/

St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies

St. Tikhon’s University Review I :85

THEOLOGY

Zakharov Georgy

Idea of apostolic succession in the epistle of St. Firmilian of Caesarea to St. Cyprian of Carthage

Zakharov Georgy (2019) "Idea of apostolic succession in the epistle of St. Firmilian of Caesarea to St. Cyprian of Carthage ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 11-30 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201985.11-30
This article analyses St. Firmilian’s of Caesarea doctrine of apostolic succession, formulated in his letter to Cyprian of Carthage (256). This text was written in connection with the disagreements as to the necessity for the baptism of heretics who converted to Catholic faith. St. Firmilian and St. Cyprian regarded heretical baptism as invalid, whereas the Roman bishop Stephen referred to the local Roman tradition, which seemingly went back to the apostles. He also referred to his own authority as apostle Peter’s successor and insisted on rejecting the practice of repeated baptism of heretics. In this controversy, questions were raised about the status of apostle Peter as the foundation for ecclesiastic unity, about the successive transmission of apostolic testimony in local churches and their hiararchy of authority, as well as about the transmission of the power to absolve of sins from the apostles to bishops. As the author of the article tries to show, St. Firmilian largely adopts the universalist ecclesiology of St. Cyprian, but at the same time complements his argumentation with reasons based on the earlier local and historical interpretation of the apostolic succession typical of Hegesippus, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, and Tertullian. In particular, St. Firmilian contrasts the Roman tradition with the authority of Jerusalem Church and claims that the customs of the Church of Caesarea are of the apostolic origin. A prominent place in St. Firmilian’s epistle is occupied by a polemic against Montanists. Particular emphasis on the transfer of episcopal power through the ordination anticipates in the doctrine of St. Firmilian the formation of a system of ecclesiastical provinces in the East, within which the control over the episcopal ordinations is concentrated in hands of the metropolitan. Within the framework of such a system of church organisation, the apostolic succession begins to be viewed not as something belonging to the local Church, but as a gift given to it from the outside by bishops’ college. The ecclesiological problems of the controversy over the baptism of heretics seem topical in the light of the current crisis in relations between local Orthodox Churches.
Firmilian of Caesarea, Cyprian of Carthage, Pope Stephan I of Rome, dispute over baptism of heretics, apostolic succession, ecclesiastical tradition, episcopal ministry, ecclesiology
  1. Afanas’ev N., protopriest (2015) “Tserkov’, predsedatel’stvuiushchaia v Liubvi” [Church that Presides in Love], in: N Afanas’ev, protoprest, Tserkov’ Bozhiia vo Khriste: Sbornik statei [God’s Church in Christ. Collection of Articles]. Moscow, рp. 542–600 (in Russian).
  2. Baumkamp E. (2014) Kommunikation in der Kirche des 3. Jahrhunderts. Bischöfe und Gemeinden zwischen Konfl ikt und Konsens im Imperium Romanum. Tübingen.
  3. Carpin A. (2007) Battezzati nell’unica vera Chiesa? Cipriano di Cartagine e la controversia battesimale. Bologna.
  4. Caspar E. (1930) Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, Bd. I. Tübingen.
  5. Dunn G. 2007. Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church. Sydney.
  6. Ehrhardt A. (1953) The Apostolic Succession in the First Two Centuries of the Church. London.
  7. Emmenegger G. (2010) “Zur Bedeutung Petri in der Kontroverse um die Ketzertaufe zwischen Cyprian von Karthago und Stephanus von Rom”, in: Heiligkeit und Apostolizitä t der Kirche. Innsbruck. Pp. 181–195.
  8. Girardi M. (1982) “Scrittura e battesimo degli eretici nella lettera di Firmiliano a Cipriano”. Vetera Christianorum, 19, pp. 37–67.
  9. Hall S. G. (1982) “Stephen I of Rome and the One Baptism”. Studia Patristica, XVII (2). Oxford. Pp. 796–798.
  10. Mattei P. (2018) “Afrikanskie sobory v epokhu sv. Kipriana Karfagenskogo” [African Councils in the Time of St. Cyprian]. In: Sobor i sobornost’: K stoletiiu nachala novoi epokhi. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii 13–16 noiabria 2017 [The Council and the Spirit of Unity: 100th Anniversary of the New Epoch. Proceedings of the International Conference, 13‒16 November 2017]. Moscow. Pp. 7–27 (in Russian).
  11. Métivier S. (2005) La Cappadoce (IVe–VIe siècle). Une histoire provinciale de l’Empire romain d’Orient. Paris.
  12. Molland E. (1970) “Le développement de l’idée de succession apostolique”, in: E. Molland. Opuscula Patristica. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsø. Pp. 181–206.
  13. Rankin D. (1995) Tertullian and the Church. Cambridge.
  14. Salaverri J. (1933) “La sucesión apostólica en la Historia eclesiástica de Eusebio Cesariense”. Gregorianum, 14 (2), pp. 219–247.
  15. Saumagne Ch. (1975) Saint Cyprien, évêque de Carthage, «Pape» d’Afrique (248–258). Contribution à l’étude des «persécutions» de Dèce et de Valérien. Paris.
  16. Sedley D. (1977) “Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy”. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. New Series, 23 (203), pp. 74–120.
  17. Simonetti M. (2002) “Origene dalla Cappadocia ai Cappadoci”, in: M. Girardi (ed.) Origene e l’alessandrinismo cappadoce (III-IV secolo): Atti del V Convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su «Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina» (Bari, 20‒22 settembre 2000). Bari. Pp. 13–28.
  18. Trigg J. (1981) “The Charismatic Intellectual: Origen’s Understanding of Religious Leadership”. Church History, 50 (1), pp. 5–19.
  19. Turner С. (1921) “Apostolic Succession”, in: H. Swete (ed.) Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry. London, рp. 93–214.
  20. Wojtowytsch M. (1981) Papsttum und Konzile von den Anfängen bis zu Leo (440‒461). Stuttgart.

