A social Scientific Approach to the Making of the Modern World
The Making of Eastern Europe
After the fall of the Roman Empire the empire eventually split into eastern and western parts for a variety of different reasons. They would also eventually split religiously as the old eastern part of the empire came to be dominated by the Christian Orthodox Church while the western part would come to be dominated by Roman Catholicism. The Eastern Roman Empire survived until 1453. Scholars have long refered to the western part of the old empire as Mediaeval Europe.
Byzantine History, the history of the Eastern Roman Empire, is, to a large extent, the story of cycles of contraction and expansion rather than, as 18th historian Sir Edward Gibbon had it, the decline and eventual fall of a faint image of the Roman Empire. The 3rd and 4th centuries saw contraction. Between 450 and 550 the empire grew. Between 550 and 750 it once again contracted. The 6th through 8th centuries saw urban decline, a decline which, by the way, was never as severe as it was in the West. 750 through 1050 saw the Empire once again grow. Between 750 and 1204 the Empire experienced almost continual economic expansion. In 1050 a decline once again occurred and followed once again by expansion in 1150. The Fourth Crusade, which saw the betrayal of the Byzantines by the Crusaders and their capture of Constantinople, began a decline from which the empire would never recover. The Empire, of course, would fall in the 15th century to the Ottoman Turks. Culturally, the achievements of the Empire were vigourous from beginning to end. This is not the decadent, mongrel Christian empire of Edward Gibbon’s imagination, in other words—for Gibbon Christianity undermined Rome in part.
The Byzantines considered themselves Romans, Romaoi, Greek-speaking Romans. They spoke koine or common Greek and they understood Classical Greek. They even read the classics of the ancient world when these didn’t conflict with their Christian ideology.
The Eastern Roman Empire over the years was characterized by loyalty to its religious doctrines, loyalty to its political leaders, despite numerous palace intrigues so numerous that Byzantine became synonymous with palace intrigue itself—and loyalty to its athletic teams. Most Byzantines condemned sexuality despite frequently engaging in it in practice, condemned abortion, and condemned prostitution. Most Eastern Romans cherished the idea of empire.
The Byzantine Empire was both rural and urban. In the countryside people farmed, herded, and fished. In the cities people pursued government careers, pursued education, pursued religious careers, pursued careers in art and literature, and attended the hippodrome. The famous Hippodrome in Constantinople was the centre of the city's social life. Significant bets were placed on its chariot races and the whole city was divided between fans of its chariot teams the Blues (Venetii) and Greens (Prasinoi). Two other previous racing teams, the Reds (Rousioi) and the Whites (Leukoi) were over time gradually absorbed by the two major factions. Frequently rivalry between Blues and Greens became tangled with political or religious factions and riots, which sometimes amounted to civil wars, broke out in the city between them—a situation perhaps not all that different from the hooliganism of football fans of recent years.
The imperial government, the Greek language, and Christianity, and were central symbols and identity markers of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire linked Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian faith. Training in rhetoric and public oratory remained important while Neo-Platonic philosophising was alive and well in the Eastern Roman Empire.
Once Christianity became the official religion of the empire the Church helped put an end to gladiatorial contests, helped put an end to the Olympic games, and helped close down gymnasia because of its opposition to nudity. Theatrical performances involving nearly nude women remained legal, however, as did segregated public baths. On other fronts the Church’s discomfort with warfare was reconciled with the demands of the state as the doctrine of war as a necessary evil became part of Byzantine ideology. It remains a part of Orthodox ideology today.
It took some time for Orthodox Christianity to develop in the empire. The incubators of Orthodox Christianity were the church councils. The Emperor Constantine himself called the first church council at Nicaea in Anatolia in 325. The Council concluded that Christ, the Son of God, was of one substance with God the Father and thus was not a part of God’s creation. The Nicene Creed, which incorporated this view of Christ into it, would set the standard by which Orthodox Christianity would be defined forever afterwards.
