/
Search results


Черепанов Д. Д. Искусство и трансцендентное начало у Й. фон Эйхендорфа // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2014. Вып. 2 (37). С. 74-81. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII201437.74-81
The article deals with J. von Eichendorff’s concept of art and its difference from the views of Jena romantics. Special attention is given to the transformation of the religious world view peculiar to the Jena period, where the divine was typically understood as immanent. As Jena romantics discovered J. Boehme, they adopted his monistic approach, understanding the entire world as a manifestation of the Absolute. Art was therefore conceived as the appearance of the spiritual, i.e. of the divine. Thus the hero of L. Tiecks novellas «Der getreue Eckart und Der Tannenhäuser» (1799) and «Runenberg» (1804), even losing himself in the phantastic, always remains faithful to his artistic calling. Still seeing the world as a «hieroglyph», a symbol of the invisible, Eichendorff does not share these metaphysic ideas. His works represent another vision of the world, diff erentiating between transcendent God and immanent spiritual reality. The article suggests that this new notion of the spiritual is one of the reasons causing the emerging distinction between art and religion. Eichendorff’s early novel «Ahnung und Gegenwart» (1815) as well as his novellas «Die Zauberei im Herbste» (1808/1809) and «Das Marmorbild» (1818) are read in this context, showing a transformation of the romantic thought: for Eichendorff, too, poetry grants access to the spiritual world, making the artist sensible to the hidden beauty of nature. Transformed through poetic vision, nature indicates the existence of the transcendent, and may thus lead to God; but it also may fascinate the artist, captivating him in the realm of immanent. «Die Zauberei im Herbste» depicts an artist who is separated from the transcendent by «earthly images» («der Erde Bilder»); «Das Marmorbild» threats the danger of deifying spiritualized nature. A comparison with A. von Arnim’s novel «Armut, Reichtum, Schuld und Buße der Gräfi n Dolores» (1810), which had a strong influence on Eichendorff, further demonstrates the originality of the latter’s notion of art.
Romanticism, art, transcendent, God, Eichendorff, Boehme, Novalis, Tieck, Arnim.
1. Berdjaev N. A. 1930 “Iz jetjudov o Ja. Bjome. Jetjud I. Uchenie ob Ungrund“ (From Essays about J. Boehme. Doctrine of Ungrund), in Put', 1930, vol. 20, pp. 47–79.
2. Bulgakov S. N. 1999 “Svet nevechernij“, in Pervoobraz i obraz, Moscow, 1999, vol. 1.
3. Zhirmunskij V. M. Nemeckij romantizm i sovremennaja mistika (German Romantics and Modern Mysticism), Moscow, 1915.
4. Zhirmunskij V. M. Religioznoe otrechenie v istorii romantizma (Religious Demise in History of Romantics), Moscow, 1919.
5. Il'in I.A. Aksiomy religioznogo opyta (Axioms of Religious Experience), Moscow, 1993.
6. Berchtenbreiter I. Achim von Arnims Vermittlerrolle zwischen Jakob Böhme als Dichter und seiner „Wintergesellschaft“, München, 1972.
7. Gunsky H. Jacob Boehme, Stuttgart, 1984.
8. Kern J. P. Ludwig Tieck: Dichter einer Krise, Heidelberg, 1977.
9. Lüthi H. J. Dichtung und Dichter bei Joseph von Eichendorff, Bern, München, 1966.
10. Lutz D. 2011 “Religion“, in Ludwig Tieck: Leben — Werk — Wirkung, Berlin, Boston, 2011.
11. Offermanns E. L. Der universale romantische Gegenwartsroman Achim von Arnims, Köln, 1959.
12. Riley T. A. 1959 “An Allegorical Interpretation of Eichendorff’s „Ahnung und Gegenwart““, in The Modern Language Review, 1959, vol. 54/2, pp. 204–213.
13. Stöcklein P. Joseph von Eichendorff, Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1963.
Гальцова Е. Д. Малларме и радостная красота повседневности // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2014. Вып. 2 (37). С. 85-90. — Rev. op.: Barbara Bohac. Jouir partout ainsi qu’il sied. Mallarmé et l’esthétique du quotidien. P.: Classiques Garnier, 2013
PDF

Тарадина Л. Д. Международные рейтинги университетов: влияют ли они на развитие университетов и стоит ли им доверять? // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия IV: Педагогика. Психология. 2014. Вып. 2 (33). С. 9-17. DOI: 10.15382/sturIV201433.9-17
This article discusses different aspects of credibility to university rankings. The idea of comparing universities through ranking methodology was initially an instrument of independent university performance assessment. But in the last few years it became more and more clear that university rankings transform to an instrument which determines university's progress and therefore influences university's behavior and even its development strategy. The issue of credibility to international university rankings is analyzed in connection to academic excellence initiatives which were implemented during the last decade in a number of countries including Russia. In a number of cases universiti's achievements in the international rankings were considerend as a confirmation of academic excellence and it became more popular to use it as a basis for making policy and fi nancial decisions on a national level. Ranking achievements are also taken into accound in diff erent grant competitions and international cooperation projects. The article describes five basic aspects of credibility to university rankings: authorship of methodology, financial leadership and stability, source of data, fixing weight of the indicators, using or not using academic reputation survey. The author doubts the relevance of competitive approach to the mission and vision of modern university and comes to the conclusion that participation in the ranking rush fixes rather rigid boundaries which don’t enable universities to set their own priorities and restrict opportunities for academic development.
university rankings, HEI rankings, international university rankings, university ranking credibility, ARWU, THE, U-Multirank, multi-dimensional international ranking, university ranking criticism, international universities competitiveness, academic exce

1. Salmi Dzh., Frumin I. D. 2013 “Kak gosudarstva dobivajutsja mezhdunarodnoj konkurentosposobnosti universitetov: uroki dlja Rossii” (How Do the States Reach International Capacity of Universities: Lessons for Russia), in Voprosy obrazovanija, 2013, vol. 1.
2. Mezhdunarodnaja observatorija po rejtingovaniju IREG, Berlinskie principy ranzhirovanija vysshih uchebnyh zavedenij (International Observatory for Rating IREG, Berlin Principles of Ranking of Universities), in http://www.iregobservatory.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=60
3. Taradina L. D. 2013 “Rejtingovanie universitetov” (Ranking of Universities), in Otechestvennye zapiski, 2013, vol. 4.
Корина Н. Д. Московское училище живописи, ваяния и зодчества как центр формирования московской школы живописи в сер. XIX - нач. XX в // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2014. Вып. 2 (14). С. 117-135. DOI: 10.15382/sturV201414.117-135
The Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture throughout the history of its existence (1843-1918) was an excellent example of the educational institution, based on the most relevant principles of public consciousness. It was begun in 1843, when on the basis of Art class, was established the Moscow School of painting and sculpture, then the process of becoming ended accession in 1865-1866 of the Kremlin architectural school, giving in the adopted Charter its final name - Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. The progressivity of the School was in a special approach in the work with students, innovative methods of pedagogical system. On one hand it took over from the Academy of arts the best traditions of the classical European art education, on the other hand - didn’t deny national peculiarities of Russian art, was receptive to the latest trends in painting. With the vast creative potential, it has required from its students the highest professional skills, and at the same time openly gave them the opportunity for creative expression, free expression of individual talents. In the future, MSPSA becomes a center of the formation of a unique phenomenon in Russian art of the middle XIX - early XX century - the Moscow school of painting. At different times professors and students of the School were the artists who have made the glory of Russian art: V. E. Makovsky, V. G. Perov, Y. S. Sorokin, N. V. Nevrev, I. M. Pryanishnikov, A. K. Savrasov, V. D. Polenov, K. A. Savitsky, N. A. Kasatkin, A. M. Korin, L. O. Pasternak, S. D. Miloradovich, A. E. Arkhipov, S. M. Volnukhin, V. A. Serov, I. I. Levitan, A. S. Stepanov, V. N. Baksheev, S. V. Ivanov, A. M. Vasnetsov, K. A. Korovin and S. A. Korovin, P. P. Trubetskoj, M. F. Larionov, N. S. Goncharova, N. N. Sapunov, S. Y. Sudejkin, M. S. Sar΄yan, P. V. Kuznetsov, D. I. Mitrokhin, A. Y. Golovin, D. D. Burlyuk and many others.
history, Russian art, painting, Moscow school of painting, Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, student exhibitions, art directions, Association of Itinerant Art Exhibitions (Peredvizhniki), XIX century

1. Dmitrieva N. A. Moskovskoe uchilishhe zhivopisi, vajanija i zodchestva (Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture), Moscow, 1951.
2. Duksht V. Materialy k istorii Moskovskogo hudozhestvennogo obshhestva i sostojashhego pri nem Uchilishha zhivopisi, vajanija i zodchestva. 1832–1866 (Materials to History of Moscow Art Society and Joint to It School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. 1832–1866), Moscow, 1904.
3. Kakosjan A. K 90-letiju hudozhnika M. S. Sar'jana (To 90 Anniversary of Artist M. S. Sar’jan), Moscow, 1970.
4. Kalugina O. V. Osnovnye problemy jevoljucii russkoj skul'ptury konca XIX — nachala XX veka v kontekste vzaimootnoshenij moskovskoj i peterburgskoj shkol: avtoref. dis. … d-ra iskusstvovedenija (Main Probems of Evolution of Russian Sculpture of End of XIX — Begin of XX Century in Context of Interactions of Moscow and Petersburg Schools: Dissertation Abstract), Moscow, 2012.
5. Mastera iskusstv ob iskusstve (Art Masters about Art), Moscow, 1969, vol. 6.
6. [Sergeevich S. Sergej Glagol']. K dvadcatipjatiletiju vystavok kartin uchenikov Uchilishha zhivopisi, vajanija i zodchestva. Katalog 25-j vystavki MUZhVZ (To 25 Anniversary to Picture Exhibitions of Pupils of School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. Catalogue of 25th Exhibition of MUZhVZ), Moscow, 1902–1903.
7. Stepanova S. S. Moskovskoe uchilishhe zhivopisi i vajanija. Gody stanovlenija (Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. Years of Forming), Saint-Petersburg, 2005.
8. Jakovlev B. N. 1968 “K 75-letiju B. V. Iogansona” (To 75 Anniversary of B. V. Ioganson), in Hudozhnik, 1968, vol. 8.
Корина Н. Д. Храм Св. Александра Невского в столице Болгарии Софии - памятник русской воинской славе. История и современность // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2015. Вып. 1 (17). С. 145-156. DOI: 10.15382/sturV201517.145-156
The key problem of this article is preservation of monumental painting, created by Russian artists of the mid 19th - early 20th century. For many years, researchers didn’t see the artistic value in the paintings of that time and not really tried to preserve it for posterity. Because of this attitude, many monuments in Russia have been lost forever. In this connection we have some interesting examples of religious art, preserved outside of our country. One of these truly unique monument is the St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Sofia, built in honor of the thousands of Russian soldiers who died for the liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman rule. Fortunately, it does not suffer the fate of those temples that was erected in memory of this event in other Balkan countries, and it survives till nowdays almost in its original form. Here are preserved superior murals and icons by V. M. Vasnetsov, A. A. Kiselev, A. M. Korin, P. E. Myasoedov and other Russian and Bulgarian artists. At the moment, due to lack of proper conditions of preservation and insufficiency of funds frescoes of Sofia’s cathedral threatens destruction, so it is important now is to draw attention to the problem of preserving these monumental religious art that are part of our common cultural heritage.
Russian artists of the mid XIX- early XX century, the St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Sofia, monumental religious paintings, the Russian-Turkish war of 1877–1878, lost monuments, A. N. Pomerantsev, V. M. Vasnetsov, A. A. Kiselev, A. M. Korin, P.

1. Kolpakova G. S. Iskusstvo Vizantii. Rannij i Srednij periody (Byzantine Art. Early and Middle Periods), Saint-Petersburg, 2004.
2. Reshetnikova O. N. Russkij hram v Sofii (Russian Church in Sofia), Moscow, 2014.
3. Reshetnikova O. N. Hram kak simvol svobody (Church and Symbol of Freedom), in http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/adpilot/page412.html (Date: 20.12.2014).
4. Solov'ev V. S. Chtenija o Bogochelovechestve. Duhovnye osnovy zhizni. Opravdanie dobra (Reading about God-Human. Spiritual Grounds of Life. Justification of Good), Minsk, 1999.
5. Tosho Pejkov. Patriarsheskata katedrala «Sv. Aleksand’r Nevski». Stroiteli, prilozhnici, hudozhnici (Patriarch Cathedral “St. Alexandr of Neva”. Builders, Artists), Sofia, 2012.
Критский Б. Д. А. В. Свешников — исполнитель и педагог. К 125-летию со дня рождения мастера // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2015. Вып. 2 (18). С. 146-156. DOI: 10.15382/sturV201518.146-156
This article is dedicated to the 125th anniversary of Sveshnikov’ birth. Based on the experience, received during his education in MSCC (Moscow State Chorus College), the author analyzes the vocal-choral work of А. V. Sveshnikov, which was formed under the direct influence of church-vocal traditions. Keeping loyalty with native traditions, teacher-conductor increased them in the association managed by him, raising the culture of choral sounding to the unattainable level. The uniqueness of the methods of teaching of Sveshnikovis that it is oriented to the cultural memory of the native school of choral singing, which is held on two pillars — folkand church singing. Sveshnikovbuilt the system of aesthetical views, which determined his artistic-performer, pedagogical and organizational activity. Its analysis allowed the author to consider vocal-choral sounding as the special text, which characterizes the aesthetical features of the musical-intonation, sensually assimilating material. It contains art-like information, fulfi lling important communicative function. In the vocal-choral text the author distinguishes constant and variable sound characteristic. Sveshnikov worked them through in the process of mastering the special methods of the activity: the constant characteristics were worked through on the vocal exercises, variable characteristics — directly during the learning and performance of musical compositions. As a result the culture of sounding, the vocal-choral instrumentation of the performing works found multi-layer artistic semantics.
A. V. Sveshnikov — vocal teacher, performer, church-vocal traditions, the culture of choral sounding, constants and the variables of vocal-choral text.

