Nikitinskiy Aleksandr Vasilevich

Born on 20.10 (1.11).1859 in the village of Maryino, Novgorod Province. — died on 8.12.1921 in Petrograd, buried at the Smolensk Orthodox Cemetery. The son of a village priest. He received his initial training at home under the guidance of seminarian A. Startsev. In 1874, he studied at the Novgorod Theological Seminary, from which (in 1878) he was sent to the Faculty of Fine Arts as a scholarship holder of the theological department. After completing his studies (1882) and briefly teaching at the Odessa Theological Seminary, he completed an internship abroad in the fields of Greek epigraphy and archaeology (1883-1885).

 Upon returning to Odessa, he resumed teaching at the local seminary and was, after giving trial lectures, appointed as a private lecturer at the Novorossiysk University (1886). He was also a member of the University's Institute of Philosophy. After defending his master's thesis "Delphic Epigraphic Studies" (St. Petersburg University, 1895), he held the Chair of Ancient Classical Philology and Greek and Roman Antiquities at the University of Yuryev (ext. prof. 1896; ord. prof. 1901), which became vacant after the death of L. Mendelssohn (1852-1896).

In 1902, he moved to Moscow University: Order of Professors (Secretary 1904, Dean of the Institute of Philosophy 1906); the possibility of inviting N. was also discussed at St. Petersburg University (see letters from V. K. Ernstedt to S. F. Platonov: OR RNB. F. 585. Unit 2887. L. 46–48). In 1908, he briefly served as a trustee of the Orenburg University (an honorary member of the Ufa Provincial Board of Trustees for Children's Homes since 1909). After his resignation in 1910 (RGIA. F. 740. Op. 24. Unit 227), he moved to St. Petersburg, where he taught Greek. literature and ancient literature at the Faculty of Philosophy (1912-1919), the St. Petersburg University (Associate Professor 1912-1915), the Petrograd Women's Pedagogical Institute (1914) and the former. St. Petersburg. VZHK (1917-1918). Member of the Scientific Committee (1914). Corresponding Member. Academy of Sciences (OKF; 1902), acad. (1917). A member of MAO. In the last years of his life, he was an employee of GAIMK (full member of 1920, head of the Department of Archeology, Greek. colonies of Southern Russia, 1921).

A student of F. F. Sokolov – is it possible to put hyperlinks to some surnames in the text?, N. began with research in the field of Greek history: the topics of his student. His works are "The First Roman War with Philip" and "Mithridates the Great: an Essay on the Life and Reign of Mithridates VI according to ancient authors and inscriptions" (Modern Chronicle // ZHMNP. 1882. September). Following V. V. Latyshev and V. K. Ernstedt to Greece (under the guidance of K. V. Kedrov and F. F. Sokolov, who were preparing personnel for the planned foreign Russian Archaeological Institute in Athens), N. independently chose the epigraphic theme of his dissertation, inspired by the articles of T. Berck (Yaylenko, p. 175). He collected (and eventually published) many new inscriptions and clarified the reading of several previously published inscriptions based on his own copies.

Since 1884, his notes have appeared in periodicals ("ZHMNP", "εϕημερὶς αρχαιολογική" and "MDAI AA"), including the interpretation of the decree in honor of Augustus of Olympia (One of the unpublished inscriptions of Olympia // ZHMNP. 1884. September) and the publication of several unpublished inscriptions from Delphi (Ibid. Nov.; with a story about the author's discovery of the ruins of the temple of Asclepius near Naupakt). In 1894, he began publishing his master's thesis "Delphic Epigraphic studies. I–VI" (Odessa, 1894-1895; RAO Silver medal, 1896). Doctoral dissertation — "Research in the field of Greek inscriptions" (defended: St. Petersburg University, 1901).

The Delphic inscriptions, the number of which increased to 6,000 after the French excavations, became the subject of N.'s doctoral dissertation, "Studies in Greek Inscriptions" (Yuryev, 1901). In his "Prolegomena," N. illustrated the most important principles of modern epigraphy, which he believed to be the following: the necessity of accompanying an inscribed document with a photograph (or facsimile); the priority of interpreting the inscription "in itself" (not by analogy); and the consideration of epigraphic formulas at different levels when interpreting inscriptions. Sokolov, who opposed the student a second time, however, defined N.'s method as "simpler" — as "the most careful study of the inscription that is possible; the most complete knowledge of all other inscriptions, and above all inscriptions suitable to the one being studied <...>; the most complete knowledge of ancient authors; the best possible knowledge of the Greek language, while the necessary skill in reading inscriptions" (see: The Works of F. F. Sokolov. pp. 610-611; cf. also the review of Sokolov and Ernstedt: Journal of meetings of the Council of St. Petersburg State University for 1901. St. Petersburg. 1902. № 57. pp. 105-111).

By identifying regular structural components in the decrees (date, main sanction, motivation, reportable sanction, and decree), N. distinguished six types of Greek decrees based on their combinations: full, truncated, simplified, compressed, brief, and list entry.

In different years, he taught courses on ancient history, Greek and Roman antiquities (including ancient chronology and geography), and the history of Greek literature. The Delphic inscriptions, which increased to 6,000 after the French excavations, became the subject of his doctoral dissertation, "Studies in Greek Inscriptions" (Yuryev, 1901).

In Prolegomena, N. illustrated the most important principles of modern epigraphy, in his opinion: the obligation to accompany an inscription with a photograph (or facsimile); the priority of interpreting the inscription "in itself" (not by analogy); and the consideration of epigraphic formulas at different levels when interpreting an inscription. Sokolov, who opposed the student a second time, however, defined N.'s method as "simpler" — as "the most careful study of the inscription that is possible; the most complete knowledge of all other inscriptions, and above all inscriptions suitable to the one being studied <...>; the most complete knowledge of ancient authors; the best possible knowledge of the Greek language, while the necessary skill in reading inscriptions" (see: The Works of F. F. Sokolov. pp. 610-611; cf. also the review of Sokolov and Ernstedt: Journal of meetings of the Council of St. Petersburg State University for 1901. St. Petersburg. 1902. № 57. pp. 105-111). By identifying regular structural components in the decrees (date, main sanction, motivation, report sanction, and decree), N. distinguished six types of decrees based on their combinations.