Zakharov Georgy


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University; 23b, Novokuznetskaya st., Moscow 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of the Department of Systematical Theology and Patrologу;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3406-2088;
Email: g.e.zakharov@gmail.com.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Fokin Alexey

Criticism and apology of the doctrine of “homoeousia” in latin patristics of the 4th century: Marius Victorinus vs. Hilary of Poitiers

Fokin Alexey (2019) "Criticism and apology of the doctrine of “homoeousia” in latin patristics of the 4th century: Marius Victorinus vs. Hilary of Poitiers ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 31-51 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201985.31-51
This article studies the doctrine of “homoeousion” (“similarity in substance”) of Father and Son in Latin patristics of the 4th century. It highlights a non-concordant reaction of Western Niceans to this doctrine, which was proposed in 358 by the leader of Homoeusians Basil of Ankyra. The article analyses the conciliatory position taken as to the Homoeousians and their doctrine by St. Hilary of Poitiers in his treatise De synodis. It is shown that St. Hilary introduces the concept of similarity to sililarity by essence or nature and equals such similarity with the equality of the nature, which also presupposes the unity of essence and allows one to avoid modalism. The similarity of Father and Son in some other aspects (properties, powers, actions, glory) is always considered by St. Hilary as insuffi cient and secondary in relation to the similarity or equality by nature. Thus, trying to forge a link between Western Niceans and Homoeousians, St. Hilary suggested that the Homoeousian terminology should be used along with the Homousian or as its complement, particularly by introducing the concept of “dissimilar similarity” of Father and Son by essence, which is identical with their homoiousia. Completely diff erent position as to the attitude to homoeousia was taken by Marius Victorinus. The article looks at the question of the degree of familiarity of Victorinus with theology of Homoeousians as well as at the circumstances around writing the fi rst book of his treatise Contra Arium. It is shown that Victorinus uses Aristotle’s logic and proves that the concept of similarity by essence is logicaly contradictory, as with its help it is impossible to express the idea of perfect equality of Father and Son, nor it is possible to substantiate the dissimilarity of Son and created beings. The articles makes the point that the conciliatory stand as to Homoeousians taken by St. Hilary was not accepted by the church, whereas the position of Marius Victorinus, which coincided with that of St. Athanasius the Great, came to be dominant.
Christianity, theology, Arian controversy, triadology, essence, property, unity, identity, similarity, Hilary of Poitiers, Maius Victorinus
  1. Ayres L. (2004) Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth Century Trinitarian Theology. New York.
  2. Abogado J. (2016) Hilary of Poitiers on Conciliating the Homouseans and the Homoeouseans: An Inquiry on the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Controversy. Bern.
  3. Beckwith C. (2008) Hilary of Poitiers on the Trinity. From De Fide to De Trinitate. Oxford; New York.
  4. Bolotov V. (1994) Lektsii po istorii Drevnei Tserkvi [Lectures on History of the Ancient Church], vols 1–4. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Fokin A. (2007) Khristianskii platonizm Mariia Viktorina [Christian Platonism of Marius Victorinus]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Fokin A. (2009) “Ilarii Piktaviiskii” [Hilary of Poitiers], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 22. Moscow, рp. 77–103 (in Russian).
  7. Fokin A. (2014) Formirovanie trinitarnoi doktriny v latinskoi patristike [Development of Trinitary Doctrine in Latin Patristics]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Hadot P. (1960) “Introduction”, in: Marius Victorinus. Traités théologiques sur la Trinité. Sources Chrétiennes, 68. Paris. Pp. 7–89.
  9. Hadot P. (1971) Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres. Vols 1–2. Paris.
  10. Hanson R. (1988) Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Edinbourgh.
  11. Henne P. (2006) Introduction à Hilaire de Poitiers. Paris.
  12. Marius Victorinus (1960). Traités théologiques sur la Trinité. Sources Chrétiennes, vol. 68. Paris.
  13. Meslin M. (1967) Les ariens d’Occident 335–430. Paris.
  14. Popov I. (2004) “Sviatoi Ilarii, episkop Piktaviiskii” [St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers], in: I. Popov. Trudy po patrologii [Studies in Patrology], vol. 1. Sergiev Posad. 1. Pp. 417–734 (in Russian).
  15. Quasten J. (1986) Patrology. Vol. 3. Westminster.
  16. Simonetti M. (1975) La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Roma.
  17. Smulders P. (1944) La doctrina trinitaria de S. Hilaire de Poitiers. Roma.
  18. Steenson J. (1985) “Basil of Ancyra on the Meaning of Homoousios”, in: R. Gregg (ed.) Arianism: Historical and Theological Assessment. Cambridge. Pp. 267–279.
  19. Weedman M. (2007) The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers. Leiden; Boston.
  20. Weedman M. (2007) “Hilary and the Homoiousians: using new categories to map the Trinitarian controversy”. Church History, 76, pp. 491–510.