1. Asaf'ev B. V. 1957 “Muzykal'naja forma kak process. Kniga 2. Intonacija” (Musical Form as Process. Book 2. Intonation), in Izbr. trudy, Moscow, 1957, vol. 5.
2. Glinka M. I. Uprazhnenija dlja usovershenstvovanija golosa, metodicheskie pojasnenija k nim i vokalizy-sol'fedzhio (Exercises for Perfection of Voice, Methodic Explanations to Them and Vocalizes-Solfeggio), Moscow, Leningrad, 1951.
3. Lotman Ju. M. Semiosfera (Semiosphere), Moscow, 1998.
4. Mazel' L. A. Stroenie muzykal'nyh proizvedenij: Ucheb. posobie dlja muz. vuzov (Structure of Musical Works: Textbook for Musical Students), Moscow, 1986.
5. Jurlov A. A. Nekotorye voprosy uchebno-repeticionnoj raboty professional'nogo hora: Dis. … kand. iskusstv (Some Questions of Teaching-Repetition Work of Professional Choir: Dissertation), Moscow, 1953.
Потанина Л. Т., Мельников Т. Н., Кузнецова Г. Д. Развитие ценностно-смысловой сферы личности средствами социально-ролевых форм групповой деятельности // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия IV: Педагогика. Психология. 2016. Вып. 4 (43). С. 24-31. DOI: 10.15382/sturIV201643.24-31
This article provides a description of the empirical studies on the impact of social and group activities on the development of value-semantic sphere of the personality of pupils of different age groups. Value-semantic sphere of the individual student is viewed from the position of one of its essential components — moral sphere. The development of value-semantic sphere of personality is studied from the position of formation of the student semantic structures, including the nature of the interaction with the world at the level of behavior. As criteria of value-semantic sphere of personality examines the ways of meaning refl ections of a student of the world, the involvement of the student in the event of life and a wide range of significant objects and phenomena of the surrounding world. Detailed description received pedagogical possibilities of the proposed methods of their conduct. Presents the results of empirical studies on the levels of development of moral sphere of the personality of the student, confirmed the effectiveness of the impact of social and group activities on the development of the moral qualities of the personality in educational process of elementary, middle, and high school.
value-semantic sphere of the personality, moral sphere of the personality, involvement in the events of life, social role forms of group activity, the involvement in a life situation, a wide range of important facilities

1. Kontseptsiia dukhovno-nravstvennogo razvitiia i vospitaniia lichnosti grazhdanina Rossii / A. Ia. Daniliuk, A. M. Kondakov, V. A. Tishkov, sost. Moscow, 2009.
2. Potanina L. T. Obrazno-simvolicheskoe myshlenie kak sredstvo razvitiia tsennostno-smyslovoi sfery lichnosti shkol'nika: Avtoref. dis. ... d-r psikhol. nauk. Moscow, 2015.
3. Shchurkova N. E. Klassnoe rukovodstvo: Igrovye metodiki. Moscow, 2008.
4. Shchurkova N. E. Sobran'e pestrykh del: Metodicheskii material dlia shkol'nogo pedagoga. Vladimir, 1993.
Potanina Leila
Mel'nikov Timur
Kuznetsova Galina
Cуслова Е. Д. Карельский священник-самозванец перед лицом церковных властей в первой трети XVIII века // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2017. Вып. 74. С. 63-79. DOI: 10.15382/sturII201774.63-79
The article “Karelian self-appointed orthodox priest in front of the church administration in the first third of the 18th century” focuses on the church hierarchy activity in the fi eld of regulating of fi lling priest’s vacancies in the Zaonezhskaya tithe of the Novgorod metropolitan in the second half of the 17th – first third of the 18th centhury. The issue is analyzed in the light of the case, which arose around the fact that a person, who assured the community in his ordination, occupied the position of the priest. The research is based on revealing of social and family relations among the parishioners and clergy during a few decades and on examination of the case in a wide context of the Church law and measures that were undertaken in this sphere by metropolitans of Novgorod. The investigation shows that parish communities in Zaonezhie used actively their right to elect candidates for the position of priest. The church authority acknowledged the legitimacy of the parish elections, but, at the same time, took intensive steps for regulation of filling priest's vacancies in order to unify and bring discipline into the spiritual life of Karelian parishes. Metropolitans of Novgorod successfully carried the requirements of the Church hierarchy by introduction of the position of priests’ elders, who served their archbishop, but in comparison with the other agents had authority among local clergy and parishioners.
traditions of community self-government, peasant community, parish clergy elections, churchman, ordination, Orthodox Church parish, Novgorod metropolitan, Zaonezh skaya tithe, Olonetsky Uyezd, Russian Orthodox church, Early Modern Time

Bogoslovskij M. M. Zemskoe samoupravlenie na Russkom Severe v XVII v. T. 2: Dejatel'nost' zemskogo mira. Zemstvo i gosudarstvo. M., 1912.
Verjuzhskij V. M. Afanasij, arhiepiskop Holmogorskij: Ego zhizn' i trudy v svjazi s istoriej Holmogorskoj eparhii za pervye 20 let ee sushhestvovanija i voobshhe Russkoj cerkvi v konce XVII v.: Cerkovno-istoricheskij ocherk. SPb., 1908.
Grekov B. D. Novgorodskij dom Svjatoj Sofii (opyt izuchenija organizacii i vnutrennih otnoshenij krupnoj cerkovnoj votchiny). SPb., 1914.
Znamenskij P. V. Prihodskoe duhovenstvo na Rusi. SPb., 2003 (pereizd. s izd. 1867 g.).
Znamenskij P. V. Prihodskoe duhovenstvo v Rossii so vremeni reformy Petra. SPb., 2003 (pereizd. s izd. 1873 g.).
Kamkin A. V. Tradicionnye krest'janskie soobshhestva Evropejskogo Severa Rossii v XVIII veke: Avtoref. dis. … d-r ist. nauk. M., 1993.
Kartashev A. V. Ocherki po istorii Russkoj Cerkvi: V 2 t. T. 2. M., 1992 (pereizd. s izd. 1959 g.).
Mironov B. N. Rossijskaja imperija: ot tradicii k modernu: V 3 t. T. 1. SPb., 2014.
Perov I. F. Eparhial'nye uchrezhdenija v Russkoj Cerkvi v XVI—XVII vv. Rjazan', 1882.
Pul'kin M. V. Pravoslavnyj prihod i vlast' v seredine XVIII — nachale XX v. (po materialam Oloneckoj eparhii). Petrozavodsk, 2009.
Pul'kin M. V., Zaharova O. A., Zhukov A. Ju. Pravoslavie v Karelii (XV — pervaja tret' XX v.). Moscow, 1999.
Staricyn A. N. Prosopografija severnoj derevni vremen cerkovnoj reformy XVII v. // Drevnjaja Rus': Voprosy medievistiki. 2014. № 2 (56). P. 5–10.
Suslova E. D. Cerkov' i krest'janskoe soobshhestvo v Karelii v konce XV — nachale XVIII v.: Avtoref. dis. … kand. ist. nauk. SPb., 2012.
Suslova E. D. Cerkovno-prihodskaja sistema v Karelii konca XV — nachala XVIII veka. Petrozavodsk, 2013. URL: http://carelica.petrsu.ru/Reading_hall/Suslova/Titul.pdf (data obrashhenija 17.10.2016).
Suslova E. D. Sluzhiteli cerkvi v Karelii rannego Novogo vremeni: skladyvanie dinastij. Petrozavodsk, 2013. URL: http://carelica.petrsu.ru/CARELICA/Suslova_2.html (data obrashhenija 17.10.2016).
Timoshenkova Z. A. Prihodskie cerkvi i krest'janskij mir na severo-zapade Rossii vo vtoroj polovine XVII — nachale XVIII v. // Srednevekovaja i novaja Rossija: Sb. nauch. st. k 60-letiju prof. I. Ja. Frojanova. SPb., 1996. P. 474–493.
Freeze Gregory L. The Russian Levites: parish clergy in the eighteenth century. Cambridge; L., 1977.
Критский Б. Д., Драмбян А. Хормейстер и регент. Грани профессионального мастерства // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2017. Вып. 26. С. 152-161. DOI: 10.15382/sturV201726.152-161
This article analyses the choirmaster’s and precentor’s professional activity from the point of view of the style. The activity of the “choir conductor” and “precentor” are similar in meaning, whereas the stylistic content of this activity remains dissimilar. The comparison of secular and church-singing choral art allows us to defi ne the term “performing style”, explore the links of vocal and choral intonation with religious experience of believers as a characteristic feature of the church style of choral singing. The authors identify the pedagogical function of the precentor, draw attention to the spiritual and practical side of stylistic attribution, which is based on the interaction between various sensory modalities that form multi-level connections and relationships.
choirmaster, precentor, church-singing style, traditions, religious experience, the word in church-singing vs. secular vocal and choral intonation, sound space, pedagogical functions of precentor, sensory modalities

Analiz vokal’nykh proizvedenij, 1988.
Yampol’sky I. M., “Ispolnenie muzykal’noe”, in: Muzykal’naya entziklopediya, Moscow, 1974, 2, 583–591.
Kritskii Boris
Drambian Aelita
Дмитриев М. В. Эволюция представлений об иконе и «иконическом» в православной культуре Руси (вторая половина XVI – начало XVII в.) // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2017. Вып. 78. С. 22-45. DOI: 10.15382/sturII201778.22-45
A series of Russian and Ruthenian polemical texts of the late XVIth – first half of the XVIIth century, dealing with icons, has been analyzed; is has been established that two sets of notions and meanings were conveying icons cult in Russia and Ruthenia: some were treating icons, like in the Latin West, as images of saints and sacred history; some other texts, unlike the Latin West, were claiming that icons as hypostases of saints as their prototypes and are possible because of God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ.
  1. Bezanson A., Zapretnyj obraz. Intellektual’naja istorija ikonoborchestva, Moscow, 1999.
  2. Bel’ting H., Obraz i kul’t. Istorija obraza do jepohi iskusstva, Moscow, 2002.
  3. Bulgakov S. N., “Ikona i ikonopochitanie v pravoslavii”, in: Bulgakov S. N. Pravoslavie. Ocherki uchenij a pravoslavnoj cerkvi, Paris, 1985, 297–307.
  4. Bychkov V. V., Fenomen ikony. Istorija. Bogoslovie. Jestetika. Iskusstvo, Moscow, 2009.
  5. Deljumo Zh., “Istorik i ego religija”, in: Francuzskij ezhegodnik, Moscow, 2004, 56–75.
  6. Dmitriev M. V., “Tema ikonopochitanij a v poslanijah starca Artemija i v «Poslanii protiv ljutorov» (v kontekste processov «pravoslavnoj konfessionalizacii»)”, in: Dmitriev M. V., ed. Pravoslavie Ukrainy i Moskovskoj Rusi v XV–XVII vekah: obshhee i razlichnoe, Moscow, 2012, 40–57.
  7. Evdokimov P., Vvedenie v ikonu. Evdokimov P. Pravoslavie, Moscow, 2002, 307–338.
  8. Zapasko Ia. P., Isaevich Ia. D., Pam’iatki knizhkovogo mistetstva. Katalog starodrukiv, vidanikh na Ukraini. Kn. 1. (1574–1700), L’viv, 1981.
  9. Kalugin V. V., “Artemii”, in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 3, 2001, 458–462.
  10. Klibanov A. I., Dukhovnaia kul’tura srednevekovoi Rusi, Moscow, 1994.
  11. Korzo M. A., Ukrainskaia i belorusskaia katekheticheskaia traditsiia kontsa XVI– XVIII vv.: stanovlenie, evoliutsiia i problema zaimstvovanii, Moscow, 2007.
  12. Kriza A., “Isikhazm i ikonopochitanie. Anagogicheskaia funktsiia ikony v bogoslovskikh trudakh Moskovskoi Rusi i Kievskoi mitropolii v XV–XVI vv.” in: Dmitriev M. V., ed. Pravoslavie Ukrainy i Moskovskoj Rusi v XV–XVII vekah: obshhee i razlichnoe, Moscow, 2012.
  13. Likhachev D. S., Kul’tura Rusi vremeni Andreia Rubleva i Epifaniia Premudrogo (konets XIV – nachalo XV v.), Moscow, Leningrad, 1962.
  14. Losev A. F., “Simvol”, in: Filosofskaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 5, 1970.
  15. Lur’e Ia. S., Russkie sovremenniki Vozrozhdeniia. Knigopisets Efrosin. D’iak Fedor Kuritsyn, Leningrad, 1988.
  16. Lur’e Ia. S., “Elementy Vozrozhdeniia na Rusi v kontse XV – pervoi polovine XVI v.”, in: Literatura epokhi Vozrozhdeniia i problemy vsemirnoi literatury, Moscow,1967.
  17. Ozolin N., “Ikona”, in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 22, 2009, 8–13.
  18. Oparina T. A., Ivan Nasedka i polemicheskoe bogoslovie Kievskoi mitropolii, Novosibirsk, 1998.
  19. Oparina T. A., «Kirillova kniga», in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 34, 2014, 682–684.
  20. Ostrogorskii G. A., “Gnoseologicheskie osnovy vizantiiskogo spora o sv. Ikonakh”, in: Seminarium Kondakovianum, II, Praha, 1928.
  21. Ostrogorskii G. A., “Soedinenie voprosa o sviatykh ikonakh s khristologicheskoi dogmatikoi v sochineniiakh pravoslavnykh apologetov rannego perioda ikonoborchestva”, in: Seminarium Kondakovianum, I, Praha, 1927.
  22. Podobedova O. I., Moskovskaia shkola zhivopisi pri Ivane IV. Raboty v Moskovskom Kremle 40–70-kh gg. XVI v., Moscow, 1972.
  23. Savel’eva N. V., “K voprosu o dopechatnoi traditsii «Knigi o vere» ieromonakha Gedeona, igumena Biziukova monastyria”, in: Staroobriadchestvo v Rossii (XVII–XX vv.), Moscow, 5, 2013, 15–38.
