Historiography in the Mode of Invectivity. The "Istoriia o velikom kniaze Moskovskom" of Prince Andrei Kurbskii (1528-1583) as a New Form of Historical Representation

谩骂方式的史学。

• 批准号: 503941124
• 负责人: Dr. Maike Sach
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Arbeitsbereich Osteuropäische Geschichte
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Grants
• 资助国家: 德国
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/503941124?language=en
• 关键词: Historiography; Mode; Invectivity.; Istoriia; velikom

Prince Andrei Mikhailovich Kurbskii was probably one of the most famous opponents of Tsar Ivan IV. Groznyi. Traditionally he was considered a traitor, but now he is also considered one of the first dissidents and exiles in Russian history. He owes his fame mainly to the transmission of his works. They became central sources on the history of the so symbolic first tsar, among them the famous polemical correspondence between the fugitive and his former master as well as Kurbskii's “Istoriia o velikom kniaze Moskovskom”. With regard to its division of the Tsar's reign into a good and an evil period, the Istoria attained special power in historiography. However, the “Istoriia” will not be focused on as a historical source, but rather as a work of historiography that was new for its time. Although traditionally attributed to Old Russian historiography, it could only have emerged in its present form outside Muscovy and in productive exploration of intellectual-historical developments from Western Europe and the legal and constitutional structures with which Kurbskii was confronted in Poland-Lithuania. His studies of Latin language allowed Kurbskii to become familiar not only with its stylistic peculiarities, but also with theoretical foundations of Latin historiography and later works of humanist writers based on it. He chose “Istoriia” as the name for his work on Ivan IV, thus distinguishing his text from the Old Russian genres of historical writing such as “letopis'”, “povest'” or “zhitie” for life descriptions of saints, and also princes. Kurbskii's work will be considered here in the context of his dispute with Ivan IV and the culture of dispute that is also tangible in his correspondence. Special attention will be paid to invectives: they had a great tradition in ancient literature, were a popular weapon in confessional controversies disputes and in intellectual disputes among humanists, and can also be found in the tsar's correspondence. Against this background, the innovations in the “Istoriia” will be determined in more detail according to their nature and scope: What kind of formal innovations in the structure and composition of the text can be identified? How do they compare with contemporary muscovite historiography? Are the innovations in the “Istoriia “the result of a transformation of literary models with which Kurbskii came into contact in Poland-Lithuania? What consequences does the finding have for the historical-theoretical assumptions and positions woven into Kurbskii's text? What narrative strategies, which procedures become tangible? Is Kurbskii's work an Old Russian equivalent of Latin biographies of princes, an anti-vita?

安德烈·米哈伊洛维奇·库尔布斯基王子可能是沙皇伊凡四世·格罗兹尼最著名的反对者之一。传统上他被认为是叛徒，但现在他也被认为是俄罗斯历史上第一批持不同政见者和流亡者之一。他的成名主要归功于他作品的传播。它们成为了研究这位极具象征意义的第一任沙皇历史的主要资料来源，其中包括这位逃亡者与他的前主人之间著名的论战信件，以及库尔布斯基的《莫斯科的历史》。关于将沙皇统治时期分为好时期和坏时期，《历史》在史学上获得了特殊的力量。然而，《历史》并不是作为一个历史来源而被关注，而是作为一个在当时是新的史学著作。尽管传统上被认为是古俄罗斯史学的产物，但它只能在莫斯科公国之外以目前的形式出现，并在西欧思想史发展的富有成效的探索中出现，以及库尔布斯基在波兰-立陶宛遇到的法律和宪法结构。他对拉丁语的研究使库尔布斯基不仅熟悉了拉丁语的文体特点，而且熟悉了拉丁语史学的理论基础，以及后来以拉丁语为基础的人文主义作家的作品。他选择“Istoriia”作为他关于伊凡四世的作品的名字，从而将他的文本与古俄罗斯历史写作流派（如描述圣人和王子生活的“letopis”，“povest”或“zhitie”）区分开来。库尔布斯基的作品将在他与伊凡四世的争论和争论文化的背景下被考虑，这在他的通信中也是有形的。我们将特别关注谩骂：谩骂在古代文学中有着悠久的传统，是一种流行的武器，在忏悔的争论和人文主义者之间的智力争论中，也可以在沙皇的通信中找到。在此背景下，《历史》中的创新将根据其性质和范围进行更详细的确定：在文本的结构和组成方面可以确定什么样的形式创新？它们与当代莫斯科的史学比较如何？《历史》中的创新是库尔布斯基在波兰-立陶宛接触到的文学模式转变的结果吗？这一发现对编织在库尔布斯基文本中的历史理论假设和立场有什么影响？什么样的叙事策略，什么样的程序是有形的？库尔布斯基的作品是古俄语版的拉丁王子传记吗？