Suchergebnisse

The subject of this article is S.L. Frank's participation in the creation and work of the Saint Petersburg Religious and philosophical society and the evolution of his worldview in the confrontation between the cognitive-objectivist rationalist system of consciousness of S.L. Frank and the romantic subjectivism of the «new religious consciousness», represented by D.S. Merezhkovsky, D.V. Filosofov and other ideologists of «neo-Christianity». The source of the opposition is called a different understanding of the absolute and its regulatory role in relation to reality, which was expressed – on the one hand-in the religious individualism of S.L. Frank and on the other hand-in the «religious community» of the ideologists of the «new religious consciousness». The article States that S.L. Frank's reflection on solving these problems in the Religious and philosophical society took place in the atmosphere of theoretical disputes caused by three events in the philosophical and religious and social life of Russia in 1910: discussion of the ideas of pragmatism, polemics about the specifics of philosophy in connection with the appearance of the Russian edition of Logos and the death of Leo Tolstoy. It is emphasized that the participation of S.L. Frank's understanding of these events was reflected in the movement of his thought from idealism to ontology of the «first philosophy», the expression of which was the work «the Subject of knowledge». It is noted that the «frame work» of this movement of S.L. Frank was set by the development of the scientific and philosophical and poetic heritage of I.V. Goethe. The article shows how the ideological evolution of S.L. Frank is fixed in his personal religious life. In conclusion, the author joins the assessment of the role of S.L. Frank in the religious and social movement in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, given by N.A. Berdyaev: S.L. Frank brings «clarity, freedom and quiet harmony» to it.

The philosophy of three prominent Christian thinkers is considered: St. Francis of Assisi, Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov and Pope Francis. Despite the time distance, each of them sets forth common ideas. It is claimed that the link between these individuals is the philosophy of cosmism. A typical representative of this trend is Nikolai Fedorov, but thinking in the categories of cosmism is also noted in the works of St. Francis of Assisi and Bishop of Rome. It is proposed to call them Christian anarchists who violate the fossilized structure of the church and society. The specificity of their anarchism is emphasized, devoid of negative features, built in the image of Christ and leading to the renewal of the sacred space, the Earth. The basic concepts of each of the three Christian anarchists are considered. The analysis of their philosophy allows for the formulation of the thesis that the ideas they propose to restructure the world and society are based on the principle of Christ – "not by force, but by love".

Anläßlich des 1000jährigen Jubiläums der Christianisierung Rußlands vermittelt ein geistlicher Würdenträger einen Überblick über die Rolle der Russisch-Orthodoxen Kirche in der geschichtlichen und kulturellen Entwicklung Rußlands und der Sowjetunion. Die Hauptaufgaben der Russisch-Orthodoxen Kirche von heute bleiben die Sicherung des Friedens und sozialer Gerechtigkeit auf der Welt. Ihre religiöse Pflicht sieht die Russisch-Orthodoxe Kirche in der aktiven Beteiligung an der Lösung dieser Aufgaben. (BIOst-Ldg)

Статья посвящена проблеме взаимоотношений лидеров и участников правых салонов и кружков столицы Российской империи с приближенным к царской семье крестьянином Г.Е. Распутиным. В предреволюционные годы определенную роль в политической системе страны продолжали играть салоны и кружки правоконсервативного направления, часть из которых возникла еще в конце XIX в. (салоны князя В.П. Мещерского, генерала Е.В. Богдановича, графини С.С. Игнатьевой), другие – активизировались в период Первой мировой войны (салоны князя М.М. Андроникова, митрополита Петроградского и Ладожского Питирима (Окнова), кружок Н.Ф. Бурдукова). Многие из этих объединений пытались использовать в своих целях Г.Е. Распутина. Они приглашали «старца» на салонные собрания, вели с ним «духовные беседы» и т.д. На основе комплекса исторических источников (дневники, письма, мемуары и др.) реконструирован процесс развития взаимоотношений лидеров и участников правых салонов и кружков Петербурга–Петрограда с Г.Е. Распутиным. В статье автор утверждает, что главной целью их общения с Распутиным были попытки с его помощью оказывать политическое влияние на императора. Сам же «старец», по свидетельству источников, выражал недоверие к лидерам салонов и кружков и не желал участвовать в их политических играх. В статье хронологически прослеживается эволюция указанных взаимоотношений и делается вывод о том, что постепенно они изменялись в сторону все большего недоверия, а подчас (как в случае с салоном М.М. Андроникова) и открытой неприязни. Подчеркивается, что никаких реальных фактовосуществления через Распутина влияния на царскую политику в источниках не зафиксировано. При этом утверждения о том, что якобы Распутин с подачи лидеров правых салонов и кружков давал императору самые разнообразные указания, содержались в многочисленных статьях и заметках либеральной периодической печати предреволюционного времени. Тем самым, по мнению автора, не только готовилась психологическая почва для убийства «старца», но и дискредитировалась в глазах общественности сама монархическая идея.
The article is devoted to the problem of relations between the leaders and members of right-wing salons and circles in the capital of the Russian Empire and Grigori Rasputin, a peasant who was then close to the royal family. In the pre-revolutionary years, conservative right-wing salons and circles continued to play a certain role in the political system of the country. Some of them appeared in the late 19th century (the salons of Prince V. Meshchersky, General E. Bogdanovich, and Countess S. Ignatieva), while others became active during the First World War (the salons of Prince M. Andronikov, Metropolitan Pitirim (Oknov) of Petrograd and Ladoga, the circle of N. Burdukov). Many of those associations tried to use Rasputin for their own purposes. They invited the "starets" to the salon meetings, held "spiritual conversations" with him, etc. Based on a set of historical sources (diaries, letters, memoirs, etc.), the author of the article has reconstructed the development of relations between the leaders and members of right-wing salons and circles of St Petersburg–Petrograd and Grigori Rasputin. The author concludes that their communication with Rasputin was mainly aimed at enlisting his support in exerting political influence on the Emperor. According to these sources, the "starets" was distrustful of the leaders of salons and circles and did not want to participate in their political games. The article chronologically retraces the evolution of those relations and concludes that the attitudes gradually changed towards greater distrust and sometimes towards open hostility (as was the case of the Petrograd right-wing monarchic salon of Prince M. Andronikov). It is emphasised that no real facts of influence on Tsarist policy through Rasputin were recorded in the sources. At the same time, allegations that Rasputin gave the Emperor various instructions at the suggestion of the leaders of right-wing salons and circles were published in numerous articles and news items of the liberal pre-revolutionary periodicals. In the author's opinion, in doing so, not only did the periodicals prepare the psychological ground for the murder of Rasputin, but they also discredited the monarchical idea itself.

