Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
In the intellectual history of Russia, Konstantin Leontiev (1831–1891) emerges as a singular and enigmatic figure. Generous and benevolent in his personal relations and a scintillating conversationalist, he encountered antagonism or indifference where his writings and theories were concerned. The extremely unique and even esoteric quality of his thought caused him to exert virtually no influence either in his own day or in more recent periods. He was not a representative member of the Russian intelligentsia; indeed, he beggars assignment to any particular school. Perhaps the best description one can make of him is that of heir to the emotional strain of German philosophical romanticism. His predilection for naturalism and aestheticism are typical of early nineteenth century German anti-rationalist philosophy, as is his emphasis on tradition and organic development. Leontiev lacked utterly the humanistic qualities of the earlier Slavophiles who first appropriated German philosophic influence, and this quality of severity divorces him from the Russian romantic tradition. At the same time, his idealism caused him to be wholly out of tune with the nihilist, revolutionary, and populist tendencies of his own day. A prophet without honour, he was not without merit; his views are most provocative and reward attention. Not the least interesting aspect of Leontiev lies in his attitude towards nationalism; and it is with this facet of his thought that we shall be concerned.
In the intellectual history of Russia, Konstantin Leontiev (1831–1891) emerges as a singular and enigmatic figure. Generous and benevolent in his personal relations and a scintillating conversationalist, he encountered antagonism or indifference where his writings and theories were concerned. The extremely unique and even esoteric quality of his thought caused him to exert virtually no influence either in his own day or in more recent periods. He was not a representative member of the Russian intelligentsia; indeed, he beggars assignment to any particular school. Perhaps the best description one can make of him is that of heir to the emotional strain of German philosophical romanticism. His predilection for naturalism and aestheticism are typical of early nineteenth century German anti-rationalist philosophy, as is his emphasis on tradition and organic development. Leontiev lacked utterly the humanistic qualities of the earlier Slavophiles who first appropriated German philosophic influence, and this quality of severity divorces him from the Russian romantic tradition. At the same time, his idealism caused him to be wholly out of tune with the nihilist, revolutionary, and populist tendencies of his own day. A prophet without honour, he was not without merit; his views are most provocative and reward attention. Not the least interesting aspect of Leontiev lies in his attitude towards nationalism; and it is with this facet of his thought that we shall be concerned.
In her review essay Alla Zeide critically comments on the quality of the first Russian-language publication of lectures by the Harvard historian Michael Karpovich. She begins by listing the implications of the edition’s having neither a scholarly nor a general editor. Zeide shows that both the academic and political (ideological) contexts of Karpovich’s work are either ignored or misrepresented by the authors of introductory articles, which does not allow an appreciation of the lecture course in all its complexity. She also poses a question (omitted by those involved in preparing the book) concerning why Karpovich’s grand narrative of the Russian past was structured as the history of ideas and ideological currents. Zeide gives her answer to this important question. Finally, she establishes many inaccuracies and unexplainable omissions and distortions of the original meaning in the Russian translation of the lectures and in the commentaries. She concludes that the book, or rather its critical reading, highlights problems with traditional historiography as a genre that should be replaced with a model of intellectual biography. В своем рецензионном эссе Алла Зейде критически отзывается о качестве первого русскоязычного издания лекций по истории России гарвардского историка Михаила Карповича. Она указывает на то, что у издания нет ни научного, ни общего редактора и анализирует последствия подобного обстоятельства. Авторы вступительных статей игнорируют либо неверно интерпретируют как научный, так и политический (идеологический) контексты деятельности Карповича, что не позволяет оценить публикуемые лекции во всей их сложности. Зейде задается вопросом (который не поставили авторы сборника), почему Карпович создает свой гранд-нарратив прошлого России как историю идей и интеллектуальных течений, и предлагает ответ на этот вопрос. Наконец, она отслеживает многочисленные неаккуратности перевода, прямые искажения смысла и необъяснимые пропуски, а также ошибки в комментариях. Зейде заключает, что настоящее издание лекций Карповича высвечивает проблемы историографии как жанра, нуждающегося в реформировании по образцу современной интеллектуальной биографии.
If my entire argument could fit under this rubric: Russia is a Christian nation andthereforeshould always act in a Christian way, my opponents’ argument can be expressed in the following formula: The Russian nation…is the only truly Christian nation, butnevertheless,it should act in a pagan way in all of its affairs.—Vladimir Solov'ev, Preface toThe National Question in Russia, Part II(1891)In the 1880s and 1890s, Vladimir Solov'ev worked out a Christian approach to nations and nationality, and a moral critique of nationalism, while waging a polemical battle against the Russian conservative nationalists of his day. His ideas emerged primarily from his own social gospel theology, but they were marked by both the Slavophile romanticism of his early career and the western liberalism of his later years. Solov'ev is most often treated as a philosopher, a mystic, or a literary figure, and as a result, his journalistic writings on nationalism and other topics have often been overlooked by scholars, even though they constitute at least a third of his published output.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.