Fokin Alexey


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2554-005X;
Email: al-fokin@yandex.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

Shpakovskiy Mikhail

Triadology of Joseph Volotsky

Shpakovskiy Mikhail (2019) "Triadology of Joseph Volotsky ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 52-70 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201985.52-70
This article deals with the Trinitarian doctrine of Joseph Volotsky. This doctrine has not yet been described by scholars in a detailed and systematic way. The article shows that Joseph followed the traditional ontology of the Trinity, which he presented systematically in the fi rst section of Просветитель (Russ. ‘Enlightener’). In order to describe the general in the Trinity, he uses the terminological pair естество (‘nature’) and существо (‘substance’), and for the hypostases such terms as состав, собство, лице, образ, ипостась are used. In order to clarify the obscurities in the hegumen’s terminology, it was necessary to address the main patristic texts translated into Slavonic (Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus), which allowed us to demonstrate important shades in the philosophical use of these words. It became clear that the similarity of terms related to hypostases goes back to Clement of Ochrid. The hegumen interprets the nature of the deity by means of apophatic myscticism, which conditioned signifi cant aspects of human knowledge of God. On the whole, in questions of Trinitarian ontology, Joseph takes quite a traditional position. Afterwards, the Enlightener with its doctrine was proclaimed “Luminary of Orthodoxy” at Moscow council against heretics of 1553‒54. The hegumen was also developing the topic of divine names, and in his reasoning the following types of names can be distinguished: (1) general, (2) hypostases, (3) common actions and properties in the Trinity. Joseph’s polemic with the Judaisers led him to revising the rational argumentation in favour of the existence of the Trinity based on analogy with the “image of God” in man. Joseph’s arguments are also interesting in that they make it possible to reconstruct some philosophical views of heretics and relate them to specifi c texts of the Judaisers. At the end of the article, the conclusion is made that the emergence of the triadology of Joseph Volotsky demonstrates that the intellectual level of culture of Moscow Rus’ rose considerably in the 16th century.
Ancient Rus’, Christianity, Josephites, Joseph Volotsky, Enlightener, Judaisers, divine names, patristics, triadology, Old Russian theology, Old Russian philosophy
  1. Alekseev A. (2010) Sochineniia Iosifa Volotskogo v kontekste polemiki 1480–1510 gg. [Writings of Joseph Volotsky in Context of Polemic of 1480‒1510]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  2. Barankova G., Mil’kov V. (2001) Shestodnev Ioanna ekzarkha Bolgarskogo [The Hexaemeron of John the Exarch]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  3. Bruni A. (2010) Vizantiiskaia traditsiia i staroslavianskii perevod Slov Grigoriia Nazianzina [Byzantine Tradition and Old Slavonic Translation of Gregory’s of Nazianzus Orationes], vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Fokin A. (2011) “Ratsional’nye metody obosnovaniia Bozhestvennoi Troichnosti v zapadnoi i vostochnoi patristike” [Rationalist Methods of Substantiating the Divine Trinity in Western and Eastern Patristics]. Filosofiia religii: al’manakh 2010–2011. Moscow. Pp. 95–115 (in Russian).
  5. Goltz H., Prochorov G. (eds) (2011) Das Corpus des Dionysios Areiopagites in der slavischen Übersetzung von Starec Isaij a (14. Jahrhundert) (= Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris, 56), Bd. 2. Freiburg i. Br.
  6. Kazakova N., Lur’e Ia. (1955) Antifeodal’nye ereticheskie dvizheniia na Rusi XIV — nachala XVI veka [Antifeudal Heretic Movements in Rus’ of the 14th — Early 16th Centuries]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian).
  7. Kamchatnov A. (1992) “O simvolicheskom istolkovanii semanticheskoi evoliutsii slov litse i obraz” [On Symbolic Interpretation of Semantic Evolution of the Words litse and obraz]. Germenevtika drevnerusskoi literatury. XI–XIV vv., 5. Moscow. Pp. 285–299 (in Russian).
  8. Kamchatnov A. (ed.) (2002) Paleia Tolkovaia. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Kliment Okhridski (1970, 1977). Sbrani schineniia [Selected Works], vols 1, 2. Sofiia (in Bulgarian).
