Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.123-139
I. Matveeva, I. Evlampiev
The article analyzes the historical and artistic works of A.S. Pushkin dedicated to the era of Peter I and the uprising of Emelyan Pugachev. It is shown that Pushkin considers Peter I a revolutionary figure, similar to the figures of the Great French Revolution, who liberated the creative forces of Russia (later A.I. Herzen will give a similar understanding of the historical significance of Peter the Great). An analysis of Pushkin's historical writings allowed us to assert that, reflecting on the image of Peter I, the poet saw his paradoxical similarity with the image of Pugachev. In the study of this topic, an important idea of Yu.M. Lotman that Pushkin understands human life as the interaction of two polar principles – the sphere of higher values, which he represents in the images of formidable “idols”, and the irrational element, which manifests itself in the form of natural disasters and popular revolt. It has been suggested that this idea also applies to Pushkin's understanding of social life. This made it possible to argue that for Pushkin, the absolute ruler must tame, introduce both principles of social life into the proper boundaries – imperial, unlimited power and the element of the people – and carry out their fruitful synthesis. In the historical writings of Pushkin, Peter I appears close to such an absolute ruler, but he gave a fruitful, creative form only to the principle of the empire, he simply suppressed the principle of the people; that is why Pushkin draws attention to Pugachev, who, taking the title of the self-proclaimed “people's sovereign”, is trying to tame, give a fruitful form to the people's revolt and thereby demonstrate the necessary alternative to Peter. As a result, the article expresses an important assumption that Pushkin thinks of the image of the absolute ruler as a combination, a synthesis of the images of Peter and Pugachev. It is shown that the idea of a “people's empire” that arose in Pushkin's artistic imagination acquired a completely finished theoretical form in the writings of A.S. Khomyakova and I.V. Kireevsky. The main components of the idea of an ideal monarchy as a form of a communal people's state, in which the monarch serves the interests of the people, and the people give him sanction for power, are revealed.
{"title":"Peter I and Pugachev: the Birth of the Idea of a “People's Empire” in the Works of A.S. Pushkin","authors":"I. Matveeva, I. Evlampiev","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.123-139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.123-139","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the historical and artistic works of A.S. Pushkin dedicated to the era of Peter I and the uprising of Emelyan Pugachev. It is shown that Pushkin considers Peter I a revolutionary figure, similar to the figures of the Great French Revolution, who liberated the creative forces of Russia (later A.I. Herzen will give a similar understanding of the historical significance of Peter the Great). An analysis of Pushkin's historical writings allowed us to assert that, reflecting on the image of Peter I, the poet saw his paradoxical similarity with the image of Pugachev. In the study of this topic, an important idea of Yu.M. Lotman that Pushkin understands human life as the interaction of two polar principles – the sphere of higher values, which he represents in the images of formidable “idols”, and the irrational element, which manifests itself in the form of natural disasters and popular revolt. It has been suggested that this idea also applies to Pushkin's understanding of social life. This made it possible to argue that for Pushkin, the absolute ruler must tame, introduce both principles of social life into the proper boundaries – imperial, unlimited power and the element of the people – and carry out their fruitful synthesis. In the historical writings of Pushkin, Peter I appears close to such an absolute ruler, but he gave a fruitful, creative form only to the principle of the empire, he simply suppressed the principle of the people; that is why Pushkin draws attention to Pugachev, who, taking the title of the self-proclaimed “people's sovereign”, is trying to tame, give a fruitful form to the people's revolt and thereby demonstrate the necessary alternative to Peter. As a result, the article expresses an important assumption that Pushkin thinks of the image of the absolute ruler as a combination, a synthesis of the images of Peter and Pugachev. It is shown that the idea of a “people's empire” that arose in Pushkin's artistic imagination acquired a completely finished theoretical form in the writings of A.S. Khomyakova and I.V. Kireevsky. The main components of the idea of an ideal monarchy as a form of a communal people's state, in which the monarch serves the interests of the people, and the people give him sanction for power, are revealed.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130539451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.087-096
V. I. Sharonov
