Pub Date : 2024-01-10DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-58-89
D. V. Safonov
This article delves into the works of Nikolay Nikolayevich Lisovoy (1946–2019) during the initial 45 years of his life, which coincided with the Soviet era. It was during this period that the main concepts of his creativity were formulated: the Orthodox Empire and its relation to the Church, the history of Russian theology, the history of the Russian Church and its saints, Russian conservative journalism from the late 19th to the early 20th century, and the Russian spiritual and political presence in the East. Nikolay Lisovoy’s youth was marked by the peak of his poetic creativity, and he primarily considered himself a poet. To the contemporary reader, Nikolay Lisovoy is largely known for his writings on the Holy Land and his activities in the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPPO). However, during the considered period of his creative output, these themes were not yet at the forefront of his attention, thus his main contributions to the development of Russian conservative thought remain practically unknown. Based on Nikolay Lisovoy’s personal archive and his early publications, the author analyzes his works written during the Soviet era, delves into the origins of his creativity, and identifies individuals who significantly influenced his formation. Of particular interest is the examination of Nikolay Lisovoy’s works at the intersection of disciplines: physics, philosophy and theology, semiotics and linguistics, history and canon law, historiosophy and political science. Nikolay Lisovoy’s creative output is explored using materials from his personal archive within the context of the epoch, taking into account individuals who had a particular influence on him, including his mother Olga Talantseva, Fyodor Sukhov, Vasily Shulgin, Archimandrite Innokenty (Prosvirnin), Tatyana Glushkova and others.This publication, commemorating the 5th anniversary of Nikolay Lisovoy’s passing, aims to initiate a comprehensive study of Nikolay Lisovoy’s spiritual and scientific legacy from the first 30 years of his creative path, which unfolded during the Soviet period, and and introduce it to the scientific society. By 1991, Nikolay Lisovoy laid the foundations of concepts that are extremely relevant to conservative thought today. The most important of them is the idea that Russia was and remains an Orthodox Empire, destined to resist the entropy threatening humanity and originating from the West. Above all, he considered himself a conservative.The author of the article has been a disciple of Nikolay Lisovoy since 2003, actively promoting his works. After being ordained as a priest in 2013, he regularly performed confession, communion, and administered the last sacraments for the scholar and his spouse.
{"title":"Nikolay Lisovoy: “I am a Conservative!” (Review of Nikolay Lisovoy’s Work in the Soviet Period)","authors":"D. V. Safonov","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-58-89","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-58-89","url":null,"abstract":"This article delves into the works of Nikolay Nikolayevich Lisovoy (1946–2019) during the initial 45 years of his life, which coincided with the Soviet era. It was during this period that the main concepts of his creativity were formulated: the Orthodox Empire and its relation to the Church, the history of Russian theology, the history of the Russian Church and its saints, Russian conservative journalism from the late 19th to the early 20th century, and the Russian spiritual and political presence in the East. Nikolay Lisovoy’s youth was marked by the peak of his poetic creativity, and he primarily considered himself a poet. To the contemporary reader, Nikolay Lisovoy is largely known for his writings on the Holy Land and his activities in the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPPO). However, during the considered period of his creative output, these themes were not yet at the forefront of his attention, thus his main contributions to the development of Russian conservative thought remain practically unknown. Based on Nikolay Lisovoy’s personal archive and his early publications, the author analyzes his works written during the Soviet era, delves into the origins of his creativity, and identifies individuals who significantly influenced his formation. Of particular interest is the examination of Nikolay Lisovoy’s works at the intersection of disciplines: physics, philosophy and theology, semiotics and linguistics, history and canon law, historiosophy and political science. Nikolay Lisovoy’s creative output is explored using materials from his personal archive within the context of the epoch, taking into account individuals who had a particular influence on him, including his mother Olga Talantseva, Fyodor Sukhov, Vasily Shulgin, Archimandrite Innokenty (Prosvirnin), Tatyana Glushkova and others.This publication, commemorating the 5th anniversary of Nikolay Lisovoy’s passing, aims to initiate a comprehensive study of Nikolay Lisovoy’s spiritual and scientific legacy from the first 30 years of his creative path, which unfolded during the Soviet period, and and introduce it to the scientific society. By 1991, Nikolay Lisovoy laid the foundations of concepts that are extremely relevant to conservative thought today. The most important of them is the idea that Russia was and remains an Orthodox Empire, destined to resist the entropy threatening humanity and originating from the West. Above all, he considered himself a conservative.The author of the article has been a disciple of Nikolay Lisovoy since 2003, actively promoting his works. After being ordained as a priest in 2013, he regularly performed confession, communion, and administered the last sacraments for the scholar and his spouse.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":"62 51","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139534669","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 : 2024-01-10DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-30-57