Other church councils would further delineate what constituted Orthodoxy in the Church in the Eastern Roman Empire and in the West. The Council of Constatinople in 381 concluded that God is one substance but three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Council of Ephesus in 431 concluded that since Christ is one person his mother, Mary, should be venerated as the Mother of God. The Council of Chalcedon in 449 concluded that when he became human Christ developed a second nature and thus had two natures, one human and one divine.
The conclusions of the Church Councils were considered authoritative by many, but not all Orthodox Christian leaders and many, though not all, Orthodox Christian laity. As a result Arians, who didn’t believe in the full divinity of the Son, Nestorians, who believed that Christ’s human and divine natures were separate, and Monophysites, who believed that the incarnate Christ had only one nature that was both human and divine, became “unorthodox”. Defined as “unorthodox” Nestorians fled to Persia while Monophysites continued to dominate the church of Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, and Armenia
The Eastern Roman Empire was a theocracy something symbolized by the proximity of Church, the massive and symbolically central Church of Hagia Sopia, and state, the nearby imperial palace, to each other. In many ways the imperial cult was simply replaced with Christianity. The Emperor, who dominated the Church, was supposed to lead a holy life according to Christian belief. The Emperor’s subjects were supposed to follow his lead. “Orthodoxy” itself, just like the Eastern Roman Empire, was hierarchical. Bishops stood at the pinnacle of the Orthodox hierarchy. By the fourth century the four, the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Jerusalem, and Rome. Later, after the Emperor Constantine established the Empires new Capital in Constantinople, the former Byzantium, the bishop of the new imperial city would become one of the important, if not the most important, Orthodox bishops of the church as well because of his role in the imperial capital.
With the Orthodox faith set by the Orthodox councils Orthodox Christianity soon developed its own specific practises to go with its specific beliefs. By the fifth century the Church had its own distinctive liturgy, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (/liturgy/liturgy.htm). The Eastern Church also developed its own distinctive Church music, its own distinctive monastic communities including its most famous monastic community at Mount Athos in Greece (bishops could only come from the Orthodox monastic community), and its own distinctive meaning system with icons at its centre.
Icons were, if not the most significant than one of the most significant symbolic and representative Christian forms in the Empire, one that was deeply grounded in Byzantine spiritual life. Icons were considered by Byzantine Christians to be incarnations of the heavenly world. They were intended to transport believers from the mundane world into the heavenly world by giving them glimpses of the heavently things to come.
Byzantine churches made this ideology material in their very structure. Believers stepped from the mundane world into the church and were, it was believed, transported from the mundane realm of the everyday to the spiritual realm through the icons in the church be they the icons on the iconostasis, the icon screen at the front of the church, or the great icons in the dome and the apse, the Christ Pantocrator icon and the Theotokos icon, the Christ the all powerful and Mary the Mother of God icons. This glimpse of the heavenly provided a glimpse to the faithful of what their future life would be like should they remain faithful orthodox Christians.
Just how important icons were in Byzantine Christianity is apparent in the battle over icons in the Byzantine Empire in the 700s ( /toah/hd/icon/hd_icon.htm). This battle pitted those who venerated icons in the traditional Byzantine fashion—the iconphiles—against those who wished them removed all together from Byzantine Churches—the iconoclasts. The controversy began when the Emperor Leo III, believing that the decline the Empire was experiencing at the time was a sign of god’s displeasure with the his people. Leo traced the source of god’s displeasure with his chosen to icons, the worship of graven images the Bible forbade. Leo thus called for a church council to meet and outlaw icons. Since this was unsuccessful he resorted to banning all icons from public places throughout the Empire.
