Title of the article:



Olesya R. Temirshina

Information about the author/authors

Olesya R. Temirshina — DSc of Philology, Associate Professor, Professor, Russian State Social University, Wilhelm Pieck St. 4, bldg. 1, 129226, Moscow, Russia.

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0127-6044

E-mail: o.r.temirshina@yandex.ru


Philological sciences




Vol. 70


pp. 173–188


January 19, 2023

Approved after reviewing

May 13, 2023

Date of publication

December 25, 2023



Index UDK


Index BBK



The paper discusses the reconstruction of Druskin's ideas about hieroglyph as a sign of special ontological category with a projection on the philosophical and religious category of the symbol developed in the philosophy of A. F. Losev and P. Florensky. A comparison of a symbol and a hieroglyph showed the dependence of the organization of their semantics on ontology. Thus, the work proves that both the symbol and the hieroglyph, being derivatives of Christological concepts, are similar in structural and functional aspects. At the structural level, symbol and hieroglyph, removing the opposition between spiritual and the material, establish relations of asymmetric identity; at the functional level, symbol and hieroglyph allow to directly embody the logic of another being in one or another material substratum. The paper argues that the concept of Druskin's hieroglyph should be considered in terms of the concept of unilateral synthetic identity, which goes back to the Christian idea of the impossible alloy and inseparability. In this context, Druskin's hieroglyph models the Logos, associated not with the ontology of the incarnation of the spirit in matter, but with the actualization of spiritual meanings in the material of a work of art.
Thus, the study showed that the hieroglyph, on the one hand, is part of Druskin's semiotic-ontological universe, and on the other hand, turns out to be a phenomenon structurally and functionally related to the symbol in its philosophical and religious interpretation.


Symbol, Logos, Sign, Hieroglyph, Russian Philosophy, “Chinary”, Absurdity.


1 Broitman, S. N. “Istochniki formuly ʽ nerazdel'nost' i nesliiannost'ʼ u Bloka” [“Sources of the Formula ʽInseparability and Non-confluenceʼ in Blokʼs Lyric”]. Aleksandr Blok. Issledovaniia i materialy [Alexander Blok. Research and Materials]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1966, pp. 79–89. (In Russ.)

2 Gerasimova, A. G. Problema smeshnogo v tvorchestve oberiutov [The Issue of the Comic in the Works by Oberiuts: PhD Thesis]. Moscow, 1988. 259 p. (In Russ.)

3 Dobrokhotov, A. L. “A. F. Losev — filosof kul'tury” [A. F. Losev as a Philosopher of Culture]. Dobrokhotov, A. L. Izbrannoe [Selected Works]. Moscow, Territoriia budushchego Publ., 2008, 326–337 pp. (In Russ.)

4 Drozdov, K. V. “Lipavskii i Druskin: chinari v poiskakh smysla” [“Chinars in Search of Meaning”]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series: Literaturovedenie. Iazykoznanie. Kul'turologiia, no. 10, 2007, pp. 141–154. (In Russ.)

5 Drozdov, K. V. Poeticheskaia filosofiia chinarei [Poetic Philosophy of Chinars: PhD Thesis, Summary]. Moscow, 2007. 23 p. (In Russ.)

6 Druskina, L. S., Sazhin, V. N. “Primechaniia” [“Notes”]. “…Sborishche druzei, ostavlennykh sud'boiu ”. “Chinari” v tekstakh, dokumentakh i issledovaniiakh [“...A Gathering of Friends Left by Fate.” “Chinari” in Texts, Documents and Studies], vol. 1. Moscow, Ladomir Publ., 1998, pp. 989–1067. (In Russ.)

7 Lebedev, A. P. Vselenskie sobory IV i V vekov: Obzor ikh dogmaticheskoi deiatel'nosti v sviazi s napravleniiami shkol Aleksandriiskoi i Antiokhiiskoi [Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th Centuries: An Overview of Their Dogmatic Activities in Connection with the Directions of the Schools of Alexandria and Antioch]. St. Petersburg, Izdatel'stvo Olega Abyshko Publ., 2004. 320 p. (In Russ.)

8 Lur'e, V. M. “Filosofiia Dionisiia Areopagita: Teoriia znacheniia” [“Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite: Theory of Meaning”]. EINAI: Filosofiia. Religiia. Kul'tura, no. 3 (1/2), 2014, pp. 377–428. (In Russ.)

9 Magomedova, D. M. Avtobiograficheskii mif v tvorchestve A. Bloka [Autobiographical Myth in the Work of A. Blok]. Moscow, Martin Publ., 1997. 224 p. (In Russ.)

10 Mandel'shtam, O. “O prirode slova” [“About the Nature of the Word”]. Mandel'shtam, O. Stikhotvoreniia. Proza [Poems. Prose]. Moscow, Khar'kov, AST Publ., Folio Publ., 2001, pp. 443–460. (In Russ.)

11 Petrakov, A. A. “Problema simvola v russkoi filosofii ХХ v.: ontologicheskii aspekt” [“The Issue of Symbol in Russian Philosophy of the 20th Century: An Ontological Aspect”]. Religiovedenie, no. 4, 2010, pp. 120–130. (In Russ.)

12 Rymar', A. N. Ieroglificheskii tip simvolizatsii v khudozhestvennom tekste (na materiale poetiki Aleksandra Vvedenskogo) [Hieroglyphic Type of Symbolization in a Literary Text (Based on the Poetics of Alexander Vvedensky): PhD Thesis]. Samara, 2004. 217 p. (In Russ.)

13 Feshchenko, V. V. Laboratoriia Logosa: Iazykovoi eksperiment v avangardnom tvorchestve [Logos Laboratory: Language Experiment in Avant-garde Art]. Moscow, Iazyki slavianskikh kul'tur Publ., 2009. 392 p. (In Russ.)

14 Shadrin, A. A. “Znaki-ieroglify v sisteme Ia.S. Druskina” [“Hieroglyphic Signs in the System of Ya.S. Druskin”]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Series: Filosofiia. Psikhologiia. Pedagogika, no. 1, 2010, pp. 93–97. (In Russ.)

15 Iakobson, R. “Lingvistika i poetika” [“Linguistics and Poetics”]. Strukturalizm: “za” i “protiv” [Structuralism: “Pro” and “Contra”]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1975, pp. 193–231. (In Russ.)