A. I. Osipov
This article narrates the life journey, theological ideas, and pastoral practices of one of the eminent Orthodox ascetics in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church — Hegumen Nikon (Vorobyov) (1894–1963). In his youth, influenced by the spirit of the time, he was initially an atheist, fervently studied various sciences and philosophy. However, not finding what he sought in philosophy, he ardently turned to faith. In the “borderline state”, his soul experienced a somersault, and God revealed Himself to the one who sought Him with all the strength of his soul. In Minsk in 1930, Nikolai took monastic vows. He was given the name in honor of Hegumen Nikon of Radonezh, and later was ordained as a hieromonk. At that time of persecutions, this step was a true renunciation of the world and a direct path to Golgotha. In 1944, he was appointed the abbot of the Annunciation Cathedral in the city of Kozelsk. Here, he lived in an apartment held bynuns and kept a truly ascetic lifestyle. In a small room, he spent all his free time in prayer. His sermons made a strong impression on the believers, as he explained the Gospel, taught how to pray correctly, what humility and repentance meant as the foundations of spiritual life. In 1948, Father Nikon began to be driven from one parish to another: initially transferred to Belyov, then to Efremov, and further to Smolensk. His excellent sermons made many people restless, including, quite often, his fellow brethren. In 1948, from Smolensk, he was sent to the city of Gzhatsk (now Gagarin) — according to the father, in exile. Father Nikon led a strict monastic life. He had the gift of unceasing prayer, which was discovered accidentally. Hegumen Nikon’s constant readings included patristic writings, the Fathers of the Philokalia, the lives of saints, sermons, expoundings, and rarely — scientific, theological and philosophical works. Especially diligently and constantly he re-read and studied the works of St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov), whom, being a truly spiritual father, he strongly recommended to all his spiritually close ones. The essence of his instructing was beautifully expressed in his letters, which were repeatedly published under various titles: “Repentance Is Left to Us”, “Letters on Spiritual Life”, “Give Heed to Yourself”, and others. He spoke and wrote about the essence of the Savior’s preaching, calling for spiritual and moral self-change through recognizing the damaged nature of humanity and its inability to heal itself from passions, primarily from the most foolish one — pride. Through this self-awareness, true repentance could be accomplished, turned to Christ the Savior, Who heals us.
{"title":"The Origins of Catastrophe and Our Last Mohicans. Hegumen Nikon (Vorobyov)","authors":"A. I. Osipov","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-30-57","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-30-57","url":null,"abstract":"This article narrates the life journey, theological ideas, and pastoral practices of one of the eminent Orthodox ascetics in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church — Hegumen Nikon (Vorobyov) (1894–1963). In his youth, influenced by the spirit of the time, he was initially an atheist, fervently studied various sciences and philosophy. However, not finding what he sought in philosophy, he ardently turned to faith. In the “borderline state”, his soul experienced a somersault, and God revealed Himself to the one who sought Him with all the strength of his soul. In Minsk in 1930, Nikolai took monastic vows. He was given the name in honor of Hegumen Nikon of Radonezh, and later was ordained as a hieromonk. At that time of persecutions, this step was a true renunciation of the world and a direct path to Golgotha. In 1944, he was appointed the abbot of the Annunciation Cathedral in the city of Kozelsk. Here, he lived in an apartment held bynuns and kept a truly ascetic lifestyle. In a small room, he spent all his free time in prayer. His sermons made a strong impression on the believers, as he explained the Gospel, taught how to pray correctly, what humility and repentance meant as the foundations of spiritual life. In 1948, Father Nikon began to be driven from one parish to another: initially transferred to Belyov, then to Efremov, and further to Smolensk. His excellent sermons made many people restless, including, quite often, his fellow brethren. In 1948, from Smolensk, he was sent to the city of Gzhatsk (now Gagarin) — according to the father, in exile. Father Nikon led a strict monastic life. He had the gift of unceasing prayer, which was discovered accidentally. Hegumen Nikon’s constant readings included patristic writings, the Fathers of the Philokalia, the lives of saints, sermons, expoundings, and rarely — scientific, theological and philosophical works. Especially diligently and constantly he re-read and studied the works of St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov), whom, being a truly spiritual father, he strongly recommended to all his spiritually close ones. The essence of his instructing was beautifully expressed in his letters, which were repeatedly published under various titles: “Repentance Is Left to Us”, “Letters on Spiritual Life”, “Give Heed to Yourself”, and others. He spoke and wrote about the essence of the Savior’s preaching, calling for spiritual and moral self-change through recognizing the damaged nature of humanity and its inability to heal itself from passions, primarily from the most foolish one — pride. Through this self-awareness, true repentance could be accomplished, turned to Christ the Savior, Who heals us.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":" 35","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139627416","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 : 2024-01-10DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-90-117
