Some studies in Russian on the Ottoman empire

Turcologica 1986, a Festschrift presented to A.N. Kononov on his eightieth birthday (Leningrad: Nauka Press for the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, 1986; 303 pp.).

I. Ye, and Yu A. Pyetrosyan, on the periodization of the ‘era of reforms’ in the Ottoman Empire (pp.219–24).

Yuri A. Pyetrosyan, Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet (now Russian) Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, also contributes a brief, but useful paper on the Turkish emigrant press in the early twentieth century (pp.225–9).

Kh. M. Ibragimbyeyli and N.S. Rashba, entitled Osmanskaya Impyeriya v pyervoy chyetvyerti XVII vyeka: sbornik dokumyentov i matyerialov, The Ottoman Empire in the First Quarter of the 17th Century: A Collection of Documents and Materials (Moscow: Nauka Press, 1984; 214 pp.).

A.A. Vitol's Osmanskaya Impyeriya (nachalo XVIII v.), The Ottoman Empire at the Beginning of the 18th Century (Moscow: Nauka Press for the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, 1987; 136 pp.).

V.P. Grachyev's Balkanskiye vladyenya Osmanskoy Impyerii na rubyedzhye XVIII‐XIX vv. (vnutryennyeye polodzhyeniye, pryedposilki natsional'no‐osvobodityel'‐nikh dvidzhyeniy), The Balkan Domains of the Ottoman Empire at the Meeting Point of the 18th and 19th Centuries: Internal Situation, the Preconditions of National Liberation Movements (Moscow: Nauka Press for the Institute of Slavonic and Balkan Studies in the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, 1990; 200 pp.).

M.T. Boddzholyan has written on Ryeformi 20–30‐kh gg. XIX vyeka v Osmanskoy Impyerii, The Reforms of the 1820s and 1830s in the Ottoman Empire (Erevan: Academy of Sciences of Soviet Armenia Press, 1984; 156 pp.).

Osmanskaya Impyeriya: systyema gosudarstvyennogo, upravlyeniya, sotsial'niye i etnoryeligiozniye problyemi. Sbornik statyey, The Ottoman Empire: System of Government, Administration, Social and Ethno‐Religious Problems. A Collection of Articles (Moscow: Nauka Press for the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, 1986; 253 pp.).

Osmanskaya Impyeriya: gosudarstvyennaya vlast’ i sotsial'no‐politichyeskaya struktura, The Ottoman Empire: State Power and Socio‐Political Structure (Moscow: Nauka Press for the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, 1990; 338 pp.).     

Demographic engineering in the late Ottoman empire and the Armenians

An examination of the diverse Hebrew newspapers published in Palestine in the aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 teaches us a great deal about the complexity of the term Ottomanism, which was interpreted differently by the Empire and the minorities remaining within its shrinking borders. Whereas the Empire officially perceived Ottomanism as a new form of hybrid identity which would substitute existing national identities, the yishuv's various sectors envisioned a decentralized empire under the house of Osman. In this sense, the Revolution encouraged the emergence of a shared national vision among many circles in the yishuv, although each group still strove to shape the character of the Zionist community in Palestine according to its own agenda.     

Orientalism,otherness, and the Soviet empire: travelogues by Latvian writers of the Soviet period

ABSTRACT

The development of travel writing in a national literature is closely related to the geographical and mental cartography that characterizes that territory. This article investigates Latvian travelogues of the Soviet era as encounters with other nations within the Soviet empire in order to analyze the role of Latvian travel writings in shaping a feeling of belonging to the empire. In addition to fostering obedience and a sense of belonging to the Soviet empire during the first 15 oppressive years of the Soviet regime, Latvian travelogues of the later years represented the Soviet empire as a conflictual site of the destruction of traditional values and landscapes.     

"第二次转型"的理论向度与原社会主义国家转型的多样性——以普京时代的俄罗斯制度转型为例

对于俄罗斯而言,叶利钦时代与普京时代的转型既是一个延续的过程,但又呈现出截然不同的面貌,体现出一定的断裂性.自上个世纪90年代和本世纪初开始,俄罗斯改革的目标,至少在口头宣示上,与其说是从极权体制向民主制度以及从计划经济向市场经济转型,不如说是要从叶利钦时代转型形成的制度陷阱--非效率制度均衡中脱离开来,试图通过增加国家能力的途径建立新的效率制度均衡.运用"第二次转型"的理论范畴有助于全面认识发生在俄罗斯的由传统体制向现代民主政治和市场经济的转化以及与此相伴的社会转型进程,能够对叶利钦时代俄罗斯之所以败、普京时代俄罗斯之所以兴提供一种新的解释,同时,这也表明原社会主义国家转型具有丰富的多样性.