The article examines the specific features of O.E. Mandelstam’s artistic and philosophical thought, the intellectual style of his poetry. For Mandelstam, poetry is a special form of man’s existence in the axiological horizon of culture, a form that becomes the content and task of creative work, including its civic resonance. The philosophical reinterpretation of Mandelstam’s legacy that the author proposes is linked to an understanding of his artistic work as a special form of spiritual experience, as an event in being, through which a verbal statement turns into an ideal artistic model of the world, that is, into a poetic work. Poetic consciousness has its being in the word, which is existentially colored and ethically intensive. The search for a whole, for a profound harmony, drives the poet’s intuitions and determines his means of perceiving and artistically representing thought-images.
Between East and West: Russian Identity in the Émigré Writings of Ilya Fondaminsky and Semyon Portugeis
Chernyshevsky and Dostoevsky: Together in Opposition
We believe that Russian religious philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has great importance for Christian theology and philosophy. Russian thinkers, rooted in the tradition of the Church Fathers, strove for an integral knowledge of reality, based on the unity of faith and reason. Such philosophers and theologians as Peter Chaadaev, Alexei Khomiakov, Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii Trubetskoi, Pavel Florensky, Sergei Bulgakov, Nikolai Berdyaev, Semyon Frank, Georges Florovsky, and Aleksei Losev had penetrating insight into the nature of reality and thought deeply about religion and culture, science and philosophy, and history and society. Their legacy deserves a prominent place in contemporary philosophical and theological discussions. The series Ex Oriente Lux aims to meet this need. It serves as a way to bring Eastern Christian intuitions into the current post-secular philosophical and theological context. Each volume focuses on one Russian thinker and includes a selection of essays on the thinker’s main ideas in historical and contemporary contexts. The books are prepared by Western and Russian scholars, thus creating a space for intellectual dialogue. The series comes out of research connected with the annual conferences on Russian religious philosophy held in Krakow, Poland. The “Krakow Meetings” are organized jointly by the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow and the Edith Stein Institute of Philosophy in Granada, Spain.
This article analyzes the artistic experience of Osip E. Mandelstam (1891–1938) in the context of the aesthetic and ideological transformations of Russian and European culture during the first half of the twentieth century and of the philosophical inquiries of that period. Overcoming the programmatic multitudes of modernist aesthetics, Mandelstam draws his own artistic ideas and images from those aesthetics while also opposing postclassical culture in the form of the artistic avant-garde. Relying on his own poetic and intellectual intuition, which he explicated and formalized theoretically in his essays and works of criticism, he asserts an authorly, reflective style of modern poetry that anticipated the post-nonclassical artistic culture characteristic of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
This article examines the problem of cultural–civilizational self-identification in the early philosophical–poetic works of Osip Emil’evich Mandelstam (1891–1938). The author argues that Mandelstam as a poet was shaped by the literary traditions of “Russian northernness,” which begins with Gavriil Derzhavin and Prince Pyotr Viazemskii. Mandelstam was a direct literary disciple of the Russian Symbolist poet of Swedish origins I. I. Oreus (under the literary pseudonym “Ivan Konevskoi”), who also greatly influenced the work of Aleksandr Blok, Valery Bryusov, and the early Boris Pasternak. The author of this article believes that after the revolution, when “northerner-Petersburg” Russia acquired a Bolshevik appearance, a radical shift began in Mandelstam’s self-consciousness, leading to his attempt to form a new personal self-identification as a man of the cultural “South” who tragically found himself in the barbaric “North.”