The article is devoted to the circumstances of the creation of Lev Karsavin's work “Spirit and Body”, written by him in Lithuanian in the spring of 1952 in a special camp for political prisoners. The article is also about the history of the translation of this work into Russian. The author's manuscript of this work is kept in the archive of the Vilnius University Library. The translation was discovered by the author of the article in Anatoly Vaneev’s personal archive, a disciple and follower of Karsavin. The author of the work “Spirit and Body” found it necessary to add one more part and called it “The author's conversation on “Spirit and Body” with a positivist and a skeptic. This additional part in the chronology of its appearance in print was more than three decades ahead of the main text of the work. This complementary and clarifying part of the manuscript was published in scientific editions three decades earlier than the main text. The letters found by the author of the article in the personal archives of Anatoly Vaneev and Vladas Shimkunas allowed us to see how, under conditions of strict supervision and restrictions of imprisonment in Komi ASSR, Stanislav Dobrovolskis carried out a line-by-line translation of Karsavin's work, and Vaneev made a philosophical revision of this formal version of the translation. The author of the article also established the authorship of the first Russian translation of the second work, explanatory part in relation to the main text of the work, and another work by Karsavin “On Perfection”. For Russian-speaking researchers of Lev Karsavin's works, both parts of the philosophical diptych acquire meaningful completeness only in their interrelation. The publication of the translation is dedicated to the 140th anniversary of the birth of L.P. Karsavin, the 70th anniversary of his death and the 100th anniversary of the birth of A. A. Vaneev
{"title":"“The old man's teaching completely took possession of me...”","authors":"V. I. Sharonov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.087-096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.087-096","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the circumstances of the creation of Lev Karsavin's work “Spirit and Body”, written by him in Lithuanian in the spring of 1952 in a special camp for political prisoners. The article is also about the history of the translation of this work into Russian. The author's manuscript of this work is kept in the archive of the Vilnius University Library. The translation was discovered by the author of the article in Anatoly Vaneev’s personal archive, a disciple and follower of Karsavin. The author of the work “Spirit and Body” found it necessary to add one more part and called it “The author's conversation on “Spirit and Body” with a positivist and a skeptic. This additional part in the chronology of its appearance in print was more than three decades ahead of the main text of the work. This complementary and clarifying part of the manuscript was published in scientific editions three decades earlier than the main text. The letters found by the author of the article in the personal archives of Anatoly Vaneev and Vladas Shimkunas allowed us to see how, under conditions of strict supervision and restrictions of imprisonment in Komi ASSR, Stanislav Dobrovolskis carried out a line-by-line translation of Karsavin's work, and Vaneev made a philosophical revision of this formal version of the translation. The author of the article also established the authorship of the first Russian translation of the second work, explanatory part in relation to the main text of the work, and another work by Karsavin “On Perfection”. For Russian-speaking researchers of Lev Karsavin's works, both parts of the philosophical diptych acquire meaningful completeness only in their interrelation. The publication of the translation is dedicated to the 140th anniversary of the birth of L.P. Karsavin, the 70th anniversary of his death and the 100th anniversary of the birth of A. A. Vaneev","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"389 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116329621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.046-073
S. Mazzanti, A. Rychkov
-
-
{"title":"An Introduction to Dante’s “Divine Comedy”. Lectures on General Literature: The Training Course 1887–1888. Aleksandr Nikolaevich Veselovsky. Part two. Lectures third, fourth, fifth","authors":"S. Mazzanti, A. Rychkov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.046-073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.046-073","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p>-</jats:p>","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114126286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.033-045
V. Sidorin
The article examines the research of Thomas Nemeth, the largest modern American specialist in the history of Russian philosophy, related to the reception of Kantian philosophy, phenomenology in Russia, as well as the work of V.S. Solovyov. Russian philosophy has historically been characterized by a weak interest in epistemological problems, which affected the ways of development of “Kantian studies” in Russia: the perception of the ideas of the German thinker was set by ethical and ontological perspectives, which led, among other things, to the fact that the so-called ontological turn, having started in German neo-Kantianism in the last quarter of the XIX – first quarter of the XX centuries, was largely consonant with Russian philosophy of the beginning of the last century. It is concluded that the key role in such a perception of Kantian philosophy was played by the early Vl. Solovyov. The article T. Nemeth's interpretation of Solovyov's legacy is critically comprehended as an evidence of the failure of the philosophical project proper, the author's thesis about the inherent “ontological error” of V. Solovyov's philosophy, allegedly not allowing the Russian philosopher, with all the depth of the formulation of philosophical problems, to develop ways to resolve them properly, is analyzed. The conclusion is made that trying to comprehend the Russian philosophical tradition as a whole, Nemeth continues, albeit with a number of reservations, the line of its humanistic interpretation. The new English translation of “The Justification of Good”, made by T. Nemeth, is compared with the previous translation made by N. Duddington, being widely used in the English-speaking world. The conclusion is made about the comparative advantages of the new translation.