V. A. Saulkin
The article focuses on the works of the renowned Russian religious thinker Viktor Trostnikov and his perspectives on the Soviet period. The primary question guiding his creative output was: “What was the ultimate meaning behind the sufferings and hardships that befell Russia in the 20th century?” Viktor Trostnikov’s reflections on the Soviet epoch, which largely coincided with the greater part of his life, appear more objective and significant compared to the reasoning of authors adhering to either pro-communist or anti-communist views. Viktor Trostnikov regarded Marxism as a heretical doctrine that, through its pseudo-scientific nature, poisoned the minds of the Russian people. The religious nature of Marxism influenced the Christian sentiments of the people, facilitating the success of the October Revolution. The doctrine of communism was a Christian heresy, Christianity without Christ. During the Soviet era, the Russian people retained the ability to believe in something higher than the material world. Leninism provided the people with an inspiring and uplifting dream. The Christian paradise in the heavens was replaced by a terrestrial communist utopia in the future. Throughout the Soviet period of Russian history, state atheism failed to dismantle the deeply rooted traditional spiritual and moral values of Orthodox civilization within the people’s souls. Viktor Trostnikov highlighted instances of genuine asceticism during the Soviet era. Despite the USSR being an atheistic state until its dissolution, covertly our country remained the Third Rome. Viktor Trostnikov proposed considering the history of Russia of the 20th century, including revolutionary events and the Soviet era, from the perspective of Russian civilization. Crucially, during this challenging period, the people managed to preserve the core of their culture and civilizational identity, which was “camouflaged by external godlessness”. Viktor Trostnikov offered a distinct understanding of Stalin’s figure, the relationship between authorities and the people during the Soviet era, the role of industrialization in Soviet history, and the role of art in the country’s life.
{"title":"The Soviet Era in Russia’s Millennium History. Rereading Viktor Trostnikov","authors":"V. A. Saulkin","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-90-117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-4-90-117","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on the works of the renowned Russian religious thinker Viktor Trostnikov and his perspectives on the Soviet period. The primary question guiding his creative output was: “What was the ultimate meaning behind the sufferings and hardships that befell Russia in the 20th century?” Viktor Trostnikov’s reflections on the Soviet epoch, which largely coincided with the greater part of his life, appear more objective and significant compared to the reasoning of authors adhering to either pro-communist or anti-communist views. Viktor Trostnikov regarded Marxism as a heretical doctrine that, through its pseudo-scientific nature, poisoned the minds of the Russian people. The religious nature of Marxism influenced the Christian sentiments of the people, facilitating the success of the October Revolution. The doctrine of communism was a Christian heresy, Christianity without Christ. During the Soviet era, the Russian people retained the ability to believe in something higher than the material world. Leninism provided the people with an inspiring and uplifting dream. The Christian paradise in the heavens was replaced by a terrestrial communist utopia in the future. Throughout the Soviet period of Russian history, state atheism failed to dismantle the deeply rooted traditional spiritual and moral values of Orthodox civilization within the people’s souls. Viktor Trostnikov highlighted instances of genuine asceticism during the Soviet era. Despite the USSR being an atheistic state until its dissolution, covertly our country remained the Third Rome. Viktor Trostnikov proposed considering the history of Russia of the 20th century, including revolutionary events and the Soviet era, from the perspective of Russian civilization. Crucially, during this challenging period, the people managed to preserve the core of their culture and civilizational identity, which was “camouflaged by external godlessness”. Viktor Trostnikov offered a distinct understanding of Stalin’s figure, the relationship between authorities and the people during the Soviet era, the role of industrialization in Soviet history, and the role of art in the country’s life.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":" 40","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139627412","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 : 2024-01-09DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-74-97
A. V. Khorosheva