  10. Kriza Á. (2011) A középkori orosz képvédő irodalom I: Bizánci források — Drevnerusskie teksty v zashchitu ikon, chast’ 1: Vizantiiskoe nasledie [Ancient Russian Texts in Defence of Icons, Part 1: Byzantine Legacy]. Budapest.
  11. Lytvynenko V. (2015) “Anti-Arian Arguments in the Iosif Volotskij ’s Polemic against the Judaisers”. Parresia Revue pro vý chodní kř esť anství . A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 9–10, pp. 53–75.
  12. Lytvynenko V. (2018) “Selective Textual Evidence as a Case for a Single Translator of Athanasius’ Orations Against the Arians into Old Slavonic”. SLOVO, Journal of the Old Church Slavonic Institute, 68, pp. 199–226.
  13. Okhotnikova V. (2007) Pskovskaia agiografi ia XIV–XVII vv.: Issledovaniia i teksty [Pskov Hagiography of the 14th — 17th Centuries. Studies and Texts], in 2 vols. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  14. Petrov V. (2007) Maksim Ispovednik: ontologiia i metod v vizantiiskoi fi losofi i VII v [Maximus the Confessor: Ontology and Method in Byzantine Philosophy of the 7th Century]. Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Prokhorov G., Miklas X., Bil’diug A. (eds) (2008) “Dioptra” Filippa Monotropa: antropologicheskaia entsiklopediia pravoslavnogo Srednevekov’ia [Dioptra by Philip Monotropos: Anthropological Encyclopaedia of Orthodox Middle Ages]. Moscow (in Russian).
  16. Rykov Iu., Turilov A. (1984) “Neizvestnyi epizod bolgarsko-vizantiisko-russkih sviazei XI v.: Kievskii pisatel’ Grigorii Filosof” [Unknown Episode of Bulgarian-Byzantine‒Russian Links of the 11th Century: Kievan Writer Grigoriy the Philosopher]. Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR: Materialy i issledovaniia, 1982. Moscow. Pp. 170–176 (in Russian).
  17. Sapozhnikova O. (2008) “Bogoslovie Ioanna Damaskina v sostave drevnerusskikh sbornikov XV v. i Florentiiskaia uniia” [Theology of John of Damascus in Old Russian Collections of the 15th Centiry and the Florentine Union]. Vizantiiskii vremennik, 67 (92), pp. 117–141 (in Russian).
  18. Sapozhnikova O. (2013) “«Bogoslovie» Ioanna Damaskina i voprosy tsitirovaniia v «Prosvetitele» Iosifa Volotskogo” [Theology of John of Damascus and Problems of Quoting in the Enlightener by Joseph Volotsky]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. «Istoriia, filologiia», 12 (2), pp. 177–187 (in Russian).
  19. Smirnova D. (2014) “K publikatsii poslaniia novgorodskogo arkhiepiskopa Feodosiia (1542– 1551 gg.) k novoprosveshchennym lopianam” [On the Publication of the Epistle of Feodosiy, the Archbishop of Novgorod (1542‒1551), to the Newly-Enlightened Laplanders]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. «Istoriia i filologiia», 1, pp. 154–159 (in Russian).
  20. Taube M. (1994) “The Spiritual Circle in the Secret of Secrets and the Poem on the Soul”. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 18 (3/4). P. 342–355.
  21. Taube M. (1997) “Posleslovie k «Logicheskim terminam» Maimonida i eres’ zhidovstvuiushchikh” [Afterword to the Terms of Logic by Maimonid and the Heresy of the Judaisers], in: In memoriam: Sbornik pamiati S. Ia. Lur’e [Collection of Papers in Memory of S. Ia. Lur’ye]. St. Petersburg. Pp. 239–246 (in Russian).
  22. Taube M. (1995) “The “Poem on the Soul” in the Laodicean Epistle and the Literature of the Judaizers”. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 19, pp. 671–685.
  23. Trefandilov Kh. (1998) “«Bogoslovie» Ioanna Damaskina v perevode Ioanna Ekzarkha Bolgarskogo («Nebesa») i original’nye proizvedeniia drevnerusskoi literatury XI–XVI vv.” [Theology by John of Damascus Translated by John the Exarch (“Heaven”) and Original Texts of Old Russian Literature of the 11th — 16th Centuries], in: Preslavska knizhovna shkol, vol. 3, pp. 85–119 (in Russian).
  24. Weiher E. (ed.) (2017) Die altbulgarische Übersetzung der Katechesen Kyrills von Jerusalem (= Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris, 64) (GIM Sin. 478). Freiburg i. Br.
  25. Weiher E., Šmidt S., Škurko A. (eds) (2007) Die Grossen Lesemenäen Des Metropoliten Makarij . Uspenskij Spisok (= Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris, 51). Freiburg i. Br.
  26. Zamaleev A. (1998) Vostochnoslavianskie mysliteli: Epokha Srednevekov’ia [East Slavonic Thinkers: Period of Middle Ages]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  27. Zimin A., Lur’e Ia. (eds) (1959) Poslaniia Iosifa Volotskogo [Epistles of Josepf Volotsky]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian).