  24. Uspenskii L. A., Bogoslovie ikony Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, Kolomna, 1997.
  25. Chumicheva O. V., Kiev i Moskva v bor’be s protestantskim vliianiem: dve knigi v zashchitu ikonnogo obraza (konets 16 – pervaia polovina 17 v.), in: Dmitriev M. V., ed. Pravoslavie Ukrainy i Moskovskoj Rusi v XV– XVII vekah: obshhee i razlichnoe, Moscow, 2012, 59–65.
  26. Barasch M. Icon. Studies in the History of an Idea, New York, 1992.
  27. Belting H. Bild und Kult. Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst, München, 1990.
  28. Belting, Hans, Likeness and Presence. A History of the Image before the Era of Art, Chicago, London, 1994.
  29. Besançon A. l’Imageinterdite. Une histoire intellectuelle de l’icоnoclasme, Paris, 2000.
  30. Bushkovitch P., Religion and Society in Russia. The 16th and 17th Centuries, New York, Oxford, 1992.
  31. Delumeau J. Le Catholicisme entre Luther et Voltaire, Paris, 1971.
  32. Delumeau J. Un chemin d’histoire. Chrétienté et christianisation, Paris, 1981.
  33. Dmitriev M. Dissidentsrusses. II. Matvej Baskin, le starec Artemij, Baden-Baden, 1999.
  34. Kämpfer F., “«Russland an der Schwelle Neuzeit». Kunst, Ideologie und historisches Bewusstsein unter Ivan Groznyj”, in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 4, 1975, 504–524.
  35. Kriza A., “A középkori orosz képvédö irodalom. I. rész. Bizànci forràsok”, in: Kriza A. Drevnerusskie teksty v zashchitu ikon, Chast’ 1, Budapest, 2011.
  36. Lilienfeld F.v., Nil Sorskij und seine Schriften. Die Krise der tradition im Russland Ivans III, Berlin, 1963.
  37. Miller D. B.,“The Viskovatyi aff aire of 1553– 1554: Offi cial Art, the Emergence of Autocracy, and the Desintegration of Medieval Russian Culture”, in: Russian History, VIII, 1981.
  38. Schulz G., Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Starzen Artemij innerhalb der Bewegung der Besitzlosen in Russland der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts, Erlangen, 1980.
  39. Seebohm T. M. Ratio und Charisma, Ansätze und Ausbildung eines philosophischen und wissenschaftlichen Weltverständnisses im Moskauer Russland, Bonn, 1977.
  40. Stökl G.,“Das Echo von Renaissance und Reformation im Moskauer Russland”, in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 1959, Neue Folge, 7.
  41. Stökl G. Der Russische Staat im Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, Wiesbaden, 1981.
  42. Wirth J., L’image médiévale. Naissance et développement (Vie–XVe siècles), Paris, 1989.
  43. Wirth J., “Théorie et pratique de l’image sainte à la veille de la Réforme”, in: Bibliothèque d’humanisme et Renaissance, 2, 1986, 319–358.
Dmitriev Michail
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Moscow State University; GSP-1, 27 Lomonosovskii prospekt, Moscow 119991, Russian Federation;
Post: Professor in Faculty of History;
Email: dmzdtp@gmail.com. *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.
Колкунова К. А., Малевич Т. В., Кожевников Д. Д. Православные репрезентации Бога и имплицитное антропоморфное мышление // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2017. Вып. 74. С. 67-90. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201774.67-90
The phenomenon of theological incorrectness is primarily the result of the coexistence of two parallel levels of religious representations constituting a continuum of cognitive complexity. This article presents results of the replication experiment based on the classical study by J. L. Barrett and F. Keil (1996) aimed at diff erentiating levels of implicit anthropomorphic and explicit non-anthropomorphic reasoning about God. The data which were obtained in the experiment and based on the Russian Orthodox sample of Theology students have confi rmed the cross-cultural universality and stability of the phenomenon of theological incorrectness described by J. L. Barrett and now widely accepted in the cognitive religious science. In a real-thinking mode aimed at rapid solutions to problems, complicated and cognitively cumbersome theological concepts do undergo systematic deformation and optimisation and acquire anthropomorphic properties corresponding to our default ontological assumptions. Such a tacit deformation seems to be independent from theological representations and occurs even in the presence of explicitly held non-anthropomorphic concepts of God.
anthropomorphism, religious agents, religious representations, cognitive religious science, psychology of religion, cognitive schemes, cognitive biases
  1. Аndreyeva L.А. Religioznost’ molodezhi rossiyskikh vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy v kontekste religioznosti rossiyan, in ReligioPolis – Informatsionnyy resurs Tsentra religiovedcheskikh issledovaniy. (Religiosity of Russian students as compared to religiosity of Russians.” ReligioPolis – Information Resource Center for Religious Studies). 2010. Available at: ttp://www.religiopolis.org/documents/840-la-andreeva-religioznost-molodezhi-rossijskih-vysshih-uchebnyh-zavedenij-v-kontekste-religioznosti-rossijan-materialy-mezhdunarodnoj-nauchnoj-konferentsii-svoboda-religii-i-demokratii-starye-i-novye-vyzovy-kiev-avg, accessed on 16.07.2017.
  2. Baron-Cohen S. The extreme male brain theory of autism // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2002. 6(6). P. 248–254.
  3. Barrett J.L. Cognitive constraints on Hindu concepts of the divine // Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1998. 37(4). P. 608–619.
  4. Barrett J.L. The naturalness of religious concepts: An emerging cognitive science of religion // P. Antes et al. (eds.) New Approaches to the Study of Religion. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Vol. 2. P. 403.
  5. Barrett J.L. Theological correctness: Cognitive constraint and the study of religion // Method & Theory in the Study of Religion. 1999. 11. P. 325–339
  6. Barrett J.L., Keil F. Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in God concepts // Cognitive Psychology 1996. 31. P. 219–247.
  7. Barrett J.L., Richert R.A. Anthropomorphism or preparedness? Exploring children’s God concepts // Review of Religious Research. 2003. 44. P. 300–312;
  8. Boyer P. What makes anthropomorphism natural: intuitive ontology and cultural representations // The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 1996. 2(1). P. 83–97.
  9. Bransford J.D., McCarrell N.S. A sketch of a cognitive approach to comprehension: Some thoughts about understanding what it means to comprehend // W. Weimer and D. Palermo (eds.) Cognition and the symbolic processes. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974. P. 189–229
  10. Caporael L.R., Heyes C. Why anthropomorphize? Folk psychology and other stories // R.W. Mitchell, N.S. Thompson, and H.L. Miles (eds.) Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1997. P. 59–73.
  11. Chilcott T., Paloutzian R.F. Relations between Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava devotional practices and implicit and explicit anthropomorphic reasoning about Kṛṣṇa // Journal of Cognition and Culture. 2016. 16. P. 107–121.
  12. Ester E.F., Vogel E.K., Awh E. Discrete resource limits in attention and working memory // M.I. Posner (ed.) Cognitive neuroscience of attention. New York: The Guilford Press, 2012. 2nd ed. P. 99–110.
  13. Folieva T.А. Na grani: formirovanie identichnosti i religioznosti v prigranichnykh rayonakh,” in Mezhkul'turnyy dialog v sovremennom rossiyskom regione: istoricheskaya retrospektiva i problema postroeniya (“On the edge: The formation of identity and religiosity in the border areas,” in Intercultural dialogue in a modern Russian region: A historical retrospective and the problem of development). Volgograd: Izd-vo VolGU, 2013. P. 40–52
  14. Garnak А. “Istoriya dogmatov.” Biblioteka Yakova Krotova (“History of Dogma.” Yakov Krotov’s Library). Available at: http://www.krotov.info/history/04/alymov/harn_00.html, accessed on 30.06.2017.
  15. Gorevoy D.А. ‘Аntropomorfizm’ kak istochnik vozniknoveniya religioznykh predstavleniy: istoriya i sovremennost ( ‘Anthropomorphism’ as the source of religious representations: History and nowadays) in Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogosloviye. Filosofiya. 2015. 5(61). P. 75–90.
  16. Gubanov V.A. (ed.) “Pravoslavnyye chudesa v XX veke. Svidetel’stva ochevidtsev.” Аzbuka very (“Orthodox miracles in the 20th century: Eyewitness accounts.” The ABC of faith). Available at: http://azbyka.ru/fiction/pravoslavnye-chudesa-v-xx-veke-svidetelstva-ochevidcev-kn-2/, http://azbyka.ru/fiction/pravoslavnye-chudesa-v-xx-veke-svidetelstva-ochevidcev-kn-3/, accessed on 30.06.2017].
  17. Guthrie S.E. Animal animism: evolutionary roots of religious cognition // I. Pyysiäinen and V. Anttonen (eds.) Current approaches in the cognitive science of religion. London: Continuum, 2002.
  18. Guthrie S.E. Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
  19. Heider F., Simmel M. An experimental study of apparent behavior // The American Journal of Psychology. 1944. Vol.57(2). P. 243–259.
  20. Herzog H.A., Galvin, S. Common sense and the mental lives of animals: An empirical approach // R.W. Mitchell, N.S. Thompson, and H.L. Miles (eds.) Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals. New York: SUNY Press, 1997. P. 237–253;
  21. Hutson M. The 7 laws of magical thinking: How irrational beliefs keep us happy, healthy, and sane. New York: Hudson Street Press, 2012. P. 165–181.
  22. Ioann Zlatoust. “Besedy na knigu Bytiya. Beseda XVII.” Аzbuka very (“Homilies on Genesis. Homily 17.” The ABC of faith) Available at: http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Zlatoust/tolk_01/17, accessed on 30.06.2017.
  23. Losskiy V.N. Dogmaticheskoye bogosloviye, in V.N. Losskiy Ocherk misticheskogo bogosloviya Vostochnoy Tserkvi. Dogmaticheskoye bogosloviye (“Orthodox Theology,” in Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Orthodox Theology). Brovary: Izd-vo im. svt. L’va, papy Rimskogo, 2004. P. 351–504.
  24. Losskiy V.N. Ocherk misticheskogo bogosloviya Vostochnoy Tserkvi, in V.N. Losskiy Ocherk misticheskogo bogosloviya Vostochnoy Tserkvi. Dogmaticheskoye bogosloviye (“Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Orthodox Theology). Brovary: Izd-vo im. svt. L’va, papy Rimskogo, 2004. P. 1–350.
  25. Malevich T.V., Folieva T.A. ‘Estestvennost'’ religii i ‘estestvennaia religiia’ v kognitivnom religiovedenii (“Naturalness” of religion and “Natural Religion” in CSR), Filosofiia i kul'tura. 2014. 11(83). P. 1605–1617.
  26. Peirce J.W. PsychoPy – psychophysics software in Python // Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 2007. 162(1–2). P. 8–13.
  27. Piaget J. Child’s Conception of the World. London: Routledge, 2001.
  28. Scheele D., Schwering C., Elison J.T., Spunt R., Maier W., Hurlemann R. A human tendency to anthropomorphize is enhanced by oxytocin // European Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015. Vol. 25(10). P. 1817–1823.
  29. Serpell J.A. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – beyond the “cute response”// Society & Animals. 2003. 11(1). P. 83–100.
  30. Slone D.J. Theological incorrectness: Why religious people believe what they shouldn’t. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004
  31. Tam K.P., Lee S.L., Chao M.M. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2013. 49(3). P. 514–521;
  32. Tikhon (Shevkunov). “‘Nesvyatyye svyatyye’ i drugiye rasskazy.” Ofitsial’nyy sayt knigi arkhimandrita Tikhona (“‘Unholy saints’ and other stories.” The official website of Archimandrite Tikhon’s book). Available at: http://www.ot-stories.ru/book.htm, accessed on 30.06.2017.
  33. Urquiza-Haas E.G., Kotrschal K. The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: attribution of mental states to other species // Animal Behaviour. 2015. Vol. 109. P. 167–176.
  34. Waytz A., Cacioppo J., Epley N. Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism // Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2010. Vol. 5. P. 219–232
  35. Waytz A., Heafner J., Epley N. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2014. Vol.52. P. 113–117.
Kolkunova Ksenia
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0003-4655-6488;
Email: ksenia.kolkunova@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.
Malevich Tatiana
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: independent researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0003-3928-6248;
Email: t.v.malevich@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.
Kozhevnikov Denis
Place of work: independent researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0003-0602-2908;
Email: coffeegirl@inbox.ru.
The article is written within the framework of the project № 14-18-0377 "Modern Western psychology of religion: adaptation to the Russian context" supported by Russian Science Foundation
Алташина В. Д. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2018. Вып. 54. С. 145-151. — Rev. op.: «Генезис зарубежной массовой литературы и ее судьба в России». Сборник научных трудов ИМЛИ РАН. Под ред. К. А. Чекалова, М. Р. Ненароковой. М.: Изд-во ИМЛИ, 2015. 320 с.
PDF
Altashina Veronika
Academic Degree: Doctor of sciences* in Philology;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Department of History of Foreign Literatures, St. Petersbutg State University; 7–9 Universitetskaia Naberezhnaia, St. Petersburg 199034, Russian Federation;
Post: Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-8134-3923;
Email: nikaalt@bk.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.
