俄国东正教驻北京传教士团医生考略

在早期中俄关系史上,俄国东正教驻北京传教士团扮演了文化使者和外交机构双重角色.自1820年起,俄国定期向中国派遣传教士团随团医生.这些医生除具有传教士团成员所共有的特性外,由于本身的职业特点,在随传教士团驻北京期间的活动又各有千秋.本文通过梳理和分析随团医生及他们来华的原因、在华主要活动,进而由点及面,透视俄国东正教驻北京传教士团在中俄关系史上所起的特殊作用及深远影响.     

西方传教士在一九○○年

1990年在中国大地上，发生了惊天地、泣鬼神的义和团运动和残暴的八国联军入侵。至今一百年了，还值得我们从各方面追寻史实，以求明辨是非。那一年事儿多了，本文只追述一些基督教传教士的所作所为，以示一斑。不过，事情还得有个头，那就是西方传教士如何进入中国的。自1840年鸦片战争以后，中国清政府不断遭受帝国主义国家的侵略，订立一个又一个的不平等条约。从而，外国差会乘机派遣一批又一批传教士进入中国。特别是1858年订立《天津条约》时，美国传教士卫三畏（SWWilliam）把“传教宽容条款”塞进了条约，传教士们更以征服者…     

唐代的圣经译述

圣经翻译,既是传教的重要手段,又是基督教融入传教目的地文化的有效途径.因此,传教士来到中国,通常都会在第一时间着手圣经翻译,唐代的景教士也是如此. 以阿罗本为代表的景教传教士一入长安,就立即着手两项工作:一是向皇帝唐太宗及其近臣讲解景教教义,《景教碑》称“问道禁闱”;二是经典翻译,即所谓“翻经书殿”.     

东正教与中国文化

本文叙述了东正教传入中国的过程及其发展历程,阐述了东正教传教士团与中国文化的关系,指明了东正教传教士在沟通中西文化、特别是中俄文化交流中的桥梁作用,分析了东正教未能在中国扎根和进一步与中国文化相融的原因,介绍了东正教目前在中国的状况。     

认真对待历史，更好地面向未来——读罗冠宗同工主编的《前事不忘，后事之师》一书有感

读了《前事不忘,后事之师》这本书,让我对神更加的敬畏赞美。身为21世纪的儿女,我感到非常的庆幸和自豪,同时也为着我们的先辈感到愤愤不平,虽然那已经是过去的历史,但当我们看到帝国主义是怎样利用各种各样残忍的手段来欺压老百姓,怎样利用鸦片来毒害人的生命,一些传教士是怎样利用来华传教的借口来瓜分原本属于中国人民的土地,如鸦片战争中《望夏条约》,《天津条约》……等等,都与传教士脱不了干系。罗冠宗先生编写的《前事不忘后事之师》前言中告诉我们,     

天主教在当代俄国的复兴

天主教在俄国传播的历史几乎和东正教在俄国的历史一样长。基辅罗斯时期就有西方天主教徒来到俄国,主要是商人,其数量极少。蒙古人入侵和统治时期,一些天主教修会的修士来到位于俄国领土上的金帐汗国传教,但收效不大。莫斯科时期,有外国商人和技术专家在俄国工作,其中有天主教徒。但俄国人禁止他们在莫斯科建造天主教堂,更禁止他们在俄罗斯人中间传教。这个“禁教”时期一直持续到彼得大帝时代。由于彼得大帝的开放政策,西方天主教徒开始涌入俄国,其中有耶稣会士,他们在这里建造教堂,甚至开始传教。不过,彼得大帝对天主教徒在俄国的活动还是…     

俄罗斯学者关注《东正教史》

中国学者的东正教新作一经问世，便自然会引起俄罗斯读者的兴趣，因为它能够帮助人们了解当代中国学者最为关心的问题。1999年6月中国社会科学出版社出版的中国著名宗教学家乐峰的《东正教史》一书作为中国当代学术界系统研究东正教的首次尝试，成为俄罗斯学者们关注的焦点。 乐教授是中国东正教研究领域的权威性专家，他为人谦逊，对自己的事业十分执着，他的名字为研究俄国传教士团在中国的俄罗斯同行们所熟知。50年代初，乐峰教授毕业于北京外国语学院，尔后在北京大学哲学系工作。70年代末，他开始了自己的东正教研究生涯。80年代后期，…     

东正教与中国文化

东正教传入中国有两个渠道,一是通过俄国边防军的随军传教士从中国黑龙江流域传入的。17世纪中叶,沙俄帝国侵占了中国黑龙江的雅克萨城。俄国边防军的随军传教士在此先后建立了东正教堂和修道院,这是东正教传入中国的开始。接着,中国边防军于1685年前后抓获了一批     

国外对中国穆斯林及回族的研究

国外对中国穆斯林及回族的研究,最初是从翻译开始的。1867年俄国汉学家瓦西里耶夫(1818—1910)在圣彼得堡刊布的《中国伊斯兰教徒的运动》一书,为蓝子义《清真正教条规》的俄译本(后出英译本)。内吉我国穆斯林的日常生活条规,当系国外研究我国伊斯兰教的滥觞。瓦氏于1840—1850年间居华,为俄国东正教驻北京使团的成员。随后法国的梯尔森特刊布了两卷本的《中国及新疆的穆斯林》,与瓦氏同团的鲍     