本文考察了俄罗斯哲学史上最大的美国现代专家托马斯·内梅特(Thomas Nemeth)关于康德哲学、现象学在俄罗斯的接受的研究，以及V.S.索洛维约夫(V.S. Solovyov)的工作。俄罗斯哲学在历史上一直以对认识论问题兴趣淡薄为特征，这影响了俄罗斯“康德研究”的发展方式:对德国思想家思想的认知是由伦理和本体论观点所决定的，这导致了这样一个事实，即所谓的本体论转向，始于19世纪最后25年——20世纪前25年的德国新康德主义，在很大程度上与上世纪初的俄罗斯哲学一致。结论是，在这种对康德哲学的感知中，关键作用是由早期的Vl。索洛维约夫正在视察即将收获的。文章T. Nemeth对索洛维约夫遗产的解释被批判性地理解为哲学项目本身失败的证据，作者关于索洛维约夫哲学固有的“本体论错误”的论文，据称不允许俄罗斯哲学家以哲学问题的所有深度制定，发展出正确解决问题的方法，进行了分析。结论是，涅梅特试图从整体上理解俄罗斯哲学传统，尽管有一些保留，但仍继续其人文主义解释的路线。内梅特(T. Nemeth)的新版《善的正当性》(The Justification of Good)与达丁顿(N. Duddington)的新版《善的正当性》(The Justification of Good)在英语世界广泛使用。最后总结了新译本的比较优势。
{"title":"Contemporary Studies of Vladimir Solovyov’s Philosophy: Thomas Nemeth","authors":"V. Sidorin","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.033-045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.033-045","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the research of Thomas Nemeth, the largest modern American specialist in the history of Russian philosophy, related to the reception of Kantian philosophy, phenomenology in Russia, as well as the work of V.S. Solovyov. Russian philosophy has historically been characterized by a weak interest in epistemological problems, which affected the ways of development of “Kantian studies” in Russia: the perception of the ideas of the German thinker was set by ethical and ontological perspectives, which led, among other things, to the fact that the so-called ontological turn, having started in German neo-Kantianism in the last quarter of the XIX – first quarter of the XX centuries, was largely consonant with Russian philosophy of the beginning of the last century. It is concluded that the key role in such a perception of Kantian philosophy was played by the early Vl. Solovyov. The article T. Nemeth's interpretation of Solovyov's legacy is critically comprehended as an evidence of the failure of the philosophical project proper, the author's thesis about the inherent “ontological error” of V. Solovyov's philosophy, allegedly not allowing the Russian philosopher, with all the depth of the formulation of philosophical problems, to develop ways to resolve them properly, is analyzed. The conclusion is made that trying to comprehend the Russian philosophical tradition as a whole, Nemeth continues, albeit with a number of reservations, the line of its humanistic interpretation. The new English translation of “The Justification of Good”, made by T. Nemeth, is compared with the previous translation made by N. Duddington, being widely used in the English-speaking world. The conclusion is made about the comparative advantages of the new translation.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"166 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121399175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.174-190
I. A. Edoshina
The article is devoted to the problem of differentiation between the terms “thinker” and “philosopher”. A comparison of the art studies terms such as “specialist” and “expert” are taken as an analogy. Attention is paid to the etymological aspect in all these terms, which contributes to the disclosure of their semantic shades. As a result of linguistic observations, the author of the article comes to the conclusion that the concept of “thinker” is highly relevant for defining the essence of the artistic endeavour by A.A. Grigoryev and P.A. Florensky. At the same time, it is noted that both A.A. Grigoryev and P.A. Florensky were absolutely against the terminological clarity, considering this kind of clarity to be a semantic simplification of understanding the phenomena of being. The texts of A.A. Grigoryev and P.A. Florensky are given as examples. An external reason for comparison is their anniversaries – 200 and 140 years from the date of birth, respectively. In addition to the above-mentioned external reason, it is pointed to the universalism which was typical for both thinkers (proficiency in different types of arts), as well as to their significant interest in W. Shakespeare’s works. A.A. Grigoryev and P.A. Florensky perception of W. Shakespeare’s works are are presented systematically: general (philosophical and artistic) and particular (understanding of the tragedy “Hamlet”). The interest and critical attitude of A.A. Grigoriev and P.A. Florensky to the translations of the plays of U. is noted. Shakespeare into Russian. The undisguised subjectivism of their reflections on the work of W. Shakespeare is emphasized, combined with the assertion of the organic foundations of artistic creativity, which allow art to reflect the fundamental issues of being. The complex synthesis of analytics and imagery is the basis for the definition of A.A. Grigoriev and P.A. Florensky as thinkers.