The article takes the process of changing attitudes to the creative heritage of Alexander Pushkin in the Soviet state as the subject of research. The goal of the research is to reveal the role played by the heritage of Alexander Pushkin in the policy of the so‑called “cultural revolution” and to what extent it contributed to the revolution’s success. Within the framework of this goal, the following tasks were set: to identify which political circumstances influenced the process under review, how strong was the overestimation of the significance of Pushkin’s creative heritage, what role it played against the background of ideological education. The task was also to consider specific events and, first of all, the 100th anniversary of the poet’s death as the moment of the final consolidation of Pushkin’s top position in the pantheon of Russian classics. The novelty of the research consists in considering changes in the attitude towards Pushkin and his creative heritage in conjunction with changes in theoretical objectives that determined the cultural development of the country. In the course of the research, the following conclusions were successfully reached. Despite the paramount importance of the theory of “two cultures” and the ideological attitudes of the Soviet government in its early years, in terms of which Pushkin as a representative of the exploiter class had to be criticized, there was no complete denial of his creative work even among the representatives of the Proletkult (the Proletarian Culture movement). At the time the cultural uniformity was established through the use of the only possible artistic method — socialist realism with highly valued ideologic content, simplicity and concreteness — models for inspiration were actively looked for. Eventually, the simplicity and national spirit of Pushkin’s characters managed to satisfy the demands in the best way possible. Despite the fact that the preparation and celebration of the Pushkin jubilee in 1937 were held according to the rules set by ideological campaigns, it had a tremendous positive effect and introduced Pushkin’s works to the broad masses of people. Pushkin’s creativity captivated millions of people. From there, we can say that the cultural development of the Soviet Union cannot be perceived one‑sidedly.
{"title":"Alexander Pushkin and His Literary Heritage in the Soviet Union in 1917–1937: from Criticism to Veneration","authors":"A. V. Khorosheva","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-74-97","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-74-97","url":null,"abstract":"The article takes the process of changing attitudes to the creative heritage of Alexander Pushkin in the Soviet state as the subject of research. The goal of the research is to reveal the role played by the heritage of Alexander Pushkin in the policy of the so‑called “cultural revolution” and to what extent it contributed to the revolution’s success. Within the framework of this goal, the following tasks were set: to identify which political circumstances influenced the process under review, how strong was the overestimation of the significance of Pushkin’s creative heritage, what role it played against the background of ideological education. The task was also to consider specific events and, first of all, the 100th anniversary of the poet’s death as the moment of the final consolidation of Pushkin’s top position in the pantheon of Russian classics. The novelty of the research consists in considering changes in the attitude towards Pushkin and his creative heritage in conjunction with changes in theoretical objectives that determined the cultural development of the country. In the course of the research, the following conclusions were successfully reached. Despite the paramount importance of the theory of “two cultures” and the ideological attitudes of the Soviet government in its early years, in terms of which Pushkin as a representative of the exploiter class had to be criticized, there was no complete denial of his creative work even among the representatives of the Proletkult (the Proletarian Culture movement). At the time the cultural uniformity was established through the use of the only possible artistic method — socialist realism with highly valued ideologic content, simplicity and concreteness — models for inspiration were actively looked for. Eventually, the simplicity and national spirit of Pushkin’s characters managed to satisfy the demands in the best way possible. Despite the fact that the preparation and celebration of the Pushkin jubilee in 1937 were held according to the rules set by ideological campaigns, it had a tremendous positive effect and introduced Pushkin’s works to the broad masses of people. Pushkin’s creativity captivated millions of people. From there, we can say that the cultural development of the Soviet Union cannot be perceived one‑sidedly.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":"60 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139535343","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 : 2024-01-09DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-52-73
N. S. Zelikina
The paper attempts to review the mindset and ideological foundations of the works by the Soviet writer and publicist Vladimir Chivilikhin, whose novel‑essay “Memory” was not only a phenomenon in the Russian Soviet literary process of the second half of the 20th century, but also served as an occasion for a broad public discussion, which allows us to consider it as the significant event of public life and the basis for analyzing the intellectual discourse of the late Soviet era. At the same time, the research is based not only on the author’s fiction and journalistic works, but also on personal materials (diaries, letters, memoirs) and is conducted in the context of social and ideological problems of the last decades of the Soviet period.
