       
  


        ,         (I  . II .)     .              ,         .          .





       



  



  ,2019



ISBN978-5-4496-9914-5

     Ridero




 





  Ƞ    Π  















2019







ALEXEY BUTIN





The perception oftime and space inthe Roman Empire at the time ofCornelius Tacitus







RUSSIA, YAROSLAVL







2019










SUMMARY ___12



I.

.    ___18

1.    

2. ,   :   

3.  : -    



II.

 : -   ___61



III.

     I  II .  ___83

1.  ,     

2.   

3.   

4.  : 頖 頖  

5.     



IV.

        __148

1.    . 

2.    

3.     

4.    .  .  



V.

    __195

1.  ,  

2.   

3.  



 ____245

 ____254

  ____263



 1___280

 .    : 

2___292

   蠫     

3___328

       

4___339

  -   




Table ofcontents


SUMMARY ____12



ChapterI.

Introduction. Tacitus and itsera ___18

1. Time and space inthe scientific tradition

2. The era ofthe life and works ofTacitus: Russian and European Studies

3. The era ofTacitus: the historical and cultural context ofthe time ofthe early empire



ChapterII

Chronotopus ofPrincipatus: Theoretical and Methodological Substantiation ofthe Concept ___61



ChapterIII

Time and space inthe picture ofthe world ofthe Romans I the beginning ofthe II centuryAD. ___83

1. Images ofthe past, present and future inthe picture ofthe world ofthe Romans

2. The problem is the direction oftime

3. The center-periphery dichotomy

4. The vertical ofthe world: upper middle lower worlds

5. The dichotomy the world ofnature the Roman society



ChapterIV

Time and space as the coordinates ofthe social reality ofthe early principatus __148

1. Sacred time and sacred space. Everyday time and space

2. The time and space ofwar and peace

3. Time and space ofpublic and privatelife

4. Individual time and individual space. The boundaries ofindividual time. Family and family time and space



ChapterV.

Time and space inthe historical philosophy ofTacitus _195

1. Images ofpast, present and future

2. The motive ofmoral damage

3. Images ofterrestrial space



Conclusion ___245

Glossary ___254

Bibliographiclist __263



Attachment1___280

The concept oftime. Historical Time inAncient Rome: Historiography

Attachment2___292

Updating the concepts oftime and space inthe structure ofmythological thinking inthe Russian scientific literature

Attachment3___328

The problem ofthe methodology ofstudying mentality inthe human mind ofthe pre-industrialera



Attachment4___339

The dichotomy ofthe mythological and ordinary-rational inthe religious beliefs ofthe Romans




summary


Inthis study, an attempt was made toreconstruct the ideas ofthe ancient Romans ofthe early principle principle on time and space based on the works ofthe classic ofancient historical literature Cornelius Tacitus. His writings were often used byscholars inconducting various historical studies, but they were rarely used tostudy the mental characteristics ofancient Romans, while the study ofvalues and concepts constitutes the paradigm ofmodern humanitarian knowledge. Inaddition, ofparticular interest is the application tosuch traditional sources as the written heritage ofancient intellectuals, the approaches ofthe new cultural history one ofthe most dynamically developing areas ofmodern historical science.

The structure oftime inthe understanding ofman ofthe modern information society is expressed inalinear sequence ofpast, present and future, which is characterized byuniformity, unidirectionality, continuity. However, time inits mythological vision is characterized byqualitative conditionality ofperception, heterogeneity, unevenness, discreteness, eventful fullness and concreteness, perception inclose connection with space. Space, inturn, being an abstract and infinite continuum for amodern person, for aperson with amythological type ofthinking, possessed the properties ofdiscreteness, subject fullness, limitation, isolation, qualitative heterogeneity.

These attributions oftime and space are clearly presented inthe picture ofthe world ofthe Romans I the beginning ofthe II. Inour opinion, the concept ofChronotopus ofPrincipatus can be applied tothis epoch asystem ofspatial-temporal coordinates ofthe political, social, cultural, ideological levels ofexistence ofthe Romans ofthe early Empire era, welded with the idea ofPax Romana. With the help ofthis term, our observations on the inseparable unity oftime and space, their inseparability from each other are most accurately expressed.

