Miraculous in Russian Semantics of the 11th-18th Centuries: the Evolution of Socially Significant Distinctions
https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2023-2-26-124-137
Abstract
The phenomenon of the miraculous cannot be removed from human existence, no matter how much its presence contradicts the arguments of reason, legislation, or common sense. Its attractiveness for philosophical reflection has been evident since the ancient classics (4th century BC), when the very phenomenon of admiration was considered the root cause of knowledge by Plato and Aristotle. The miraculous turns out to be semantically interconnected with religious communication, understood as the observation of the unknown, inexpressible, inaccessible within the familiar (N. Luhmann), including its naming and classification. This study is devoted to identifying the basic sociocultural differences and their dynamics associated with the lexeme miracle in the Russian context of the 11th–18th centuries based on the analysis of written sources. Tracing the evolution of the semantics of the miraculous, identifying the criteria for assigning such a characteristic to a certain phenomenon and the value assessment of what was called a miracle, the following trends are revealed. On the one hand, it is a differentiation from religious communication, which distinguishes between true and false miracles depending on the origin (for example, the Christian God or the Magi, fortune tellers, sorcerers, etc.). On the other hand, there is an increase in the complexity of the phenomenon itself, acquiring by the end of the 18th century various communication features. These are true/false miracles in religion; legal/ illegal in the field of state regulation of public life (starting with the legislation of Peter the Great); miracle as superstition, deceit and quackery for selfish purposes, i.e. marginal communication, contrary to science, morality, law and the ideals of the Enlightenment as the worldview of the elites; as a historical and cultural phenomenon (in works related to the history, ethnography and folklore that are emerging in Russia); as an artistic mean (functional element) in literature.
About the Author
M. S. Lyutaeva
Vladimir State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Maria S. Lyutaeva — PhD in Philosophy, Senior lecturer at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
87, Gorky Str., Vladimir, 600000 (Russia)
References
1. Arinin, E. I., Lyutaeva, M. S. and Markova, N. M. (2022) ‘Autopoiesis of Religion as a Social Subsystem: Reception of N. Luhmann’s Ideas by Russian Researchers of Religion’, Religiovedenie, (1), pp. 72–81. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22250/20728662_2022_1_72
2. Azadovsky, M. K. (2014) Istorija russkoj fol’kloristiki [History of Russian folklore]. Moscow: Institut russkoi tsivilizatsii Publ. (In Russian).
3. Dolgov, V. V. (2021) ‘Semiotika chudesnogo v drevnerusskom istoricheskom narrative [Semiotics of the miraculous in ancient Russian historical narrative]’, in Aktual’nye problemy istochnikovedenija [Actual problems of source studies]. Vitebsk: VGU im. P.M. Masherova Publ., pp. 158–161. (In Russian).
4. Dziuba, E. M. (2014) ‘Poetics of fiction in novels about “slavic antiquities” of M. D. Chulkov, M. I. Popov, V. A. Levshin’, Vestnik Nižegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobačevskogo, (2–2), pp. 147–150. (In Russian).
5. Fedotova, L. V. (2010) ‘The Distinctiveness of Relation between Russian Romanticism and Folk Culture in the Context of the European Art Tradition’, Knowledge, understanding, skill, (3), pp. 156–160. (In Russian).
6. Haym, R. (1870) Die romantische Schule: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des deutschen Geistes. Berlin: Verlag R. Gaertner. (Russ. ed.: (2006) Romanticheskaja shkola. Vklad v istoriju nemeckogo uma. Saint Petersburg: Nauka Publ.).
7. Kapitsa, F. S. (2012) ‘Warrior’s magic head in the story about Eruslan Lazarevich: origin of the image’, Bulletin of slavic cultures, (3), pp. 58–63. (In Russian).
8. Liutaeva, M. (2022) ‘Admiration (admiratio) as a criterion for the autopoesisis of art (on the example of the distinctions of ancient thinkers)’, Sociopolitical Sciences, 12(2), pp. 157–163. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.33693/2223-0092-2022-12-2-157-163
9. Luhmann, N. (1997) ‘Gesellschaft als soziales System’, in Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, pp. 11–189. (Russ. ed.: (2011) ‘Obshchestvo kak sotsial’naya sistema’, in Obshchestvo obshchestva. Moscow: Logos Publ., pp. 15–202.).
10. Luhmann, N. (2002) Die Religion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft).
11. Novoselov, A. (2020) ‘Demonic miracles of the magus and the affairs of the righteous in the russian primary chronicle’, Gumanitarnye i ûridičeskie issledovaniâ, (4), pp. 96–102. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.37493/2409-1030.2020.4.13
12. Proskurina, V. J. (2017) Imperija pera Ekateriny II: literatura kak politika [The Empire of the Pen of Catherine II: Literature as Politics]. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie Publ. (In Russian).
13. Puzanov, D. V. (2021) ‘Did the supernatural exist in medieval culture?’, Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series History and Philology, 31(4), pp. 823–832. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.35634/2412-9534-2021-314-823-832
14. Slozhenikina, J. V. and Rastyagaev, A. V. (2012) ‘Transformacija topiki chudes v proizvedenijah F. Prokopovicha, M. V. Lomonosova, A. P. Sumarokova [Transformation of the topic of miracles in the works of F. Prokopovich, M. V. Lomonosov, A. P. Sumarokov]’, in PUSHKINSKIYe CHTENIYA-2012. ‘Zhivyye’ traditsii v literature: zhanr, avtor, geroy, tekst [PUSHKIN READINGS-2012. Living traditions in literature: genre, author, hero, text ]. Saint Petersburg: Leningradskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet im. A.S. Pushkina Publ., pp. 8–14. (In Russian).
15. Soboleva, L. S. and Golendukhina, M. A. (2019) ‘Polyphony of self-identity in the Life of Archpriest Avvakum’, Sibirskiy filologicheskiy zhurnal, (4), pp. 46–60. (In Russian).doi: 10.17223/18137083/69/5.
16. Titscher, S. et al. (1998) Methoden der Textanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-87302-6 (Russ. ed.: (2017) Metody analiza teksta i diskursa. Kharkiv: Izdatel’stvo Gumanitarnyj Centr Publ.).
17. Zharinov, E. V. (2020) Rokovoj romantizm. Epoha demonov [Fatal romanticism. Demon Age]. Moscow: AST Publ. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Lyutaeva M.S. Miraculous in Russian Semantics of the 11th-18th Centuries: the Evolution of Socially Significant Distinctions. Concept: philosophy, religion, culture. 2023;7(2):124-137. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2023-2-26-124-137
Views:
431
Email this article 