{"title":"The Soviet Adherer of the Pochvennichestvo: Reflections on the Worldview of Vladimir Alekseevich Chivilikhin","authors":"N. S. Zelikina","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-52-73","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-52-73","url":null,"abstract":"The paper attempts to review the mindset and ideological foundations of the works by the Soviet writer and publicist Vladimir Chivilikhin, whose novel‑essay “Memory” was not only a phenomenon in the Russian Soviet literary process of the second half of the 20th century, but also served as an occasion for a broad public discussion, which allows us to consider it as the significant event of public life and the basis for analyzing the intellectual discourse of the late Soviet era. At the same time, the research is based not only on the author’s fiction and journalistic works, but also on personal materials (diaries, letters, memoirs) and is conducted in the context of social and ideological problems of the last decades of the Soviet period.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":" 58","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139628091","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 : 2024-01-09DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-124-139
N. S. Tsvetova
The relevance of the topic of the article is largely determined by stereotypical judgments about the philosophic nature of the Russian literary tradition, the inclusion of the issues raised in the problems of constantly renewed disputes about the loss of this quality in the era of socialist realism, discussions about the historical and literary status of the “Bronze Age”, when the leaders of the literary process, contrary to the already established ideas about the “thaw era”, the traditionalist writers have become the same. The author focuses on the plays of the outstanding Russian playwright Alexander Vampilov. The analytical approach is based on the topical analysis of the literary text. Topos is considered as a “structural and semantic model” (P. E. Bukharkin, I. V. Annenkova, etc.), which in the case of Vampilov has several levels of textual embodiment: the “genetic roof” of the character’s name, during the creation of which the artist restored the ancient Russian Orthodox tradition of naming; the memory motif, fixinga multi‑stage process of loss and restoration of memories; foreign genre inclusions, in particular, in the text of the play “Last Summer in Chulimsk”, the playwright used the genre of legend as a form of existence of national memory. The main conclusion: the most complex literary topos of memory, the variability of which does not prevent us from presenting the national mentality as a kind of integrity formed under the influence of the Orthodox tradition, is presented in the creative heritage of A. V. Vampilov as a special type of moral imperative, the semantic structure of which is determined by the national (historical, cultural) and personal memory, which illuminated the life of a Russian person at all times, even in the Soviet era, which is considered to be indiscriminately atheistic.
文章主题的相关性在很大程度上取决于对俄罗斯文学传统的哲学性质的定型判断，包括在不断更新的关于社会主义现实主义时代丧失这种品质的争议问题中提出的问题，关于 "青铜时代 "的历史和文学地位的讨论，当时文学进程的领导者与已经确立的关于 "解冻时代 "的观点相反，传统主义作家已经成为相同的人。作者重点研究了俄罗斯杰出剧作家亚历山大-万皮洛夫的剧本。分析方法基于对文学文本的拓扑分析。Topos 被认为是一种 "结构和语义模型"（P. E. Bukharkin, I. V. Annenkova, etc.)，在瓦姆皮洛夫的作品中，它在文本中的体现有几个层次：人物名字的 "遗传屋顶"，在创作过程中，艺术家恢复了古老的俄罗斯东正教命名传统；记忆主题，固定了记忆丢失和恢复的多阶段过程；外来体裁的融入，特别是在戏剧《丘林斯克的最后一个夏天》文本中，剧作家使用了传奇体裁作为民族记忆的存在形式。主要结论：在阿-瓦-万皮洛夫的创作遗产中，最复杂的文学记忆拓扑结构（其多变性并不妨碍我们将民族心态表述为一种在东正教传统影响下形成的完整性）被表述为一种特殊类型的道德要求，其语义结构由民族（历史、文化）和个人记忆决定，这种记忆在任何时候都照亮着俄罗斯人的生活，即使在被认为是无神论的苏联时代也是如此。
{"title":"The Topos of Memory in A. V. Vampilov’s Dramaturgy","authors":"N. S. Tsvetova","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-124-139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-124-139","url":null,"abstract":"The relevance of the topic of the article is largely determined by stereotypical judgments about the philosophic nature of the Russian literary tradition, the inclusion of the issues raised in the problems of constantly renewed disputes about the loss of this quality in the era of socialist realism, discussions about the historical and literary status of the “Bronze Age”, when the leaders of the literary process, contrary to the already established ideas about the “thaw era”, the traditionalist writers have become the same. The author focuses on the plays of the outstanding Russian playwright Alexander Vampilov. The analytical approach is based on the topical analysis of the literary text. Topos is considered as a “structural and semantic model” (P. E. Bukharkin, I. V. Annenkova, etc.), which in the case of Vampilov has several levels of textual embodiment: the “genetic roof” of the character’s name, during the creation of which the artist restored the ancient Russian Orthodox tradition of naming; the memory motif, fixinga multi‑stage process of loss and restoration of memories; foreign genre inclusions, in particular, in the text of the play “Last Summer in Chulimsk”, the playwright used the genre of legend as a form of existence of national memory. The main conclusion: the most complex literary topos of memory, the variability of which does not prevent us from presenting the national mentality as a kind of integrity formed under the influence of the Orthodox tradition, is presented in the creative heritage of A. V. Vampilov as a special type of moral imperative, the semantic structure of which is determined by the national (historical, cultural) and personal memory, which illuminated the life of a Russian person at all times, even in the Soviet era, which is considered to be indiscriminately atheistic.