{"title":"Two Anniversaries, or type of Russian thinker: Apollon Grigoryev and Pavel Florensky","authors":"I. A. Edoshina","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.174-190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.174-190","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the problem of differentiation between the terms “thinker” and “philosopher”. A comparison of the art studies terms such as “specialist” and “expert” are taken as an analogy. Attention is paid to the etymological aspect in all these terms, which contributes to the disclosure of their semantic shades. As a result of linguistic observations, the author of the article comes to the conclusion that the concept of “thinker” is highly relevant for defining the essence of the artistic endeavour by A.A. Grigoryev and P.A. Florensky. At the same time, it is noted that both A.A. Grigoryev and P.A. Florensky were absolutely against the terminological clarity, considering this kind of clarity to be a semantic simplification of understanding the phenomena of being. The texts of A.A. Grigoryev and P.A. Florensky are given as examples. An external reason for comparison is their anniversaries – 200 and 140 years from the date of birth, respectively. In addition to the above-mentioned external reason, it is pointed to the universalism which was typical for both thinkers (proficiency in different types of arts), as well as to their significant interest in W. Shakespeare’s works. A.A. Grigoryev and P.A. Florensky perception of W. Shakespeare’s works are are presented systematically: general (philosophical and artistic) and particular (understanding of the tragedy “Hamlet”). The interest and critical attitude of A.A. Grigoriev and P.A. Florensky to the translations of the plays of U. is noted. Shakespeare into Russian. The undisguised subjectivism of their reflections on the work of W. Shakespeare is emphasized, combined with the assertion of the organic foundations of artistic creativity, which allow art to reflect the fundamental issues of being. The complex synthesis of analytics and imagery is the basis for the definition of A.A. Grigoriev and P.A. Florensky as thinkers.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124083436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.097-122
V.I. Sharonov
-
-
{"title":"Lev Platonovich Karsavin. Spirit and body (Dvasia ir kūnas)","authors":"V.I. Sharonov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.097-122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.097-122","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p>-</jats:p>","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"190 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124224673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.186-187
A. Oppo
{"title":"The First-Ever English Translation of Pavel Florensky's “Imaginaries in Geometry”","authors":"A. Oppo","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.186-187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.186-187","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"62 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123633845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.116-137
A. Malinov, L. Naldoniova, V. Kupriyanov
The article serves as the introduction into the publication of the “Historical Letter” by V.I. Lamansky. The authors consider the context of V.I. Lamansky’s discourse concerning the reciprocal relations between the Slavs and the Germans. Considering these relations as inimical, V.I. Lamansky substantiated this idea by references to the opinion of German scholars about the Slavs. He showed the malignancy of the German cultural and political influence on the Slavs, something which leads to the loss of their nationality, based on the example of Czech and, to some extent, Croatian history. It is not a coincidence that the essential part of the second “Historical Letter” is based on the material of the Hussite movement and Thirty Years’ War which caused the germanisation of the Czech people. Lamansky attached great importance to the Hussite movement, as he considered it one of the highest manifestations of the Slavic self-consciousness (or at least of the Western Slavs). Based on the letters of the scholar showing his attitude to the Czech people, F. Palacky and other leaders of the Czech Revival, the authors demonstrate that Lamansky had probably borrowed the notion of “the Greek-Slavic world” as against the German-Roman world from German historiological literature. Being an adherent of Slavophilism, Lamansky considerably contributed to it. Particularly, he tried to more definitely formulate Slavophile’s attitude to the “Slavic question,” on which the attention of the founders of the movement had paid little attention. His interpretation of Slavic history was best realized in his master’s thesis “On the Slavs in Middle Asia, Africa and Spain” (1859). The second “Historical Question” was likely written soon after finishing work on the thesis and was a step on the way to his other serious work, namely his doctoral thesis “On Historical Studies of the Greek-Slavic World in Europe” (1871), as both “Historical Letters” and the dissertation were written from similar historiographical positions.
