Словарь основных исторических понятий: Избранные статьи в 2-х т.
The author investigates a phenomenon of development of ideologies in a historical context. So the transition of the academic historiography from positivistic methodology to methodology of the linguistic analysis is considered. Linguistic analysis is presented by the theory of speech asts and history of concepts. Accordingly, ideologies appear as cognitive mechanisms and simultaneously cognitive political outlook fi lters.
This article delves into the history of classical philology and the relationship between two prominent classical philologists, one Russian and one German: Alexei Losev (1893–1988) and Bruno Snell (1896–1986). The article shows that both scholars worked at the intersection of philosophy, philology, and history of concepts, and both were interested in the history of ideas, terminology, aesthetics, and mythology and in the language of ancient Greek epics. Unlike Snell, who did not speak Russian and was unable to familiarize himself with Losev’s work on the history of ancient thought, Losev relied on Snell’s work from the mid-1920s until the very end of his life, using Snell to defend his own views on various controversial issues (e.g., reconstructing Homer’s archaic notions of the cosmos, debating the meaning of Heraclitus’ term “ethos,” or discussing the usage of the word sēmainō, and so forth). The subject of analysis is Losev’s 1962 review of the Dictionary of the Early Greek Epic (Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos), edited by B. Snell, as well as the two scholars’ correspondence in 1959–1960.
This chapter is focused on ideologically charged concepts and their changing meanings in discourses used to formulate goals and tasks of the Soviet educational politics. Such the concepts could be of pre-Revolutionary origin. For instance, a word ‘life’ as an element of the Soviet ideological phrase “convergence of school with life” (“sblizhenie shkoly s zhizn’ju”) can be traced back to the Nitzschean discourses in Russian culture of the beginning of the 20th century that had influenced pre-Revolutionary pedagogic works, like the papers by Stanislav Shatsky. During the 1920s—1970s, a number of new concepts was coined in the Soviet public sphere, and some existing concepts changed their meanings many times – or, to be more precise, there were the huge battles between the actors of Soviet educational field (in a Pierre Bourdieu’s sense of a word ‘field’) for one’s right to endow these concepts with one’s own meanings. All these processes can be studied, as we argue, with two main methods that have never previously been used for studying history of Soviet education – namely, history of concepts or 'Begriffsgeschichte' (in its versions of Cambridge school and Reinhart Koselleck) and discursive theory of hegemony by E. Laclau and Ch. Mouffe.
Present article is focused upon two samples of Early-Modern «civil sciences»: rhetorical inquiry dealing with contingency (so called «rhetorica primaria»), and mathesis politica, traditionally referring in intellectual context of the Early Enlightenment to Descartes. Special attention is paid to the famous «new sciences», which are considered in the secondary literature as antithetical: Giambattista Vico’s scienza nuova and Thomas Hobbes scientia civilis. Drawing upon almost unknown 17th century Dutch political writings, the study examines the ways of reception of Thomas Hobbes’ civil science conceived as a rhetorical inquiry. The author also explores G. Vico alternative to Hobbes’ constructionist theoretical style.
On the basis of source study of historiography and history of concepts specificity of the epistemological concept of the representative of the Russian version of neo-Kantianism V. M. Khvostov (1868-1920) is shown. Construction of the theory of history of Khvostov organically combines the theory of the historical process and the theory of historical knowledge. The author substantiates the belonging of V. M. Khvostov's concept to the non(neo)classical model of science of the Russian version of neo-Kantianism.
The duty of the patriot prince: Russian manuscript translations and monarchical discourse of the Enlightenment in the third quarter of the XVIII-th century
The article examines three translations made in the 1750s-1760-s from French into Russian. The first is François de Fenelon’s Directions pour la conscience d'un roi, which was translated by prince Mikhail Shcherbatov (1758), the second is the anonymous Pensées politiques sur les devoirs d’un roi citoyen, which was the work of an unknown translator, most likely by the order of Roman or Mikhail Vorontsov (between 1754 and 1756), and the last one is known in two copies and was done from the French translation of Idea of a Patriot King by Henry Bolingbroke (first half of the 1760s) - one of them belonged to the brothers Nikita and Pyotr Panin.
Studying the Russian translations of Western political writings allows us to reconstruct the intellectual context in which a new discourse of power emerged in the third quarter of the XVIII-century. These texts reflected the “state of mind” of the Russian ruling elite, who, under the influence of the Enlightenment ideas, demanded «freedom of the Nobility» and «moderate monarchy». Circulation of these translations in handwritten form showed a limited circle of readers for whom these books were intended. All three texts are characterized by an almost messianic expectation of a perfect monarch, who will improve the morals and manners of his subjects and return their liberties by the establishing of a true «uchrezhdenie» (constitution). The Russian educated nobility had a common way of thinking and it was very similar to the political conceptions of the Western European elite, which actively produced in the Age of Enlightenment an updated monarchical discourse, at the centre of which was the idea of the «king - citizen/patriot», who dedicated himself to society’s good. At the same time, the “common good” in this conception always coincided with the basic interests of the ruling elite.