli who compiled the anti-Russian proclamation To the New Generation of Georgia, confiscated in December 1873. Although the St Petersburg and Caucasian authorities interpreted the case differently, they were united in their inattention to the situation of the Tiflis Theological Seminary. The internal problems of the theological educational institution, including the problem of the disloyalty of the “native” teachers, were to be solved by the officials of the Synod’s Educational Committee and the Exarch of Georgia. The author aims to show the ambivalence of the anti-Russian views of the Georgian seminarians and analyse the Kezeli case as part of the processes in religious education initiated by the 1867 reform. Special attention is paid to the discussion about the establishment of the Georgian language class, the idea of which either led to a consensus among the teachers or to a confrontation described in the Synod documents as a struggle between the Russian and Georgian “parties”. The origins and limitations of anti-Russian sentiments among seminarians are considered in relation to conflicts among teachers, the rules of access to educational and extracurricular literature, and the status of the Russian and Georgian languages. The author concludes that in the first years after the reform, young graduates of the theological academies were inspired by the opportunity to change the content of theological education by introducing the achievements of modern science into it. This goal united teachers of Russian and Georgian origin. They worked together both on projects for Georgian language classes and on compiling lists of advanced literature to be purchased for the student library. Georgian teachers, such as Jacob Gogebashvili, were prepared to become conduits of “human Russification”, arguing that only the Russian language allowed their students to access modern science. The transformation of interaction into conflict, which took on the form of a confrontation between the Russian and Georgian “parties” in the seminary, was explained on both sides by its participants’ personal ambitions. They were fighting for power and money, not for the promotion of the Georgian national idea or the defence of Russian interests in the region. David Kezeli was wholly a product of this situation. After completing his studies at the theological school and moving to the seminary, he felt hostility towards his teachers, seeing in them “Famusovs” who were trying to educate him as a “Molchalin”, while he was constructing himself as a “Bazarov”, the only “nihilist” in Georgia. The anachronism of Kezeli’s “nihilistic” identity emphasises his attachment to the generation of “fathers” who determined the literature available to him and provided him with a tool to master it, i. e. the Russian language.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Georgian National Idea in the Tiflis Seminary of the Post-Reform Time: The Optics of the Russian Language and Literature\",\"authors\":\"Julia Safronova\",\"doi\":\"10.15826/qr.2024.1.875\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the case of seminarian David Kezeli who compiled the anti-Russian proclamation To the New Generation of Georgia, confiscated in December 1873. Although the St Petersburg and Caucasian authorities interpreted the case differently, they were united in their inattention to the situation of the Tiflis Theological Seminary. The internal problems of the theological educational institution, including the problem of the disloyalty of the “native” teachers, were to be solved by the officials of the Synod’s Educational Committee and the Exarch of Georgia. The author aims to show the ambivalence of the anti-Russian views of the Georgian seminarians and analyse the Kezeli case as part of the processes in religious education initiated by the 1867 reform. Special attention is paid to the discussion about the establishment of the Georgian language class, the idea of which either led to a consensus among the teachers or to a confrontation described in the Synod documents as a struggle between the Russian and Georgian “parties”. The origins and limitations of anti-Russian sentiments among seminarians are considered in relation to conflicts among teachers, the rules of access to educational and extracurricular literature, and the status of the Russian and Georgian languages. The author concludes that in the first years after the reform, young graduates of the theological academies were inspired by the opportunity to change the content of theological education by introducing the achievements of modern science into it. This goal united teachers of Russian and Georgian origin. They worked together both on projects for Georgian language classes and on compiling lists of advanced literature to be purchased for the student library. Georgian teachers, such as Jacob Gogebashvili, were prepared to become conduits of “human Russification”, arguing that only the Russian language allowed their students to access modern science. The transformation of interaction into conflict, which took on the form of a confrontation between the Russian and Georgian “parties” in the seminary, was explained on both sides by its participants’ personal ambitions. They were fighting for power and money, not for the promotion of the Georgian national idea or the defence of Russian interests in the region. David Kezeli was wholly a product of this situation. After completing his studies at the theological school and moving to the seminary, he felt hostility towards his teachers, seeing in them “Famusovs” who were trying to educate him as a “Molchalin”, while he was constructing himself as a “Bazarov”, the only “nihilist” in Georgia. The anachronism of Kezeli’s “nihilistic” identity emphasises his attachment to the generation of “fathers” who determined the literature available to him and provided him with a tool to master it, i. e. the Russian language.