Shpakovskiy Mikhail


Student status: Master's Degree Student;
Place of study: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Junior Research Fellow Department of Philosophy of Religion;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0905-2988;
Email: shpakomih@mail.ru.

PHILOSOPHY

Rezvykh Tatiana

Wilhelm Stern: personalism, organism, teleology

Rezvykh Tatiana (2019) "Wilhelm Stern: personalism, organism, teleology ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 73-87 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201985.73-87
This article deals with main elements of the system of personalism developed by the German and American psychologist V. Stern. This system is practically unknown in Russia. Stern’s conception is described in the context of teleological worldview which was developing at the beginning of the 20th century. The article discusses Stern’s criticism of the preceding personalism and impersonalism and argues that the main feature of Stern’s concept of the person is that he places in the position of the ability of consciousness the function of the individual viability of an activity as the person’s selfdevelopment. The article also analyses his fundamental principle of teleomechanical parallelism, according to which the person, from the external side, interacts with other persons and is therefore inevitably conditioned by the law of causality. As for the internal side, it is an autonomous goal-setting being. The article gives a detailed analysis of features of this model of personalism, i.e. the simultaneous view of the person in perspectives of teleology and causality; placing in the foundation of the personality such parameters as self-protection and self-development; understanding of existence as a hierarchy of persons, panpsychism. The article also discusses Stern’s revision of understanding the personality in the spirit of individual causality. According to Stern, the world is a hierarchically designed organism of persons. Each person is a living being potentially able to develop. The system of operating and interacting persons exists between the two borders of the absolute person (“God”) and absolute impersonality (“matter”). The article also analyses gnoseological foundations of Stern’s ontology. It is Kant’s revised doctrine of categories that makes up the foundation of his ontology. The article analyses critically Stern’s conception as a sui generis rationalist version of philosophy of life. An attempt of the synthesis undertaken by Stern carries an obvious contradiction of the deductive substantiation of life as an irrational element. The article discusses critical evaluations of Stern’s book in Russian philosophical literature (S. L. Frank, priest Pavel Florensky). Stern’s conception is incorporated into the context of the doctrine of creative causality in the Russian neo-Leibzianism (L. M. Lopatin, N. O. Lossky, S. A. Levitsky).
person, personalism, impersonalism, mechanism, organism, teleology, function
  1. Dilthey W. (2004) Postroenie istoricheskogo mira v naukakh o dukhe [The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences]. Moscow (Russian translation).
  2. Eiken R. (2006) Filosofiia istorii [Philosophy of History]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Evlampiev I., Kupriianov V. (2019) Teleologiia v klassicheskoi i neklassicheskoi fi losofi i [Teleology in Classical and Non-Classical Philosophy]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  4. Florenskii P., priest (1990) Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny [The Pillar and Ground of the Truth]. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Levitskii S. (1946) Osnovy organicheskogo mirovozzreniia [Foundations of Organic Worldview]. Frankfurt am Mein (in Russian).
  6. Litvin T. (2010) “O vliianii V. Shterna na fenomenologiiu soznaniia vremeni E. Gusserlia” [On Stern’s Infl uence on Phenomenology of Consciousness in the TIme of E. Husserl]. Logos, 5 (78), pp. 148–153 (in Russian).
  7. Losskii N. (1927) Svoboda voli [Freedom of Will]. Paris (in Russian).
  8. Oizerman T. (ed.) (1964) I. Kant. Sochineniia [Works], vols 1, 3. Moscow (Russian translation).
  9. Riсkert G. (1997) Granitsy estestvennonauchnogo obrazovaniia poniatii [The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science]. St Petersburg (Russian translation).
  10. Sokolov V. (ed.) (1982) G. Leibnits. Sochineniia [Works], vol. 1. Moscow (Russian translation).
  11. Troeltsch E. (1994) Istorizm i ego problemy [Der Historismus und seine Probleme]. Moscow (Russian translation).