Emphasizing the integrity ofthe mythological type ofthinking ofthe Romans and the integrity ofthe picture ofthe world inherent intheir consciousness, we did not leave without analysis the main ontological parameters ofthe existence oftime and space, specifically developed bythe consciousness ofthe inhabitants ofthe Eternal City. The direction ofthe flow oftime inthe collective understanding ofthe ancient Romans was cyclical. Inthe heritage ofTacitus, we found cycles ofdifferent lengths, the shortest ofwhich was equal toone day. Also among the manifestations ofcyclicity can be called characteristic for the descendants ofRomulus orientation intime inconnection with the consulate, the annual oath tothe emperor, the festive culture and similar phenomena repeated with enviable regularity.

It is impossible todeny the existence inthe minds ofthe Romans ofthe idealization ofthe past, the psychological orientation primarily on the mores and traditions ofthe ancestors, the ideals ofthe Republic. The Romans, who are not capable ofchanging the present, were much more concerned about the future, which is why there were many ways togain it intheir arsenal.

Inthe era ofthe Empire began the process ofpoliticization (nationalization) oftime. This is evident from the fact that the calendar years were designated bythe names ofthe consuls. The princeps and the senate claimed the management ofthe qualitative characteristics ofthe time, and through this the subordination ofthe psychological state ofthe subjects.

The proximity ofthe Roman understanding oftime tomodern is the presence ofatemporal orientation tocosmic phenomena. The essential difference, however, was that the Romans deified and animated the world ofnature, perceived themselves inseparably from it, therefore the world ofnature had astrong influence on the motives and patterns oftheir behavior. The desire tomake at least partially controlled unpredictable natural force made the Romans respect the predictions, signs, dreams, and also introduce new means ofinfluencing the space ofnature measures designed tocreate the illusion ofmanaging space time.

Inherent inthe mentality ofthe Romans, curiosity and practicality prompted them tobe interested inthe world around them. The earth was represented tothem byacircle that washes the Ocean on all sides. Rome was considered the sacred center ofthe earthly circle, while the periphery ofthe world, which was inopposition tothe center, was perceived as an alien, dangerous space and was inhabited byfolk fantasy as fairy-tale creatures. The priesthood ofRome-city was given, above all, byits aegis the Capitoline Triad ofthe Gods, which was the leading channel ofcommunication between the heavenly and the earthly levels ofthe world. The sky and the world ofwildlife, therefore, were under the vigilant control ofthe Romans.

Following the archetypes oftheir ancestors, the Romans sought todelineate the images oftime and space inaccordance with the binary oppositions formed inthe process oftheir everyday practice: ones own anothers, military-peaceful, public private, sacred professional.

Tacitus as acarrier ofthe picture ofthe world inherent inancient Roman civilization was at the same time arepresentative ofits intellectual elite, transmitting through its historical works the original interpretation ofthe categories time, space and history. His view ofthe history ofRome was based on the conclusions he made from contrasting images ofthe past and the present, as well as on understanding the contradictory tendencies ofthe development ofRoman society inthe first and the beginning ofthe second centuries.

The main content ofthe works ofTacitus is socially and politically oriented. These are reflections on the historical role ofRome inrelation tothe surrounding nations, the collapse ofthe old republican foundations and the triumph ofimperial power, patriotic bravado about the power ofthe Empire, turning into dramatic descriptions ofthe decline ofthe moral foundations ofthe population ofRome.

Time was estimated byTacitus from the point ofview ofhis political context; therefore, it is represented bysegments consisting ofconsular periods, military campaigns, and stories about social and political life, and all this is woven together byone common thread the formation ofthe Roman World and its romanization. Peace time for him is the time ofenjoying the benefits ofpeace, public time is the time ofhard work inthe name ofthe glory ofthe Empire. War for him is adrama, but it was the war that promoted the formation ofthe Roman World.

Inthe perception ofspace, Tacitus is skeptical about the fantasies ofhis people about the periphery and the cosmos. The sacred center ofthe world Rome was perceived bythe historian ambivalent. On the one hand, Rome, as the center ofthe world, connected the world ofthe gods with the space ofpeople (vertically) and pushed toitself the whole space ofPax Romana (horizontally). But this is his universal mission did not correlate with the unworthy manifestations ofthe space ofeveryday life.

Time inTacitus has the following properties: the ability toroll back, dynamism, eventful saturation. He has atendency towards individualization oftime, and his orientation is carried out according tothe years ofthe reign ofthe consuls.

