.png)
UDC 821.111(410)-3-042.1:93/94
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.3-21.032
Moskalenko Olga A.,
Candidate of Philology, Assistant Professor of the
Theory and Practice of Translation Department
Sevastopol State University
e-mail: kerulen@bk.ru
Irkhin Aleksandr A.,
Doctor of Political Science, Head of the
Political Science and Philosophy Department
Sevastopol State University
e-mail: alex.irhin@mail.ru
The article considers the problem of the emergence and development of images of Russia and Russians in the cultural consciousness of Great Britain in the period of the Crimean War of 1853–1856, which played an important role in shaping the national identity of the British through the opposition of “Our” to “Other”. Based on historical and literary analysis, the authors identify the basic components of the myth of Russia and Russians in British literature during the Crimean War: a hostile territory where three very different ethnotypes (Tatars, Cossacks and Russians) exist quite independently, the absolute tyranny of Tzar and the slavish essence of Russians. The created myth of the Crimean War justifies the imperial “moral interventionism” of Great Britain, which implies the protection of the weak from the strong and visually enshrined in the images of the Russian bear. The intensity of the negative assessment of Russia and Russians is dependent on the political situation, nevertheless, Sevastopol stands out in the space of the Russian myth and is represented as topos, which does not receive any negative assessment and evolves to the level of the core of the myth of Russia both past and present.
Keywords: Crimean war, empire, Russian myth, imagology, ethnotype, Great Britain, Russia, media, historical memory.
References
1. Bainbridge B. Master Georgie. Abacus, 2011.
2. Fraser G. Flashman at the Charge. London: HarperCollins, 2006.
3. Ishchenko N.A. Mifotvorchist’ u voєnnomu diskursi: natsional’nii mif pro Krims’ku viinu 1853–1856 rokiv u literaturi Velikoї Britaniї drugoї polovini XIX solittia: avtoref. dis. … d-ra filol. nauk. Simferopol’, 2008.
4. Markovits S. The Crimean war in the British imagination. Cambridge, 2009.
5. Ishchenko N.A. Krymskaia voina v diskurse britanskoi poezii vtoroi poloviny XIX veka // Kul’tura narodov Prichernomor’ia. 2007. No. 122. S. 51–54.
6. Khrustalev D. Proiskhozhdenie “russkogo medvedia” // Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 2010. No. 107. URL: https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/107_nlo_1....
7. Sidorova O. Izobrazhenie Krymskoi voiny v angliiskoi literature // Izvestiia Ural’skogo federal’nogo universiteta. Ser. 2: Gumanitarnye nauki. 2014. No. 16 (3(130)). S. 106–113.
8. Berridge L. Off the Chart: the Srimean war in British public consciousness // Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century. 2015. No. 20.
9. Fraser G. Fleshmen na ostrie udara / per. s angl. A. Iakovleva. Moscow: Veche, 2017.
10. Bainbridge B. Master Dzhordzhi // Inostrannaia literatura. 2000. No. 7. URL: https://magazines.gorky.media/inostran/2000/7/master-dzhordzhi.html.
11. Khrapunov N.I. Izvestiia o Kryme i o Krymskom khanstve, sobrannye Uil’iamom Tukom v 1785 g. // Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie. 2018. T. 6, No. 3. S. 579–595.
12. Irkhin A., Moskalenko O. Russia’s foreign policy in the Great Mediterranean: prospects and constraints // Geopolitics Quarterly. 2019. No. 15 (4). P. 110–121.
13. Leersen J. Imagology: On using ethnicity to make sense of the world // Iberical, Revue d’Etudes iberiques et ibero-americaines. 2016. No. 10. P. 13–31.
14. Trykov V.P. The foundations and prerequisites of imagology // Filologicheskie nauki (Nauchnye doklady vysshei shkoly). 2021. No. 1. S. 65–74. DOI: 10.20339/PhS.1-21.065.