Papers by Andrey Korenevskiy
Historical Courier, 2024
The role of A.J. Toynbee in exposing the mass extermination of the Armenian population by the Ott... more The role of A.J. Toynbee in exposing the mass extermination of the Armenian population by the Ottoman troops and paramilitaries during the First World War is relatively well described in the contemporary historiography. It is generally recognized that it was he who collected and analyzed the basic data for Lord J. Bryce’s famous speech in the House of Lords on October 6, 1915 and so-called “Blue Book” published later. Much less attention was paid to Toynbee’s personal motives and the circumstances that led to his active participation in this campaign, as well as its direct and indirect consequences – both personally for Toynbee and in terms of forming moral and legal assessments of crimes against humanity. In particular, historians have not fully explained the fact that shortly after the First World War and under the impression of what he saw during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919−1922, Toynbee took a consistent pro-Turkish position, at bottom placing all responsibility for ethnic cleansing on the Greek side and keeping silent about such excesses of the Kemalists. Also, contemporary “Toynbee studies” don’t give a convincing explanation for the fact that later the historian not only didn’t abandon this interpretation in his memoirs, but, moreover, transferred the apology of the Turkish side to the events of 1915−1916, disavowing his previous assessments and recognizing the mistake of participating
in the Bryce’s investigation, since it was not objective and was dictated solely by propaganda purposes. The paper’s author attempts, based on a comprehensive analysis of ego documents and other sources, to identify the cause-and-effect relationships between these two pages of Toynbee’s biography, analyzing the motives and circumstances that prompted him to participate in the investigation of Lord J. Bryce, as well as a set of reasons that led to the subsequent revision of assessments of the events of 1915−1916.
ialog with Time, 2011
The article is based on the analysis of original sources (such as ‘On the sign of Cross’, ‘Agains... more The article is based on the analysis of original sources (such as ‘On the sign of Cross’, ‘Against astrologers and Latins’, ‘The story of the siege of Pskov’, ‘The Life of Nikandr of Pskov’). The author reconstructs the biography of Philophey (the 16th сentury), the creator of ‘Moscow the Third Rome’ theory. It is demonstrated that the information of the sources is not contradictory (both in logic and chronology), but complimentary. It helps to fill in the gapes in our knowledge on Philopley.
Новое прошлое, Dec 27, 2021
The article is devoted to the review of the international conference Mythology of Russian Moderni... more The article is devoted to the review of the international conference Mythology of Russian Modernization, held at the Institute of History and International Relations of the Southern Federal University on October 19–20, 2021. The choice of the conference theme is due to the active reproduction of mythologized notions of modernization not only in public spaces but also in historiography. The conference participants considered their task as identifying and deconstructing the mythologems in narratives on Russian modernization, with the aim of a clearer comprehension of the causes and essence of this historical process, the views and goals of its main actors, the nature and forms of society’s response to modernization projects and changes in the socio-economic, political and cultural spheres. The conference was arranged as the sequence of the plenary session and six panels: “A myth of origins — origins of myth”, “Modernizing Russia in search of identity”, “The State as the demiurge of Russian modernization”, “Russian modernization in the mirror of social myth”, “The railway as the idol and bugaboo of modernization”. During the final discussion, the conference participants highly appreciated the scientific relevance of the reports and the content of their discussion and spoke in favor of continuing research on this issue in the format of an international network project.
