The paper analyzes the conception of neoeternalism proposed by Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. This conception played an important role in the discussion about the nature of the divine eternality in the second half of the 20th century. Neoeternalism criticizes the conception of temporalism dominant at the time and largely determines vectors of further discussion of the concept. After a brief review of the context in which neoeternalism is emerged and discussion of the key points of the conception, the author seeks to determine, firstly, whether it is possible to talk about Stump and Kretzmann text ‘Eternity’ as a modern classics, and, secondly, to trace the role of reviews in the process of making it classics.
The article deals with an analysis of the concept of 1812 people’s war as created by the government and political conservatives. The government represented by A.S. Shishkov, secretary of state, and F. Rostopchin, governor of Moscow, wanted to regard the war against Napoleon as the people’s war but was at the same time afraid of possible riots. Ideologically, the consept of the people’s war was also used to justify the serfdom
This article studies the role of journal reviews in the professionalization of the humanities in Russia during the imperial period. Reviews from The Journal of the Ministry of National Education were chosen as sources, as this was the leading scholarly publication in Russia during the second half of the nineteenth century, publishing works on philology, history, philosophy, Eastern studies, and pedagogy. The author uncovers the fundamental criteria used by scholars to evaluate the work of their colleagues: objectivity in judgments, persuasiveness of critical conclusions, confirmation of original hypotheses with quotations from sources, bibliographical comprehensiveness, and so forth. The author concludes that Russian academic society of the nineteenth century saw journal reviews not as a formalized, secondary genre (as they are seen today), but as an effective mechanism for enhancing the quality of scholarly research.
The study, focusing on published and unpublished sources concerning the festivities of 50th anniversary of Ivan Krylov (1838), examines the interference of several problematic fields. The first is the evolution of self-imagining of the literary community in Russia, the institutionalization and professionalization of the Russian literature; the second – the shaping of the Russian jubilee culture set against the background of the culture of mass festivities, ceremonies and practices of commemoration; the third – the struggle of bureaucrats of the highest rank (A. Benkendorf, the chief of the III Department of the Imperial Chancellery, and S. Uvarov, the Minister of the Education), as well as groups of the writers, for the priority in inventing the idea of the first literary jubilee.
The article shows that the all but common assumption that the collection was edited by Vassili Joukovski is wrong, and gives the name of the true editor — Count Nikolai Kugushev.
A review of the 25 years of Michael Gorham's analysis and critics of the Russian political discourse from 1920s thru 2010s.
Konstantin A. Bogdanov attempts to account for the reasons behind Lev Tolstoy’s critical response to the experiments of Louis Pasteur, who proposed a method for treating rabies with the aid of vaccination. Tolstoy’s logic consisted of the following: Pasteur and his adherents were seeking to subject the “supernatural” conventionalism of reality to a rational ordering. But for Tolstoy this order was nothing more than a synonym for human presumption. Tolstoy evaluated Pasteur’s activities on a moral level, rather than a medical one — under the headings of ethical freedom and the complexity and non-obviousness of causal connections (including the connection between an animal bite and the appearance of an illness), as well as nonresistance to the inevitability of death and a refusal to commit an evil act, even if that evil turns out to be the murder of a rabid dog.
Eighteenth-century Russia knew not only physical death sentences, but also various ways of socially and personally destroying a condemned individual, including public dishonoring, branding, loss of status, political punishment, and so forth. During the period of Elizaveta Petrovna’s rule, so-called political death, or being put on the block, was forbidden insofar as it was a practical imitation of a death sentence and so evidently contradicted the Empress’s promise not to enact this type of punishment. Under Catherine II the term political death was gradually changed to civil execution and applied exclusively to representatives of the nobility. But despite all the nuances of applying punishments that “injured one’s honor,” they possessed a common quality: the state strove to defend itself by means of depriving what it understood to be the contents of a person’s dignity.