Information about the author:

Abstract:

Under the influence of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, the reception of F.M. Dostoevsky’s legacy in religious-philosophical and Symbolist circles acquired a qualitatively new character. At the beginning of the 20^th century, three tendencies were observed in Russia in relation to the war: Orthodox-patriotic, or historiosophical (associated with the names of F.I. Tyutchev, F.M. Dostoevsky, V.S. Solovyov, etc.), anti-state-pacifist (backed by the authority of L.N. Tolstoy) and vitalist-apologetic (following F. Nietzsche), — which formed complicated combinations in the statements of Russian Symbolists. The article focuses on the evolution of D.S. Merezhkovsky’s and S.N. Bulgakov’s views on Dostoevsky’s work in 1904–1906. Whereas at the beginning of hostilities in the Far East in 1904 both stood on historiosophical positions similar to Dostoevsky, with the aggravation of the political situation in the country in 1905–1906, associated with military defeats, disappointment in Russian statehood and the growth of the revolutionary movement, these religious philosophers drew closer to Tolstoy’s anti-government pacifism in categorically condemning the Russo-Japanese War. Coupled with the discrediting of Orthodoxy in the context of the “new religious consciousness”, such dynamics led to distrust of Dostoevsky’s historical and political views, and criticism of the “mistakes” and “delusions” attributed to the author of the “Writer’s Diary”, in whose legacy, in their opinion, much should now be abandoned.

Keywords: Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, Orthodox Patriotism of F.M. Dostoevsky, Anti-state Pacifism of L.N. Tolstoy, Cultural and Philosophical Apology of War by F. Nietzsche, Silver Age, Symbolism, Religious Philosophy.