![Research paper thumbnail of Теория «Москва — Третий Рим»: Тексты и контексты [The Theory of Moscow as the Third Rome: Texts and Contexts]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/113482287/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, 2023
The theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, defined five centuries ago by the monk of the Pskov Eleaz... more The theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, defined five centuries ago by the monk of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery Filofei, is considered as one of the most identifiable literary images of Russian history. At the same time, there is an incredible dispersion of appraisals and opinions in its perception and comprehension — both among professional historians, philologists and philosophers, and in public discourse. This concept has been seen and continues to be seen at various epochs and up to the present day as the key to guess a riddle of the Russian national character and the embodiment of Russia’s age-old hostility towards the West, a mystical epiphany about its soteriological mission and the doctrine of the world domination of the emerging empire. Some scholars consider the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome to be a kind of quintessence of «Russianness», others — a reflection of common Christian and pan-European ideological trends; some investigators look at Filofei as a brilliant thinker-innovator, others completely deny him any creative singularity. On this basis, we have invited experts in the history of Russian political thought to answer the following questions: how unique is the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, and is it exclusively a fruit of the Russian medieval intellectual environment, to what extent can monk Filofei be considered the author of the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, what is the fundamental novelty of his concept does it mean that Filofei’s theory did not receive a response among his contemporaries, and if so, why, what are the similarities and differences in its understanding by Filofei himself and people of those epochs when receptions of this idea were undertaken — in at the end of the 16th and 17th centuries, in the 19th century, in contemporary times, and etc.
![Research paper thumbnail of Византия и Третий Рим как историософские метапозиции [Byzantium and the Third Rome as the Historiosophical Metapositions]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/112735808/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Tne New Past, 2023
The article is devoted to the consideration and comparative analysis of two key ideologems of Rus... more The article is devoted to the consideration and comparative analysis of two key ideologems of Russian religious and political thought — the “Byzantine heritage” and the “Third Rome” — via three temporal snapshot: Middle Ages, the 19th century and present day. It is shown that the domestic specificity of such a global trend as “medievalism”, which is understood as the actualization of medieval narratives, ideas and images, is connected, firstly, with the predominant interest in the topic of continuity between Russia and Byzantium, and secondly, partly repeats a similar surge of public interest in the Byzantine heritage (“Byzantism”) in the 19th century. The author focuses on two texts that echo each other, embodying the highest achievements of the Russian intellectual tradition of the Middle Ages and the 19th century as “golden age of Russian literature and thought”: on the one hand, the theory formulated by the Pskov monk Filofei “Moscow, the Third Rome” (1523), which was the result of the centuries-old evolution of the idea of the “Byzantine heritage”, on the other hand, V.S. Solovyov’s essay “Byzantism and Russia” (1896), the semantic core of which is the interpretation of Filofei’s theory. The subject of an idiosyncratic dialogue through time between two thinkers is a reflection on the mission of the Third Rome as a historical edification that Russia should extract from the fate of Rome and Byzantium. At the same time, both of these texts reflect the path of the formation of the historiosophical tradition twice traversed by Russian thought as a peculiar way of comprehending history in its inseparability from eschatology and soterilogy through a paradoxical combination of immersion in it and at the same time contemplating history in a metaposition toward it.
Исторические этюды. Вып. 1., 1993
![Research paper thumbnail of РОССИЙСКАЯ ИМПЕРИЯ ПОСЛЕ МИРОВОЙ ВОЙНЫ: НЕСБЫВШИЙСЯ ПРОГНОЗ? [RUSSIAN EMPIRE AFTER THE WORLD WAR: AN UNFULFILLED FORECAST]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/107310986/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Исторический курьер , 2023
There were at least three fronts between the opposing blocs at the First World War: besides the l... more There were at least three fronts between the opposing blocs at the First World War: besides the line of military confrontation, ideology and analytics became battlefields. The British think-tank, known as Wellington House, demonstrated the greatest effectiveness on these fronts. One of the most detailed projects of the postwar settlement was created within these walls at the height of the war-A.J. Toynbee's book "Nationality and the War". Almost a third of this text is devoted to Russia and its prospects in the postwar world. According to the concept put forward by him, the only chance of preserving the integrity of Russia would be its federalization-partial delegation of functions to local authorities in inverse proportion to how each governorate or region is integrated into the body of the empire. In the center, where the degree of mutual dependence of several territories is extremely high, a significant expansion of autonomy is problematic, whereas in some peripheral regions it is quite possible. Thus, each territory can be sovereign to the extent that it is economically self-sufficient and what is the maturity of the national consciousness of its population. These suggestions were not useful to the Russian Empire, which did not live through the Great War, but in the very principle of reformatting the imperial space described by Toynbee, there is some similarity with the key idea underlying the state structure of the Soviet Union. Is this consonance accidental, or could Toynbee's concept somehow-directly or indirectly-influence the Soviet project of reintegration of the post-imperial space? This paper is an attempt to answer this question.