Inthe works ofTacitus, the action ofthe two main driving forces ofthe historical process is observed. First, these are individual interests and aspirations, inwhich the individualization oftime is expressed. He recognizes the fundamental role ofthe individual inhistory (which is completely inconsistent with the polis republican ideology). The second driving force behind his story is the influence ofthe will (anger) ofthe gods and the inevitability offate.

The consciousness ofTacitus as an erudite historian, who had the opportunity tocompare the past and the present, which belonged tohis time and his civilization, reflected aspecific refraction ofRoman history, expressed inits complex and contradictory historiosophical concept.

The perception ofthe past was carried out byTacitus through the prism oftwo opposing trends: the attainment ofthe greatness and glory ofRome and the degradation ofpublic morality. The first tendency was expressed inthe idea ofPax Romana, the essence ofwhich was tospread Roman influence throughout the known world; it is, inother words, akind ofprototype ofmodern globalization. The idea ofPax Romana received its final design under Augustus, and, accordingly, the Roman World was conceived byTacitus already existing inthe present tense. The second, the opposite, is atendency embodied inTacitus infull acceptance ofthat formed inthe first century. BC. the concept ofmoral damage, which implies an assessment ofRoman history from the point ofview ofmoral degradation ofsociety. Inthe past, there were examples ofmoral virtue, military prowess and just government. Inthe present, sacred laws and customs were violated all the time, the sanctity ofthe territory ofRome itself was desecrated, the fall ofpiety, one ofthe main components ofthe republican virtus, occurred.

The ideal for Tacitus was the admirable Roman past. It was there that were samples ofmorality, military valor, civil virtues, only the past should have been admired. Therefore, it was inhim, and not inthe present and not inthe future, that the so-called golden age ofRoman history was located. The desire topreserve the traditional Roman morality, the intention torevive republican ideals and values with the help ofhis writings were for Tacitus the most important tasks ofthe historical narrative.

So, the comprehension ofthe concepts oftime and space bythe inhabitants ofthe ancient Roman civilization was complex and controversial, closely related tothe general characteristics oftheir vision ofthe world. Among the results ofthis understanding, there is asignificant number offeatures that are related toit with generally accepted ideas about the space-time structures inthe consciousness ofthe peoples ofantiquity. On the one hand, the general principles ofconstructing these concepts were typical ofancient peoples, but, on the other hand, the very course ofthe history ofthe Romans predetermined the specifically Roman content oftheir perception oftime and space oftheir social reality. The space and time ofwar, filled with the idea ofworld domination, an intense and attentive perception ofpublic life, arational and politically biased understanding ofthe sacred coordinates these are truly Roman features ofunderstanding the world.




 I. .   



      ,    ,        .     -    ,      .    ,  ,      ,    :   ,    .

       ,      .    ,     (, , ).  ,     ,       :     ,  ,  [1 -  .   . ., 2001. .20.].

                .        [2 -  : 6. . 1.   / . ..., ... ., 2011. . 609615.]     ,     , ,  ,     ,  .

   ,         ,   .           ,  ..    ,  ..,  - .   堖  ,  ,     -.        .

              ,  - ,    .        -               ࠖ     .

      ,  ,  ﻠ    ,      .             [3 - .., .., ..:  . ., 1995. .154.].

             ,           ,  .  ⠫,  ⠫      ,          . ,  ⠫ ,       .      ,      ,  ,  .  ,         I  II.

          ,    I.      6869.       ,           .            ,    . ,  ,      ,     ,       ,      ,    .  ,  ,       ,             ,    .           .

          :           ,  ,         ,       ,  .          ,    ,        ꠫ .

         ,      (.  , ..,. , ..).    ,  ..,     ,       ,       [4 - ..  :      // http://cmb.rsuh.ru/article.html?id=57958.].

,    ,    :     ,   .




1.   


,     蠫 , ,  .       ,      (.., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., ..)[5 - ..    . ., 1974; .. :   //  . 2000. 6. Ѡ110 136; .. :   . ., 2006; ..-    蠫. , 1978; ..  ? //    . 2004. 1. . 141145; . Π  //  . 1996. 1. .5156; . Π      //  . 1998. 6. . 144169; ..  //  . . 7. . 1999. 2. . 72 96; ..  -, - . ., 1974; ..       . , 1989; .. .  . ., 1958.].      ,    , , ,  , , ,  -    ,      (.., .., .., .., ..)[6 - ..    . ., 1986; .       //   . 1990. 6. . 7684; .  .      I ..., 1993; ..       //   ..II.., 1985. . 108166; ..Ex oriente lux!      . ., 1999; ... . . . ., 1994; ..:  . ., 2014.].