Черепанов Д. Д. От проектов приходской реформы к вопросу о «верном»: рецепция идей Братства Святителей Московских в творчестве С. И. Фуделя // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2018. Вып. 80. С. 37-51. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201880.37-51
This article studies the infl uence of the views formulated in the discussion about the parish reform by members of the Circle of those Seeking Christian Enlightenment and the Brotherhood of Saint Moscow Metropolitans Peter, Alexy, Iona and Philip on the notion of the Church by S. Fudel, the outstanding church writer of the 20th century. Sergei Iosifovich was a close friend of a number of prominent members of the Circle and the Brotherhood, amoung the founders of which was also his father, archpriest Iosif Fudel. Some of them, like N. D. Kuznetsov, argued in favour of restoration of independence of parishes as main units of church life, following the notion of the independent community formulated already by D. F. Samarin. Others, like L. A. Tikhomirov and D. A. Khomyakov, believed that the diocese rather than the parish was the main unit and emphasised the importance of a hierarchical structure, being cautious about the split-off of parishes. Both these stances revealed the heterogeneity of the parish as a territorial entity, as well as the insuffi cience of the notion of the layman. From projects based on this notion, the members of the Brotherhood went over to the thought about distinguishing actual members of the community from the mass of all church-goers. This problem came to be expressed only after the revolution in the notion of the inner border of the church in “Letters to Friends” by M. A. Novoselov. It was very clearly manifested in S. Fudel’s works, who employed a traditional notion of the member of the church as the “faithful”.
ecclesiology, parish, parish reform, Sergei Fudel, F. Samarin, M. Novoselov, Brotherhood of the Saint Metropolitans of Moscow, Church Enlightenment Circle
  1. Balakshin Iu., Ignatovich N. (eds.) (2018) “Samarin F. D. O zadachakh Bratstva Sviatitelei Moskovskikh Petra, Aleksiia, Iony i Filippa i o sposobakh razresheniia etikh zadach (1909)” [F. D. Samarin. On the Tasks of the Brotherhood of Saint Moscow Metropolitans Peter, Alexy, Iona and Philip and on the Ways to Accomplish these Tasks (1909)]. In: Istoriia tserkovnykh bratstv v Rossii [History of Church Brotherhoods in Russia]. Moscow. Pp. 114‒127 (in Russian).
  2. Balashov N., archpriest, Saraskina L., Vorob’ev V., archpriest (eds.) 2001‒2005) Fudel’ S. I. Sobranie sochinenii: V 3 t. [Fudel S. I. Collection of Works, in 3 Vols.]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Beglov A. (2014). “Zemskie proekty pereustroistva pravoslavnogo prikhoda v 1860–1890 e gg.” [Projects of Reformation of the Orthodox Parish in the 1860‒1890s]. Gosudarstvo. Religiia. Tserkov’ [State. Religion. Church], № 1 (32), pp. 172–200 (in Russian).
  4. Beglov A. (2017) “Prikhodskoi vopros v istorii i v trudakh Sviashchennogo sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 gg.” [The Issue of Parish in the History and in the Work of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917‒1918]. In: Dokumenty Sviashchennogo Sobora Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi 1917–1918 godov [Documents of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917‒1918], vol. 14. Moscow, рp. 5–81 (in Russian).
  5. Dashevskaia Z. (2012) “Obzor deiatel’nosti Bratstva Sviatitelei Moskovskikh Petra, Aleksiia, Iony i Filippa (1909–1917 gg.)” [Outline of Activities of the Brotherhood of Saint Moscow Metropolitans Peter, Alexy, Iona and Philip (1909‒1917)]. Al’manakh Sviato-Filaretovskogo pravoslavno-khristianskogo instituta, vol. 5, pp. 131–150 (in Russian).
  6. Dubinin A., priest (2005) “Perepiska V. A. Kozhevnikova s F. D. Samarinym i deiatel’nost’ Kruzhka ishchushchikh khristianskogo prosveshcheniia” [Correspondence of V. A. Kozhevnikov and F. D. Samarin and Activities of the Circle of those Seeking Christian Enlightenment]. Bogoslovskie trudy, vol. 40, pp. 274–288 (in Russian).
  7. Florenskii P., priest. (1996) Sochineniia v 4 tomakh [Works, in 4 Vols]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Orekhanov Iu. (1997). “F. D. Samarin i ego arkhiv” [F. D. Samarin and His Archive]. Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Bogoslovskogo instituta. Moscow; available at http://kuz1.pstbi.ccas.ru/institut/book/1997/or.htm (20.09.2018) (in Russian).
  9. Polishchuk E. (1994). “Mikhail Aleksandrovich Novoselov i ego «Pis’ma k druz’iam»” [Mikhail Novoselov and his “Letters to Friends”]. In: Novoselov M. A. Pis’ma k druz’iam. Moscow, pp. V–LIII (in Russian).
  10. Polishchuk E. (ed.) (1994) Novoselov M. Pis’ma k druz’iam [Novoselov M. Letters to Friends]. Moscow (in Russian).
  11. Paromov K. (2012) “Episkop Feodor (Pozdeevskii) i «Kruzhok ishchushchikh khristianskogo prosveshcheniia»: po perepiske uchastnikov” [Bishop Feodor (Pozdeevskii) and the Circle of those Seeking Christian Enlightenment]. Khristianskoe chtenie, № 3, pp. 66–108 (in Russian).
  12. Polishchuk E. (ed.) (2013) “Pis’ma muchenika Mikhaila Novoselova F. D. Samarinu, 1905–1913 gg.” [Letters of the Martyr Mikhail Novoselov to F. D. Samarin]. Bogoslovskie trudy, vol. 45, pp. 425–473 (in Russian).
  13. Ustav Bratstva Sviatitelei Moskovskikh Petra, Aleksiia, Iony i Filippa [Statute of the Brotherhood of Saint Moscow Metropolitans Peter, Alexy, Iona and Philip] (2018). In: Istoriia tserkovnykh bratstv v Rossii [History of Church Brotherhoods in Russia], рp. 110–113 (in Russian).
  14. Vorob’ev V., Tiagunova N. (eds.) (2009) “Pis’ma S. I. Fudelia k M. F. Mansurovoi (1960–1970-e gg.)” [Letters of S. I. Fudel to M. F. Mansurova (1960‒1970s)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, vol. 3 (32) (in Russian).
Cherepanov Daniil
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 1 Leninskie gory, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation;
Post: Lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9665-6108;
Email: ddcherep@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.
Шеко Е. Д. Сакральная архитектура Франции и Бельгии между двух Великих войн: разворот от Ар-деко к модернизму // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2018. Вып. 32. С. 112-131. DOI: 10.15382/sturV201832.112-131
This article deals with the development of church art in the twentieth century, mainly in the 1920‒30s. In these years, after massive destruction of the First World War in Europe, arose the need for the reconstruction and construction of a large number of new churches. The religious and artistic sensitivity of that epoch required from projects of new Catholic churches a certain array of decorative elements, even if their architecture was simple and functional. However, in the projects of reconstruction of churches in the 1920s, new variants of the renewal of materials and constructions began to be off ered more and more often, and these had obvious signs of innovative solutions, both from the point of view of the plan, the formation of surfaces, the technologies employed. The main novel material was concrete, widely used both for the construction of new churches, and for their decoration. In Belgium, in the 1920s, Modernism fi rst emerged as an architectural style, which was then widely developed globally in the 1930s in competition with Art Deco style. Modernism, unlike Art Deco, turns its back on the architectural traditions of the past, rejects any decorations and focuses on the function of the building. It is these characteristics that made the architecture of modernism popular among the supporters of the «liturgical movement» in the Catholic Church in the twentieth century.
Church architecture, art history, Art Deco style, decorative art, sculpture, interior, modernism, Catholic church, liturgical movement
  1. Dokumenty II Vatikanskogo sobora [Documents of the 2nd Vatican Council]. Мoscow: Paoline, 2004.
  2. Cappronnier J-С. (2009) “L’art sacré entre les deux guerres: aspects de la Première Reconstruction en Picardie”. Situ. Revue des patrimoines, 2009, vol. 12.
  3. Cordeiro P. (1994) Sacraal beton. De Sint-Augustinuskerk te Vorst». M&L, 1994, vol. 13 (3), pp. 41–56.
  4. Culot М. D. (2000) Les frères Perret : l’oeuvre complète. Paris.
  5. Culot М. D. (1999) Archives d’architecture moderne. Bruxelles.
  6. Dumoulin A. (2008) Reconnaître Paris d'église en église. Paris.
  7. Dupré C. (2009) “Notre-Dame-du-Travail (Paris), une église au tournant du XIXe siècle et du XXe siècle”. Situ. Revue des patrimoines, 2009, vol. 11.
  8. Frémaux C. (2008) La construction d’églises dans la seconde moitié du XXe siècle : une aff aire d’État ? De Georges Clémenceau à Jacques Chirac : l’Etat et la pratique de la loi de séparation. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: CEGES-IRHiS, Université Lille, 2008.
  9. Lambrichs. A. Religieuze Art Deco. Art Deco architectuur. Brussel 1920–1930 (Catalogue d’exposition), Archives d’Architecture Moderne, Bruxelles, 1996.
  10. Spapens C. L'église Sainte-Suzanne à Schaerbeek, CIDEP, 2003.
  11. Travaux du Centre national des constructions d’églises (CNCE). Rapport général présenté à l’Épiscopat « Pour une politique d’équipement religieux», février 1970.
  12. Vukashinovich V. (2005) “Liturgicheskoe vozrozhdenie v XX veke». Liturgical Renaissance in the 20th Century. Christian Russia.
Sheko Ekaterina
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of Department of Icon Painting;
ORCID: 0000-0001-8976-8814;
Email: katja_sheko@mail.ru.
Тимофеева Е. Д. Балладные традиции в ранней поэзии Н. С. Гумилева // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2019. Вып. 58. С. 11-23. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII201958.11-23
This article makes an attempt to trace signs of Romanticism in early poetry by Nikolai Gumilev and identify those ballad features that were specifi c to his poems already according to his contemporaries’ opinion. The main source of Romantic motifs for Gumilev came to be ballads by Vasily Zhukovsky. He was very familiar with them not only because of the syllabi of educational institutions, but also from anthologies of Russian and European literature that were in his reading circle in early years. The article identifi es the texts and themes of the poet of the 19th century that were most important to Gumilev and analyses their employment both in the fi rst collections of the leader of the Acmeists (The Way of Conquistadors and Romantic Flowers) and in his more mature books. The article examines the levels of borrowing of the plots, themes and single formulae as well as the transformation of these techniques in the course of time. Besides, the article traces the evolution of Gumilev’s attitude to the motifs in question and analyses their role in the context of his literary work and the contemporary literary process, namely the interaction of these plots with prominent topics of Symbolist poetry of this period, as well as his polemic with Zhukovsky (the poet important to the modernists) and with the established literary tradition.
N. Gumilev, V. Zhukovsky, Romanticism, ballad, reminiscences, Russian literature, symbolism
  1. Anisimova E. (2014) “«Mistitsizm» i «Chernyi sinodik» russkoi literatury: V. A. Zhukovskii v kritike I. F. Annenskogo” [“Mysticism” and “Black List” of Russian Literature: V. Zhukovsky in I. Annensky’s Criticism]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universtiteta. Filologiia, № 5 (31), pp. 66–85 (in Russian).
  2. Basker M. (2000) “Rannii Gumilev: put’ k akmeizmu” [Early Gumilev. Road to Acmeism]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  3. Gasparov M. (1995) “Antinomichnost’ poetiki russkogo modernizma” [Controversial Character of Poetics of Russian Modernism], in M. Gasparov. Izbrannye stat’i [Selected Articles]. Moscow, pp. 286–304 (in Russian).
  4. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon [Anthological Texts: Russian Educational Practice of the 19th Century and the Poetic Canon]. Tartu, 2013 (in Russian).
  5. Luknitskii P. (2010) Trudy i dni N. S. Gumileva [Works and Days of N. Gumilev]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  6. Maksimov D. (1969) Briusov. Poeziia i pozitsiia [Briusov. Poetry and Standpoint]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  7. Nemzer A. (1987) “«Sii chudesnye viden’ia...»: Vremia i ballady V. A. Zhukovskogo” [“These Wondrous Visions...”: Time and Ballads by V. Zhukovsky], in A. Zorin et al. (eds.) “Svoi podvig svershiv...” [“Having Accomplished his Feat...”]. Moscow, pp. 155–264 (in Russian).
  8. Nemzer A. (2013) Pri svete Zhukovskogo: Ocherki istorii russkoi literatury [In the Lustre of Zhukovsky: Essays in the History of Russian Literature]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Timenchik R. (2017). “Annenskii i Gumilev”, in R. Timenchik. Podzemnye klassiki [The Underground Classics]: Innokentii Annenskii. Nikolai Gumilev. Moscow, pp. 258–279 (in Russian).
  10. Toporov V. (2003) “Tiaga k bezdne (k retseptsii poezii Zhukovskogo v nachale XX veka. Blok — Zhukovskii: problema reministsentsii)” [Attraction for the Abyss (On the Reception of Zhukovsky’s Poetry in the Early 20th Century. Blok vs. Zhukovsky: Problem of Reminiscence], in V. Toporov. Peterburgskii tekst russkoi literatury [Petersburg Text in Russian Literature]. St. Petersburg, pp. 583–610 (in Russian).
  11. Trutneva E. (2011) “Ot volshebnogo k ironicheskomu. Opyt nabliudenii nad avtoredaktirovaniem «Neoromanticheskoi skazki» N. S. Gumileva” [From the Mysterious to the Ironical. Attempt of Observations on Self-Editing of N. Gumilev’s “Neoromantic Fairy Tale”]. Novyi filologicheskii vestnik, № 2, pp. 19–34 (in Russian).
Timofeeva Elizaveta
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: National Research University Higher School of Economics; 20 Myasnitskaya st., Moscow 101000, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-2391-2793;
Email: elizaveta084@gmail.com.