Rezvykh Tatiana


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 9/2 Ilovaiskaya Str., 109651, Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-4429-5405;
Email: hamster-70@mail.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Gaponenkov Alexey; Tsygankov Alexander

“Symphonic philosophising” (biographical features of S. L. Frank’s and l. Binswanger’s correspondence)

Tsygankov Alexander, Gaponenkov Alexey (2019) "“Symphonic philosophising” (biographical features of S. L. Frank’s and l. Binswanger’s correspondence) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 88-107 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201985.88-107
The article analyses biographical features in the correspondence between the Russian philosopher S. L. Frank and the Swiss psychiatrist L. Binswanger. It is one of the most notable examples of philosophical dialogue between Russia and Western Europe. It lasted for almost 16 years from November 1934 to December 1950. The correspondents make a very open and intimate conversation on various topics, e. g. elevated understanding of true male friendship, scientifi c interests in the fi elds of psychology, philosophy, religion, psychoanalysis, medicine, travels, conferences, presentations, meetings of philosophers, mutual friends, circle of reading (Russian literature and contemporary European authors), history of Europe, everyday life, everyday concerns about children and spouse, illness, notifi cations of the death of loved ones. The correspondence between Frank and Binswanger has a character of confession and helps not only clarify certain facts of the life of the Russian philosopher in emigration, but also provides new valuable materials for understanding his personal, spiritual and philosophical evolution, as well as the creative history of published and unpublished works. Currently, this correspondence, kept in the archive of the University of Tübingen, is being prepared for publication both in Russian translation and in the original languages (German, French, English).
philosophical dialogue between Russia and Western Europe, S. L. Frank’s philosophy, biography, correspondence, L. Binswanger, psychoanalysis, Russian émigré philosophy
  1. Aliaev G., Rezvykh T. (2016) “Druzhba, ispytuemaia zhizn’iu: K perepiske S. Franka i V. El’iashevicha” [Friendship Trialled by Life: On the Correspondence between S. Frank and V. El’iashevich], in: M. Kolerov (ed.) Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli. Ezhegodnik za 2015 god [Studies in History of the Russian Thought. Annual for 2015]. Moscow, рp. 7–39 (in Russian).
  2. Boobbyer Ph. (2001) S.L. Frank. The Life and Work of a Russian philosopher 1877–1950. Moscow (Russian translation).
  3. Gaponenkov A. (2010) “Epistoliarnyi dialog Petra Struve i Semena Franka (1922–1944)” [Epistolary Dialogue of Petr Struve and Semen Frank (1922‒1944). Obshchaia tetrad’. Vestnik Moskovskoi shkoly politicheskikh issledovanii, 1(51) (in Russian). Available at otetrad.ru/article-109.html (accessed 04.10.2019).
  4. Gaponenkov A. (2014) “Epistoliarnyi dialog S. L. Franka i N. A. Berdiaeva (1923–1947)” [Epistolary Dialogue of S. L. Frank and N. A. Berdiaev (1923‒1947)]. Voprosy filosofii, 2, pp. 119–130 (in Russian).
  5. Gaponenkov A. (2017) “Religioznaia fi losofi ia Vl. S. Solov’eva v retseptsii S.L. Franka” [Religious Philosophy of Vl. Solovyev as Refl ected by S.L. Frank]. Voprosy filosofii, 6, pp. 105–121 (in Russian).
  6. Tsygankov A., Obolevich T. (2018) “«Germaniia uzhe stala dlia menia moei vtoroi rodinoi»: zhiznennyi i tvorcheskii put’ S.L. Franka v perepiske s F. Khailerom et circum” [“Germany has Already Become my Second Homeland”: S.L. Frank’s Life and Work in Correspondence with F. Heiler et circum]. Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik. Pp. 293–313 (in Russian).
  7. Tsygankov A., Obolevich T. (2018) “Istoriia sem’i i tvorchestva S. L. Franka v perepiske L. Binsvangera i T.S. Frank” [History of S. L. Frank’s Family and Work in Correspondence between L. Binswanger and T. S. Frank]. Filosofiia. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki, II (2), pp. 134–155 (in RUssian).
  8. Tsygankov A., Obolevich T. (2019) Nemetskii period fi losofskoi biografi i S.L. Franka (novye materialy) [German Period in S.L. Frank’s Philosophical Biography (New Materials)]. Moscow (in Russian).