            -    (. , .., ..)[7 -  .   . . 2:  . ., 2001; .. . 3- . ., 2000; .  . ., 2001; , ... . . . ., 1994; .  :   ..I.., 2010.],      , ,   ,  -  .      ,     .., ..[8 - ..     //  . 1969. 3; .   . 2- . ., 1984. . 105114.], ...

      ..[9 - ..  // ... . . ., 1991; .   . ., 2001; .     // ..堖  . ., 1993.]     ,  - . -       ..[10 - ..     //  . . 12.  . 2001. 2. Ѡ2741.].

     .., .., ..[11 - ..   . ., 1984; .., .. :  . ., 1997.],        .

       :    (.., . , ..)[12 - ..     / . . . . ., 2003;  .    . , 2005; ..    //  . 2003. 2. . 152160.];   (, )  ( )    (. -, .., ..)[13 - - .   :  , ,  / . .... 2- . ., 2012; ..      //  . 1969. 9. . 8898; ..  . , , . ., 1983.].   . [14 -  .   . ., 2000.  ,      . ,         (.., ..   .   . ., 2010).]      ,    .          . , .., .., .., .., .., ..[15 -  .   : , , . ., 2004; .. .  . ., 2007; ..    . ., 1986; ..  :  . ., 2003; ..  ? //  . 1968. 11. . 152173; ...  . . , 1996; ..  . , , . ., 1983.].

  ,    ,       .      ,   ,        : ,          (..[16 - SpeiserE.A.Oriental and Biblical studies. Philadelphia, 1967.]),  (..),  (..[17 - ..  : , , . ., 1982.]).

   (.., .., . )   , -    . ʠ   60- . XX .  ...

  -              .  :    -  蠖        (..[18 - .., .., .. . :  . ., 1995.]),   (..[19 - ... . . . ., 1994.]),  (.., .., .., ..[20 - ... ., 2002; ..  . , 1975; ... . . , 2011; ..     (XVIII XX .). , 2009.]),  (. , . , . [21 - Everett H. Relative State Formulation ofQuantum Mechanics // Reviews ofModern Physics, vol 29. 1957. P. 454462// http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Everett/paper1957.html;  .,  .   -. . .... ., 1977;  .      //   . . 8. ., 1999// http://www.arya.ru/biblio/arno/iggdr.htm.]),        .

       .         ,   ,  , .      - [22 - .., .., .. . :  . ., 1995. . 135,137.].

      ...              ,     [23 - ... . . . ., 1994. .161.].

       .  ,  ..   ,  ..    - . ..     - [24 - ... ., 2002. .347.],         ...  ,  ,    ,  ⠫      [25 - ..  . , 1975. .235.].       ,     .           (    ),       ,    [26 - ..     (XVIII XX .). , 2009; ..   //     .    ,  80- .. / . .... ., 2006. . 265279; ..  :  . ., 2003; ..  . ., 2000.].

            .       .  . [27 - .   ,         ,     ..     ,     ,    .].   -     .      .

 -,    ,     (   , ,   ),     , .             ,  -    (.., .., ..[28 - .. . ., 1962; ..   //  . 1999. 4. . 1623; .. : -, -   //  . 1999. 4. . 193203.]).  - -      ,     (.., ..)[29 - ..      //  . 2003. 4. . 5564; ..   //  . 1999. 4. . 203214.].

     .    -         ..[30 - ..-   . , 1980.],  젖      (  I. ..).

         ,   :    ,        ,     [31 - .. 35, 52,81.].

  ⠫           .., .., ..[32 - ..       //   ..II.., 1985. . 108166; ..Ex oriente lux!      . ., 1999; ..-      .  II:  . , 1992.].

..           ( )  ( )  .          蠫 .  ,  ,        , ,      .        컠       .

..         堖     .  , ,          .    -      .

     .  ....[33 -  .      // . 1995. 3. . 103109.] ,                   .

..     [34 - ..    // . 1992. 3. . 179211.].         ,          .  ,    ,   III. ..        ,    .  I. ..       . II .    렖    ,    .

           .             . , ..[35 - ..     //   . . 13. , 2009. . 1035.]        : -, - 蠫-. ,    I ..       ,         ,         : , ,.