When Leo died his successor Constantine V carried on the struggle against icons. He called a church council and this one did ban icons. Afterwards he began the official persecution of iconophiles. Constantine’s son and successor Leo V continued the ban on icons and continued to support iconoclasm. His wife, the Empress Irene, however, opposed iconoclasm and when her son Constantine VI came to the throne after the death of Leo V, she, acting as regent for Constantine VI, called the Second Council of Nicaea which settled the controversy once and for all. Nicaea II reversed the iconoclastic positions of two recent church councils and reinstated the veneration of icons throughout the Empire.
“Orthodox” Christianity, as we will see, differed from the Christianity that would come to develop in the former Western part of the Roman Empire, Roman Catholicism. With the demise of the Byzantine Empire in the West and the rise of Charlemagne the Bishop of Rome would propagate the fiction in the famous and fraudulent “Donation of Constantine” that that Roman Emperor had given him dominion over the city of Rome, Italy, and the entire Western Roman Empire. He would use this power to crown Charlemagne Imperator Augustus in Rome on Christmas Day, 800. By 1054 the split between Eastern and Western Orthodox Christianities was almost complete when the East balked at the West’s insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. This clause said that the Holy Spirit, one of the three substances in the Christian godhead, proceeded from both the Father and the Son rather than simply the Father as the creed had it previously.
The Byzantines spread their “Orthodox” Christianity in its sphere of influence in Europe and the Near East. Between 780 and 1025 the Slavs—the Bulgars, Serbs, and Rus—converted to “Orthodox” Christianity thanks to the efforts of the missionaries Constantine (later Cyril) and Methodius. Constantine developed the alphabet that would become the basis for the words and grammar of Old Church Slavonic.
What this discussion of the Byzantine Empire shows, if nothing else, is how central religion was to Byzantine life. I want, therefore, to digress a bit and talk about the nature and function of religion.
Since World War II two broad and ostensibly dispassionate conceptualizations of religion have emerged and dominated sociological thinking on religion—substantivist and functionalist perspectives of religion. Substantive approaches have largely focused on what religion is. They tend to emphasise the institutional—churches, synagogues, mosques, shrines, pilgrimage routes, statutes, paintings, icons, religious books and legal codes—and the cultural—religion as beliefs, patterns of action, value systems, a belief in supernatural beings. Functional approaches have tended to focus on what religion does. They tend to focus on religion as a meaning system, as a system of symbols, a creator of moods and motivations in humans, a creator of a community of memory.
Religion, whatever else it is, is a cultural system and a meaning system. For Clifford Geertz, one of the foremost purveyors of a functionalist approach to religion, religion is a cultural system which creates, for those on the inside, a shared community of meanings, a shared ethos, a shared value system, a shared worldview. Religion gives the religious a sense of who they are, of why they are here on earth, of where there life is going, and, as sociologist and historian Peter Berger has noted, an understanding of why good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people (theodicy), and a conception of the world beyond them.
Vignette: Russia: The Third Rome
Map or Russia, /imgres?imgurl=/images/mrussia.gif&imgrefurl=/atlas/country/russia.html&usg=__M5x3-RKB4t8b8_YR4Gfrz1dSUUg=&h=414&w=551&sz=82&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=jVrl-2ZVuNG3JM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=158&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Bof%2Brussia%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1052%26bih%3D584%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=460&vpy=111&dur=997&hovh=195&hovw=259&tx=123&ty=110&ei=WNtWTOfLE8GDngfPspnvAg&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0
Topographical map of Russia, /imgres?imgurl=/images/full/physical-topo2.jpg&imgrefurl=/map.php%3Fmap%3Dphysical-topo2&usg=__N8_CBru4c54X8JAjpoXGkvjjw8E=&h=2535&w=3370&sz=775&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=jtLTWSJN3VujnM:&tbnh=138&tbnw=209&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtopographical%2Bmap%2Bof%2Brussia%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1052%26bih%3D584%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=339&ei=vttWTIaMCY-0nAecop2JAw&page=1&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=137&ty=97
For many observers the history of Russia raises questions about the importance of geography and culture in human history. The geographical issues first.
