Ultimately everything returns to its own place. And our life, like a river that had overflowed its banks, is again returning to its former bed. We are now assimilating long-hidden treasures, understanding forgotten truths, and regaining our sight and seeing what we were unable to see when we were blinded.

Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov is one of the most original and as yet inadequately studied Russian thinkers. Neither a professional philosopher, nor a well-known scholar, nor a critical essayist, he led a kind of double existence while working as an ordinary civil servant, developing his original philosophy at his leisure in the hours free from his intensive daily work. Fedorov's life was one of selflessness and self-denial, not at all eventful outwardly. He graduated from the Gymnasium in Tambov and completed three (...) years of study in the Law Department of the Richelieu Lyceum in Odessa, after which he taught for a number of years in the Borovsk, Lipetsk, Podol'sk, and other regional schools. The quarter century he spent working in the Library of the Rumiantsev Museum in Moscow was the most stable period in Fedorov's life. Fedorov's ideas attracted the attention of outstanding cultural figures. F.M. Dostoevskii became acquainted with them in 1878 through Peterson, and on March 24 of that year he wrote: "I am essentially in full accord with these ideas. I read them as if they were my own." L.N. Tolstoy, who knew Fedorov personally, said, "I am proud to be living in the same times as such a man." V.S. Solov'ev, who also associated with Fedorov, wrote to him as follows in the mid-1880s: "Your ‘project’ is the human spirit's first advance along the path of Christ since the advent of Christianity. As for me, I can only acknowledge you as my teacher and spiritual father." A.M. Gorky was especially impressed by the activism in Fedorov's views. But none of this precludes the many and very essential divergences of these authors from Fedorov. One can find some links with his ideas in A.N. Belyi, V. Ia. Briusov, N.A. Zabolotskii, V.V. Maiakovskii, A.P. Platonov, M.M. Prishvin, I.L. Sel'vinskii, O.D. Forsh, and V.N. Khlebnikov. The artist B.N. Chekrygin drafted a large fresco entitled The Resurrection of the Dead [Voskreshenie mertvykh] and a philosophical work entitled The Synod of the Resurrecting Museum [Sobor voskreshaiushchego muzeia], both inspired by Fedorov's teachings. (shrink)

Upon reinstitution of the Lithuanian state in the beginning of the twentieth century, some people reflected back to the times where Lithuanian law had European significance. However, it was concluded that the latter would not satisfy the needs of a modern state. The change in times made the continuation of the legal tradition impossible. Yet it was also impossible to put faith into fast creation of the essentially new Lithuanian legal system. Therefore, it was decided to accept a foreign system (...) that was in place before the First World War – that of the Russian Empire. The law of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy (LGD) had an impact on the Russian law during the course of history. The most important channel was the reception of the Lithuanian Statute into the Sobor Code of 1679, which later resulted in the codex of the Russian Empire. The latter was also supplemented by the norms from the Lithuanian Statute relating to some exceptions in various regions covered. Some norms were imported purely for the purpose of renewal of the Russian legislation. The reception of the Russian law in the independent Lithuanian state meant that together with it Lithuania had accepted historical norms from the Lithuanian Statute. In that manner, the modern Lithuanian law was related to the historical law of the LGD. (shrink)

This article analyses the ideas and works of Oleksandr Lototskyi in connection with the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Lototskyi was a prominent scholar and politician during the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–1919. The chronology of Lototskyi’s beliefs as they developed, ranging from the support of the autonomy of the Church to the idea of autocephaly is reviewed in detail against the background of historical events. Lototskyi’s representations on behalf of the state at the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Sobor in (...) November 1918 in support of Church independence showcased his convictions. The idea was incorporated by the Directory of the UNR into the Law “On the Highest Church Government of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.” The article shows that the paradigm of autocephaly, as envisioned by Lototskyi and exemplified through his actions whilst Minister of Confessions, became the cornerstone of modern Ukrainian philosophy in favor of religious independence. (shrink)