-      [36 -    (8635. . .)  ,   ,      .      .]   I. ..    ..[37 - ..     :  //    :  ꠖ  /  .... ., 2010. . 145166.]. ,  ,     ,  ,             .

      ,     ,   ..[38 - ..     //  . 1999. 1. . 3645.].          ,    ,            [39 -    (. 35. 96)   ( ),   󻠖     ,   .      ,   .].

        ..[40 - ..      ( ) //     .... 2007, 8. . 6470.].        ,      . Ӡ        , ࠖ     ,   . ,    ,      ,   , - .             .        ,       .

  -         :     ,     -  .




2.,   :   


,   -   .             .     . , . [41 -  .   . ., 2005; .  . ., 1998;  .    . -/, 1997.].  .               ,        .

  . [42 - Morgan G. 69A.D.The year offour emperors. Oxford, 2006.]       I.   6869.,    .     ..[43 - ..    I ..  69 .., 1958.] 50- . XX.

      ..[44 - .. .   . ., 1949.],       ..[45 - ..  :    . ., 1985.].   ,          .

        ..[46 - ..      (1437. ..). ., 2002.].

          : . ,. ,.-. [47 -  .    . , 1995; .    .   / . .... ., 2008; .-.        / . .... ., 2006.].      ,.     , .-.       .

     . ո[48 - ո . Homo ludens / .... ., 1997. . 169172.].  ,     ,   .      .   ,        .

    .  ,     [49 -  . ,      / . .... ., 1988.] ,        ,     .    ,        (, ).

..      XIX XX .,    .       .  ,       , ,  .   ..      .

 , ..[50 - ..  . 2- . ., 1995. .6,7.]        :          [51 - ..4,5.].     (  )  ..      [52 - ..       ... , 2009. .289.].            ,       .

        ..[53 - ..    . ., 1987.],           ,          .   ..        .

       .., .., .., ..[54 - .. .   . ., 1949; ..   . ., 1977; ..  :     . ., 1994; ..       . ., 1995.]...           : , ,  ,  ,      -       ...,    ,       .    ..      , ,   蠫 .

,     .      ..[55 - ..  . ., 1864.].         .        :    ,   ,    .       ,  ,    .     ,       [56 - ..159.].

      ...      [57 - .. . , , . ., 1981; .   蠫   // . 1980. 4. . 5473.]     .

..,    [58 - ..   // :    . ., 2008. . 337 349; .       (XIX XX .) // .     . ., 2002. . 307 332; . Π   ⠫  //   . ., 2002. . 1. . 2742.],   ,          ,    ,  ,  :     ,          [59 - ..   // :    . ., 2008. .338.].

. ,    6869.,    ,  ,      .

     .. ..[60 - ..       // . 1983. 4. . 150 161; ..  ⠫  // . 1997. 1. . 133147.].          . , . , . , .., ..[61 -  .     . ., 1915; .. :   . , 1986; ..  . ., 2000;  .    / . .... ., 2005;  .   . , 2008.].

, -       .     , ,  .

     -       ,  .      , , .             蠖     (..).          ..,    .  ..,        ...          .. ...        I  II .        .






    (  XX.)




3. : -    


   ,    30- . II . ..,      [62 -    ,    (63. .. 14. ..)      ,       .],  2 31. ..           .     ,      : 13 27. ..   [63 -  31. ..     .] 蠫   . Ѡ        .       17. ..,   ,   ,       ;        [64 - .. ,      // . . 3. ., 1995. Ѡ185.].

 ,   ,     .  ,      :  (       ) 蠫 ( , ,       ,    ).      [65 - ..ʠ   :   ? // .     . ., 2002. .174.].






 



   I  II . ,  ,    , 頖      ,   ,         .     (30. ..14. ..),     -,     : , , , , .       116. ..         [66 -       1.].

      -      ,   ,      ,      ,        .                   .

          .      [67 -             ,           .]          .       ,   ,      .       :  ,        [. ..] ,      [Ann., III,54].

  78 (37.)     ,       ࠖ  ,   (3741.).  ,        ,   [68 - ..  :    . ., 1985. .164.].  . ,      ,     , ,  ,      [69 -  .    . -/, 1997. .280.].        ,    . ,    ,    ,     .         ⠖   ⠖  ,    41.   .

       (4154.).     ,    .         ,  ,    ,   .      ,      ( 51.[70 - ..      //   IV:   .    . ., 2001(http://centant.spbu.ru/centrum/publik/confcent/2001-03/rogova.htm).]).

