Vl.S. Solovyov and the Holy See Explication of the Idea of Christian Unity at the end of the 19th Century
For the Russian Empire, the Catholic question was one of the most important domestic issues. It had to do with the building of relations with the western borderlands, primarily with Poland, in which the Catholic clergy was the driving force of the struggle for independence. In this context, in the second half of the 19th century, the Government of the Russian Empire considered maintaining a dialog with the Holy See as a way to preserve stability in the western borderlands of the Empire. For Alexander III, it was also a symbolic act illustrating Russia’s course for demonstrating continuity with the Christian emperors of the Roman Empire. This was meant to emphasize Russia’s special position in Europe. The image of Russia as a Christian empire committed to preserving traditional values was contrasted with the image of the liberal-egalitarian Western Europe, which was swept by revolutionary sentiments during this period. A unique historical source on the foreign policy of the Vatican in Eastern Europe in the second half of the 19th century and relations between the Holy See and Russia is the correspondence of Pope Leo XIII and Russian Emperor Alexander III. From 1881 to 1894, Pope Leo XIII sent about ten official letters and to each of them received an official response from the Emperor.
. For the Russian Empire, the Catholic question was one of the most important domestic issues throughout the 19th century; it was the question of building relations with its western regions, primarily with Poland, in which the Catholic clergy was the driving force of the struggle for political independence of the country. In this context, in the second half of the 19th century the Government of the Russian Empire considered maintaining a dialogue with the Holy See as a way to preserve stability in the Western regions of the Empire. Also, for Alexander III, this was a symbolic act illustrating Russia's course on demonstrating continuity with the Christian emperors of the Roman Empire. This should emphasize the special position and role of Russia in Europe. The image of Russia as a Christian empire, its course on the preservation of traditional values was contrasted with the image of the liberalegalitarian Western Europe, which was seized by revolutionary sentiments during this period. A unique historical source on the foreign policy of the Vatican in Eastern Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century and the Holy See-Russian relations is the correspondence of Pope Leo XIII and Russian Emperor Alexander III. From 1881 to 1894, Pope Leo XIII sent about ten official letters and to each of them received an official response from the Emperor. The main materials reporting the history of relations supported by Leo XIII with Alexander III, as well as with Grand Prince Vladimir Alexandrovich Romanov, are kept in the Apostolic Vatican Archive (sections “Spoglio Leone XIII” and “Segr. Stato: parte moderna”), the Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari fund, the Russian Empire Foreign Policy Archive (funds Vatican and Chancery), Russian State Historical Archive.
The paper examines E.N. Trubetskoy’s reception of Vl.S. Solovyov’s theocratic project.In addition, the author establishes the points of convergence and divergence of the twoRussian religious thinkers on the nature and the possible ways of Christian unity. The twophilosophers were close friends and in his texts devoted to Solovyov Trubetskoy repeat-edly emphasized the influence of his friend’s ideas on his own philosophical construc-tions. Nevertheless, Trubetskoy took those ideas critically. To prepare his answer toSolovyov’s arguments Trubetskoy need the years between the time of his master’s thesis“The world outlook of Saint Augustine” until the time of his doctoral dissertation.“Theworld outlook of Vl.S. Solovyov” became one of his fundamental works. Itis inthiswork that Trubetskoy’s key arguments against Solovyov’s “free theocracy” project arepresented. The author shows that despite adopting Solovyov’s views on Christian unityTrubetskoy did not accept the ways by which Solovyov proposed to achieve it. Trubet-skoy argues with the Solovyov of the 1880s, contrasting Solovyov’s ideas of that periodwith his later ideas and emphasizing that Solovyov’s key work on the topic was “War,Progress and the End of World History, Including a Short Tale of the Antichrist”. The pa-per also emphasizes that theocracy becomes one of the principal topics for Trubetskoy.Inthe process of analyzing Solovyov’s project of a “free theocracy” and studying the his-torical context in which the theocratic idea had been formed in the Western tradition Tru-betskoy formulates his principled views on the relationship between the church and thestate and justifies the need for their separation
The prospects of various interdisciplinary researches, the problem of the unity of scientific knowledge, the possibility of translating methods from one discipline to another, the impact of digitalization on various fields of scientific knowledge, the acceptability of general approaches to science management, in particular, to the evaluation of scientific productivity are debated in the discussion on the limits of methodological convergence of natural-scientific and social-humanitarian knowledge. The debaters Н.N. Knyazeva, G.L. Tulchinsky, V.G. Kuznetsov and N.M. Smirnova comment on each other’s positions, point out the strengths and weaknesses in proponents’ justification, agree on a number of issues, and indicate the main theses and arguments for each position, groping for prospects for further development of the discussed issues.
Within a brief historical period, BRICS as an inter-State association has become an influential player in the world economy and politics. BRICS is a primarily political entity, and in that regard, the BRICS grouping correlates with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). However, not all the expectations placed on the SCO by the founding countries at the time of its creation in 2001 have been met so far. The question is to what extent expectations may be fulfilled in case of BRICS.
The article identifies the effect of personalization of politics: its definition is given, the determinants and possible consequences are considered. That effect is illustrated by some features in the Asian and European style of modern political leadership.