Much of Russia’s landscape and Russia’s weather has made human habitation difficult, certainly much more difficult than human habitation in most of the other parts of Europe. The Ice Ages, with their advancing and retreating ice, removed many of the topographic bourndaries across much of Russia making Russia a migratory route for nomads for much of its history. The lack of mountains in the north which made much of Asian Russia open to winds from the Arctic and North Pole and the blocking of warm winds from the south by southern mountains like the Himalayas, made Asian Russia extremely cold. Winds from the west blowing into European Russia made it warmer than Asian Russia but not as warm as much of Europe in general.
As one moves from north to south there is a variation in Russia’s soils. In the north one finds rocky debris left by the glaciers of the ice age that is in an almost constant state of permafrost. From Kiev (in contemporary Ukraine) to Kharkov (in western Eurpopean Russia) is home to rich black soil and loess and has been and is a rich agricultural area. But while the black soil may be rich the growing season in European Russa of only four to six months, much shorter than that in the termperate areas of Europe, places limits on Russian and Ukrainian agricultural production.
Commentators often divide Russia into an Asian part and a European part. In Asian Russia rivers flow from south to north. These rivers melt first at their sources rather than their mouths meaning that the point where these rivers flow into the sea is the last point to melt after winter freezing. All of this makes movement from south to north along these rivers difficult. It also means that when these rivers flood water spreads across a cold marshy landscape, a landscape hardly conducive to agriculture.
Rivers were also important in European Russia. The fact that Moscow was close to the Oka and Volga rivers and fairly close to the Dneiper and West Dvina rivers made Moscow an important community. While the weather in European Russia wasn’t and isn’t as severe as it is in Asian Russia Russian rivers north of the Caucusus do freeze during the winter months and flood regularly in spring.
Russia as a geographical space was, as I noted earlier, a space that allowed for widespread migration, invasions, and trade from Asia to Europe and the Middle East and vice versa. Russia would remain a pathway for nomad migration particularly from west to east at least through the 8th century CE. One migrant group that appears to have entered Russia was the Slavs.
Slavs appear to have entered Russia in the 700s from the Carpathian Mountains (a mountain range along the borders of contemporary Poland, Slovakia, the Ukraine, and Romania). These Slavs took up residence along the Dneiper, Volkhov, and Volga rivers in what is today Russia and the Ukraine in scattered hamlets. These first settlers were hunter-gatherers who eventually began to trade in furs, skins, and honey. They also engaged in slash and burn agriculture.
Eventually Slavs mixed with Scandinavians who entered Russia from the west. These Scandinavians founded the city of Novgorod in the northwest along the Volkhov River creating the first Russian state in the process. Novgorod would grow into an important commercial and trade centre. Because of its western proximity Novgorod would largely escape the impact of the Mongols from the 1200s to the 1500s. In the south and west Slavs founded a rival city to Novgorod in 882, Kiev. Kiev would be home to the first flowering of Russian culture. Over time Kievan Rus would epand to the east as far as the Urals and to the Black Sea. Like Novgorod it became an important commercial and trade centre. In the West the Kievan Rus defeated the Khazars, who lived between the Baltic and the Caspian seas and had adopted Judaism, in the eleventh century. The Kievan Rus would be the western most partner of the Hanseatic League, a league of trade oriented cities in Holland, the German speaking lands, Sweden, and Russia. Cultural exchanges between the two were also important. Kiev’s proximity to the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople meant that trade between thise two would be important. Byzantine Orthodox Christianity would come to dominate Kiev in the late 900s and 1000s. In Central Russia Moscow would become important, as I have already noted. Southern Russia would remain thinly populated and serve often as a safety valve to which Russians could escape the Mongols or the autocratic Russian state itself.
