Scholarlink

Abstract <p>This article, using historical and literary analysis, identifies the fundamental components of the myth of Russia and Russians in British literature during the Crimean War. Given Britain’s global dominance in the 19th century, this myth spread beyond its borders. Twentieth-century literary works about the Crimean War serve to recode British historical memory through the infusion of ideologemes from the media. The&#xa0;interdisciplinary methodology combines systemic, historical, and literary approaches, incorporating principles of imagological analysis and archetypal criticism. The authors identify the fundamental components of the myth of Russia and Russians during this period: a hostile territory where three very different ethnic groups (Tatars, Cossacks, and Russians) function independently, the absolute tyranny of the tsar, and the slavish nature of Russians. The created myth of the Crimean War justifies Britain’s imperial “moral interventionism,” which implies the protection of the weak from the strong and is visually reinforced by the image of an aggressive Russian bear. The intensity of the negative assessment of Russia and Russians in the Crimean War directly depends on the political situation; nevertheless, Sevastopol stands out in the space of Russian myth as a topos that does not receive a negative assessment and, over the course of historical development, evolved to the level of the core of the Crimean myth.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Crimean War 1853–1856 in Modern British Literature: The Evolution of Russian Myth

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月1日

查看全文
  • O. A. Moskalenko,
  • A. A. Irkhin

摘要

Abstract

This article, using historical and literary analysis, identifies the fundamental components of the myth of Russia and Russians in British literature during the Crimean War. Given Britain’s global dominance in the 19th century, this myth spread beyond its borders. Twentieth-century literary works about the Crimean War serve to recode British historical memory through the infusion of ideologemes from the media. The interdisciplinary methodology combines systemic, historical, and literary approaches, incorporating principles of imagological analysis and archetypal criticism. The authors identify the fundamental components of the myth of Russia and Russians during this period: a hostile territory where three very different ethnic groups (Tatars, Cossacks, and Russians) function independently, the absolute tyranny of the tsar, and the slavish nature of Russians. The created myth of the Crimean War justifies Britain’s imperial “moral interventionism,” which implies the protection of the weak from the strong and is visually reinforced by the image of an aggressive Russian bear. The intensity of the negative assessment of Russia and Russians in the Crimean War directly depends on the political situation; nevertheless, Sevastopol stands out in the space of Russian myth as a topos that does not receive a negative assessment and, over the course of historical development, evolved to the level of the core of the Crimean myth.