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":" 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139628324","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 : 2024-01-09DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-11-51
Yu. V. Pushchaev
The article delves into the life and endeavors of Gennady Mikhailovich Shimanov (1937–2014), a relatively unknown to the wide audience yet a profoundly intriguing thinker, Orthodox publicist and dissident of the Soviet and post‑Soviet eras. It provides an overview of his biography and creative journey, highlighting his atypical position within the dissident and human rights movement, which predominantly leaned towards liberalism. In general, Shimanov’s beliefs revolved around practicing Orthodoxy during the Soviet era, Christian socialism, and Russian nationalism. The article focuses on Shimanov’s historiosophical prediction in the 1970s, suggesting the transformation of the Soviet state into an Orthodox theocracy, and the subsequent debates within the dissident literature of that time. Unusual for that period was Shimanov’s conviction in the necessity of maintaining loyalty to the Soviet state even on the part of dissidents. The article also touches upon Shimanov’s post‑Soviet creative works and their character, notably after the collapse of the USSR when his expectations starkly failed to fulfill, or fulfilled in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, other successful ideas and predictions by Shimanov are acknowledged. For example, those regarding the detrimental consequences that the country and society would experience if the liberal approach was chosen as the way out of the historical impasse of the Soviet era. The article also notes weaknesses in Shimanov’s ideologies, particularly evident in the post‑Soviet years: painful antisemitism, excessive social interpretation in understanding of Christianity, and ideological engagement. Simultaneously, the article acknowledges positive aspects of his ideas, namely his focus on national and family issues that heavily impacted the future of the Russian people.
{"title":"Gennady Shimanov and His Unfulfilled Dream of “Orthodoxizing the Soviet State”","authors":"Yu. V. Pushchaev","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-11-51","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-11-51","url":null,"abstract":"The article delves into the life and endeavors of Gennady Mikhailovich Shimanov (1937–2014), a relatively unknown to the wide audience yet a profoundly intriguing thinker, Orthodox publicist and dissident of the Soviet and post‑Soviet eras. It provides an overview of his biography and creative journey, highlighting his atypical position within the dissident and human rights movement, which predominantly leaned towards liberalism. In general, Shimanov’s beliefs revolved around practicing Orthodoxy during the Soviet era, Christian socialism, and Russian nationalism. The article focuses on Shimanov’s historiosophical prediction in the 1970s, suggesting the transformation of the Soviet state into an Orthodox theocracy, and the subsequent debates within the dissident literature of that time. Unusual for that period was Shimanov’s conviction in the necessity of maintaining loyalty to the Soviet state even on the part of dissidents. The article also touches upon Shimanov’s post‑Soviet creative works and their character, notably after the collapse of the USSR when his expectations starkly failed to fulfill, or fulfilled in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, other successful ideas and predictions by Shimanov are acknowledged. For example, those regarding the detrimental consequences that the country and society would experience if the liberal approach was chosen as the way out of the historical impasse of the Soviet era. The article also notes weaknesses in Shimanov’s ideologies, particularly evident in the post‑Soviet years: painful antisemitism, excessive social interpretation in understanding of Christianity, and ideological engagement. Simultaneously, the article acknowledges positive aspects of his ideas, namely his focus on national and family issues that heavily impacted the future of the Russian people.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":" 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139628360","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 : 2024-01-09DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-140-149
N. N. Rostova