Идеал общественного устройства в истории отечественной мысли, 1994
Гражданская война в России: проблемы выхода, исторические последствия, уроки для современности, 2022
The article is devoted to the inquiry of A.J. Toynbee's views on the significance of the Russian ... more The article is devoted to the inquiry of A.J. Toynbee's views on the significance of the Russian Revolution and the Civil War appeared in his analytical texts and correspondence during his work in the of Political Intelligence Department at the Foreign Office, and – from 1919 – at the British Institute of International Relations. The author comes to the conclusion that it was the Russian Revolution and the Civil War, along with the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922, that became the main points on the Toynbee’s way to the blueprint of civilizational theory.
Moskva – Třetí Řím. Od ideje k symbol / Pavel Boček a kolektiv. [Moscow the Third Rome. From the Idea to the Image / Pavel Boček and collective of authors]. , 2019
The paper aims to consideration of the genesis and evolution of the main ideological trends of Ru... more The paper aims to consideration of the genesis and evolution of the main ideological trends of Russian medieval religious-political mind: the concepts of New Jerusalem, New Israel and Holy Russia, which go back to the doctrine of the “God-chosen new peoples” by Hilarion of Kiev, as well as various versions of the idea of "Byzantine heritage", reflected in the ideas of Moscow as the New City of Constantine and the Third Rome, the legends of the gifts of Monomakh, the legacy of Augustus and the origin of the Novgorodian White Cowl. The author explores the complex processes of interaction, interaction and transformation of verbal, visual and performative forms of expression of these ideas.
Память в Сети: цифровой поворот в memory studies / Memory at the Net: a Digital Turn in Memory Studies, 2023
Статья посвящена трансформациям идеи «византийского наследия»
в эпоху интернета. Предпринята попы... more Статья посвящена трансформациям идеи «византийского наследия»
в эпоху интернета. Предпринята попытка проанализировать генезис неовизантийского дискурса в Рунете и его роль в консолидации консервативного лагеря в современной России. В центре внимания автора — наиболее резонансные публикации сторонников этого идейного течения и их оппонентов. Особое внимание уделено
рецепции классических текстов русской общественной мысли XIX в., возникших в русле полемики между «западниками» и адептами идеи особого пути России как правопреемницы Византии. Автор приходит к выводу, что широко распространенное в современной литературе в области memory studies представление о революционизирующей роли цифровой среды, порождающей «новую экологию памяти»,
подтверждается лишь отчасти. Результаты предпринятого анализа позволяют сделать вывод о том, что возникновение «Всемирной паутины» и цифровых социальных медиа существенно повлияло на механизмы и формы генерирования и трансляции идей, а также способы рекрутинга их адептов. При этом подтверждается наблюдение западных исследователей медиасферы о более эффективном использовании цифровой среды представителями консервативного лагеря, чем их оппонентами. Однако в содержательном плане в преобладающей части современных деклараций неовизантизма, равно как и в публикациях противоположной направленности, обнаруживается не столь уж много отличий от классических текстов русских философов и публицистов XIX в. Автор рассматривает данную статью как приглашение к дискуссии и дальнейшему исследованию темы «цифрового неовизантизма» с применением количественных и качественных методов текстологии и герменевтики.
Теория «Москва – Третий Рим» в словесных и визуальных образах. Легенды и реальность, 2022
The paper aims to consideration of the genesis and evolution of the main ideological trends of Ru... more The paper aims to consideration of the genesis and evolution of the main ideological trends of Russian medieval religious-political mind: the concepts of New Jerusalem, New Israel and Holy Russia, which go back to the doctrine of the “God-chosen new peoples” by Hilarion of Kiev, as well as various versions of the idea of "Byzantine heritage", reflected in the ideas of Moscow as the New City of Constantine and the Third Rome, the legends of the gifts of Monomakh, the legacy of Augustus and the origin of the Novgorodian White Cowl. The author explores the complex processes of interaction, interaction and transformation of verbal, visual and performative forms of expression of these ideas.
Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, 2022
The Byzantine Empire has existed longer than all the empires that were on Earth — more than 1000 ... more The Byzantine Empire has existed longer than all the empires that were on Earth — more than 1000 years. She created the «Byzantine Commonwealth» of countries (D. D. Obolensky’s term), stretching from the South Baltic to the Mediterranean and from the Adriatic Sea to the Caucasus Mountains. The Commonwealth countries had religious and cultural unity, a close political culture and a similar tragic fate. All of them fell victim to foreign conquest, from the Mongols to the Ottomans, and with great difficulty, centuries later, regained their sovereignty. With the death of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, its historical role did not stop. Byzantium remained a relevant historical actor for a long time, as an ideal and as a symbol, as a heritage and as a hope for the revival of its former greatness. It is not for nothing that the ideas of «lasting Rome», «New Constantinople», etc., were so popular. According to the Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga, the time of «Byzantium after Byzantium» has come, which continues to this day. In the article, historians, specialists in the history of Byzantium, consider the following questions: 1) What is «Byzantium after Byzantium»? Is it an symbolic image, is it a historical memory of a bygone empire, is it a political, spiritual, cultural ideal? Or is it a fictitious concept, Byzantium died in 1453? 2) How long did «Byzantium after Byzantium» exist? What is the chronological depth of Byzantine influence in the Balkans, in Eastern Europe? 3) There is a point of view about the «unfavorable heritage» of Byzantium — all countries belonging to the «Byzantine Commonwealth» have a difficult historical fate. Is this a fatal coincidence, or the negative influence of the «Byzantine heritage»? 4) Did Byzantium have a successor (cultural, political, spiritual)? To what extent can they consider Russia, the Balkan states?
Византийская империя существовала дольше всех бывших на Земле империй-более 1000 лет. Она создала «Византийское содружество» стран (термин Д. Д. Оболенского), «…простиравшееся от Финского залива до Южного Пелопоннеса и от Адриатического моря до Кавказа. Все они в той или иной степени были связаны узами верности с византийской церковью и императором». Страны содружества обладали религиозным, культурным единством, близкой политической культурой и сходной трагической судьбой. Все они пали жертвами иноземного завоевания, от монголов до османов, и с огромным трудом, спустя столетия, возвращали себе суверенитет. Но с гибелью Византийской империи в 1453 г. ее историческая роль не прекратилась. Византия еще долго оставалась актуальным историческим актором, как идеал и как символ,
The New Past, 2022
The article is an introduction to the main theme of the issue dedicated to various aspects of the... more The article is an introduction to the main theme of the issue dedicated to various aspects of the centuries-old polemic of Russian intellectuals about pragmatics
and axiology of politics. As an allusion problematizing this topic, the title of the once
popular novel by D.L. Mordovtsev, dedicated to the conflict of supporters and opponents of Petrine reforms, was chosen, in which the author saw the continuation of the Russian dispute on power: should it serve people, or, vice versa, a person is obliged to sacrifice himself to the Moloch of the autocratic power; is it appropriate for a ruler to obey moral and religious imperatives (“ideals”), or the pragmatics of power (“realism”) is the justification for him? Considering this conflict from the standpoint of intellectual history and discourse analysis, the author looks at this polemic, which began long before Peter the Great and has not been completed until now, one of the key themes of the Russian socio-political thought. At the same time, to apprehend the essence of this debate, it is important to understand not only the positions and motivations of the disputers, but also how the state itself influenced the course of this discussion. In this regard, an event that took place exactly five centuries ago has a special symbolic significance: in 1522, the direct interference of the authorities stopped the polemic of the “Iosifites” and the “Nonpossessors” — the first Russian ideological and political discussion, which was allowed to continue exactly until one of the parties convinced the authorities of their readiness to be its “indulgers”. This is exactly how Andrei Kurbskii, who considered the defeat of the Non-possessors as a harbinger of the Oprichnina, called the henchmen of the authorities, contrasting them with “zealots” — nonconformists, people guided not by interests, but by values.