Gaponenkov Alexey


Academic Degree: Doctor of sciences* in Philology;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Saratov State University, 83 Astrakhanskaya Str., Saratov, 410012, Russian Federation;
Post: Professor, Department of Russian and Foreign Literature;
ORCID: 0000-0003-2177-1835;
Email: gaponenkovaa@info.sgu.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.


Tsygankov Alexander


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0002-1216-1042;
Email: m1dian@yandex.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This work was supported by grant 19-011-00918 А from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research.

RELIGIOUS STUDIES

Tikhonova Victoria

Features of religious identity of citizens of Russia who practise Transcendental meditation

Tikhonova Victoria (2019) "Features of religious identity of citizens of Russia who practise Transcendental meditation ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 111-121 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201985.111-121
This article presents results of an analysis of the religious identifi cation of Russians practising transcendental meditation and united on this basis in a broad community that can serve as an example of a new type of multireligious movement, since the religiosity of its participants is diverse. The article discusses the grouping of the sample of representatives of the movement into seven groups, namely “Orthodox Christians who are regular church-goers”, “those calling themselves Orthodox”, “supporters of religious and occult syncretism”, “believers with no religion”, “those regading themselves as Muslims, Judaists, Buddhists”, “adherents of Sanathan Dharma”, “defenders of the purity of Maharishi’s doctrine”. The self-identifi cation of the respondents is studied in the perspective of the models of religious identity proposed by I. Sokolovskaya, J. Bell, T. Pronina. The study has identifi ed the predominance of immature religious identity in the majority of interviewees (“premature”, as formulated by J. Bell), which in T. Pronina’s classifi cation is corresponded by the “civil-religious” and “spiritually-oriented” types. These indicators can change in each individual in course of time. Many of those meditating go deeper into the Orthodox faith and leave the movement. Those who follow the steps of hierarchy in Maharishi’s organisation are most often “believers with no religion”.
transcendental meditation, religious identity, Maharishi’s movement, new religious movements, new religiosity, religious syncretism, spiritual practice
  1. Davie G. (1990) “Believing without Belonging. Is this the Future of Religion in Britain? Social Compass, 37 (4), pp. 455–469.
  2. Dubin B. (2009) “Vektory i urovni kollektivnoi identifi katsii v segodniashnei Rossii” [Directions and Levels of Collective Identifi cation in Today’s Russia]. Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniia. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii, 2 (100), pp. 55–64 (in Russian).
  3. Makharishi Makhesh Iogi (2000). Nauka Bytiia i iskusstvo zhitiia [The Science of Being and the Art of Living]. Moscow (Russian translation).
  4. Orme-Johnson D. Truth about TM. Available at http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/Individual-Effects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm
  5. Shorokhova V. (2014) “Religioznaia identichnost’ v zarubezhnykh psikhologicheskikh issledovaniiakh: teoreticheskie modeli i sposoby izucheniia” [Religious Identity in Foreign Psychological Studies: Theoretical Patterns and Ways of Research]. Sotsial’naia psikhologiia i obshchestvo, 5 (4), pp. 44–61 (in Russian).
  6. Smith A. (1983) TM: an Aid to Christian Growth. Cambridge.

