This paper outlines the most essential aspects of Machiavelli’s religious concept and analyzes the key interpretations of it. The major ones are republicanism and straussianism. Republicanism emerged during the Enlightenment, while straussianism was developed only in the middle of XX century. Nevertheless, it should be noticed that both interpretations have origins in the Enlightenment because Leo Strauss practically renovate Machiavelli’s philosophy criticism of this time. Republicanism declares that Machiavelli is “a founder of republican humanism language”, who laid the foundations of the modern republican discourse. On the contrary, straussians blame Machiavelli for anti-religiousness and amorality, stating that Machiavelli’s philosophy became indirect cause of all modern political problem. Both research traditions try to analyze Machiavelli’s religious thought. Recently republicanism became more influential then straussianism due to works of Maurizio Viroli «Machiavelli» (1998) and «Machiavelli’s God» (2010), where he undermines the foundation of straussianism. In this paper the Viroli’s interpretation will be considered and we will try to understand, which interpretation is more developed.
Wendy HELLEMAN. Solovyov's Sophia as a Nineteenth-Century Russian Appropriation of Dante's Beatrice. Lewiston, The Edwin Mellen Press, 2010, 403
Recently founded out in the archive of G. Bataille manuscript of Alexandre Kojève “Sophia, Philo-sophia, Phenomenology” is only partly deciphered. In the Introduction to manuscript’s § 3 publication we examine the circumstances of time and place of its writing; the content of the manuscript is compared with other works of Kojève of this period (1930-1950), when his exposition of Hegel evidently contained a trace of Marxist interpretation.
The article attempts to reflect on the revolution and the fate of Russia by the Russian intelligentsia in the collection “De profundis” (1918); it reconstructs the borderline mental situation of the Russian thought of that time – the breakdown experienced by the intellectuals, the state of intellectual hysteria. The authors of the collection send their accusations to two addresses – “mass”, “Russian people”, its “lack of culture”, “wildness”, etc. and the “rotten” Russian intelligentsia, who seduced the people, cut them off from Orthodoxy and honoring the fatherland. The question is raised whether the authors of the collection themselves realize the destructive nature of such criticism. An attempt of S.N. Bulgakov to find reconciliation of the dispute between the six “talking heads” and the words about the resurrection of Christ does not give confidence in the salvation of Russia. The author of article shows that the S.L. Frank’s accusations addressed to the people who replaced the “idea of socialism” with a “personal material interest” is doubtful. The diagnosis of the “spirits of the revolution”, extracted by Berdyaev from the works of Russian writers, is of interest from a literary and philosophical point of view, but it does not give a recipe for saving Russia. The problem, as it seems to the author of article, is in the absence of analytics and intellectual consensus regarding the events under discussion. In another, program key, as the author shows, is written the article by P.B. Struve, who offered an alternative to the transformation of a collapsed empire for building Russia as a nation. However, his departure to emigration at the end of 1918 turned this program into an illusion. The author of article discovers that the tasks set by Struve are still in demand today by the Russian authorities, and she concludes that Russian history is slowly moving.
The A.A. Kara-Murza’s article «Russian Northernship» of the Princes Vyazemsky (to the Question of National Identity) explores the little-studied question of the role of the princes Vyazemsky in the creation of the concept of «Russian Northernship» – a rich «identification matrix», which played a big role in the philosophical and ideological polemics of the 18th and the first third of 19th centuries and pushed back into the distance in the middle of the 19th century, with the beginning of the «classical» Russian dispute between «Westerners» and «Slavophiles». According to the author of the article, the main ideological inspirer of the rurikoviches Vyazemsky was N.M. Karamzin, who lived and worked in Vyazemsky’s «family nests» in Moscow and Ostafievo, and whose «History Of the Russian State» is a classical text of the «Russian Northernship».