Historical Courier , 2022
The second part of the article, devoted to the circumstances of the genesis and doctrinal formati... more The second part of the article, devoted to the circumstances of the genesis and doctrinal formation of the idea "Moscow as the Third Rome", examines the process of this concept going beyond the Filofei's Cycle and its grasp by Russian booklore at the end of the Middle Ages. It is shown that despite the categorical rejection of the idea of the Third Rome by Vasily III and Ivan the Terrible, it met with a sympathetic response among the intellectual elite and clergy. The consequence of this was, on the one hand, the widespread dissemination of the Filofei's works and their transformation into precedent texts, and on the other hand, the inclusion of the verbal image of the Third Rome into other works unrelated to its authentic semantic context. The analysis of these circumstances allows us to conclude that Filofei's theory was inextricably linked with both the previous and subsequent stages of the development of social mind. The fact that it was claimed by the ruling elite later than by the intellectual one does not indicate the marginal status of this idea or its foreignness to the religious-political tradition of Muscovite Russia, but only that the theory of the Third Rome, like many groundbreaking ideas, was ahead of its timeit was formulated before it became politically urgent. Accordingly, attempts to present the fate of this ideologeme as a validation of the concept of the invention of tradition should be recognized as groundless: primary sources do not allow us to talk about either the randomness of its emergence, or about multiple "forgettings" and "new discoveries". An alternative concept of selective reactualization of tradition seems to be a more relevant explanatory scheme of fluctuations in the perception of the idea of the Third Rome by society and the authorities.
Встреча на Байкале: бремя прошлого, вызовы будущего (Meeting at Lake Baikal: Burden of the Past, Challenges of the Future), 2014
ББК 72.4(2Poc-16) в 858 Рецензенmьl А.В. Яtуков, д-р филос. наук, проф. ЗабГУ; Э.А. Нuколаев, д-р... more ББК 72.4(2Poc-16) в 858 Рецензенmьl А.В. Яtуков, д-р филос. наук, проф. ЗабГУ; Э.А. Нuколаев, д-р ист. науц прф. БГУ; l|.З !орыuец д-р биол. науц проф. БГУ 858 Всгреча на Байкале; бремя прошлого, вызовы булущего / науч. ред. А.А. Базаров, Я. Кеневич.-Улан-Удэ: Издательство Бурятского госуниверситета, 2014.-З44 с. ISBN 978-5-97 9з-0662-9 .Щанная моногрфия является коллективной работой авторов, представляющих университеты Улан-Удэо Варшавы, Санкт-Петербурга, Ростова-на-,Щону, Новосибирска, Якlтска, уrастников международньж дебатов <Встреча на Байкале: бремя прошлого. вызовы будущего>, проведенных в с. Максимиха (Бурятия, Россия) 20-23 авгусга 2013 г. В монографии рассматриваются вопросы современных глобализационных процессов в России (Сибирь, Бурятия) и Польше с позиции истории, экономики, востоковедепия, экологии, социологии, политологии. '#-'9;.'iafl1;;i Meeting at Lake Baikal: Ьurdеп of the pasto challenges of the futurе / sci. ed.
Historical Courier, 2021
The article examines the circumstances of emergence and subsequent history of the
theory of “Mosc... more The article examines the circumstances of emergence and subsequent history of the
theory of “Moscow as the Third Rome”. The author aims to comprehend the causes of fluctuations of public interest in this religious-political concept: initially it was ignored by the authorities, but more than half a century later it acquired the status of an official state doctrine, then it was plunged into the periphery of public mind and, it would seem, was forgotten, but in the 19th century it was reborn from oblivion. After 1917, a taboo was imposed on this topic, but since the 1990s there has been a new surge of interest in the heritage of Filofei. Such sharp fluctuations in perception by the
society and the authorities of the Third Rome idea are considered in the article through the prism of controversy about the so-called “invention of tradition”. In this part of the article, the author refers to the historiographical anamnesis of the concept of “invention” of the theory “Moscow as the Third Rome”. Verification of this interpretation is undertaken through a comprehensive analysis of sources that reflected the existence of the idea of the Third Rome in the 16th century. The author concludes that the statements about “invention” of Filofei’s theory – its “accidental” (in the course of anti-astrological polemics) occurrence and “marginal” status – are unfounded: the absence of references to the Third Rome in official program texts of that time was due not to the indifference of society to this theory, but to the fact that the underlying concept of the symphony of the authorities fundamentally contradicted the autocratic ideology of Vasiliy III and Ivan IV. The change of political course at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries expectedly led to a radical change in the attitude of the authorities to the idea of the Third Rome.
