Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

CONSTRUCTING THE IMAGE OF BYZANTIUM IN THE 20TH CENTURY: THE RUSSIAN THEME IN THE GREEK “NEO-BYZANTINE” PROJECT

100%

Kamenskikh A.

Konštantínove listy

2020

vol. 13

issue 1

187 - 196

The article examines a specific form of cultural reception. Since the end of the First World War a group of Greek intellectuals (Photis Kontoglou and Nikos Pentzikis in iconography and painting, Dimitris Pikionis in architecture, Basil Tatakis, John Romanides, Christos Yannaras, and John Zizioulas in their philosophical and theological writings) elaborated the forms of manifestation of the principle, which may be characterised as “Neo-Byzantinism”. The author of the article points to the fact that some of the above-mentioned Greek intellectuals found the detailed development of philosophical, theological and artistic aspects of this model in the works of Russian religious philosophers and Byzantinists of the 19th and 20th c. Greek authors “recognised” in the works created by the representatives of “the Third Rome” the cultural model appropriate for “the Second Rome”, perceiving this model as their own. The author of the article seeks to shed some light on the most interesting moments of such perception and – as far as it goes – to describe some key principles of this play of reciprocal reflection of Russian and Greek cultural identities.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE «AN ORIGENIST»? A CASE OF ALEKSEY KHOMYAKOV

63%

Kamenskikh A., Kamenskikh V.

Konštantínove listy

2022

vol. 15

issue 2

139 - 148

The article discusses the hypothesis about alleged «Origenism» of Aleksey Khomyakov, one of the leaders of Slavophile movement in 19thcentury Russia. Two versions of this hypothesis, “a strong” and “a weak” one, were offered by Basil (Vadim) Lourié in his works of 1994 and 2020. For clarification of this hypothesis’ “conceptual context” an attempt was made to discern and conceptualize two main approaches in studies on forms of intellectual heritage reception of Origen of Alexandria, first of all in Russia. The first approach can with some degree of convenience be called “realist”: Origenism within it is considered as some stable philosophical or theological position, interpreted in an extremely broad manner – as a kind of sharp platonization of Christianity, or as an attempt at free philosophizing within Christian tradition. In frameworks of this approach, reception of any element of Origenism by a later thinker intends him accept all the position, makes him an “Origenist” and a Platonist. Unlike this “realist” approach, the “nominalist” one assumes to consider intellectual heritage of Origen of Alexandria as a complex set of theological and philosophical hypotheses, peculiarities of style – and the personality of the Alexandrian thinker. This approach demands much more delicate treatment of the terms “Origenist” and “Origenism”. Applied to B. Lourié’s hypothesis about Aleksey Khomyakov’s Origenism, this distinguishing interprets “the strong” version of the hypothesis as “extremely realistic” and “the weak” version as a form of moderate realism, much more nuanced and historically correct. This version states the importance which had an image of Origen’s doctrine framed by August Neander in the second volume of his “General History of the Christian Religion and Church” (1843) for Khomyakov’s theological and philosophical views.

Refine search results

2 Konštantínove listy

2 Kamenskikh A.

1 Kamenskikh V.

1 2022

1 2020

Search results

CONSTRUCTING THE IMAGE OF BYZANTIUM IN THE 20TH CENTURY: THE RUSSIAN THEME IN THE GREEK “NEO-BYZANTINE” PROJECT

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE «AN ORIGENIST»? A CASE OF ALEKSEY KHOMYAKOV