The article is dedicated to the creative works of the renowned Russian and Soviet artist Pavel Dmitrievich Korin. The author of the article aims to show that the central concept of the artist — his “Farewell to Rus” — never saw the light of day, but still culturally endured, defining our metaphysical coordinates in post‑revolutionary Russia. Korin’s works focused on timeless meanings, the very soul of the people, rather than on localized historical episodes or related heroes. At his extreme, Korin was oriented towards the “everlasting Russia” — those fundamental foundations of our consciousness that remain unaffected by the vicissitudes of history. Drawing parallels between the ideological and aesthetic similarities between Mikhail Nesterov’s “The Soul of the People” and Pavel Korin’s “Farewell to Rus”, the author conducts their detailed analytical comparison. The author concludes that unlike Nesterov, Korin painted the tragic moment of losing the essence in its totality. In the author’s opinion, the comprehensive symbolism is equally characteristic of Korin’s well‑known triptychs and mosaic panels adorning the Moscow subway stations. By analyzing specific images, the author demonstrates how Korin, through painterly means, expressed the philosophy of victory.
{"title":"Pavel Korin: Everlasting Russia","authors":"N. N. Rostova","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-140-149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-140-149","url":null,"abstract":"The article is dedicated to the creative works of the renowned Russian and Soviet artist Pavel Dmitrievich Korin. The author of the article aims to show that the central concept of the artist — his “Farewell to Rus” — never saw the light of day, but still culturally endured, defining our metaphysical coordinates in post‑revolutionary Russia. Korin’s works focused on timeless meanings, the very soul of the people, rather than on localized historical episodes or related heroes. At his extreme, Korin was oriented towards the “everlasting Russia” — those fundamental foundations of our consciousness that remain unaffected by the vicissitudes of history. Drawing parallels between the ideological and aesthetic similarities between Mikhail Nesterov’s “The Soul of the People” and Pavel Korin’s “Farewell to Rus”, the author conducts their detailed analytical comparison. The author concludes that unlike Nesterov, Korin painted the tragic moment of losing the essence in its totality. In the author’s opinion, the comprehensive symbolism is equally characteristic of Korin’s well‑known triptychs and mosaic panels adorning the Moscow subway stations. By analyzing specific images, the author demonstrates how Korin, through painterly means, expressed the philosophy of victory.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":"15 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139535167","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 : 2024-01-09DOI: 10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-98-123
A. Minakov
This article is dedicated to the phenomenon of the Russian movement in the second half of the 20th century — the successors of the political programs of pre‑revolutionary conservatives and post‑revolutionary emigrant conservative thinkers that emerged in the 1960s in the USSR. In this sense, the Russian movement, mainly consisting of dissidents and having an anti‑communist orientation, is contrasted with the so‑called legal Russian party, which attempted to connect the values of pre‑revolutionary Russia with the Soviet period and see it as an organic continuation and embodiment of the former. The history and activities of the All‑Russian Society of Cultural and Historical Heritage and its members I. V. Ogurtsov, V. N. Osipov, and their self‑published journal “Veche”, as well as A.I. Solzhenitsyn and I. R. Shafarevich, are examined. The ideology of the All‑Russian Society of Cultural and Historical Heritage is analyzed, including its attitude towards revolution, economic positions, critique of Marxism‑Leninism, foundations of the desired Christian‑social corporative system, and program of Christianizing society. The key milestones in the history of the journal “Veche” and the almanac “Moscow Collection” are presented. The role of priest Dmitry Dudko in the development of the Russian movement is reviewed. Special attention in the article is given to A.I. Solzhenitsyn, whom the author considers the most influential and key figure in the Russian conservative movement of the second half of the 20th century. The ideological content of the collection “From Under the Rubble” is examined, with Solzhenitsyn and Shafarevich being the central authors. The author concludes that the organizational destruction of the Russian movement in the Soviet Union in the late 1970s and early 1980s predetermined the course of Russian history, paving the way for liberal‑Western forces preparing for the restructuring and radical reforms of the 1990s. As a result, during the critical period for the country from 1987 to 1993, the Russian movement did not produce any universally recognized leaders who could offer an alternative to the liberal course of the country. Nevertheless, the intellectual developments of the Russian movement in subsequent decades have been in demand within the conservative political camp and continue to be so to this day.