{"title":"The Slavdom and the West in History and Culture (to the Publication of “Historical Letters about the Relations of the Russian Nation to its Tribesmen” by V.I. Lamansky)","authors":"A. Malinov, L. Naldoniova, V. Kupriyanov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.116-137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.116-137","url":null,"abstract":"The article serves as the introduction into the publication of the “Historical Letter” by V.I. Lamansky. The authors consider the context of V.I. Lamansky’s discourse concerning the reciprocal relations between the Slavs and the Germans. Considering these relations as inimical, V.I. Lamansky substantiated this idea by references to the opinion of German scholars about the Slavs. He showed the malignancy of the German cultural and political influence on the Slavs, something which leads to the loss of their nationality, based on the example of Czech and, to some extent, Croatian history. It is not a coincidence that the essential part of the second “Historical Letter” is based on the material of the Hussite movement and Thirty Years’ War which caused the germanisation of the Czech people. Lamansky attached great importance to the Hussite movement, as he considered it one of the highest manifestations of the Slavic self-consciousness (or at least of the Western Slavs). Based on the letters of the scholar showing his attitude to the Czech people, F. Palacky and other leaders of the Czech Revival, the authors demonstrate that Lamansky had probably borrowed the notion of “the Greek-Slavic world” as against the German-Roman world from German historiological literature. Being an adherent of Slavophilism, Lamansky considerably contributed to it. Particularly, he tried to more definitely formulate Slavophile’s attitude to the “Slavic question,” on which the attention of the founders of the movement had paid little attention. His interpretation of Slavic history was best realized in his master’s thesis “On the Slavs in Middle Asia, Africa and Spain” (1859). The second “Historical Question” was likely written soon after finishing work on the thesis and was a step on the way to his other serious work, namely his doctoral thesis “On Historical Studies of the Greek-Slavic World in Europe” (1871), as both “Historical Letters” and the dissertation were written from similar historiographical positions.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133519032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.086-102
M. Medovarov
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.