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quaestio Rossica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quaestio Rossica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.875\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestio Rossica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.1.875","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了神学院学生戴维-凯泽利(David Kezeli)的案例,他编撰的反俄宣言《致格鲁吉亚新一代》于 1873 年 12 月被没收。尽管圣彼得堡和高加索当局对这一案件有不同的解释,但他们在不关注梯弗里斯神学院的情况方面是一致的。神学教育机构的内部问题,包括 "本地 "教师不忠诚的问题,应由主教教育委员会官员和格鲁吉亚总主教来解决。作者旨在说明格鲁吉亚神学院学生反俄观点的矛盾性,并将凯泽利事件作为 1867 年改革所启动的宗教教育进程的一部分进行分析。特别关注的是关于设立格鲁吉亚语班的讨论,这一想法要么在教师中达成共识,要么在宗教会议文件中被描述为俄罗斯 "党派 "和格鲁吉亚 "党派 "之间的斗争。作者结合教师之间的冲突、获取教育和课外文献的规则以及俄语和格鲁吉亚语的地位,探讨了神学院学生中反俄情绪的起源和局限性。作者的结论是,在改革后的最初几年,神学院的年轻毕业生受到了通过引入现代科学成果来改变神学教育内容的机会的鼓舞。这一目标将俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚裔教师团结在一起。他们合作开展了格鲁吉亚语课程项目,并为学生图书馆编制了需要购买的高级文献清单。雅各布-戈格巴什维利(Jacob Gogebashvili)等格鲁吉亚教师准备成为 "人类俄罗斯化 "的传播者,认为只有俄语才能让他们的学生接触到现代科学。俄格 "党派 "在神学院中的对抗形式将互动转化为冲突,双方的参与者都以个人野心为由加以解释。他们是为了权力和金钱而战,而不是为了促进格鲁吉亚的民族思想或捍卫俄罗斯在该地区的利益。大卫-凯泽利完全是这种情况下的产物。在神学院完成学业并转入神学院后,他对自己的老师怀有敌意,认为他们是 "法穆索夫",试图把他教育成 "莫尔查林",而他却把自己塑造成 "巴扎罗夫",格鲁吉亚唯一的 "虚无主义者"。凯泽利 "虚无主义 "身份的不合时宜强调了他对那一代 "父辈 "的依恋,是他们决定了他所能获得的文学,并为他提供了掌握文学的工具,即俄语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Georgian National Idea in the Tiflis Seminary of the Post-Reform Time: The Optics of the Russian Language and Literature
This article examines the case of seminarian David Kezeli who compiled the anti-Russian proclamation To the New Generation of Georgia, confiscated in December 1873. Although the St Petersburg and Caucasian authorities interpreted the case differently, they were united in their inattention to the situation of the Tiflis Theological Seminary. The internal problems of the theological educational institution, including the problem of the disloyalty of the “native” teachers, were to be solved by the officials of the Synod’s Educational Committee and the Exarch of Georgia. The author aims to show the ambivalence of the anti-Russian views of the Georgian seminarians and analyse the Kezeli case as part of the processes in religious education initiated by the 1867 reform. Special attention is paid to the discussion about the establishment of the Georgian language class, the idea of which either led to a consensus among the teachers or to a confrontation described in the Synod documents as a struggle between the Russian and Georgian “parties”. The origins and limitations of anti-Russian sentiments among seminarians are considered in relation to conflicts among teachers, the rules of access to educational and extracurricular literature, and the status of the Russian and Georgian languages. The author concludes that in the first years after the reform, young graduates of the theological academies were inspired by the opportunity to change the content of theological education by introducing the achievements of modern science into it. This goal united teachers of Russian and Georgian origin. They worked together both on projects for Georgian language classes and on compiling lists of advanced literature to be purchased for the student library. Georgian teachers, such as Jacob Gogebashvili, were prepared to become conduits of “human Russification”, arguing that only the Russian language allowed their students to access modern science. The transformation of interaction into conflict, which took on the form of a confrontation between the Russian and Georgian “parties” in the seminary, was explained on both sides by its participants’ personal ambitions. They were fighting for power and money, not for the promotion of the Georgian national idea or the defence of Russian interests in the region. David Kezeli was wholly a product of this situation. After completing his studies at the theological school and moving to the seminary, he felt hostility towards his teachers, seeing in them “Famusovs” who were trying to educate him as a “Molchalin”, while he was constructing himself as a “Bazarov”, the only “nihilist” in Georgia. The anachronism of Kezeli’s “nihilistic” identity emphasises his attachment to the generation of “fathers” who determined the literature available to him and provided him with a tool to master it, i. e. the Russian language.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quaestio Rossica
Quaestio Rossica HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Quaestio Rossica is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on the study of Russia’s history, philology, and culture. The Journal aims to introduce new research approaches in the sphere of the Humanities and previously unknown sources, actualising traditional methods and creating new research concepts in the sphere of Russian studies. Except for academic articles, the Journal publishes reviews, historical surveys, discussions, and accounts of the past of the Humanities as a field.
×
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