Uploads
Papers by Andrey Korenevskiy
in the Bryce’s investigation, since it was not objective and was dictated solely by propaganda purposes. The paper’s author attempts, based on a comprehensive analysis of ego documents and other sources, to identify the cause-and-effect relationships between these two pages of Toynbee’s biography, analyzing the motives and circumstances that prompted him to participate in the investigation of Lord J. Bryce, as well as a set of reasons that led to the subsequent revision of assessments of the events of 1915−1916.
в эпоху интернета. Предпринята попытка проанализировать генезис неовизантийского дискурса в Рунете и его роль в консолидации консервативного лагеря в современной России. В центре внимания автора — наиболее резонансные публикации сторонников этого идейного течения и их оппонентов. Особое внимание уделено
рецепции классических текстов русской общественной мысли XIX в., возникших в русле полемики между «западниками» и адептами идеи особого пути России как правопреемницы Византии. Автор приходит к выводу, что широко распространенное в современной литературе в области memory studies представление о революционизирующей роли цифровой среды, порождающей «новую экологию памяти»,
подтверждается лишь отчасти. Результаты предпринятого анализа позволяют сделать вывод о том, что возникновение «Всемирной паутины» и цифровых социальных медиа существенно повлияло на механизмы и формы генерирования и трансляции идей, а также способы рекрутинга их адептов. При этом подтверждается наблюдение западных исследователей медиасферы о более эффективном использовании цифровой среды представителями консервативного лагеря, чем их оппонентами. Однако в содержательном плане в преобладающей части современных деклараций неовизантизма, равно как и в публикациях противоположной направленности, обнаруживается не столь уж много отличий от классических текстов русских философов и публицистов XIX в. Автор рассматривает данную статью как приглашение к дискуссии и дальнейшему исследованию темы «цифрового неовизантизма» с применением количественных и качественных методов текстологии и герменевтики.
Византийская империя существовала дольше всех бывших на Земле империй-более 1000 лет. Она создала «Византийское содружество» стран (термин Д. Д. Оболенского), «…простиравшееся от Финского залива до Южного Пелопоннеса и от Адриатического моря до Кавказа. Все они в той или иной степени были связаны узами верности с византийской церковью и императором». Страны содружества обладали религиозным, культурным единством, близкой политической культурой и сходной трагической судьбой. Все они пали жертвами иноземного завоевания, от монголов до османов, и с огромным трудом, спустя столетия, возвращали себе суверенитет. Но с гибелью Византийской империи в 1453 г. ее историческая роль не прекратилась. Византия еще долго оставалась актуальным историческим актором, как идеал и как символ,
and axiology of politics. As an allusion problematizing this topic, the title of the once
popular novel by D.L. Mordovtsev, dedicated to the conflict of supporters and opponents of Petrine reforms, was chosen, in which the author saw the continuation of the Russian dispute on power: should it serve people, or, vice versa, a person is obliged to sacrifice himself to the Moloch of the autocratic power; is it appropriate for a ruler to obey moral and religious imperatives (“ideals”), or the pragmatics of power (“realism”) is the justification for him? Considering this conflict from the standpoint of intellectual history and discourse analysis, the author looks at this polemic, which began long before Peter the Great and has not been completed until now, one of the key themes of the Russian socio-political thought. At the same time, to apprehend the essence of this debate, it is important to understand not only the positions and motivations of the disputers, but also how the state itself influenced the course of this discussion. In this regard, an event that took place exactly five centuries ago has a special symbolic significance: in 1522, the direct interference of the authorities stopped the polemic of the “Iosifites” and the “Nonpossessors” — the first Russian ideological and political discussion, which was allowed to continue exactly until one of the parties convinced the authorities of their readiness to be its “indulgers”. This is exactly how Andrei Kurbskii, who considered the defeat of the Non-possessors as a harbinger of the Oprichnina, called the henchmen of the authorities, contrasting them with “zealots” — nonconformists, people guided not by interests, but by values.