Вашевко О. Д. Тема проскомидии в росписях северной апсиды cобора Рождества Богородицы Снетогорского монастыря // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2019. Вып. 33. С. 45-61. DOI: 10.15382/sturV201933.45-61
The article attempts to analyze the painting of the northern apse of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin of the Snetogorsky Monastery and its theological and theological content. The description of the iconographic program in accordance with the register division of the architectural volume. Thematic selection of plots gives a detailed theological commentary on the proskomedia. The sources of the origin of the scenes lie in the fi eld of the Holy Scripture and represent a doctrinal, historical and exegetical series regarding the formation and patristic understanding of the order of the proskomide.The article identifi es the semantic relationship of the content of the plots and their compositional structure. In the upper register, the sacrifi ce of Abraham is compared with the image of the Most Holy Trinity. The middle register contains a selection of biblical scenes from the Old and New Testaments. Lower case is represented by fi gures of saints, some of which are attributed. The iconographic program is analyzed in relation to the basics of Christian doctrine and traditions of liturgical practice, and a theological interpretation of the content of the painting is given. Some of the plots are intended to clarify the dogmatic signifi cance of the sacred rite performed in the north apse. Some of the plots show the historical development and tradition of off ering sacrifices and gifts to God. Some images of saints are textologically related to the order. Their names are mentioned during the commission of the proskomide, so they appear in the mural of the altar. The article specifies written sources, art history counterparts, and liturgical peculiarities that form the basis for plot formation. The dedication of the painting of the northern apse to the themes of the Atonement, sacrifi ce, preparation of the Gifts is an exceptional fact for the beginning of the 14th century. The preparation of the Lamb is commented in biblical, historical, symbolic, representative, textual perspectives. The study of the painting according to the principle of theological analysis made it possible to designate the infl uence of Christian dogma and liturgical practice on the monumental art of Ancient Russia. The study showed that the art history features of the monument were formed, primarily, under the infl uence of Christian dogma and liturgical practice. At the same time, the features of the selection of certain plots indicate their reliance on the liturgical tradition prevalent in Novgorod, in whose jurisdiction Pskov belonged. By the 14th century, the liturgical formation of the rank of proskomedia was completed, and in Snetogorsky Cathedral we encounter the earliest theological and artistic interpretation of this rite in ancient Russian art.
offertory, altar, northern apse, the Lamb, Eucharist, prototype, iconographic programme, rite, mural, liturgical context, theological signifi cance
  1. Davydenkov O., archpriest (2014). Dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie [Dogmatic Theology]. Moscow.
  2. Lifshits L. (2004). Ocherki istorii zhivopisi drevnego Pskova [Essays in the History of Panting of Ancient Pskov]. Moscow.
  3. Sarab'ianov V. (2009). “Patronal'nye i ktitorskie izobrazheniia vo freskakh sobora Snetogorskogo monastyria. Opyt rekonstruktsii” [Images of Patrons and Donators in Frescos of the Cathedral of Snetogorsky Monastery. Attempt at Reconstruction], in Arkheologiia i istoriia Pskova i Pskovskoi zemli [Archaeology and History of Land of Pskov]. Pskov.
  4. Shmeman A., archpriest (2001). Evkharistiia. Tainstvo Tsarstva [Eucharist. The Sacrament of Kingdom]. Moscow.
  5. Tsarevskaia T. (1997). “Nekotorye osobennosti ikonografi cheskoi programmy rospisei tserkvi Blagoveshcheniia na Miachine («v Arkazhakh»), bliz Novgoroda” [Some Special Features of Iconographic Programme of Murals of the Annunciation Church near Novgorod], in DRI: Issledovaniia i atributsii. St Petersburg.
  6. Uspenskii L. (1997). Bogoslovie ikony pravoslavnoi tserkvi [Theology of Icon in the Orthodox Church].
  7. Vetelev A. (1989). “Bogoslovskoe soderzhanie ikony Sviataia Troitsa prepodobnogo Andreia Rubleva” [Theological Content of Andrei Rublev’s Trinity], in Troitsa Andreia Rubleva. Antologiia [Andrei Rublev’s Trinity. Anthology]. Moscow.
Nun Sophia (Vashevko O.)
Place of work: Snetogorsk Convent of Nativity of Vir gin Mary; 1 Snyatnaya Gora Str., Pskov, 180020, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7819-320X;
Email: inparaskeva@rambler.ru.
Зимина Н. П., Королева Е. Д. Епископ Назарий (Андреев) в новейшей церковной истории (к вопросу о явлении конформизма в Русской Православной Церкви в 1920-е гг.) // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2019. Вып. 91. С. 105-132. DOI: 10.15382/sturII201991.105-132
This article studies life and work of Bishop Nazariy (Andreev, 1865–1940), the prominent representative of the conformist episcopate of the 1920s. The use of a large range of previously unknown documents allowed the authors to compile a complete biography and to clarify the bishop’s church-related and political views, to specify the staff of the dioceses under his control, to reveal some methods of the Joint State Political Directorate (Russ. ОГПУ) in designing church schisms. It is shown that bishop Nazariy publicly defended the church after the February and October revolutions. During the Civil War he denounced the ideology of Bolshevism and, at the same time, criticised the policy of the Siberian White governments in connection with the foreign intervention and the involvement of the church in civil confrontation. After the war, he sought to find a compromise with the Soviet authorities and argued that the main task of the clergy was to christianise society and to dissociate from “political gambling”. In September 1922, by the eff orts of the State Political Directorate, he was removed from Yenisey diocese, lapsed into the Renovationist schism and started to support the methods of bishop of Tomsk Sophroniy (Arefyev) in pushing back the radical Renovationist group Living Church from the administration of Siberian dioceses in favour of the more moderate Union of Church Revival. He became one of the founders of the Renovationist episcopate of Siberia. The article gives data on the activities of Bishop Nazariy at the Renovationist see in Rostov-on-Don, his repentance to patriarch Tikhon and his appointment to Syzran, the new lapse into the Renovationist schism. The article shows the role of the State Political Directorate in the seduction of Bishop Nazariy into the Gregorian schism. It also outlines his return to the Orthodox Church and his activity at Chelyabinsk see in 1928. His fate after the arrest and conviction is also described.
conformism, bishop Nazariy (Andreev), Civil War in Siberia, Renovationist schism, Gregorian schism, Joint State Political Directorate, Declaration of Metropolitan Sergiy, bishop Sofroniy (Arefi ev), archbishop Nazariy (Blinov), metropolitan Iosif (Chernov), Alatyr’ vicariate, Krasnoyarsk diocese, Rostov-on-Don diocese, Syzran’ vicariate, Chelyabinsk diocese, Troitsk vicariate
  1. Grigorieva L., Dobronovskaia (Dvoretskaia) A., Ivanova E., Koniakhina I., Limaeva L., Sordia O. (eds) (2002) Religiia i vlast’ na territorii Krasnoiarskogo kraia. 1920–1991: Sbornik arkhivnykh dokumentov i materialov. Kniga 1: 1920–1941 [Religion and Power in the Territory of Krasnoyarsk Region. 1920–1991: Collection of Archival Documents and Materials. Book 1: 1920–1941]. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
  2. Iliashenko N. (2014) “Sostav iierarkhii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi tserkvi v preddverii bol’shogo terrora. Spisok arkhiereev iz arkhivno-sledstvennogo dela mitropolita Serafi ma (Aleksandrova) 1937 g.” [“The Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Threshold of the Great Terror. The List of Bishops from the Archival Legal Case of Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexandrov) of 1937”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 3 (58), pp. 114–146 (in Russian).
  3. Ioann (Snychev) (1993) Tserkovnyie raskoly v Russkoi Tserkvi 20-30 godov XX stoletiya — grigorianskii, iaroslavskii, iosifl ianskii, viktorianskii i drugiie, ikh osobennosti i istoriia [Church Schisms in the Russian Church of the 1920‒30s — Gregorian, Yaroslavl, Josephian, Victorian, and Others, their Features and History]. Sortavala (in Russian).
  4. Ioann (Snychev) (1997) Stoianie v vere: Ocherki tserkovnoi smuty [Standing in Faith: Essays on Church Tumult]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  5. Gubonin M., Griunberg P., Gaida F., Griunberg E., Kirpichev I., Krivosheeva N. (2006) Istoriia ierarkhii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Kommentirovannye spiski ierarkhov po episkopskim kafedram s 862 g. [The History of Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Commented Lists of Hierarchs on Episcopal Sees since 862]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Kaplin P., Lavrinov V. (2006) “Grigorianskii raskol” [The Gregorian Schism], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 12. Moscow. Pp. 455–459 (in Russian).
  7. Koniuchenko A. (2001) “Nazarii (Andreev), episkop” [Nazarii (Andreev), Bishop”], in Cheliabinsk: Entsiklopediia [Chelyabinsk: Encyclopaedia]. Chelyabinsk. P. 533 (in Russian).
  8. Lavrinov V. (2016) Obnovlencheskii raskol v portretakh ego deiatelei [The Renovationist Schism in the Portraits of its Personalities]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Lavrinov V. (2018) Vremennyi Vysshii Tserkovnyi Sovet i ego rol’ v istorii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1925–1945) [The Temporary Supreme Church Council and its Role in the History of the Russian Orthodox Church (1925–1945)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Lobashev А. (2007) “Veroiu pobezhdali!...”: Kniga o dukhovnom podvige pravoslavnykh iuzhnouraltsev [“By Faith they Won!...”: The Book of the Spiritual Feat of Orthodox Residents of South Ural]. Chelyabinsk (in Russian).
  11. Malashin G. (2011) Krasnoiarskaia (Eniseiskaia) eparkhiia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi: 1861– 2011 gg. [Krasnoyarsk (Yenisey) Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church: 1861–2011]. Krasnoyarsk (in Russian).
  12. Makarii (Veretennikov) (2010) “Iosif (Chernov), mitropolit” [Metropolitan Iosif (Chernov)], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 25. Moscow. Pp. 680–682 (in Russian).
  13. Manuil (Lemeshevskii V.) (1987) Russkie pravoslavnye ierarkhi perioda s 1893 po 1965 gody (vkliuchitel’no): v 6 tomakh [Russian Orthodox Hierarchs of the Period from 1893 to 1965 (inclusively), in 6 vols.], vol. 5. Erlangen. Pp. 11–12 (in Russian)
  14. Soloviov I. (ed.) (2002) “Obnovlencheskii” raskol (Materialy dlia tserkovno-istoricheskoi i kanonicheskoi kharakteristiki) [“Renovationist” Schism (Materials for Church-Historical and Canonical Characteristics)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Shushkanova E. Istoriia Arkhiereiskogo doma. Episkop Nazarii [A History of the House of the Archbishop], part 1, available at http//www.pravsiberia.ru/istoriya-arhierejskogo-domaepiskop-nazarij -chast-pervaya (17.03.2015).
  16. Skala A. (2007) Tserkov’ v uzakh: istoriia Simbirskoi-Ulianovskoi eparkhii v sovetskii period (1917–1991 gody) [The Church in Fetters: History of Simbirsk-Ulyanovsk Diocese in the Soviet Period (1917‒1991)]. Ulyanovsk (in Russian).
  17. Tabunshchikova L., Shadrina A. (eds) (2015) Tserkovnyie raskoly v Donskoi oblasti. 1920–1930-e gody. Sbornik dokumentov i materialov [Church Schisms in the Don Region. 1920–1930s. Collection of Documents and Materials]. Rostov-na-Donu (in Russian).
  18. Teodorovich S., Ivanov B. (1975) “Mitropolit Alma-Atinskii i Kazakhstanskii Iosif. (Nekrolog)” [Metropolitan of Almaty and Kazakhstan Iosif. (Obituary)]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, 12, pp. 10–15 (in Russian).
  19. Zimina N. (2010) “Ioann (Poiarkov), arkhiiepiskop” [Ioann (Poiarkov), Archbishop], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 23. Moscow. Pp. 435–438 (in Russian).
  20. Zimina N. (2013) “«Poluobnovlenchestvo» v Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v seredine 1920-kh gg.: k voprosu ob otsenke tserkovnoi politiki episkopa Elabuzhskogo Irineia (Shul’mina) i episkopa Sarapul’skogo Aleksiia (Kuznetsova)” [“Semi-Renovationism” in the Russian Orthodox Church in the Mid-1920s: on the Issue of Assessing the Ecclesiastical Policy of Bishop Iriney of Elabuga (Shulmin) and Bishop Alexiy of Sarapul (Kuznetsov)”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 3 (52), pp. 17–41 (in Russian).
  21. Zimina N. (2014) “«Poluobnovlenchestvo» v Patriarshey Tserkvi v seredine 1920-kh gg.: episkop Iakov (Maskaiev) na Orenburgskoi kafedre (1923–1925)” [“Semi-Renovationism” in the Patriarch’s Church in the Mid-1920s: Bishop Iakov (Maskaev) at Orenburg See (1923–1925)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 6 (61), pp. 91–112 (in Russian).
  22. Zimina N. (2016) “«Poluobnovlenchestvo» i inyie destruktivnyie iavleniia v Patriarshei Tserkvi v 1923‒1925 gg.” [“Semi-Renovationism” and Other Destructive Phenomena in the Patriarch’s Church in 1923‒1925], in Materialy XXVI ezhegodnoi bogoslovskoi konferentsii PSTGU [Materials of the 26th Annual Theological Conference of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities]. Moscow. Pp. 93–98 (in Russian).
  23. Zimina N. (2017) “Nazarii (Blinov), arkhiepiskop” [Nazarii (Blinov), Archbishop], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 48. Moscow. Pp. 326–328 (in Russian).
Zimina Nina
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Biology;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Biology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov Pereulok, 127051 Moscow, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Researcher, Research Centre for Modern History of Russian Orthodox Church;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7587-1001;
Email: ZiminaNP@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.
Koroleva Elena
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Troitsk and South Ural diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church; 457100 Troitsk, Chelyabinskaya Oblast’, Russian Federation;
Post: member of the commission for the canonization of saints;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3876-8571;
Email: korel93@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.
Ладынин И. А., Изосимов Д. А., Сенникова П. Д. Великий князь Константин Константинович и судьба коллекции египетских древностей В. С. Голенищева // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2020. Вып. 92. С. 110-129. DOI: 10.15382/sturII202092.110-129
This article deals with some episodes in the purchase by the state of the Egyptian collection assembled by Vladimir Golenishchev (1856–1947); its subsequent transfer to one of Russian museums in 1908–1909 is described as well. A fi nancial failure urged Golenishchev, the prominent Russian Egyptologist and heir of a merchant family, to seek a possibility of selling the collection of Ancient Egyptian artefacts that he had been gathering for 30 years. In the fi rst place, he suggested this purchase to the Russian state. His address to the emperor and subsequent petitions of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and of the Russian Archaeological Society resulted in a handover of the case to the Council of Ministers. The Council suggested that this matter should be considered by the State Duma and that a purchase of the collection from the budget funds should be proposed (the relevant bill was passed in April 1909). Archival documents published in the article show a highly important role of Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich, head of the Academy and of the Russian Archaeological Society, in presenting the case before the emperor. Probably, he acted on advice and proposals of the historian Sergey Platonov. It is likely that after the decision of the Council of Ministers in April 1908 took place the last attempt to convince Nicolas II to buy the collection from personal funds on condition of annual rent and not a lump payment to its owner. Like previously, Golenishchev’s colleagues (namely, the Egyptologist Boris Turayev) addressed Platonov to gain support from Grand Duke who was to address the emperor again. This resulted in the ultimate decision of Nicolas II to approve the Council’s decision and to pass the case to the legislature. The documents show that Golenishchev was discontented with the lingering procedure and considered for a while selling the collection outside Russia, though he soon rejected the idea.
