conditions of EU standards of health care. Perhaps themost fascinating article for historians of eastern Europe is the contribution by Ken Kalling and Erki Tammiksaar on “The politicization of the temperance movement in pre-independence Estonia.” Kalling and Tammiksaar investigate why the Estonian peasant minority of the Russian Empire emerged as the most prominent champion of temperance despite the movement’s origin among the Baltic German landholding nobility. Temperance societies offered an opportunity for social organization within the political constraints of the late Russian Empire, as well as a means of undermining the economic power of the German barons, who continued to enjoy their medieval monopoly on taverns and alcohol-sales. But the movement also gained support from the popularization of eugenics, which German temperance activists had promoted as a means of bolstering their claim to socio-political domination. Estonian temperance societies made use of eugenics and anxiety about their endangered position as a small nation to propose temperance as the only means of safeguarding the nation from extinction. Interwar Estonia built on the ideas of Estonian and German temperance movements in using alcohol sales taxes to fund anti-alcohol campaigns. Maike Rotzoll and Frank Grüner’s article also deals with GermanEstonian relations through a professional biography of Emil Kraepelin, a German-trained psychiatrist who wrote a compendium of diagnoses during his five-year tenure at Dorpat University (today’s Tartu, Estonia). The authors suggest that Kraepelin revised some of his theories about melancholy on the basis of his experience diagnosing Estonian peasants and interacting with the one Russian scientist mentioned in the book, but such propositions remain only preliminary and suggestive; the focus of the piece revolves much more on Kraepelin’s own professional biography than on his interactions in Russian Estland. The study of knowledge transfer across borders, even across the imaginary line dividing east from west, has already received significant scholarly attention, and the goal of highlighting the broader, transnational frameworks within which knowledge has been developed and disseminated should continue to be a priority for specialists from different national traditions. Although this collection offers some intriguing means of investigating reciprocal knowledge transfer, it also suggests that 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall there remain many mental, glass walls that have yet to be fully shattered.

中文翻译：

---

来自苏联边缘的声音：列宁格勒和莫斯科的南方移民

欧盟卫生保健标准的条件。对于东欧历史学家来说，最有趣的文章也许是肯·卡林（Ken Kalling）和埃尔基·塔米克萨尔（Erki Tammiksaar）关于“独立前爱沙尼亚的节制运动的政治化”的贡献。Kalling和Tammiksaar调查了为何俄罗斯帝国的爱沙尼亚农民少数派成为节制的最杰出拥护者，尽管该运动起源于波罗的海德国土地贵族中。节制社会在已故的俄罗斯帝国的政治限制内为社会组织提供了机会，同时也是削弱德国男爵的经济力量的手段，德国男爵继续在中世纪对酒馆和酒类的垄断。但是运动也因优生学的普及而获得支持，德国节制活动家提倡采用这种方法，以增强他们对社会政治统治的主张。爱沙尼亚的节制社会利用优生学和焦虑症来对待作为一个小国的濒危地位，提出节制是保护该国免于灭绝的唯一手段。爱沙尼亚国际战争基于爱沙尼亚和德国节制运动的思想，利用酒精销售税来资助反酒精运动。迈克·罗佐尔（Maike Rotzoll）和弗兰克·格吕纳（FrankGrüner）的文章还通过对德国受过训练的精神病医生埃米尔·克雷佩林（Emil Kraepelin）的专业传记处理了德国与爱沙尼亚的关系，他在多帕特大学（现今爱沙尼亚塔尔图）任职五年，撰写了一份诊断纲要。作者认为，克雷佩林在诊断爱沙尼亚农民并与书中提到的一位俄罗斯科学家互动的经验的基础上，修改了他有关忧郁症的一些理论，但这种主张仅是初步的和具有启发性的。作品的重点更多地围绕着克莱佩林自己的职业传记，而不是他在俄罗斯爱沙尼亚的互动。跨界，甚至跨越从东到西的假想界的知识转移研究已经受到了学术界的广泛关注，强调突出发展和传播知识的更广泛的跨国框架的目标应继续作为研究的重点。来自不同民族传统的专家。