Suchergebnisse

This article has a historiographic and methodological nature and is devoted to the problematic interpretations of the esoteric content of Dante's ideas and works by French and Italian scholars from the middle of the nineteenth century to the second half of the twentieth century. Various definitions of Western esotericism are discussed in the light of contemporary approaches. The current interest in the study of Dante's esotericism and the relevance of this topic are substantiated. The tradition in the interpretation of Dante's esotericism in Italy and France can be traced back to the occultists of the 19th century, who referred to each other's works: G. Rossetti, E. Arou, F. Boissard, J. Péladant, G. Pascoli and others. It has been demonstrated that the studies of Dante's esotericism during 1920s reached a new level of quality, which was adequate to the contemporary scientific requirements for Dante studies: in Italy, this happened in the person of Luigi Valli and his students, Arturo Reghini and then Julius Evola; and in France, at the same time, in the person of René Guénon. The criticism of Valli in the works by Guénon is analyzed in detail. The context of Dante's interpretation by Guénon is revealed in connection with the issue of Templar, Rosicrucian and Islamic influences (Sufism, Arab Neoplatonism). In this respect, a significant difference of tones was observed in the perception of Dante's esotericism within the general paradigm of integral traditionalism between Guénon and his Italian colleagues Julius Evola and especially Guido de Giorgio, whose fundamental work is still unknown to Russian scholars. An intense politicization of the perception of Dante's heritage by Evola and de Giorgio is also remarked in this article. Special attention is then paid to the study of Dante's esotericism by one of the leading Roman Catholic theologian of the twentieth century, Romano Guardini, who engaged a polemic correspondence with the integral traditionalists. Based on the results of our study, it was concluded that the research of Dante's esotericism by French and Italian authors for more than a hundred years can be characterized as a continuous chain of dialogue and polemics of various authors who knew about each other's works and used the appropriate links.

This contribution has a historiographical nature and is devoted to the interpretations of the esoteric content of Dante's works made by British and Russian scholars from the middle of the nineteenth to the second half of the twentieth century. In particular, the meaning of the British tradition of interpreting Dante's esotericism – from George MacDonald to C.S. Lewis, with a special focus on Charles Williams – is here explored. The neo-Romantic theology of Williams is analyzed along with its rigid connection between the metaphysics of love and the doctrine of Empire. This connection, in fact, makes it possible to compare Williams' achievements with the later works of Guido de Giorgio and Romano Guardini. In this regard, Williams' interpretation of Beatrice image appears to be close to Sophiology. The main achievements of Western European studies of Dante's esoteric heritage are then compared with the contributions of the Russian specialists. The role of Rev. Georgy Florovsky, who was interested in Dante's metaphysics of the Empire and was the first to introduce Williams' works among Russian authors, is highlighted. Particular attention is paid to Rev. Pavel Florensky's "Imaginary Numbers in Geometry" – a work that was ahead of its times both in approaching the "Divine Comedy" from a cosmological point of view and in making a unique attempt of interpreting its physical and mathematical structure. Finally, this article considers the works of the late Soviet (1960s – 80s) and post-Soviet academic scholars, who reexamined a number of esoteric issues in Dante's output. The author concludes that – unlike what happened in Italy and in France – both in Great Britain and in Russia it is not possible to speak of a historiographical continuity within the studies on Dante's esotericism. However, this fact does not prevent from emphasizing the outstanding achievements of some individual Russian, English, and Scottish scholars.

The article is devoted to documents concerning the polemical exchange between Vladimir Solovyov and Alexander Kireev on the unification of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in 1897 as well as the final stage of their relationship on the whole. For the first time, the author reconstructs the exact chronology and sequence of the first set of polemics between the two thinkers after a ten-year break that took place on the pages of several newspapers and journals from May to September 1897 of that year. Some portions of this polemic have never been republished, and some other articles were republished with significant alterations. This introductory article examines the arguments of Solovyov and Kireev, as well as the positions of the respective presses themselves. Novoye Vremya [New Time], Moskovskiye Vedomosti [Moscow Gazette] and Russkoe Obozrenie [Russian Review]. This article provides an assessment of the context in which this dispute broke out, and the appendix provides a list of fifteen historical sources arranged in chronological order. In addition to the open letters between Solovyov and Kireev directed against each other, notes by Nikolay Engelhardt and Boris Shchetinin concerning this dispute are also included. In addition, for the first time, Solovyov's archival letters to Anatoly Alexandrov as well as Kireev's previously unpublished memoirs about Solovyov (from the 1900s) are also presented. With the publication of the articles by the two thinkers, the present author has taken into account all discrepancies and alterations when comparing the original journal and newspaper texts with their subsequent re-printings in the collected works of Solovyov and Kireev.

This article considers the issue of the continuity and discontinuity of the historical process within the legacy of the Russian philosophers of the first half of the twentieth century. Its main task is to reconstruct their understanding of the category of discontinuity in relation to social sciences and the humanities in the works of N.V. Bugaev, V.G. Alekseev, P.A. Florensky, V.F. Ern, and L.P. Karsavin. This task is accomplished by carrying out a comparative historical study of the works of these philosophers in the context of their mutual influence and of how the given topics are developed. The research, which was conducted mainly on the existing historiography of the Moscow School of Philosophy and Mathematics, identifies a number of lacunae regarding the category of continuity/discontinuity. While this issue was first raised by Nikolai Bugaev and Vissarion Alekseev, it was Pavel Florensky who suggested a solution to the problem by applying the theory of discontinuous functions used in arithmology to the historical process. Florensky's efforts were initially fruitless, however, and it was not until after 1905 that he succeeded in doing so. It has been proven that Vladimir Ern radicalized Florensky's thoughts and made significant progress in understanding the topic of discontinuity within the historical process and the progress of mankind. Considerable attention is also paid to the reasons for the repressions enacted against the Moscow school during the Soviet period. Finally, Lev Karsavin's relationship with this line of study of discontinuity in Russian philosophy is clarified and the place of Karsavin's early and late works in the study of the category of continuity and discontinuity in the history of mankind is also considered. The conclusion of this article deals with the relevance of this legacy of Russian philosophers in contemporary epistemology and the methodology of history.

The article is devoted to the problem of the attitude of the Italian traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola to Christianity and neo-spiritualism. This task is solved on the basis of the comparative historical method of studying the works of Evola of different years and their assessment by researchers. Priority attention is paid to the analysis of the work "The Mask and Face of Contemporary Spiritualism" that was first published in Russian in 2020. The present work is considered in the context of all Evola's work, especially the works published in Russia recently. The question is raised about personalism in Evola's metaphysics. The essence of his criticism of psychoanalysis, spiritualism, theosophy, anthroposophy, primitivism, Satanism, some magical organizations and other forms of "new religiosity" is revealed. In the paper the traditional scheme of opposing the early, middle and late periods of Evola's work according to the criterion of his attitude to Christianity is contested. It is shown that from the early 1930s to the early 1970s his assessment of Christianity was invariably ambivalent and contradictory, although the emphasis on the positive aspects had been gradually increased. The problem of dualism in Christianity and the differences between the early Church, medieval Catholicism and the Aggiornamento of the twentieth century are examined in detail. The main conclusion of our investigation is that Evola, in spite of his personal antipathies to the Christian doctrine, was constantly forced to admit the possibility of a full-fledged spiritual realization of a person within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and to act as an ally of Catholicism against all forms of neo-spiritualism and neo-paganism.