   ,  (5468.)    .   ,   , ,       .   68.     .     ,         .        ,       .     ,      .     ;          .      -.

   -    .        ,     ,     ,       ,   .         ,    .  68.     ,   ,      ࠖ .

  68. ,    ,     .  ,     (,  )  .      ,  ,        .        .     ,   15 69.   ,     ⠖ .    ,       .          (Galba looks more like the last gasp ofthe republican aristocracy)[71 - Morgan G. 69A.D.The year offour emperors. Oxford, 2006. P.262.].

   ,         ,     .         69.,  .       69.   .

    ,    렖  ,   ,    .  69.  (. )    ,   ,    .    , .  .      ,    .

  6869.,   ,         . ,     ,  , 頖 ,  .   ,  ,   ,   [. ..]     [Hist.,I,4].

    (6979.)     ⠖     : ,  ,  .          .    .        , -  ,  . ʠ        .        ,   ,   ( ,   7981.[72 -           .  : ..   //   . ., 2003. . 283305.])   .

     ,           . ,        .        ;    , ,   [Suet.,Vesp.,17].       .   ,       ,              .          ,        .

  (8196.)   ࠖ      -  ,       .         .        .  ,    ,      ,      .     ,    94.,        [73 - ..Pessimus princeps.       //    . ., 2006. .216.].  ,    ,   .   ,         ,           [74 - .. . , , . ., 1981. .7.].       , 96.     .

     .   (88.),        , ,  ,  .    ,    ,     .  ,  ,   ,    ,    ,       .  ࠖ ࠖ           ࠖ     .  ,        .

  93.,        ,  ,           .   ,   [75 - ..  . ., 1981. .98.],     .

   II .  .    ,        . ,           ,  ,  -,   .          ,            .    , .  ,    ,      [76 -  .    . -/, 1997. .382.].

           ,      .       (96192.).

 97.    .              .    ,   ,        ,   [77 -  .     . ., 1990. .303.].     ,    .    [78 -            : 50120. (.., .., .., .. :    . ., 2006. . 546). Ӡ..    . 58  117(..  . ., 1981. .97).]




  .


   .

   ,     (https://www.litres.ru/aleksey-andreevich-b/vospriyatie-vremeni-i-prostranstva-v-rimskoy-imperii/)  .

      Visa, MasterCard, Maestro,    ,   ,     ,  PayPal, WebMoney, ., QIWI ,       .



notes








1


 .   . ., 2001. .20.




2


 : 6. . 1.   / . ..., ... ., 2011. . 609615.




3


.., .., ..:  . ., 1995. .154.




4


..  :      // http://cmb.rsuh.ru/article.html?id=57958.




5


..    . ., 1974; .. :   //  . 2000. 6. Ѡ110 136; .. :   . ., 2006; ..-    蠫. , 1978; ..  ? //    . 2004. 1. . 141145; . Π  //  . 1996. 1. .5156; . Π      //  . 1998. 6. . 144169; ..  //  . . 7. . 1999. 2. . 72 96; ..  -, - . ., 1974; ..       . , 1989; .. .  . ., 1958.




6


..    . ., 1986; .       //   . 1990. 6. . 7684; .  .      I ..., 1993; ..       //   ..II.., 1985. . 108166; ..Ex oriente lux!      . ., 1999; ... . . . ., 1994; ..:  . ., 2014.




7


 .   . . 2:  . ., 2001; .. . 3- . ., 2000; .  . ., 2001; , ... . . . ., 1994; .  :   ..I.., 2010.




8


..     //  . 1969. 3; .   . 2- . ., 1984. . 105114.




9


..  // ... . . ., 1991; .   . ., 2001; .     // ..堖  . ., 1993.




10


..     //  . . 12.  . 2001. 2. Ѡ2741.




11


..   . ., 1984; .., .. :  . ., 1997.




12


..     / . . . . ., 2003;  .    . , 2005; ..    //  . 2003. 2. . 152160.




13


- .   :  , ,  / . .... 2- . ., 2012; ..      //  . 1969. 9. . 8898; ..  . , , . ., 1983.




14


 .   . ., 2000.  ,      . ,         (.., ..   .   . ., 2010).




15


 .   : , , . ., 2004; .. .  . ., 2007; ..    . ., 1986; ..  :  . ., 2003; ..  ? //  . 1968. 11. . 152173; ...  . . , 1996; ..  . , , . ., 1983.




