메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
조호연 (경남대학교)
저널정보
한국슬라브유라시아학회 슬라브학보 슬라브학보 제36권 제2호
발행연도
2021.6
수록면
179 - 204 (26page)
DOI
10.46694/JSS.2021.06.36.2.179

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The purpose of this thesis is to examine how the issues related to the periodization surrounding the feudal system in Russian history were arranged before and after the Russian Revolution. The Russian Revolution, like other historical subjects, raised a fundamental task in the field of periodization. The periodization theories of the Tsarist Russia period before the revolution were denied, and a new period periodization theory had to be established according to Marxism. However, even by M. N. Pokrovskii, who had the most weight in the history of the Soviet Union in the early days of the Soviet Union, a satisfactory periodization theory was not presented. Rather, through the debate that developed in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Pokrovskii"s historiography was criticized for being anti-Marxism and anti-scholarship. In the Soviet Union, with the establishment of Stalin"s historiography in the 1930"s, a new periodization theory surrounding feudalism could be organized. In this process, Stalin"s books and articles played a significant role. As a professional scholar, B. D. Grekov"s works coexisted with Stalinist history and made an important contribution to resolving the controversy surrounding feudalism. His research established the position that the period of feudalism started from Kiev Rus, and that feudalism did not go through slavery in Russian history. Grekov"s position was highly praised for not only using the results of archaeological excavations and various historical sources, but also for using a comparative historical method. The periodization debates that developed from the end of 1940’s to the beginning of 1950’s developed over the basic nature of feudalism. K. B. Bazilevich tried to define the feudal period in terms of socioeconomic history, and his critics, N. M. Druzhnin and I. Smirnov, in terms of the political superstructure, whereas V. Pashto and L. Cherepnin synthesized socioeconomic history and political historical factors. In my opinion, Soviet historians were able to reach a certain level of agreement in terms of timing and nature on the issue of feudal periodization. However, issues such as the basic laws of feudalism and the origins of capitalism were still unsolved and caused a lot of controversy, and in the subsequent period, Soviet historians argued a lot about various issues related to the periodization.

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 러시아 혁명과 소련 역사학의 봉건제 시대구분 문제
Ⅲ. 스탈린 역사학과 시대구분 문제
Ⅳ. 1940년 후반부터 1950년 초반까지의 시대구분 논쟁
Ⅴ. 나오는 말
참고문헌
Abstract

참고문헌 (35)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2021-349-001853907