Central Russia and Western Russia in particular were impacted by Mongol invasions from Central Asia. The Mongol Empire, the Golden Horde, with its capital in Kazan, founded by Genghis Khan’s grandson Batu in 1236 and lasting until 1552 dominated Moscow for most of those years. Moscow, which had surpassed Kiev, was forced to collect the tribute the Golden Horde mandated from Russians. The pax mongol, by the way, facilitated trade along the Silk Road from China to Europe and the Middle East. It was along this trade route that gunpowder would enter the Middle East and Europe transforming Middle Eastern and European history in the process with the development of the cannon.
It would be Ivan III (1440-1505), the Grand Duke of Moscow, who oversaw the first flush of Russian independence from the Golden Horde. Ivan consolidated his rule over Russia by taking control of Novgorod, Vyatka, Tver, Yaroslavl, Rostov, and the surrounding territories. In 1480 Ivan felt strong enough to repudiate the tribute he was mandated to pay to the Golden Horde. Instead he expropriated the tribute bought cannon, imported other technology from Europe including weaponry for his modernized and modern army, and turned Moscovy into a power.
Politically Ivan declared Moscovy to be the “third Rome” linking the Russian Tsars to the caesars of Rome and Byantium, the first and second Rome’s. The “third Rome” that Ivan created was a hybrid of modern technological sophistication (for its time) and feudal structure. At the top of the feudal pyramid, of course, was the Tsar. He retained title to all Russian land and bestowed his land to his nobles who he hoped to replace the boyars, Russia’s traditional elites who owned and inherited their estates. At the bottom of the hierarchical pyramid were serfs, agricultural labourers.
The next prominent Tsar was Ivan IV, Ivan the Terrible. It was Ivan IV who created the oprichiniki, a secret service, who covertly fought “treason” with torture and murder throughout Ivan’s empire. By 1565 these black-cloaked operatives were destroying anyone an increasingly paranoid Ivan thought was threatening his rule.
After Ivan IV died in 1584 the “time of troubles” came to Russia as tensions and conflicts between nobles, boyars, and Cossacks, residents of military communities in Western Russia, ensued. Russia experienced decentralization and military decline, and renewed threats from the Golden Horde and new threats from Poland. When Ivan died the power vacuum that resulted from the death of the Tsar was filled by the Orthodox Church of Russia. It was the church that was the focal point to Mongol and Polish threats. And it was the Orthodox Church which played a critical role in the crowing of a new, Tsar Mikhail Romanov in 1613. Russia had become a theocracy.
Romanov was the son of the Patriarch of Moscow. Realising he needed the support of nobles Mikhail gave greater power to the nobles. He reestablished the zemski sobor, an advisory assembly dating from Ivan IV’s time in which important social and economic groups in Russia were represented. With his rule consolidated Romanov defeated the Poles and captured part of the Ukraine.
Mikhail’s successor Alexis Romanov (1645-1676) reformed the church. These reforms alienated Russian Orthodox traditionalists, the Old Believers, who were exiled to Siberia. His law Code of 1649 reformed society. All agricultural workers were turned into serfs. Nobles were required to serve in the military and pledge their obedience to the Tsar.
Code of 1649 (excerpts)
The next significant Russian Tsar was Petr the Great (1682-1725). Petr expanded his power over the nobles and forced his nobles and boyars to Europeanise, even mandating that they shave their beards. He eliminated any representative assemblies in the Empire and substituted royal advisory councils for them. He began to appoint provincial governors. He made bishops directly responsible to him. He streamlined the Russian bureaucracy. He separated the civil service from military control. He increased the tax burden on the serfs. He expanded and modernized the Russian military. He expanded the Russian empire to the north and to the south. He built a new European capital on thes shores of the Baltic Sea, Sankt Petersburg.