本文专门讨论 20 世纪下半叶的俄罗斯运动现象--革命前保守派和革命后移民保守派思想家政治纲领的继承者，这些思想家于 20 世纪 60 年代在苏联出现。在这个意义上，主要由持不同政见者组成、具有反共倾向的俄罗斯运动与所谓的合法俄罗斯党形成了对比，后者试图将革命前俄罗斯的价值观与苏联时期联系起来，并将其视为前者的有机延续和体现。研究了全俄文化和历史遗产协会的历史和活动及其成员 I. V. 奥古尔佐夫、V. N. 奥西波夫及其自办刊物《Veche》，以及 A. I. 索尔仁尼琴和 I. R. 沙法列维奇。分析了全俄文化和历史遗产协会的意识形态，包括其对革命的态度、经济立场、对马克思列宁主义的批判、理想的基督教-社会企业制度的基础以及基督教化社会的计划。介绍了《维切》杂志和年鉴《莫斯科文集》历史上的重要里程碑。文章回顾了德米特里-杜德科神父在俄罗斯运动发展中的作用。文章特别关注了 A.I.索尔仁尼琴，作者认为他是 20 世纪下半叶俄罗斯保守主义运动中最具影响力的关键人物。文章以索尔仁尼琴和沙法列维奇为中心，研究了《从废墟中走来》文集的思想内容。作者的结论是，20 世纪 70 年代末和 80 年代初苏联境内俄罗斯运动在组织上的毁灭预先决定了俄罗斯的历史进程，为准备在 20 世纪 90 年代进行重组和激进改革的自由西方势力铺平了道路。因此，在 1987 年至 1993 年这一国家的关键时期，俄罗斯运动并没有产生任何得到普遍认可的领导人，来替代国家的自由主义路线。尽管如此，俄罗斯运动在随后几十年中的思想发展一直受到保守派政治阵营的追捧，并延续至今。
{"title":"The Russian Movement of the 1960–1980s","authors":"A. Minakov","doi":"10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-98-123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2023-3-98-123","url":null,"abstract":"This article is dedicated to the phenomenon of the Russian movement in the second half of the 20th century — the successors of the political programs of pre‑revolutionary conservatives and post‑revolutionary emigrant conservative thinkers that emerged in the 1960s in the USSR. In this sense, the Russian movement, mainly consisting of dissidents and having an anti‑communist orientation, is contrasted with the so‑called legal Russian party, which attempted to connect the values of pre‑revolutionary Russia with the Soviet period and see it as an organic continuation and embodiment of the former. The history and activities of the All‑Russian Society of Cultural and Historical Heritage and its members I. V. Ogurtsov, V. N. Osipov, and their self‑published journal “Veche”, as well as A.I. Solzhenitsyn and I. R. Shafarevich, are examined. The ideology of the All‑Russian Society of Cultural and Historical Heritage is analyzed, including its attitude towards revolution, economic positions, critique of Marxism‑Leninism, foundations of the desired Christian‑social corporative system, and program of Christianizing society. The key milestones in the history of the journal “Veche” and the almanac “Moscow Collection” are presented. The role of priest Dmitry Dudko in the development of the Russian movement is reviewed. Special attention in the article is given to A.I. Solzhenitsyn, whom the author considers the most influential and key figure in the Russian conservative movement of the second half of the 20th century. The ideological content of the collection “From Under the Rubble” is examined, with Solzhenitsyn and Shafarevich being the central authors. The author concludes that the organizational destruction of the Russian movement in the Soviet Union in the late 1970s and early 1980s predetermined the course of Russian history, paving the way for liberal‑Western forces preparing for the restructuring and radical reforms of the 1990s. As a result, during the critical period for the country from 1987 to 1993, the Russian movement did not produce any universally recognized leaders who could offer an alternative to the liberal course of the country. Nevertheless, the intellectual developments of the Russian movement in subsequent decades have been in demand within the conservative political camp and continue to be so to this day.","PeriodicalId":512431,"journal":{"name":"Orthodoxia","volume":" 108","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139628195","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：