Sergey Kondratiev (Tyumen University): missing contact

I have long been interested in networks of historians, especially those who are not well known in the U.K., hence my investigations of those interested in the works of Christopher Hill in this country, in eastern Europe and in places like Argentina and Brazil in South America. Admittedly, Marxist historians are rather fewer on the ground here than they were fifty or sixty years ago in British universities. But there are also other groups like Roman Catholic historians working on the Reformations and historical sociologists like Jack Donoghue, Mark Gould and the late Richard Lachman that have attracted my attention. One of the best ways of finding what they have written is to explore the academia.edu site or the CORE database. It was at the former that, several years ago, I came across a Canadian thesis on the exchanges between Porshnev and Lublinskaya on the peasant uprisings in mid-seventeenth France. Subsequently, I exchanged an e-mail or two with a Russian historian, Sergey Kondratiev, who is based at a university on the West Siberian plain in Russia, about the works of Porshnev and Lublinskaya. In fact, there are a number of Russian historians working on the origins, course and consequences of the English Revolution although their works do not usually figure in articles or books published here. They are clearly intelligent people but not really in touch as far as I can determine with British or American students of the early modern period. One of the striking features of their arguments is their continuing subscription to Marxist interpretations and the claims of Christopher Hill and Brian Manning even though they are aware of the ways in which British and American historiography has moved on since the mid-1970s. I did have the idea of sending Kondratiev earlier today a couple of photographs of newspaper reviews on the late-Tudor and late-Stuart/Hanoverian periods. But his e-mail address appears to be inaccessible event though, as far as I can tell, he is still alive and working at the Tyumen University. Why this is so is a puzzle. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 15, 2025 at 2:30 PM

    It looks as though Kondratiev's e-mail address has changed to sk.tm@mail.ru

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lawrence Stone and the historiography of the 'gentry controversy'

  LAWRENCE STONE AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE GENTRY CONTROVERSY The controversy over the economic and social origins of the English Revolution was a topic that excited ferocious debate over sixty years ago. Historians of the calibre of R.H.Tawney and Hugh Trevor-Roper, J.P.Cooper, Christopher Hill and Lawrence Stone advanced radically different interpretations to explain the violent events of the 1640s and 1650s in the British Isles. American scholars, most famously of all, J.H.Hexter, like Willson Coates, Harold Hulme, Judith Shklar and Perez Zagorin also commented with varying degrees of sharpness on the issues at stake. But only one of the major participants, Lawrence Stone, offered an account of the historiography of the dispute, first of all in his introduction to the anthology of academic articles and documentary sources entitled Social Change and Revolution in England 1540-1640 which he edited in 1965 and then, in slightly revised form, in Chapter 2 of his work...
Read more

Simon Healy has died

Image
  I am extremely sorry to report that Simon Healy, who worked for the History of Parliament Trust's 1604-1629 section for many years,  has died. I remember him as a very cheerful and engaging conversationalist. My condolences go to his widow and their two children.
Read more

Transcribing Walter Yonge's notes on proceedings in the House of Commons between 1642 and 1645

  In the spring of 1967, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, then the Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford, wrote to me to ask if I would assist Dr Pearl in her work by transcribing Walter Yonge’s diaries held (in Additional Mss.18,777-18,780) in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum at that time. I agreed and it was settled that I would be paid £150 per volume by the History Faculty of the University. I duly transcribed the first of these volumes in 1967 and the remaining three by 1973. I was not her “assistant” in this task but undertook it myself. I did not, moreover, keep copies of the first three volumes. In mid-1975, I read in The Times Higher Education Supplement that she was preparing the Yonge volumes for publication. But nothing happened. By 1984, seventeen years after I had transcribed the first volume and eleven years after finishing the last one I was puzzled by this failure to proceed and, having asked several academic friends if they th...
Read more