Another significant Russian ruler was Yekaterina the Great, Catherine the Great (1762-1796). Yekaterina, who usurped power from her husband Petr III, symbolized and mirrored many of the paradoxes of Russian society and culture. On the one hand she modernized Russian law, she established the Great Commission, a representative assembly of 564, and urged it to eliminate social, economic, and legal abuses in her kingdom. The body contained no serfs. On the other hand, Yekatrina, needing to placate the noble class in order to consolidate her rule, made nobile status hereditary and allowed serfs to be bought and sold.
Russia continued to expand in Yekaterina’s time and afterwards. Russia conquered part of the Baltics in 1796, took parts of Georgia in 1800, and conquered Finland in 1855. In 1861Tsar Alexander II freed, at least officially, Russia’s serfs. This emancipation was more theoretical than actual, however. Russia’s serfs essentially had to emancipate themselves by buying their “freedom” from their owners. Since most serfs were unable to do this many had to make yearly redemption payments. Many serfs, since they became share croppers, remained, like “freed” slaves in the United States, enslaved to the nobles in other ways. Additionally, the rise of powerful serfs, serfs on village (mir) councils (zemstvos) who had the power to distribute fields and often did so in such a way to enrich themselves, their families, their friends, and their allies, enslaved poor and powerless serfs in other ways as well. In some ways the burden on serfs before emancipation, including the tax burden, were less than they were after emancipation.
While Russia was changing socially and politically between the 1400s to the 1900s it was also changing economically. In the 17th century Russia developed cottage forms of production. In the 18th century the number of cottage workers increased. Many cottage workers who before had farmed and produced goods at home became more and more dependent on monies from cottage production. In the 19th century the factory became more and more prominent in Russia, particularly European Russia. By 1860 there were some 800,000 industrial workers in Russia, 33% of them serfs. By 1866 there were 644 factories in Russia employing more than 100 workers. By 1890 40 factories in Russia employed more than 1000 workers, 99 over 2000.
Industrialisation brought railways to Russia, steel manufacturing to Russia, and military supply factories to Russia. While merchants, nobles, and the Tsar grew wealthier form this industrialization Russia’s workers lived in squalour.
The “liberation” of the serfs and industrialization did not diminish social and political tensions in Russia. Peasant revolts continued. Political and intellectual movements flowered as anarchists, nihilists, Marxists, revolutionaries, socialists, and populists appeared in Russian society. Tsar Alexander III was assassinated by anarchists in 1861.
With industrialization tensions between workers, factory owners, and the powers that be began to arise in Russia. Workers began to organize. The poor began to protest. By 1900 political parties like the Constitutional Democratic Party (the Cadets), the Social Democratic Party, and the Social Revoutionary Party were appearing despite the fact that there were no elections in Russia beyond the provincial zemstvos. All of these parties were under close survellance by the tsarist secret police.
The 1900s saw a spate of popular protest. Peasants were trespassing on gentry land, there were local insurrections against landlords and tax collectors, factory workers were engaging in work stoppages. The defeat of Russia by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 led to a series of protests and eventual revolution. On “Bloody Sunday” a group of workers and peasants who had petitioned the Tsar for an eight-hour work day and a democratically elected Constituent Assembly like those that had developed elsewhere in Europe were attacked brutally by the tsarist police in front of the Winter Palace in Petersburg. Hundreds were killed.
“Bloody Sunday” led to large-scale political strikes. Political parties emerged from underground to protest. Social Democrats came out of the political closet to organize Soviet or Workers Councils in Petersburg and Moscow. The Petersburg Soviet called for a general strike. Railroads ceased operation, banks closed, newspapers closed, even lawyers refused to go to their offices. In response Tsar Nikolai (1868-1918) issued his October Manifesto which promised a constitution, a respect for civil liberties, and a Constituent Assembly, the Duma
In 1906 the Duma met for the first time. Elections to the Duma were indirect. Voting was structured in such a way to give peasants and workers, who voted as separate classes, less representation than the landlord class. Despite this the Cadets who dominated the Duma had high hopes for it. Soviet Revolutionaries, Menshiviks, Bolsheviks, and monarchical and theocratic Black Hundreds who boycotted it for different reasons did not. The latter turned out to be right. Nikolai refused to allow the Duma to consider foreign policy, the budget, or government personnel issues. Within two months the Tsar through his advisor Peter Stolypin dissolved the Duma after the Cadets demanded a constitution and universal male suffrage. With the Duma dissolved the Kadets fled to Vyborg Finland and urged Russians to refuse to pay taxes, engage in civil disobedience, and refuse to join the military.