The review presents the long-awaited book, based on years of thinking by authors about the fate of the national humanities. The dictionary has already become a fact of literary and cultural life, and its protagonists are not only the people described in it, but also the authors of essays and the editorial board, constantly discovering threads of continuity with St. Petersburg classicists. 43 authors of various philological specializations participated in the building of this, without any exaggeration, epochmaking work, which includes articles devoted to 250 St. Petersburg classicists in the 19th - early 20thcentury (scholars, tutors, translators, managers). To recreate the true image of the personage, the authors attracted a wide range of sources, namely, research papers, memoirs, correspondence and still unpublished archival materials. Collected together (although with varying degrees of detail depending on the number of extant sources), these portraits give us a comprehensive picture of the development of St. Petersburg classicism in its heyday and at the same time allow us to assess the state of intellectual forces and spiritual life of Russian society as a whole. The dictionary is convenient to use, because it is equipped with various indexes that make up a separate volume, which ends with a review essay written by the responsible editor and inspirer of the publication A.K. Gavrilov, where, among other things, the principle of material selection is analyzed in detail. The book is convenient and indispensable for work and at the same time is a fascinating reading.

The new Collected Works of Grigoryev aim to include everything he
had written. No edition of this author has ever reached such a scope. Vol. I includes
Grigoryev's poetry, vols. II and III comprise verse drama, both original and translated
from French, Greek and English. The present collection was conceived by B.F. Egorov,
who would study Grigoryev's life and oeuvre for more than half a century. He worked
in cooperation with A.P. Dmitriev, who took over this labour after Egorov's death.
This edition continues the scholarly tradition of the Pushkin House.

This book systematizes and analyzes the visual material of "red" and "white" propaganda from the period of the Russian Civil war. Representation of war is considered through the prism of images of its participants, found on posters, cartoons, postcards, leaflets, propaganda porcelain and other visual artifacts of the period. The classification of images is based on the social group affiliation of the depicted characters. Given such an approach, the focus is on representatives of groups — participants of civil confrontation, typical actors, visual clichés of "friends" and "enemies". The work is carried out using an extensive source base concerning the ideological confrontation of that time, domestic and foreign literature devoted to the visualization of the events taking place then.

Рецензируемая монография является первым опытом исследования истории подготовки и проведения Государственного совещания, состоявшегося в Москве 12–15 августа 1917 г. А.Б. Николаев впервые ввел в оборот значительный объем архивных источников. Особое внимание в изданном труде уделяется различным концепциям совещания, а также борьбе политических сил вокруг этого общенационального форума, впервые пристально рассматриваются значимые вопросы состава Государственного совещания и механизма его формирования. В рецензии отмечается критика А.Б. Николаевым основных историографических мифов данной темы: центральной роли Совещания в подготовке Корниловского выступления и неучастия большевиков в форуме. Монография закрывает одно из наиболее крупных белых пятен в истории революционного 1917 года.
The monograph under review is the first experience in researching the history of the preparation and conduct of the State Conference held in Moscow on August 12–15, 1917. A. Nikolaev is the first to introduce a significant number of archival sources related to the subject into scholarly discourse. The published work pays special attention to the various concepts of the conference and to the struggle of political forces around that national forum. For the first time in historiography, it closely examines the important issues of the participants in the State Conference and the mechanism of its convocation. The review notes A. Nikolaev's criticism towards the main historiographical myths connected with the subject: the central role of the State Conference in the preparation of the Kornilov affair and non-participation of the Bolsheviks in the forum. The monograph fills one of the largest gaps in the history of the revolutionary year of 1917.

It's commonly believed that the book "Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law" (1913) of Eugen Erlich (1862–1922) was historically the first work in which was made an attempt to create a sociology of law as a specific scientific discipline. However the translation and publication of this work in Russian (2011) was insignificant to the sociological community, while in the English-language literature of the last decades we can observe a growing interest to the classic. The author of the article tries to emphasize the main points and advantages of the theory of the "living law" of Ehrlich, showing how the "Fundamental principles..." may be interesting for the modern reader. For this, the author of the article offers a specific strategy for reading the book.