The article analyzes the mythological concept of Slavic paganism developed by Alexander Afanas’ev in his three-volume study Poetic Views of the Slavs on Nature: An Attempt at a Comparative Study of ...Slavic Traditions and Beliefs in Connection with the Mythical Tales of Other Related Peoples (1865–1869). In this book, Afanas’ev established numerous parallels between the pagan myths of the Slavs and other Indo-European peoples and reconstructed mythological images of the world tree, the tree of life, and the world egg. He also reconstructed myths about the sacred marriage between heaven and earth; the creation of the world from the body of the first man and the creation of man from the natural elements; the dying and resurrected god of vegetation and fertility; and the duel between the god of thunderstorms and his earthly adversary; as well as dualistic myths about the struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness and about the creation of the earth. Afanas’ev also explored enduring metaphorical pairs such as death–dream, battle–wedding feast, thunderstorm–battle, and so on. Depending on the readers’ points of view, they can appreciate the book as a grandiose compendium of folklore and historical-ethnographic materials; as a scholarly work devoted to Slavic mythology; as a symbolarium of folk culture; and as a beautiful fairy tale about the pagan past. Although Afanas’ev’s book has all the attributes of a scholarly publication, it can also be read as a work of fiction in which the author does not so much analyze mythology as he tries to present the point of view of a primitive poet–artist.
The concept of the Rus’ Land (russkaia zemlia) became and remained an historical myth of modern Russian nationalism as the equivalent of “Russia," but it was actually a political myth, manipulated to ...provide legitimacy. Its meaning was dynastic—territories ruled by a member of the Riurikid/Volodimerovich princely clan. This book traces the history of its use from the tenth to the seventeenth century, outlining its changing religious (pagan to Christian) and geographic elements (from the Dnieper River valley in Ukraine in Kievan Rus’ to Muscovy in Russia) and considers alternative “land" concepts which failed to rise to the ideological heights of the Rus’ Land. Although the Rus’ Land was never an ethnic or national concept, and never expanded its appeal beyond an elite lay and clerical audience, understanding its evolution sheds light upon the cultural and intellectual history of the medieval and early modern East Slavs.
In the article, the author turns to the Orthodox origins of Russian iterature and its connections with the patriotic traditions of Russian statehood. Using the example of classical works of Russian ...writers, the author explores the key issues of Russian civilization, the confrontation between the Orthodox Slavic world and the West, the religious meaning and vocation of art. The work notes the importance of the classics’ understanding of the process of Christianization of Russian life, their understanding of a possible crisis of faith and life in the event of the loss of real spiritual and moral guidelines by the overwhelming majority of citizens. The article notes the connection between Russian classics and the patristic heritage, emphasizes individual evangelical motifs in the texts of famous writers, and emphasizes the focus of classical works of Russian literature not on escaping the world, but on active service to humanity. The author of the article shares his observations on the texts of ancient Russian literature, which he is currently translating into Serbian.
The end of the First World War brought changes in international relations and
new socioeconomic and social challenges. A specific segment was the
organization of scientific work. Geographical science ...and the related
disciplines were also looking for their place. A significant qualitative
change to the research was brought by the gatherings of the Slavic
geographers and ethnographers. At the initiative of Jovan Cvijic, the First
Congress was organized in Prague in 1924. In the interwar period, three more
congresses were held-in Poland (1927), in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1930),
and in the Kingdom of Bulgaria (1936). The aim of this paper is an overview
of the subjects and outcomes of those events in the social circumstances of
that time. The work of the Congresses was divided into several thematic
areas, with the dominance of physical geographic, cartographic, and
ethnographic research. The importance of the congresses is proven by the
fact that the governance structures wholeheartedly supported them. Even
though they had a strong impact, the Congresses of the Slavic Geographers
and Ethnographers did not provide answers to numerous questions that
?troubled? the post-war societies in the second half of the 1920s and 1930s.
The results undoubtedly pointed to the symbolic representation of
anthropogeographic, demographic, geo(political), and socioeconomic subjects.
The data on the demographic losses in the Great War were omitted. There were
no projections of future trends in the Slavic countries, especially in the
context of the new conflict and its consequences.