A second Duma was elected in 1907 and included 83 socialist members since the Social Revolutionaries and Menshviks did not boycott elections this time around. This second Duma was dissolved by Stolypin later in June 1907. In the wake of the dismissal of the Duma 50 socialists were arrested and exiled to Siberia. Many leftists fled westward to Europe. A third and fourth Duma were later elected. The third increased the representation of the propertied classes. Stolypin, principal minister of the Tsar between 1906 and 1911, initiated reforms from above hoping that by increasing the propertied classes Russia’s monarchical regime would be able to remain in power. By allowing peasants to acquire property from the mirs and the gentry, he hoped to turn these new peasant-owners into supporters of the regime. Truth be told, however, despite Stolypin’s land reforms 30,000 Russian landowners remained owners of 200 million acres of Russian land. In 1911 Stolypin was assassinated by a Socialist Revolutionary who was probably acting on orders from the tsarist police. As we will see Stolypin was unable to save the autocratic, theocratic, and the still essentially feudal cultural system that Russia’s elite had created.
- V. exist, be; have being &c n.; subsist, live, breathe, stand, obtain, be the case; occur &c (event) 151; have place, prevail; find oneself, pass the time, vegetate.
- 2. Inexistence N. inexistence†; nonexistence, nonsubsistence; nonentity, nil; negativeness &c adj.; nullity; nihility†, nihilism; tabula rasa [Lat.], blank; abeyance; absence &c 187; no such thing &c 4; nonbeing, nothingness, oblivion.
- Hithes.doc is a hierarchically-organized thesaurus derived by reorganization of the version of Roget s Thesaurus published in 1911. The new organization is intended to allow use of ISA and other semantic relational markers.
- 1. This is a book. It is my book. 2. Is this your pencil? — No, it isn t my pencil, it is my sister s pencil. 3. I have a sister. My sister is an engineer.
А. Л. Пумпянский написал серию из трех книг по переводу нашей научной и технической литературы на английский язык: «Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык», «Пособие по перево (1)ДокументА. Л. Пумпянский написал серию из трех книг по переводу нашей научной и технической литературы на английский язык: «Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык», «Пособие по переводу научной и технической
А. Л. Пумпянский написал серию из трех книг по переводу нашей научной и технической литературы на английский язык: «Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык», «Пособие по перево (2)ДокументА. Л. Пумпянский написал серию из трех книг по переводу нашей научной и технической литературы на английский язык: «Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык», «Пособие по переводу научной и технической
- (Besides the consolidated scheme on "Untouchables or children of India s Ghetto " included in Book I in this Volume, there are several other essays by Dr.
- Учебное пособие содержит упражнения и тексты для студентов специальности «Мосты и транспортные тоннели». Упражнения направлены на формирование у студентов речевых грамматических навыков на основе профессиональной лексики.
- Работа одобрена редакционно-издательским советом академии в качестве учебного пособия по английскому языку для студентов II курса специальности «Мосты и транспортные тоннели»
Задача настоящего учебника помочь учащимся овладеть как навыками перевода, так и навыками устной и письменной английской речи. Для достижения этой цели учащиеся должны приобрести определенный запас слов и изучить грамматический строй языкаЗадачаЗадача настоящего учебника — помочь учащимся овладеть как навыками перевода, так и навыками устной и письменной английской речи. Для достижения этой цели учащиеся должны приобрести определенный запас слов и изучить грамматический строй языка.