theory of “Moscow as the Third Rome”. The author aims to comprehend the causes of fluctuations of public interest in this religious-political concept: initially it was ignored by the authorities, but more than half a century later it acquired the status of an official state doctrine, then it was plunged into the periphery of public mind and, it would seem, was forgotten, but in the 19th century it was reborn from oblivion. After 1917, a taboo was imposed on this topic, but since the 1990s there has been a new surge of interest in the heritage of Filofei. Such sharp fluctuations in perception by the
society and the authorities of the Third Rome idea are considered in the article through the prism of controversy about the so-called “invention of tradition”. In this part of the article, the author refers to the historiographical anamnesis of the concept of “invention” of the theory “Moscow as the Third Rome”. Verification of this interpretation is undertaken through a comprehensive analysis of sources that reflected the existence of the idea of the Third Rome in the 16th century. The author concludes that the statements about “invention” of Filofei’s theory – its “accidental” (in the course of anti-astrological polemics) occurrence and “marginal” status – are unfounded: the absence of references to the Third Rome in official program texts of that time was due not to the indifference of society to this theory, but to the fact that the underlying concept of the symphony of the authorities fundamentally contradicted the autocratic ideology of Vasiliy III and Ivan IV. The change of political course at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries expectedly led to a radical change in the attitude of the authorities to the idea of the Third Rome.
in the Bryce’s investigation, since it was not objective and was dictated solely by propaganda purposes. The paper’s author attempts, based on a comprehensive analysis of ego documents and other sources, to identify the cause-and-effect relationships between these two pages of Toynbee’s biography, analyzing the motives and circumstances that prompted him to participate in the investigation of Lord J. Bryce, as well as a set of reasons that led to the subsequent revision of assessments of the events of 1915−1916.
в эпоху интернета. Предпринята попытка проанализировать генезис неовизантийского дискурса в Рунете и его роль в консолидации консервативного лагеря в современной России. В центре внимания автора — наиболее резонансные публикации сторонников этого идейного течения и их оппонентов. Особое внимание уделено
рецепции классических текстов русской общественной мысли XIX в., возникших в русле полемики между «западниками» и адептами идеи особого пути России как правопреемницы Византии. Автор приходит к выводу, что широко распространенное в современной литературе в области memory studies представление о революционизирующей роли цифровой среды, порождающей «новую экологию памяти»,
подтверждается лишь отчасти. Результаты предпринятого анализа позволяют сделать вывод о том, что возникновение «Всемирной паутины» и цифровых социальных медиа существенно повлияло на механизмы и формы генерирования и трансляции идей, а также способы рекрутинга их адептов. При этом подтверждается наблюдение западных исследователей медиасферы о более эффективном использовании цифровой среды представителями консервативного лагеря, чем их оппонентами. Однако в содержательном плане в преобладающей части современных деклараций неовизантизма, равно как и в публикациях противоположной направленности, обнаруживается не столь уж много отличий от классических текстов русских философов и публицистов XIX в. Автор рассматривает данную статью как приглашение к дискуссии и дальнейшему исследованию темы «цифрового неовизантизма» с применением количественных и качественных методов текстологии и герменевтики.