Ancient Egyptian artifacts, Vladimir Golenishchev, Sergey Platonov, Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich, Nicolas II, Council of Ministers, Duma
  1. Baryshnikov M. (2014) “V. S. Golenishchev: nauchnye interesy i sud’ba semeinogo biznesa v nachale ХХ veka” [V. S. Golenishchev: Academic Interests and Fate of the Family Owned Business in the Early 20th Century]. Universitetskii nauchnyi zhurnal (Filologicheskie i istoricheskie nauki, iskusstvovedenie), 7, pp. 68–76 (in Russian).
  2. Berlev O. (1997) “Egiptologiia” [“Egyptology”], in А. А. Vigasin, A. N. Khokhlov, P. M. Shastitko (eds) Istoriia otechestvennogo vostokovedeniia s serediny XIX veka do 1917 g. [History of Russian Oriental Studies from the Middle of the 19th Century to 1917]. Moscow pp. 434–459 (in Russian).
  3. Bol’shakov A. (2007) “Golenishchev i my” [“Golenishchev and Us”], in A. O. Bol’shakov (ed.) Peterburgskie egiptologicheskie chteniia, 2006. K 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia V. S. Golenishcheva. Doklady (Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 35) [St. Petersburg Egyptological Readings, 2006. Proceedings (Transactions of the State Hermitage 35)]. St. Petersburg, pp. 5–13 (in Russian).
  4. Danilova I. (ed.) (1987) Vydaiushchiisia russkii vostokoved V. S. Golenishchev i istoriia priobreteniia ego kollektsii v muzei iziashchnykh iskusstv (1909‒1912) [The Remarkable Russian Orientalist V. S. Golenischev and the History of Acquisition of his Collection by the Museum of Fine Arts (1909‒1912)], Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Gardiner A. H. (1947) Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, vols 1–3. Oxford.
  6. Gruzdeva E., Kolosova E. (2007) “Zhenskii pedagogicheskii institut na rubezhe epokh (1913–1917)” [Pedagogical Institute for Women at the Trun of Epochs (1913–1917)]. Vestnik Gertsenovskogo universiteta, 5 (43), pp. 22–31 (in Russian).
  7. Korostovtsev M. (1963) Vvedenie v egipetskuiu fi lologiiu [Introduction to Egyptian Philology]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Mosolov A. (1938) Pri dvore imperatora [At the Court of the Emperor]. Riga (in Russian).
  9. Shmidt S. (ed.) (2005) Akademik S. F. Platonov. Perepiska s istorikami [Academician S. F. Platonov. Correspondence with Historians], vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Sobolev V. (1993) Avgusteishii prezident: Velikii kniaz’ Konstantin Konstantinovich vo glave Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 1889–1915 gg. [The Eminent President: Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich as Head of the Imperial Academy of Sciences]. Moscow (in Russian).
  11. Struve V. (1960) “Znachenie V.S. Golenishcheva dlia egiptologii” [Signifi cance of V. S. Golenishchev for Egyptology], in V. Avdiev, N. Shastina (eds) Ocherki po istorii russkogo vostokovedeniia [Essays in the History of Russian Oriental Studies], vol. 3. Moscow, pp. 3–69 (in Russian).
Ladynin Ivan
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prospect, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation;
Post: Associate Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-8779-993X;
Email: ladynin@mail.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.
Izosimov Denis
Student status: Graduate student;
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prospect, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-4335-1487;
Email: Denlore@yandex.ru.
Sennikova Polina
Student status: Graduate student;
Student status: Graduate student;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of study: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 27/4 Lomonosovskiy prospect, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2502-1778;
Email: Sennikovapolina@mail.ru.
This work is supported by the Russian Science Foundation under grant 19-18-00369 “The Classical Orient: culture, world-view, tradition of research in Russia (based on the monuments in the collection of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts and archive sources)”
Крюков П. Д. Октоих нотированный XVII века: современные задачи изучения // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2020. Вып. 38. С. 23-35. DOI: 10.15382/sturV202038.23-35
The purpose of this article is to identify and describe current problems of study of the notated Octoechos of the 17th century, particularly those that are related to the reform of printing in the mid-17th century. The use of the Octoechos notated in the 17th century is fully incorporated in the context of the whole period of development of this book, beginning from its use as a separate collection since the end of the 15th century. In order to solve the main problems, the article formulates the following directions of the study: search for and systematisation of all preserved copies of the Octoechos notated in the 17th century; establishing the typology and compiling, as far as it is possible, a comprehensive catalogue and manual with a scientifi c description of the manuscripts; the study of technical aspects in the process of emendation of singing with this book as an example. An important direction in the range of the formulated tasks is the identifi cation and understanding with the Octoechos of the 17th century as an example of the system of the Russian Octoechos and the study of the role of patterns of singing in chanting hymns. The article shows the features of writing down and structuring chants from the book in question. In order to illustrate the process of the reform of singing in the mid- 17th century, the article uses examples from notated MSs.
notated Octoechos, reform, 17th century, Znamenny chant, manuscript, chant
  1. Artamonova Iu. (1998) Pesnopeniia-modeli v drevnerusskom pevcheskom iskusstve XI–XVIII vekov [Chants-patterns in Old Russian art of singing of the 11th — 18th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Gruzintseva N. (1990) Stikhiry-samoglasny triodnogo stikhiraria v drevnerusskoi rukopisnoi traditsii XII–XVII vekov [Stichera-idiomela of Triodion sticherarion in the Old Russian manuscript tradition of the 12th — 17th centuries]. Leningrad (in Russian).
  3. Guseinova Z. (1997) “Zhanr Blazhenn v tserkovno-pevcheskom iskusstve” [The genre of ‘Blazhenny’ in art of church singing]. Rukopisnye pamiatniki, 4, pp. 193‒214 (in Russian).
  4. Guseinova Z. (1998‒99) “Oktoikh notirovannyi (po materialam rukopisei XV–XVII vekov)” [Notated Octoechos (MSs of the 15th — 17th centuries)]. Dni slavianskoi pis'mennosti i kul'tury, 1‒2 (in Russian).
  5. Kazantseva M. (1997) Istoriia pevcheskogo iskusstva v pis'mennoi kul'ture Drevnei Rusi XII–XVII vv. (po knige Irmologii) [History of the art of singing in the booklore of Ancient Rus’ of the 12th — 17th centuries (the book of Heirmologion)]. Ekaterinburg (in Russian).
  6. Khachaiants A. (2001) Pevcheskie rukopisi XVII–XIX vekov: Katalog [Singing manuscripts of the 17th — 19th centuries: A catalogue], in A. Ziuzin, N. Popkova (eds). Saratov (in Russian).
  7. Krasheninnikova O. (1997) Drevnerusskii Oktoikh XII–XIV vv. kak pamiatnik srednevekovoi gimnografii [Old Russian Octoechos of the 12th — 14th centuries as a monument of mediaeval hymnography]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Krasheninnikova O. (2006) Drevneslavianskii Oktoikh sv. Klimenta, arkhiepiskopa Okhridskogo [Ancient Slavonic Octoechos of St. Clement of Ohrid]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Krest'ianin F. (1974) Stikhiry [Stichera], in M. Brazhnikov (ed.). Pamiatniki russkogo muzykal'nogo iskusstva [Monuments of Russian musical art], vol. 3. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Kruchinina A., Egorova M., Shvets T. (2014) Sluzhba na perenesenie moshchei prepodobnogo Sergiia Radonezhskogo. Issledovanie, tekst i rospev [Church service for the transfer of the relics of St. Sergius of Radonezh. Study, text and pattern of singing]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  11. Kudriavtsev I. (ed.) (1960) Rukopisnye sobraniia D. V. Razumovskogo i V. F. Odoevskogo i arkhiv D. V. Razumovskogo. Opisaniia [Manuscript collections of D. Razumovsky and V. Odoevsky and the archive of D. Razumovsky]. I. Moscow. (in Russian).
  12. Nikol'skaia N. (2008) «Skazanie» inoka Evfrosina i pevcheskaia knizhnaia sprava XVII veka. [“Narrative” of monk Evfrosin and the book emendation of singing of the 17th century]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  13. Pentkovskii A. (2004) “Vizantiiskoe bogosluzhenie” [Byzantine church service]. Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 8. Moscow. P. 382. (in Russian).
  14. Pletneva E. (2001) “Mnogoraspevnost' v Notirovannom Oktoikhe: bogorodichny Maloi vecherni” [Multipart singing in the Notated Octoechos: Hymns to Theotokos of Smaller Matins]. Muzykal'noe nasledie Rossii: istoki i traditsii [Musical heritage of Russia: Origins and traditions]. St Petersburg. Pp. 80‒107 (in Russian).
  15. Popov A. (2002) “Zhanr antifonov stepenny v traditsii Kirillo-Belozerskogo monastyria (konets XV–XVII vv.)” [The genre of antiphons “stepenny” in the tradition of Kirillo-Belozersky monastery (late 15th — 17th centuries)], in Pevcheskoe nasledie Drevnei Rusi (istoriia, teoriia, estetika) [Art of singing of Ancient Rus’ (History, theory, aesthetics)]. St Petersburg. Pp. 291–302 (in Russian).
  16. Ramazanova N. (2004) Moskovskoe tsarstvo v tserkovno-pevcheskom iskusstve XVI–XVII vv. [Moscow tsardom in the art of church singing of the 16th — 17th centuries]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  17. Seregina N. (1994) Pesnopeniia russkim sviatym. Po materialam rukopisnoi pevcheskoi knigi XI– XIX vv. «Stikhirar' mesiachnyi» [Chants to Russian saints. Materials of the manuscript book of singing of the 11th — 19th centuries. “Sticherarion of the months”]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  18. Tiurina O. (2008) “Ob odnom obraztse drevnerusskoi melizmatiki: tsikl Svetil'nov voskresnykh” [One example of Old Russian melismatics: The cycle of Svetilny of Sunday]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia V: Voprosy istorii i teorii khristianskogo iskusstva, 2‒3, pp. 7‒22 (in Russian).
  19. Tutolmina S. (2004) Russkie pevcheskie Triodi drevneishei traditsii [Russian singing Triodia of the most ancient tradition]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  20. Zabolotnaia N. (2001) Tserkovno-pevcheskie rukopisi Drevnei Rusi XI–XIV vekov: Osnovnye tipy knig v istoriko-funktsional'nom aspekte [Church-singing manuscripts of Ancient Rus’ of the 11th — 14th centuries: Main types of books in historical and functional aspects]. Moscow (in Russian).
  21. Zakhar'ina N. (2007) Russkie pevcheskie knigi. Tipologiia, puti evoliutsii [Russian books of singing. Typology, ways of evolution]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  22. Zernova A. (1958) Knigi kirillovskoi pechati izdannye v Moskve v XVI–XVII vekakh: svodnyi katalog [Books of Kirill’s print published in Moscow in the 16th — 17th centuries: A catalogue]. Moscow (in Russian).
Kryukov Pavel
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5008-5191;
Email: pasha.kryukov.94@mail.ru.
Попова И. И., Демакова И. Д. Гуманитарная экспертиза как метод научного познания в педагогике // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия IV: Педагогика. Психология. 2021. Вып. 60. С. 37-48. DOI: 10.15382/sturIV202160.37-48
The article is devoted to the topical problem of methodology in the field of scientific and pedagogical research, i.e. the analysis of the prerequisites for the design of humanities-related expertise as a method of scientifi c knowledge in pedagogy. The emphasis is on substantiating the role, purpose and instrumental support of humanities-related expertise in education. The three most signifi cant fundamental methods in pedagogy are hypothetically singled out and considered, which make it possible to determine the scientifi c foundations of the method of humanities-related examination and its instrumental part of application in pedagogical research. These include pedagogical observation, pedagogical refl ection, and pedagogical hermeneutics. The presented study refl ects the content of the experience and conclusions of Russian scientists who employed the method of humanities-related expertise in order to determine the risks of approbation and implementation of new technologies in human life. The special purpose of humanities-related expertise in providing an ethical dimension in the process of assessing risks associated with modern innovative projects is emphasised. The study raises the problem of the formation of the expert position of the teacher, focused on the application of the method of humanities-related expertise in the practice of pedagogical activity directly in the conditions of work with children. The article has a character of an analytical outline and forms an idea of the areas of scientifi c research in which the method of humanities-related expertise is presented as a subject of research. Based on the study, a signifi cant clarifi cation is made in the understanding of humanities-related expertise in education as a research method that is synergistic in nature and aimed at analysing the humanities-related potential of the process and the results obtained in the situation of introducing pedagogical innovations through the use of educational technologies, as well as in the context of the introduction of innovative pedagogical models and systems.
research activity, humanities-related expertise, Russian pedagogy, pedagogical research, methods of pedagogical research, method of humanities-related expertise, pedagogical observation, pedagogical refl ection, pedagogical hermeneutics
  1. Ashmarin I., Yudin B. (2012) “Osnovi gumanitarnoy expertisi” [Fundamentals of humanitiesrelated expertise]. Man, 2012, vol. 3, pp. 76–87 (in Russian).
  2. Belova S. (2012) “Gumanitarnaya expertisa kak forma professional'noy refl exsii pedagoga” [Humanities-related expertise as a form of professional refl ection of a teacher]. Bulletin of the Kalmyk University, 2012, vol. 1 (13), pp. 34–41 (in Russian).