Semyon Frank (1877–1950) opposed the Neo-Kantian School and admitted the real existence of the objects of cognition. He treated ontologism as essential to the entire movement of Russian religious philosophy. For Frank, one can only know about something thanks to the absolute, which exists prior to the knowing subject. Ontologism, affirming the priority of being over cognition, has a great significance not only for metaphysics and epistemology, but also for the philosophy of religion. In particular, Frank taught that the most privileged mode of cognition of God is intuition, an immediate experience of God or faith (the so-called living knowledge). Intuition is at the heart of the ontological proof, which can be found in St. Anselm, Descartes, and Frank himself. Frank dedicated a number of articles to this topic: “K istorii ontologicheskogo dokazatel’stva” (“On the History of the Ontological Proof,” 1915), “Ontologicheskoe dokazatel’stvo bytiya Boga” (“Ontological Proof of the Existence of God,” 1930), as well as texts recently discovered at the Bakhmeteff Archive, including “Dokazatel’stvo bytiya Boga” (“Proof of the Existence of God”). In this way, Russian ontologism leads to a new interpretation of the traditional ontological proof, one which acknowledges the existence of God, not on the basis of arguments resting on His definition, but on the basis of the intuitive recognition of His being
"Shakespeare est toujours vivant": objectifs et mécanismes de la formation du culte de la littérature "classique" en URSS dans les années 1930
В статье рассматривается прагматика консенсуса в творчестве Яна Амоса Коменского. В первой части «Порядок круга» сравниваются три изобразительные работы Коменского из раннего романа «Лабиринт мира», школьного учебника «Видимый мир в картинках» и теоретической работы «Общая триада». Знаменитый рисунок «Лабиринта мира» изображает запутанный городской пейзаж в замкнутом круге и символизирует хаотичную жизнь человека после падения и вавилонской путаницы языков. Дидактическая эмблема к «Видимому миру в картинках» показывает мир в гармонии с Божьей волей. Абстрактная схема в «Общей триаде» визуализирует связи между вещами (res), мыслями (mens), языком (lingua) и рукой (manus). Они образуют стабильный и универсальный порядок, в котором мысли, язык и действие взаимосвязаны в триадическом отношении. Особенно рисунок лабиринта и схема в теоретической работе «Общая триада» выстраивают контраст между хаосом и порядком. Во второй части «Прагматика консенсуса» показано, что, по мнению Коменского, цель и долг философа и педагога — излечить нездоровую реальность общения. Это должно быть сделано на основе нормативных правил гармоничного и эффективного общения. Эти правила разработаны Коменским в его знаменитой «Общей консультации по улучшению всего человеческого».
The Problem of Posthumous Existence from Plato to Dostoyevsky: “Bobok,” a Short Story by Dostoyevsky
This chapter does not claim to be an exhaustive approach to the subject, its purpose to highlight some philosophical, anthropological, and theological dimensions of the icon as a work of art of God-human nature. Such context presupposes three perspectives: (1) ontological and theological, conveying the internal structure of the icon, (2) revealing the process of painting, (3) the perspective of perception of the cult work of art, its interpretation and veneration. In all three perspectives, the icon appears as a product of cooperation, that is, the synergy of God and man
The author of the article appeals to the book written by Y. E. Golosovker “Dostoevsky and Kant”. Answering the question “how did Dostoevsky read Kant”, Golosovker undertakes a number of original and debatable intellectual moves based on the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” and “The Critique of Pure Reason”. He develops a personalized philosophy and offers a special understanding of antinomianism. Solving the “secret of the author” (Dostoevsky), Golosovker creates his own “author's book”. In the book he encrypts his own philosophical project, never directly referring to it. The task of the article is to decipher the “author's book”, such work has not yet been undertaken in the research literature. The central theme in the interpretation is the confrontation between imaginatio and ratio, which received its conceptualization in the project of imaginative philosophy. The attitude to the schematized, abstract image of Kant is considered separately. The theme of the confrontation between philosophy-as-art and philosophy-as-science leads to the problem of the philosophy’s fate and sounds relevant in the modern intellectual space. The article stresses that the legacy of Golosovker has not yet found its place in the history of Russian philosophy. The author shows not only the inclusion of Golosovker in the Russian intellectual tradition, but also his difference from “Russian religious metaphysics”. The article is prepared as a part of the ongoing study on the reconstruction and conceptualization of the philosophical heritage of Golosovker.