Византийская империя существовала дольше всех бывших на Земле империй-более 1000 лет. Она создала «Византийское содружество» стран (термин Д. Д. Оболенского), «…простиравшееся от Финского залива до Южного Пелопоннеса и от Адриатического моря до Кавказа. Все они в той или иной степени были связаны узами верности с византийской церковью и императором». Страны содружества обладали религиозным, культурным единством, близкой политической культурой и сходной трагической судьбой. Все они пали жертвами иноземного завоевания, от монголов до османов, и с огромным трудом, спустя столетия, возвращали себе суверенитет. Но с гибелью Византийской империи в 1453 г. ее историческая роль не прекратилась. Византия еще долго оставалась актуальным историческим актором, как идеал и как символ,
and axiology of politics. As an allusion problematizing this topic, the title of the once
popular novel by D.L. Mordovtsev, dedicated to the conflict of supporters and opponents of Petrine reforms, was chosen, in which the author saw the continuation of the Russian dispute on power: should it serve people, or, vice versa, a person is obliged to sacrifice himself to the Moloch of the autocratic power; is it appropriate for a ruler to obey moral and religious imperatives (“ideals”), or the pragmatics of power (“realism”) is the justification for him? Considering this conflict from the standpoint of intellectual history and discourse analysis, the author looks at this polemic, which began long before Peter the Great and has not been completed until now, one of the key themes of the Russian socio-political thought. At the same time, to apprehend the essence of this debate, it is important to understand not only the positions and motivations of the disputers, but also how the state itself influenced the course of this discussion. In this regard, an event that took place exactly five centuries ago has a special symbolic significance: in 1522, the direct interference of the authorities stopped the polemic of the “Iosifites” and the “Nonpossessors” — the first Russian ideological and political discussion, which was allowed to continue exactly until one of the parties convinced the authorities of their readiness to be its “indulgers”. This is exactly how Andrei Kurbskii, who considered the defeat of the Non-possessors as a harbinger of the Oprichnina, called the henchmen of the authorities, contrasting them with “zealots” — nonconformists, people guided not by interests, but by values.
theory of “Moscow as the Third Rome”. The author aims to comprehend the causes of fluctuations of public interest in this religious-political concept: initially it was ignored by the authorities, but more than half a century later it acquired the status of an official state doctrine, then it was plunged into the periphery of public mind and, it would seem, was forgotten, but in the 19th century it was reborn from oblivion. After 1917, a taboo was imposed on this topic, but since the 1990s there has been a new surge of interest in the heritage of Filofei. Such sharp fluctuations in perception by the
society and the authorities of the Third Rome idea are considered in the article through the prism of controversy about the so-called “invention of tradition”. In this part of the article, the author refers to the historiographical anamnesis of the concept of “invention” of the theory “Moscow as the Third Rome”. Verification of this interpretation is undertaken through a comprehensive analysis of sources that reflected the existence of the idea of the Third Rome in the 16th century. The author concludes that the statements about “invention” of Filofei’s theory – its “accidental” (in the course of anti-astrological polemics) occurrence and “marginal” status – are unfounded: the absence of references to the Third Rome in official program texts of that time was due not to the indifference of society to this theory, but to the fact that the underlying concept of the symphony of the authorities fundamentally contradicted the autocratic ideology of Vasiliy III and Ivan IV. The change of political course at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries expectedly led to a radical change in the attitude of the authorities to the idea of the Third Rome.
многообразии: наука и социальная практика в фокусе междисциплинарности» (г.
Ростов-на-Дону, 17-18 ноября 2017 г.). Мероприятие организовано Институтом истории
и международных отношений ЮФУ и продолжает начатый в прошлом году цикл междисциплинарных конференций «Единство в многообразии». Статьи, содержащиеся в сборнике, затрагивают широкий спектр проблем междисциплинарных исследований, истории и методологии междисцилинарности, а также междисциплинарного социального проектирования. В издании представлены работы исследователей из России и зарубежных стран. Адресуется научно-педагогическим работникам, аспирантам, магистрам, бакалаврам и всем заинтересованным в проблемах междисциплинарных исследованиях.
situation of aboriginal Siberian societies in post-Soviet Russia, ones facing fundamental challenges that threaten the coherence of their cultural identity. The volume contains also a few articles on correlated topics.