  3. Bratchenko S. (1993) Vvedenie v gumanitarnuyu expertisu obrasovaniya (psychologicheskyi aspect) [Introduction to the humanities-related examination of education (psychological aspect)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Bratchenko S. (2003) Vvedenie v gumanitarnuyu expertisu obrasovaniya: metod. posobie [Introduction to the humanities-related examination of education]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  5. Bryzgalina E., Alasania K., Sadovnichy V., Mironov V., Gavrilenko S., Varkhotov T., Shkomova E., Nabiulina E. (2016) “Social'no-gumaniytarnaya expertisa funkcionirovaniya nacional'nih depositariev biomaterialov” [Social and humanities-related examination of functioning of national depositories of biomaterials]. Questions of philosophy, 2016, vol. 2, pp. 18–21 (in Russian).
  6. Voronin A. (2014) “Konturi gumanitarnoy expertisi” [“Contours of humanities-related expertise”]. Man, 2014, vol. 1, pp. 81–92 (in Russian).
  7. Vygotsky L. (1999) Pedagogicheskaia psikhologiia. Glava XVIII. Osnovnye formy izucheniia lichnosti rebenka [Pedagogical psychology. Chaper 18: Main forms of studying personality of the child], available at http://a-mov.ru/books/vygotskij -pedagogicheskaja-psihologij a/116.html (10.06.2020) (in Russian).
  8. Demakova I. (2013) Yanusch Korchak: jivaya pedagogika izmenyayuschegosya mira [Janusz Korczak: Living pedagogy of a changing world]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Klimova S. (2017) “Gumanitarnaya expertisa i expertnoye soobschestvo: postanovka problemi” [Humanities-related expertise and expert community: problem statement]. Philosophical sciences, 2017, vol. 4, pp. 68–80. (in Russian).
  10. Kovrov V., Oganesyan N. “Teoreticheskiye podhodi k expertise processa vospitaniya v chkole v aspekte ego psichologicheskoy bezopasnosti” [Theoretical approaches to the examination of the process of education at school in the aspect of its psychological safety]. Portal of psychological publications PsyJournals.ru, available at: https://psyjournals.ru/cepp/issue/45358_full.shtml(12.06.2020) (in Russian).
  11. Skirbekk G. (1991) “Est' li u expertisi eticheskiye osnovi?” [Does examination have ethical foundations?]. Man, 1991, vol. 1, pp. 86–93 (in Russian).
  12. Yudin B. (2006) “Ot eticheskoy expertisi k expertise gumanitarnoy” [From ethical expertise to humanities-related expertise”] in Lukov V. (ed.) Gumanitarnoe znanie: tendentsii razvitiia v XXI veke. V chest' 70-letiia Igoria Mikhailovicha Il'inskogo [Humanities-related knowledge: development trends in the 21st century. In honour of the 70th birthday of Igor Mikhailovich Ilyinsky]. Moscow, pp. 214–237 (in Russian).
  13. Yasvin V. (2001) Obrazovatel'naya sreda: ot modelirovaniya k proektirovaniyu [Educational environment: from modelling to design]. Moscow (in Russian).
Popova Irina
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Education;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Education;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Federal Institute of Development of Education, RANEPA; 9-1 Cherniakhovskogo Str., Moscow, 125319, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0001-6523-4498;
Email: popova-in@ranepa.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.
Demakova Irina
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Education;
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Education;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: Moscow Pedagogical State University; 88 Prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0861-2453;
Email: kpndp@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.
The article was supported by RFBR grant 20-013-00184.
Шебалин Д. Д., Фадеев И. А. «Правительство само регламентирует догматы Церкви так, как это ему кажется более выгодным…». Экзарх Л. Федоров о религиозной политике советской власти // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2021. Вып. 95. С. 109-122. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202195.109-122
This article analyses a document that has up to now been unknown to the present-day historiography, i.e. a letter from the head of the Russian Catholic Apostolic Exarchate of Russia Leonid Fedorov in which he reports about the state of aff airs in the Catholic community after the advent of Soviet authorities as well as about the measures being taken by the government towards the gradual limitation and then the actual elimination of the Greek-Catholic Church of the Byzantine Rite in the territory of Russia. The hopes of believers for the liberalisation of attitudes to the Catholic Church on the part of the Bolsheviks and the expansion of the range of their rights and opportunities after the change of the political regime in the country were not fulfi lled. The article concludes that Exarch L. Fedorov was one of the fi rst religious fi gures (given the date of writing the letter) to see this tragic trend for Greek Catholics through the prism of the features of the Soviet secularist project as a political religion; he did realise their destructive role for the development of Christianity in Russia. Drawing on the letter of the Exarch, the article concludes that the Soviet state acted consciously in order to deprive the church of its public status and authority. While at the offi cial level, during negotiations with representatives of the Holy See, Soviet diplomacy did not inform about the state’s intentions to interfere in the Catholic Church’s internal jurisdiction, L. Fedorov in his report described the real state of aff airs in the country, i.e. the essence of the anti-religious policies carried out by Soviet authorities and their intention to turn the Church into a social institution in the service of Soviet society. The article examines the phenomenon of the Soviet government through its attitudes to and relations with religious institutions and the ways of survival of the church in the new conditions.
Roman Catholic Church, Russian Catholic Church of Byzantine Rite, Russia-Vatican relations, Russian Catholic Church, Leonid Feodorov, Soviet policies towards religion, religious freedom
  1. Akopian O. (2018) “Pis’mo patriarkha Tikhona pape rimskomu Benediktu XV i drugie dokumenty iz istorii otnoshenii Sviatogo prestola s SSSR (1920-e gody)” [The letter of Patriarch Tikhon to Pope Benedict XV and other documents on the relations between the Holy See and the USSR in the 1920s]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, vol. 6 (154), pp. 141–159 (in Russian).
  2. Beglov A. L. (2007) “Ot sobornogo Opredeleniia — k Dekretu SNK. K voprosu o genezise gosudarstvenno-tserkovnykh otnoshenii sovetskogo perioda” [From the Council’s defi nition to the CPC’s Decree. On the question of the genesis of state-church relations in the Soviet era]. Al’fa i Omega, vol. 1 (48), pp. 146–170 (in Russian).
  3. Beglov A. L., Beliakova N.A. (2019) “Religiia, gosudarstvo i obshchestvo” [Religion, state, and society], in Vsemirnaia istoriia. T. 6. Mir v XX veke: Epokha global’nykh transformatsii [World history. Vol. 6: The world in the 20th century: Age of global changes], Moscow: Nauka, vol. 1, pp. 228–252 (in Russian).
  4. Beliakova E. V. (2004) Tserkovnyi sud i problemy tserkovnoi zhizni [Church court and church life issues]. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Beliakova N. A. (2012) “Tserkov’ v sotsialisticheskom gosudarstve: osobennosti russkoi pravovoi traditsii” [The church in the socialist state: peculiarities of Russian legal tradition], in Religii mira. Istoriia i sovremennost’. 2006–2010 [World religions. History and the present day. 2006–2010], Moscow, St. Petersburg: Nestor-istoriia, pp. 430–472 (in Russian).
  6. Boeckh K. (2017) “Katolicheskie obshchiny v SSSR v 1918–1939 gg.” [Catholic communities in the USSR in 1918–1939]. Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, vol. 3/4 (47/48), pp. 332–335 (in Russian).
  7. Burman Vasiliy von (1966) Leonid Fedorov. Zhizn’ i deiatel’nost’ [Leonid Feodorov. Life and work]. Rome, Tipografia poliglota Vaticana (in Russian).
  8. Gentile E. (2021) Politicheskie religii. Mezhdu demokratiei i totalitarizmom [Political religions. Between democracy and totalitatiranism]. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’ (in Russian).
  9. Iudin A. (2002) Leonid Fedorov. Moscow: Khristianskaia Rossiia (in Russian).
  10. Kozlov-Strutinskii S., Parfent’ev P. (2014) Istoriia Katolicheskoi Tserkvi v Rossii [History of the Catholic Church in Russia]. St. Petersburg: Belyi kamen’ (in Russian).
  11. Krivova N. A. (1997) Vlast’ i Tserkov’ v 1922–1925 gg. Politbiuro i GPU v bor’be za tserkovnye tsennosti i politicheskoe podchinenie dukhovenstva [Power and church in 1922–1925. Politbureau and the GPU in the struggle for church valuables and political subordination of the clergy]. Moscow (in Russian).
  12. Liubin V. P. (2005) “Sotsializm i natsionalizm — antireligii ХХ veka” [Socialism and Nationalism — anti-religions of the 20th century], in Religiya i politika v XX veke [Religion and politics in the 20th century], Moscow: IVI RAN, pp. 30–57 (in Russian).
  13. Osipova I. I. (1996) “«V iazvakh svoikh sokroi menia…»: Goneniia na Katolicheskuiu Tserkov’ v SSSR. Po materialam sledstvennykh i lagernykh del” [“Hide me within thy wounds”: the persecution of the Catholic Church in the USSR]. Moscow: Serebrianye niti (in Russian).
  14. Parfent’ev P. (2004) «S terpeniem my dolzhny nesti krest svoi...»: Dokumenty i materialy o zhizni i deiatel’nosti blazhennogo sviashchennomuchenika ekzarkha Leonida (Fedorova) [“With patience we must bear our cross...”: Documents and materials on the life and work of the Blessed Hieromartyr Exarch Leonid (Fedorov)]. St. Petersburg: Kerigma (in Russian).
  15. (1997–1998) Postanovlenie VTsIK ob iz’’iatii tserkovnykh tsennostei. Iz protokola zasedaniia Prezidiuma VTsIK № 13, p. 1 [The All-Russian Central Executive Committee’s Decree «On the Seizure of Church Jewelry». From the minutes of the Presidium of the The All-Russian Central Executive Committee № 13, 1], in Arkhivy Kremlia. Politbiuro i tserkov’. 1922–1925 gg. V 2 kn. [Kremlin Archives. Politbiuro and Church. 1922–1925. In 2 Vols], Moscow, Novosibirsk: ROSSPEN, «Sibirskii khronograf», vol. 2, pp. 15–18 (in Russian).
  16. Strada V. (2005) “Razmyshleniia o «politicheskikh religiiakh» XX veka” [Reflections on the “political religions” of the 20th century], in Religiia i politika v XX veke [Religion and politics in the 20th century], Moscow: IVI RAN, pp. 8–16 (in Russian).
  17. Tokareva E. S. (1988) Otnosheniia SSSR i Vatikana: ot peregovorov k razryvu. 1922–1929 [Relations between the USSR and the Vatican: from negotiations to rupture. 1922–1929]. Moscow (in Russian).
  18. Vorob’ev V., Miliakova L. B. (eds) (2016) Otdelenie tserkvi ot gosudarstva i shkoly ot tserkvi v Sovetskoi Rossii. Oktiabr’ 1917–1918 gg.: Sbornik dokumentov [Separation of church from state and school from church. October 1917–1918. Collection of documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
  19. Wenger A. (2000) Rome et Moscou. 1900-1950. Moscow: Russkii put’ (Russian translation).
  20. Zatko J. (1960) “A Contemporary Report on the Condition of the Catholic Church in Russia, 1922”. Harvard Theological Review, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 277–295.
Shebalin Dmitry
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 32A Leninskii prospekt, Moscow 119334, Russian Federation;
Post: junior research fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0001-6082-1562;
Email: dmitry.shebalin@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.
Fadeyev Ivan
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 32A Leninskii prospekt, Moscow 119334, Russian Federation;
Post: senior research fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0003-2202-2246;
Email: london.rbw@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.
This study has been supported by the Russian Science Foundation (no. 19-189-00482) for the project: “Entangled Histories: Russia and the Holy See, 1917–1958”.
Крюков П. Д. Нотированные антифоны Степенны в Типографском Уставе // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2021. Вып. 42. С. 9-21. DOI: 10.15382/sturV202142.9-21
This article is devoted to one of the central genres of the book Oktoikh notirovanny (‘Notated Octoechos’), i.e. the antiphons Stepenny. It discusses the problems of forming the notated cycles in the Octoechos in the most ancient stage and identifies the ways of their transformation. It also substantiates the problems of continuity of the poetic and musical texts by the mid-15th century with this cycle used as an example. The object of the study is the most ancient extant manuscript from the collection of the Tretyakov Gallery which contains a copy of the antiphons Stepenny with Znamennaya notation. The article studies this copy using the example of the antiphons of the 4th mode (glas) both as an independent mode and in comparison with the copy of the Stepenny from a collection of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius; it compares the structure of the chants, principles of notation, reveals discrepancies in the poetic text and the note text. The following conclusions are made based on the comparison of the copies: by the time of the “fracture of style”, the discrepancies in the poetic texts of the chants prove to be insignifi cant and can be explained by local editing; the structure of the chants and their division into lines is practically always identical; the analysis and comparison of the note text allows one to state that the singing of the antiphons Stepenny, judging by the hook line, was similar. This provides evidence of the continuity between the copy of the 15th century as related to that of the 11th century, while techniques of their editing refl ect characteristic features of the singers’ practice.
‘Notated Octoechos’, Typographical Typicon with Contacarium, manuscript, antiphons Stepenny, Znamenny chant, notation
  1. Aleksandrina A. (2020) Pevcheskie rukopisnye knigi XV–XIX vekov Troitse-Sergievoi Lavry. Nauchnoe opisanie [Manuscript song books of the 15th — 19th centuries of St. Sergius Lavra. Scientific description]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Durnovo N. (2000) Izbrannye raboty po istorii russkogo iazyka [Selected works on the history of the Russian language]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Filippova E. (2006) “K voprosu ob izmenenii pevcheskoi praktiki v Russkoi Tserkvi v period bogosluzhebnoi reformy 14–15 vv.” [On the question of changing the singing practice in the Russian Church during the liturgical reform of the 14th — 15th centuries], in “Idu v nevedomyi mne put’”: Pamiati Eleny Filippovoi. Seriia: Nauchnye trudy Moskovskoi gosudarstvennoi konservatorii im. P. I. Chaikovskogo, 2006, vol. 55, pp. 8–17 (in Russian).
  4. Guseinova Z. (2015) “Drevnerusskaia kriukovaia notatsiya XV veka: preobrazovaniia i novatsii” [Znamenny notation of the 15th century: transformations and innovations]. Vestnik Iuzhno- Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Social’no-gumanitarnye nauki, 2015, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 84–90 (in Russian).