Tikhonova Victoria


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-2341-2641;
Email: vic.tihonova@yandex.ru.
I express my gratitude to K. M. Antonov, K. A. Kolkunova, T. A. Folieva.
Polyakov Andrew

Deists and deism as reflected in European religion and culture of the 16th — 18th centuries

Polyakov Andrew (2019) "Deists and deism as reflected in European religion and culture of the 16th — 18th centuries ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 122-133 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201985.122-133
This article analyses the history of the terms deist and deism in the European philosophical thought of the 16th — 18th centuries. It studies the meanings of the terms deist and deism which were given in foreign and Russian encyclopaediae, dictionaries and treatises of the period in question. It also demonstrates dynamics in the development of these terms as they were understood by preceding scholars. The article cites the terminology used by English, French, and German thinkers, among whom were both philosophers and theologians. Theologians’ interest in the deist thought is explained by the fact that in the above-mentioned period there was no clear understanding which domain the phenomenon of deism should be attributed to. The article also gives a detailed list of defi nitions of the terms deist and deism as well as their chronology, which makes up a signifi cant contribution to the study of the topic. The author of the article argues that despite the lack of a uniform understanding of the religious philosophy of deism, various authors outlined several general concepts, due to which the universally accepted defi nitions appeared. Besides, during these centuries clear views started to develop as to the multifaceted character of the deist thought, which resulted in the necessity to establish boundaries between various types of both deism itself and adjacent types of religious philosophy. The latter include atheist and theist philosophies, which, depending on specific authors, became close to or remote from one another. The conclusion of the paper summarises the main perspectives in viewing deism in the 16th — 18th centuries.
deism, deist, deist philosophy, interpretations of deism, history of deism, religious philosophy
  1. Betts C. (1984) Early Deism in France. From the So-Called ‘deistes’ of Lyon (1564) to Voltaire’s Lettres Philosophiques (1734). Hague.
  2. Ellenzweig S. (2005) “The Faith of Unbelief: Rochester’s “Satyre,” Deism, and Religious Freethinking in Seventeenth-Century England”. Journal of British Studies, 44 (1), pp. 27–45.
  3. Force J. (1996) “Samuel Clarke’s Four Categories of Deism, Isaac Newton, and the Bible”, in: Scepticism in the History of Philosophy: A Pan-American Dialogue. Boston. Pp. 53–74.
  4. Gogotskii S. (2015) Filosofskii leksikon. Sochineniia v shesti tomah [Philosophical Lexicon. Works, in 6 vols], vol. 2. Kiev (in Russian).
  5. Hudson W. (2009) The English Deists: Studies in Early Enlightenment. London.
  6. Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America, 2001, available at: https://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html (accessed 04.10.2019).
  7. Palin D. (2000) “Should Herbert of Cherbury be Regarded as a «Deist»?”. The Journal of Theological Studies, 51 (1), pp. 113–149.
  8. Prince M. (2013) “Religio Laici v. Religio Laici: Dryden, Blount, and the Origin of English Deism”. Modern Language Quarterly, 74 (1), pp. 29–66.
  9. Sokolov V. (2007) “Deism”, in: Bolshaia rossiiskaia entsiclopedia [Unabridged Russian Encyclopaedia]. Moscow. P. 429 (in Russian).
  10. Waligore J. (2014) “Christian Deism in Eighteenth Century England”. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 75 (3), pp. 205–222.

Polyakov Andrew


Place of work: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2/1 Goncharnaia Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Junior researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0003-1065-1352;
Email: Beatit10@yandex.ru.
The author is grateful to his supervisor Doctor of Philosophy,Professor Institute of Philosophy, Vladimir Kirillovich Shokhin for valuable advices and recommendations while writing this article.

BOOK REVIEWS

Khangireev Ilya

Rev. of Figures Who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures / G. G. Xeravits, G. Sch. Goering, eds. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2018 (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies; vol. 40). XXVI, 241 p.

Khangireev Ilya (2019) Rev. of Figures Who Shape Scriptures, Scriptures that Shape Figures / G. G. Xeravits, G. Sch. Goering, eds. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2018 (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies; vol. 40). XXVI, 241 p., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 137-141 (in Russian).

PDF

Khangireev Ilya


Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of Scientific-Administrative Department of the Theological faculty;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9590-9046;
Email: khangireev@gmail.com.
Posternak Andrey, priest

Rev. of McLarty J. D. Thecla’s Devotion. Narrative, Emotion and Identity in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2018. 257 p.

Posternak Andrey (2019) Rev. of McLarty J. D. Thecla’s Devotion. Narrative, Emotion and Identity in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2018. 257 p., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 85, pp. 142-145 (in Russian).

PDF

Posternak Andrey, priest


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Dean of the faculty of History;
ORCID: 0000-0003-1310-3503;
Email: posternakav@inbox.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.