《论语》在俄罗斯的译介历程

《论语》记录了孔子及其弟子们的言语行事,是研究、了解儒学的第一手资料;加之《论语》内容丰富,文辞典雅,故在一定程度上是华夏文化的源头和中国传统文化的精魂。自18世纪沙皇俄国向中国派遣传教士团开始,俄国汉学家从未间断对《论语》的阐释和翻译,迄今为止,留下了10多个见仁见智的俄译本。本文试图结合历史语境,探究《论语》的俄译缘起,梳理其在俄罗斯的译介历程,对比典型译本的翻译特色,揭示典籍翻译的强烈的时代色彩。     

Writing the history of Russian philosophy

This article addresses the writing of the history of Russian philosophy from the first of such works—Archimandrite Gavriil’s Russian Philosophy [Russkaja filosofija, 1840]—to philosophical histories/textbooks in the twenty-first century. In the majority of these histories, both past and present, we find a relentless insistence on the delineation of “characterizing traits” of Russian philosophy and appeals to “historiosophy,” where historiosophy is employed as being distinct from the historiographical method. In the 1990s and 2000s, the genre of the history of Russian philosophy has grown increasingly conservative with regards to content, with histories from this period demonstrating an almost exclusive Orthodox focus. This conservatism, in turn, has contributed to widespread contention in recent years over the status of these philosophical textbooks—disagreements that often lead to either (1) further appeals to “historiosophical” methods; or (2) denials of the domestic philosophical tradition altogether, where the response to the query “Is there philosophy in Russia?” is emphatically negative. This article argues that the contemporary disputes over the development and preservation of the Russian philosophical canon are in many ways part of a larger debate over the roles of Orthodoxy and the history of philosophy in post-Soviet philosophical thought.     

Lenin and the crisis of Russian Marxism

This article attempts to understand the philosophical significance of Lenin’s work, Materialism and Empiriocriticism (1909), by putting it in the historical perspective and context of the theoretical debates of the time. The author argues that Lenin’s decision to engage in philosophical discussion was motivated by the need to respond to the growing struggles of Marxism, and specifically to the dangerous consequences of positivism that spread to Russia, which thereby led to a crisis in theory and political practice. Lenin’s work is the first philosophical assault on positivism, and most notably on its specific form, Machism, which he criticizes from the position of dialectical materialism. Recognizing the damaging effects of the positivistic position for Marxism, Lenin attacks Alexander Bogdanov’s Empiriomonism as a form of Machism which undermines the materialistic foundation of Marxist philosophy.     

Russian postcommunism and the end of history

The article ventures a reading of Russian postcommunist politics from the perspective of the messianic turn in continental political philosophy, specifically Giorgio Agamben’s conception of the ‘end of history’. Taking its point of departure from a retrospective construction in the Russian political discourse of the 1990s as a period of ‘timelessness’, the paper argues that postcommunism may indeed be viewed as a paradoxical ‘time out of time’, a rupture in the ordinary temporality that entirely dispenses with the teleological horizon of politics. While the problematic of the ‘end of history’ has been popularized by Francis Fukuyama’s liberal recasting of Kojève’s reading of Hegel, the Russian experience is entirely contrary to this complacent and self-gratifying account of the triumph of liberalism and accords, instead, with Agamben’s understanding of the end of history as the deactivation of the teleological dimension of politics as such. The effect of this deactivation is not a catastrophic disintegration of the social order but rather the opening of the possibility of an inoperative political praxis that is oriented towards the affirmation of existence in the pure present. The article proceeds with outlining the implications of this reading of Russian postcommunism for understanding the present conjuncture of Russian politics.

Russian pre-revolutionary Marxism on the the personality

The article treated various concerns of Russian Marxists relating to the concept of personality. In fact, it was not the individual per se and the kindred conceptual constructs that shaped discussions inside Russian Social-Democracy. The individual, on the contrary, was seen as an alien concept, as a central idea of the opponents: the Narodniks, anarchists, Cadets, and liberals in general. The post-1907 Marxist writings demonstrated a significant shift of accent in their approaches to the category of individuality. This was the result of polemics on the psychological particularities of the “reactionary” period (1907–1910). This profound and frequently concealed interest in the individual was typical, in general, of the new generation of Social-Democrats (Bogdanov, Bazarov, Luna?arskij) disillusioned with the classical positivism of the “fathers” and the dogmatic materialism of the “older comrades.”     

The Russian Cusanus: S. L. Frank and the Russian reception of Nicholas of Cusa

During the intense philosophical and theological renaissance of the Russian Silver Age, the German Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) received a unique appraisal in the work of Semyon Liudwigovich Frank (1877–1950), hailed by some as ‘the greatest Russian philosopher’. This paper will show that five of Frank's central philosophical arguments can be traced directly to Cusa's writings. Once these key arguments are taken together with Frank's own comments about Cusa, it can be concluded that Frank saw himself as Cusa's modern successor, presenting his ideas in a different intellectual context. In this sense, we can speak of Frank as the ‘Russian Cusanus’. The arguments in question include Cusa's docta ignorantia, our knowledge of being, the recognition of absolute being as ‘non-other’, the identity of possibility and actuality in the absolute, and finally the coincidentia oppositorum.