  5. Guseinova Z. (1998–99) “Oktoikh notirovannyi (po materialam rukopisei XV–XVII vekov)” [Notated Octoechos (based on the materials of manuscripts of the 15th — 17th centuries]. Dni slavianskoi pis'mennosti i kul'tury [Days of the Slavonic booklore and culture], no. 1–2. URL: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxndXNlam5vdmF6bXxneDozMDhjYjg0YmM5NGI3NjU0 (02.02.2021) (in Russian).
  6. Pentkovskii A. (2001) Tipikon patriarkha Aleksiia Studita v Vizantii i na Rusi [The Typicon of Patriarch Alexy the Studite in Byzantium and in Rus’]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Popov A. (2002) “Zhanr antifonov stepenny v traditsii Kirillo-Belozerskogo monastyria (konets XV–XVII vv.)” [The genre of antiphons Stepenny in the tradition of Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery (late 15th — 17th centuries)], in Pevcheskoe nasledie Drevnei Rusi (istoriia, teoriia, estetika) [Legacy of the art of singing of Ancient Rus’ (history, theory, aesthetics)]. St. Petersburg, pp. 291–302 (in Russian).
  8. Samoilenkov S. (2015) “Propoved’ v evangel’skom bogosluzhenii: metod ili bezyskusnaia odukhotvorennost’” [Preaching of the Gospel liturgy: a method or artless spirituality]. Interpretatsiya Biblii i propoved'. Trudy SPbHU, no. 7, pp. 145–167 (in Russian).
  9. Shvets T. (2016) “Drevnerusskaia pevcheskaia kniga kondakar’: nachal’nii etap izucheniya” [The song book Kontakarion: the initial period of research]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki, 2016, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 98–105 (in Russian).
  10. Strunk O. (1960) “Antifons of the Octoechos”. Journal of the American Musicological Society, 1960, XIII, pp. 165–190.
  11. Starikova I. (2013) “17-ia kafi zma (Ps 118) vsenoshchnogo bdeniia v drevnerusskom pevcheskom iskusstve XV–XVII vv. (razdel’norechnaia redaktsiia)” [The 17th kathisma of the vigil in the Old-Russian chant tradition, 15th — 17th centuries]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia V: Voprosy istorii i teorii khristianskogo iskusstva, 2 (11), pp. 7–36 (in Russian).
  12. Uspenskii N. (2004) Pravoslavnaia vechernia: Istoriko-liturgicheskii ocherk. Chin vsenoshchnogo bdeniia na Pravoslavnom Vostoke i v Russkoi Tserkvi [Orthodox Vespers: A Historical and liturgical essay. The rite of the All-Night Vigil in the Orthodox East and in the Russian Church]. Moscow (in Russian).
  13. Uspenskij B. (ed.) (2006) Tipografskii Ustav: Ustav s kondakarem kontsa XI — nachala XII veka [Typographical Typicon: typicon with contacarium (end of the 11th — beginning of the 12th centuries)], vol. 1–3. Moscow (in Russian).
  14. Vladyshevskaia T. (2006) Muzykal’naia kul’tura Drevnei Rusi [Musical culture of Ancient Rus’]. Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Zalizniak A. (2004) Drevnenovgorodskii dialekt [Old Novgorod dialect]. Moscow (in Russian).
Kryukov Pavel
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5008-5191;
Email: pasha.kryukov.94@mail.ru.
Суслова Е. Д. Традиционное территориальное устройство Андомского прихода Олонецкого уезда в первой половине XVIII столетия // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2022. Вып. 106. С. 44-61. DOI: 10.15382/sturII2022106.44-61
The article investigates the specific features in the territorial structure of the church parish on the Andoma pogost district of the Olonets uyezd during the first half of the 18th century. The set problem has not been the subject of close analysis in the historiography yet. Approving the idea that the parish on the North-West of Russia was coherent with the small district (volost’) in 17—18th centuries, emphasizing the unity of the parish, scientists mainly focused on the problem of identifying the general features of the parish and on classification of parishes. The study is based on a comparative analysis of data that were fixed in the reports of the local priests in 1708 and confessional records in 1769. The reconstruction of the grid of all mentioned in the sources villages were used for visualizing the groups of villages, inhabitants of which belonged to different parts of the parish. The revealing data as well as the reconstruction of peculiarities how the clergy was attached to one or another church and how the staff of the clergy was divided into two parts allow us to conclude that the church parish of the Andoma pogost district had significantly more complicated structure, especially in comparative with the structure of church parishes of not very vast districts (volosts). According to tradition the parish was divided into two parts for regulating mechanism of material support of the clergy, distributing obligations among them and satisfaction spiritual needs of the laity. Both parts of the parish had a significant degree of self-dependence: each had its own church, own clergy that was included in the common clergy staff (shtat), and the strictly geographically localized group of villages. The stable using of archaic practices in the territorial organization of the parish during the first half of the 18th century suggests that the local community managed to adapt them to the newly approved legislative principles, aimed at unifying and enlarging church parishes. This was largely possible as the state and church policy took into account archaic traditions of local communities and was aimed on results in the long term.
Church parish, parochial district, parish standardization, territorial reorganization, Andoma district (pogost), Olonets uyezd, Russian Orthodox Church
  1. Cherkasova M. (2008) “Ekonomicheskaia i demografi cheskaia kharakteristika sel′skikh prikhodov Vologodsko-Belozerskoi eparkhii v XVII veke” [Economic and demographic characteristics of rural parishes of Vologda-Belozersk diocese in the 17th century], in Severo-Zapad v agrarnoi istorii Rossii: mezhvuzovskii tematicheskii sbornik nauchnykh trudov [North-West in the agrarian history of Russia: collection of articles], Kaliningrad, pp. 234–251 (in Russian).
  2. Chernyakova I., Chernyakov O. (1988) “Pistsovye i perepisnye knigi XVI–XVII vv. kak istochnik po istorii dereviannogo zodchestva Karelii” [Scribes’ and census books of the 16th — 17th centuries as a source on the history of wooden architecture in Karelia], in Problemy issledovaniia, restavratsii i ispol′zovaniia arkhitekturnogo naslediia Russkogo Severa: mezhvuzovskii sbornik [Current issues in research, restoration, and use of the architectural heritage of the Russian North: collection of articles], Petrozavodsk, pp. 55–73 (in Russian).
  3. Chernyakova I. (1998) Kareliia na perelome epokh: Ocherki sotsial′noi i agrarnoi istorii XVII veka [Karelia at the turn of epochs: essays on the social and agrarian history of the 17th century]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian). Available at: http://carelica.petrsu.ru/mediateka/home/reading-hall/monographs/id-14/id.html (13.09.2021).
  4. Freeze G.L. (1977) The Russian Levites: parish clergy in the eighteenth century. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.
  5. Kamkin A. (1994) “Severnorusskii sel′skii prikhod XVIII veka: prostranstvo, naselennost′, klir” [The North-Russian rural parish of the 18th century: territory, population, clergy], in Kul′tura Russkogo Severa: mezhvuzovskii sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Culture of the Russian North: collection of articles]. Vologda, pp. 91–108 (in Russian).
  6. Kolesnikov P. (1976) Severnaia derevnia v XV — pervoi polovine XIX veka: k voprosu ob evoliutsii agrarnykh otnoshenii v Russkom gosudarstve [Northern village in the 15th — fi rst half of the 19th century: on the issue of the evolution of agrarian relations in the Russian State]. Vologda (in Russian).
  7. Milchik M. (1989) “Remonty dereviannykh tserkvei v XVII veke po poriadnym zapisiam” [Renovation of wooden churches in the 17th century according to poryadnaya records], in Problemy issledovaniia, restavratsii i ispol′zovaniia arkhitekturnogo naslediia Russkogo Severa: mezhvuzovskii sbornik [Current issues in research, restoration, and use of the architectural heritage of the Russian North: collection of articles], Petrozavodsk, pp. 120–127 (in Russian).
  8. Pulkin M. (2009) Pravoslavnyi prikhod i vlast′ v seredine XVIII — nachale XX v. (po materialam Olonetskoi eparkhii) [The Orthdox parish and the government in the middle of the 18th — beginning of the 20th cc. Based on materials of Olonets diocese]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian).
  9. Sannikov A. (2015) “Pravoslavnyi prikhod Pribaikal′ia i ego kolichestvennye kharakteristiki v kontse XVII–XVIII v.” [Orthodox parishes of Baikal Region and its Quantitative Characteristics at the End of th 17th — 18th cc]. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Politologiia. Religiovedenie, 2015, vol. 11, pp. 219–230 (in Russian).
  10. Selin A. (2003) Istoricheskaia geografi ia Novgorodskoi zemli v XVI–XVIII vv. Novgorodskii i Ladozhskii uezdy Vodskoi piatiny [Historical geography of the Novgorod land in the 16th — 17th cc. Novgorod and Ladoga uyezds of the Vodskaya pyatina]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  11. Sobolev A. (2015) “Vepsskoe toponimicheskoe nasledie Iugo-Vostochnogo Obonezh′ia v sootnoshenii s arkheologicheskimi i istoricheskimi istochnikami” [Vepses’ heritage in the toponymy of the south-eastern Onega area in correlation with archaeological and historical sources]. Severnorusskie govory, 2015, vol. 14, pp. 89–111 (in Russian).
  12. Staritsyn A. (2009) “Kurzhenskaia pustyn′” [Kurzhenskaia hermitage]. Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, 2009, no. 3–4, pp. 191–205 (in Russian).
  13. Staritsyn A. (2014) “Otnoshenie k tserkovnoi reforme XVII v. v severnykh monastyriakh Novgorodskoi mitropolii” [The attitude to the Church reform of the 17th century in the northern monasteries of Novgorod archdiocese]. Trudy instituta rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2014, no. 12, pp. 61–82 (in Russian).
  14. Stefanovich P. (2002) Prikhod i prikhodskoe dukhovenstvo v Rossii v XVI–XVII vv. [The parish and the parish clergy in Russia in the 16–17th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Suslova E. (2013) Tserkovno-prikhodskaia sistema v Karelii kontsa XV — nachala XVIII veka [Church and the peasant community in Karelia at the end of the 15th — beginning of the 18th c.]. Petrozavodsk (in Russian). Available at http://carelica.petrsu.ru/Reading_hall/Suslova/Titul.pdf (13.09.2021).
  16. Timoshenkova Z. (1999) Sotsiokul′turnyi oblik severo-zapadnoi derevni XVII — nachala XVIII vv. [Sociocultural profi le of the North-Western village of the 17th — early 18th centuries]. Pskov (in Russian).
  17. Tormosova N. (2011) Kargopol′e: istoriia ischeznuvshikh volostei [Kargopolye: the history of defunct villages]. Kargopol (in Russian).
  18. Tormosova N. (2009) “Pogosto-volosti Kargopol′ia” [Pogosto-volosti of Kargopol uyezd], in Il′inskii Vodlozerskii pogost: materialy nauchnoi konferentsii (6–10 avgusta 2007 g.) [Ilyinskii pogost of Vodlozero: conference proceedings (6–10 august 2007)], Petrozavodsk, pp. 246–252 (in Russian).
  19. Vitov M. (1962) Istoriko-geografi cheskie ocherki Zaonezh′ia XVI–XVII vv. Iz istorii sel′skikh poselenii [Historical and geographical studies of Zaonezhie of the 16th — 17th centuries. From the history of rural settlements]. Moscow (in Russian).
  20. Zol′nikova N. (1990) Sibirskaia prikhodskaia obshchina v XVIII veke [The Siberian parish community in the 18th century]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
Suslova Evgeniia
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Petrozavodsk State University (PetrSU);
ORCID: 0000-0003-1017-8761;
Email: evgeniasus@rambler.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.
Бурмистрова Ю. Д. «Дворянское гнездо» или «Лиза»: к вопросу о рецепции романа И. С. Тургенева английскими читателями // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2022. Вып. 71. С. 9-18. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII202271.9-18
Ten years after publishing A Nest of the Gentlefolk in Sovremennik in 1859, an English translation of the novel appeared prepared by English researcher and translator William Ralston Shedden-Ralston. The scholar was particularly interested in Russian literature and contributed a lot to its popularity in England. He translated the works of Ivan Krylov, Nikolay Nekrasov, Alexander Ostrovsky and Ivan Turgenev who was the constant addressee of his letters. Getting permission to translate and publish A Nest of the Gentlefolk in English, Ralston was very careful with the original text and stayed in touch with the author in debatable or hard moments in the book. He even sent the full version for Turgenev to check and edit before publication. In general, the translation turned out very accurate though some moments were still missing from it. But nevertheless one significant change was made. The new title — Liza — was doomed to offer new interpretations of Turgenev’s work. Highly praising the novel, the critics, however, shifted the focus on female character and the love story which was destroyed by the religious feelings of the character. They saw the possible threat of human happiness in Liza’s appeal to God which differed greatly from the Russian interpretation of her action. The present article is dedicated to the analysis of British and American lifetime critic reviews on the novel A Nest of the Gentlefolk where their unique understanding of Turgenev’s work expressed.
Ivan Turgenev, A Nest of the Gentlefolk, William Ralston, translation, Liza, reception, foreign critics of Russian works
  1. Alekseev M., Levin Iu. (1994) Vil′iam Rol′ston — propagandist russkoi literatury i fol′klora [William Ralston, the champion of the Russian literature and folklore]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  2. Beliaeva I. (2018) Tvorchestvo I. S. Turgeneva: faustovskie konteksty [Turgenev’s literary work: Faustian contexts] St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  3. Evdokimova A. (2018) “Khudozhestvennyi spor I. S. Turgeneva s O. de Bal′zakom: romany Dvorianskoe gnezdo″ i Liliia doliny″”. Vestnik Moskovskogo oblastnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Russkaia filologiia, 2018, vol. 2, pp. 107–115 (in Russian).
  4. Yachnin R., Stam D. H. (eds) (1962) Turgenev in English: A Checklist of Works by and about Him. New York.
Burmistrova Yulia
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: Moscow City University; Moscow, Russia;
Post: professor's assistant;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0397-6469;
Email: j.d.burmistrova@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.