这篇文章具有史学性质，致力于对19世纪中期到20世纪下半叶英国和俄罗斯学者对但丁作品中深奥内容的解释。特别地，从乔治·麦克唐纳到c·s·刘易斯，特别是查尔斯·威廉姆斯，英国传统解读但丁的神秘主义的意义在这里进行了探讨。本文分析了威廉斯的新浪漫主义神学，并分析了他将爱情形而上学与帝国主义紧密联系在一起的观点。事实上，这种联系使得将威廉姆斯的成就与Guido de Giorgio和Romano Guardini的后期作品进行比较成为可能。在这一点上，威廉姆斯对比阿特丽斯形象的解读似乎接近于诡辩。西欧研究但丁深奥遗产的主要成就，然后与俄罗斯专家的贡献进行比较。对但丁的帝国形而上学感兴趣的乔治·弗洛夫斯基牧师(Rev. Georgy Florovsky)是第一个在俄罗斯作家中介绍威廉姆斯作品的人。特别值得注意的是帕维尔·弗洛伦斯基牧师的《几何学中的虚数》——这部作品在从宇宙学的角度接近“神曲”以及在解释其物理和数学结构方面做出了独特的尝试方面都走在了时代的前面。最后，本文考虑了苏联后期(20世纪60年代至80年代)和后苏联学术学者的作品，他们重新审视了但丁作品中一些深奥的问题。作者的结论是，不像在意大利和法国发生的那样，在英国和俄罗斯，在但丁的神秘主义研究中，不可能有历史上的连续性。然而，这一事实并不妨碍我们强调一些俄罗斯、英国和苏格兰学者的杰出成就。
{"title":"Interpretations of Dante’s Esotericism in British and Russian Studies from the Mid-19th to the Late 20th Century","authors":"M. Medovarov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.086-102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.086-102","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133861672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.040-054
E. A. Cherkasova
This article examines two poetic translations of Dante Alighieri’s “Vita Nuova” by V.S. Solovyov. At the present time, Solovyov’s specific experiments of translation are merely considered in the field of literary studies, although a general assessment of them has been given in the past by scholars such as A.F. Losev, Z.G. Mints, T.F. Teperik, A.A. Asoyan and others. The logic underlying the selection of the translated materials might indicate a special attitude of Solovyov in choosing names and works, which are significant for the understanding and realization of the poetry tasks. The author of this article demonstrates that such was the name of Dante Alighieri, which embodied a special myth concerning the spiritual transformation of man through one’s love for a woman. This myth was in harmony with the concept of art, as the latter is reflected in many works of the philosopher. The author also proves that Solovyov, who knew Italian language quite well, translates Dante's sonnets rather freely: in this way, he is able to keep the ideological content of the original text while also offering a different Russian translation. The specific character of Solovyov’s translations is here considered in comparison with the three other translations of the same sonnets made by the professional linguists and translators: M.I. Liverovskaya, A.M. Efros, and I.N. Golenischev-Kutuzov. The author maintains that the distinctive “Italian” canon of the sonnet genre is preserved in Solovyov's translation: this fact would demonstrate the philosopher’s adherence to the European poetic tradition. The article finally analyzes V. Solovyov’s translations from the point of view of their connection with his corpus of lyrical poems. In conclusion, the author sums up the basic principles of V.S. Solovyov’s translation work and clarifies the nature of the dialogical connection between his poetic heritage and Dante’s lyrics.
{"title":"V.S. Solovyov as a Translator of Dante (on Two Translations from “Vita Nuova”)","authors":"E. A. Cherkasova","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.040-054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.1.040-054","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines two poetic translations of Dante Alighieri’s “Vita Nuova” by V.S. Solovyov. At the present time, Solovyov’s specific experiments of translation are merely considered in the field of literary studies, although a general assessment of them has been given in the past by scholars such as A.F. Losev, Z.G. Mints, T.F. Teperik, A.A. Asoyan and others. The logic underlying the selection of the translated materials might indicate a special attitude of Solovyov in choosing names and works, which are significant for the understanding and realization of the poetry tasks. The author of this article demonstrates that such was the name of Dante Alighieri, which embodied a special myth concerning the spiritual transformation of man through one’s love for a woman. This myth was in harmony with the concept of art, as the latter is reflected in many works of the philosopher. The author also proves that Solovyov, who knew Italian language quite well, translates Dante's sonnets rather freely: in this way, he is able to keep the ideological content of the original text while also offering a different Russian translation. The specific character of Solovyov’s translations is here considered in comparison with the three other translations of the same sonnets made by the professional linguists and translators: M.I. Liverovskaya, A.M. Efros, and I.N. Golenischev-Kutuzov. The author maintains that the distinctive “Italian” canon of the sonnet genre is preserved in Solovyov's translation: this fact would demonstrate the philosopher’s adherence to the European poetic tradition. The article finally analyzes V. Solovyov’s translations from the point of view of their connection with his corpus of lyrical poems. In conclusion, the author sums up the basic principles of V.S. Solovyov’s translation work and clarifies the nature of the dialogical connection between his poetic heritage and Dante’s lyrics.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115559523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：