16


SpeiserE.A.Oriental and Biblical studies. Philadelphia, 1967.




17


..  : , , . ., 1982.




18


.., .., .. . :  . ., 1995.




19


... . . . ., 1994.




20


... ., 2002; ..  . , 1975; ... . . , 2011; ..     (XVIII XX .). , 2009.




21


Everett H. Relative State Formulation ofQuantum Mechanics // Reviews ofModern Physics, vol 29. 1957. P. 454462// http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Everett/paper1957.html;  .,  .   -. . .... ., 1977;  .      //   . . 8. ., 1999// http://www.arya.ru/biblio/arno/iggdr.htm.




22


.., .., .. . :  . ., 1995. . 135,137.




23


... . . . ., 1994. .161.




24


... ., 2002. .347.




25


..  . , 1975. .235.




26


..     (XVIII XX .). , 2009; ..   //     .    ,  80- .. / . .... ., 2006. . 265279; ..  :  . ., 2003; ..  . ., 2000.




27


.   ,         ,     ..     ,     ,    .




28


.. . ., 1962; ..   //  . 1999. 4. . 1623; .. : -, -   //  . 1999. 4. . 193203.




29


..      //  . 2003. 4. . 5564; ..   //  . 1999. 4. . 203214.




30


..-   . , 1980.




31


.. 35, 52,81.




32


..       //   ..II.., 1985. . 108166; ..Ex oriente lux!      . ., 1999; ..-      .  II:  . , 1992.




33


 .      // . 1995. 3. . 103109.




34


..    // . 1992. 3. . 179211.




35


..     //   . . 13. , 2009. . 1035.




36


   (8635. . .)  ,   ,      .      .




37


..     :  //    :  ꠖ  /  .... ., 2010. . 145166.




38


..     //  . 1999. 1. . 3645.




39


   (. 35. 96)   ( ),   󻠖     ,   .      ,   .




40


..      ( ) //     .... 2007, 8. . 6470.




41


 .   . ., 2005; .  . ., 1998;  .    . -/, 1997.




42


Morgan G. 69A.D.The year offour emperors. Oxford, 2006.




43


..    I ..  69 .., 1958.




44


.. .   . ., 1949.




45


..  :    . ., 1985.




46


..      (1437. ..). ., 2002.




47


 .    . , 1995; .    .   / . .... ., 2008; .-.        / . .... ., 2006.




48


ո . Homo ludens / .... ., 1997. . 169172.




49


 . ,      / . .... ., 1988.




50


..  . 2- . ., 1995. .6,7.




51


..4,5.




52


..       ... , 2009. .289.




53


..    . ., 1987.




54


.. .   . ., 1949; ..   . ., 1977; ..  :     . ., 1994; ..       . ., 1995.




55


..  . ., 1864.




56


..159.




57


.. . , , . ., 1981; .   蠫   // . 1980. 4. . 5473.




58


..   // :    . ., 2008. . 337 349; .       (XIX XX .) // .     . ., 2002. . 307 332; . Π   ⠫  //   . ., 2002. . 1. . 2742.




59


..   // :    . ., 2008. .338.




60


..       // . 1983. 4. . 150 161; ..  ⠫  // . 1997. 1. . 133147.




61


 .     . ., 1915; .. :   . , 1986; ..  . ., 2000;  .    / . .... ., 2005;  .   . , 2008.




62


   ,    (63. .. 14. ..)      ,       .




63


 31. ..     .




64


.. ,      // . . 3. ., 1995. Ѡ185.




65


..ʠ   :   ? // .     . ., 2002. .174.




66


      1.




67


            ,           .




68


..  :    . ., 1985. .164.




69


 .    . -/, 1997. .280.




70


..      //   IV:   .    . ., 2001(http://centant.spbu.ru/centrum/publik/confcent/2001-03/rogova.htm).




71


Morgan G. 69A.D.The year offour emperors. Oxford, 2006. P.262.




72


          .  : ..   //   . ., 2003. . 283305.




73


..Pessimus princeps.       //    . ., 2006. .216.




74


.. . , , . ., 1981. .7.




75


..  . ., 1981. .98.




76


 .    . -/, 1997. .382.




77


 .     . ., 1990. .303.




78


           : 50120. (.., .., .., .. :    . ., 2006. . 546). Ӡ..    . 58  117(..  . ., 1981. .97).