The article examines the personal and scholarly relationship between two prominent twentieth-century thinkers: Russian theologian and the founder of Neopatristic synthesis, George Florovsky and Polish scholar Andrzej Walicki. On the basis of Walicki’s memoirs and the epistolary heritage of both philosophers, it has been established that they first met in 1960 at Harvard. Florovsky had a significant influence on the young Polish scholar’s interpretation of Slavophilism. At the same time, Walicki interpreted Russian philosophy as a part of European philosophy, while Fr. George, although criticized Western influences in Russian thought, sought to indicate its originality appealing to the Fathers of the Church and the development of a Neopatristic synthesis. Other aspects of both thinkers are noted in the article: their studies in historiosophy and their emphasis on indeterminism in history, and the fact that both Florovsky and Walicki were apologists for Russian culture in the Western academic world. This article is an introduction to the publication of two letters from Walicki to Florovsky stored at the archives of Princeton University: they were sent in 1965 and deal with the exchange of ideas and books between the two scholars.
The article substantiates the idea that the ideas of W. von Humboldt had a significant impact on the formation of the thematic priorities of the Russian philosophical, scientific and humanitarian thought of the 20th century. In all spheres, one way or another concerning the nature of language and art, his reasoning turned out to be strikingly relevant and consonant with the intellectual searches of Russian philosophers of the last century. Thus, his concept of the internal form of language becomes a locus communis in their scholarly communication. In this article, the author outlines the themes that make it possible to reveal the artistic-aesthetic, hermeneutic, and epistemological significance of the intellectual continuity that goes from Humboldt to Russian thinkers. In the works of G.G. Shpet, P.A. Florensky, S.N. Bulgakov, and other philosophers of the first half of the twentieth century, dealing with the problems of language and the Word as unique humanitarian objects, one way or another, there is a connection with Humboldt’s reflections on art and language. It is noteworthy that in the second half of the twentieth century, the interest of Russian philosophers in the work of Humboldt did not weaken. This, in particular, is evidenced by the works of the representative of the philosophy of the Russian diaspora V.V. Weidle, in which the methodological transfer of Humboldt’s ideas from the linguistic sphere to the artistic-aesthetic and theoretical-cognitive tradition of Russian philosophy is effected.
The article Ideology vs. Poetics: Сommentaries on the Anniversary Edition of Goethe’s Works (1932–1949) examines the instrumentalization of literature in Soviet ideology during the Stalin era. It considers the (im)possibility for humanities scholars in the 1930-s to maintain the balance between poetics and ideology while working with classical material, in particular, to interpret Goethe’s works on the edge between Marxism and bourgeois literary studies, between Engels and Gundolf. The Anniversary Edition of Goethe’s Works, scheduled for the 100th anniversary of the author’s death, illustrates the structure and composition of commentaries in academic publications of foreign classical writer’s collected works, developed by the curator of the project, A.G. Gabritchevsky. His main idea was based on three components: a conceptual commenting introduction, “factographic” notes, and commentaries explaining the principles of translation.
This article makes public the archive correspondence between S. L. Frank and Father Clement Lialine, a monk from the Catholic monastery Amay-Chevetogne. The preface to the publication traces the history of S. L. Frank’s relations with Clement Lialine which is reflected in their correspondence of 1937–1948. The topics discussed in the letters concern the involvement of S. L. Frank in his cooperation with the journal Irénikon, his unrealised plans of lecture trips to Belgium, as well as the edition of English anthology of V.S. Soloviev’s works by S. L. Frank’s and his research into the issue of the supposed conversion of V. S. Soloviev to Catholicism. Of particular interest is S. L. Frank’s and Fr. Clement’s position of Christian universalism expressed in the letters, i. e. the desire to consider both Orthodoxy and Catholicism not as two different denominations, but as two cultural-historical branches of the “universal” church, which should stand together in “brotherhood”. Also of interest is response from the Greek Catholic priest Cyril Korolevsky (received to the inquiry of Lialine) concerning the canon regulations of joining the Catholic Church by the Orthodox. The foreword also shows the role of the Benedictine monastery of Amay-Chevetogne and the journal Irénikon as an ecumenical center of Catholicism, including the links of the journal with Russian émigré philosophers. We also present a bibliography of the articles and reviews of S. L. Frank’s works printed in the journal Irénikon. The published correspondence allows one to supplement the knowledge about the church-related position of S. L. Frank, his attitude to Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism as the three “fraternal” branches of the “united” Christian faith, as well as the specific participation of Russian philosophers in the development of ecumenical dialogue in the mid20th century.