/
Search results


Фокин А. Р. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2012. Вып. 3 (41). С. 143-146. — Rev. op.: Ayres L. Augustine and the Trinity. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2010. XIV, 360 p.
PDF
Фокин А. Р. Элементы учения об обожении в латинской патристике // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2012. Вып. 6 (44). С. 7-20.
PDF
This article examines the main elements of the classic Eastern Christian doctrine of divinization as they are found in the Latin Fathers. These include the intimate union of the divinized man with the incarnate God, the divinization of the human nature of Christ, the adoption of man by God in Christ through the action of the Holy Spirit, the ascension of humanity to heaven, as well as the communion of the human person with the divine nature. It would seem that enthusiasm for the idea of divinization drew some western theologians to posit dangerous theories including the pantheistic dissolution of humanity in God as well as the dissolving of the human nature of Christ into his divine nature. Analyzing these theories we can see why Saint Augustine conceived his own juridical theory of divinization based on the concepts of justification and external adoption, which transformed the theory ofdivinization into one of equality with the angelic orders. Because of these developments, the original theory of divinization which at one time was taught by several of the Latin fathers, was unfairly consigned to oblivion.
CHRISTIANITY, THEOLOGY, SOTERIOLOGY, PATROLOGY, SAINT AUGUSTINE, DIVINIZATION, NATURE, INCARNATION
Фокин А. Р. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2013. Вып. 4 (48). С. 153-156. — Rev. op.: Gerber Ch. T. The Spirit of Augustine’s Early Theology. Contextualizing Augustine’s Pneumatology. Ashgate, 2012
PDF
Фокин А. Р. Премудрость Божия как Ars Dei у блж. Августина: между неоплатонизмом и христианством // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия II: История. История Русской Православной Церкви. 2016. Вып. 5 (72). С. 9-19. DOI: 10.15382/sturII201672.9-19
The article deals with the notion of ars Dei (“art of God”) in philosophical and theological thought of St. Augustine of Hippo. It is argued that ars Dei is not only an intelligent design or knowledge which God had with regard to his creation, but also the divine Wisdom and Word of God, in whom exist the eternal and unchangeable forms and reasons of all things, according to which God not only knows, but also creates everything. It is notified, that the notion of ars Dei reflects the Neo-Platonic notion of the universal Intellect (νοDς) and also has an affi nity with the concept of the universal Logos, or “designing Logos” (τεχνικOς λMγος), as found in the works of Philo and in those of several Greek Fathers of the Church, as well as is a result of a development of the biblical notions of the Wisdom and Word of God, through whom all things were made. In the same time Augustine’s doctrine is truly without peer in contemporary philosophical and Patristic literature.
St. Augustine of Hippo, Neoplatonism, early Christianity, Patristics, trinitarian Theology, Cosmology.

1. Fokin A. R. Formirovanie trinitarnoi doktriny v latinskoi patristike. Moscow, 2014.
2. Dillon J. The Middle Platonists. L., 1977.
3. Hadot P. La metaphysique de Porphyre // Entretiens sur l’Antiquite classique. Geneve, 1965. 12. P. 139–140.
4. Hadot P. Porphyre et Victorinus. P., 1968. Vol. 1–2.
5. Majercik R. Porphyry and Gnosticism // Classical Quarterly. 2005. 55. P. 277–292.
6. Simmons M. B. Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Confl ict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian. Oxford; N. Y., 1995.
7. Waillis R. T. Neoplatonism. L., 1972.
Фокин А. Р. От разумного творения к разумному Творцу: античные и патристические аналоги аргумента от «тонкой настройки» // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2017. Вып. 73. С. 30-40. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201773.30-40
In this article the author deals with the proofs of the existence of God, based on the fact of the presence of rational beings in the world. These proofs can be found in Greek and Roman Classical philosophy and early Patristics, and can be viewed as an analogue of the modern “fine-tuning argument”. The author considers the origins and development of this argument in the Greek and Roman philosophy: in Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Sextus Empiricus, and especially the Stoics, who gave to the argument a logical form, based on the relationship between “the parts and the whole”: if the world as a whole produces and contains rational beings as its parts, it should also be rational or contain a rational principle that generates all its parts and governs them, just as human soul governs human body. The correction of this argument was proposed by Sextus Empiricus, who introduced the concept of "spermatic logoi", or rational principles, to explain the generation of the rational beings by the world, so that if the world contains the spermatic logoi of rational and living beings, then the world as a whole is also rational. The author also investigates the reception of the argument based on the existence of rational beings in the world in Latin Patristics: in Minucius Felix, Tertullian and especially Lactantius, in whom this argument has reached the climax of its development. At the same time it was shown, that the ancient argument has undergone a transformation from the postulation of the rationality of the world as a whole or its equation with God himself to a genuine proof of the existence of the one God who is the Creator both of the world and human beings, superior to the both as the all-powerful and transcendent Mind.
God, proofs of the existence of God, theology, teleology, ancient philosophy, Platonism, Stoicism, Patristics, fine tuning argument, anthropic principle, rationality
  1. Arnim von J., ed., Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, Leipzig, 1903–1905, 1–3.
  2. Evans C. S., Manis R. Z., Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith, Downers Grove (Ill.), 2009.
  3. Evans K. S., Menis R. Z., Filosofija religii: razmyshlenie o vere, Moscow, 2010.
  4. Stoljarov A. A., Stoja i stoicism, Moscow, 1995.
  5. Stoljarov A. A., ed., Fragmenty rannih stoikov, Moscow, 1998–2010, 1–3.
  6. Suinbern R., Sushhestvovanie Boga, Moscow, 2004.
  7. Swinburne R., The Existence of God, New York, 2004.
Fokin Alexey
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2554-005X;
Email: al-fokin@yandex.ru. *According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.
The article is written within the framework of the project № 150300211 "Metaphysics in the intercultural space: history and modernity" supported by RFBR Foundation
Фокин А. Р. «Intellegentia simplicitatis»: доктрина Божественной простоты у Мария Викторина, ее философские источники и богословское значение // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2018. Вып. 78. С. 28-46. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201878.28-46
In this article the author examines Gaius Marius Victorinus’ contribution to the development of the doctrine of divine simplicity, which occupies the central place in his philosophical and theological doctrine. Although this doctrine was developed by Victorinus in the context of Arian controversy and his apology of the principle of consubstantiality contained in the Nicaean Creed, its origins go back to the Neoplatonic metaphysics, with its opposition between "here" and "there", that is two worlds with their own logics. In connection with this, the doctrine of Plotinus on the simplicity of the One, the Mind and intelligible essences is briefly reviewed. The basic principles of the doctrine of Divine simplicity are the coincidence of substance and existence in God, so that the very substance of God is His being; the inapplicability of the opposition "substance – accidents" to God, in connection with the fact that God is a substance without accidents and that in Him "to have" is identically "to be"; the identity of all Divine attributes with the Divine substance, such as action, movement, will, form, truth, etc., and, as a consequence, the identity of all attributes to each other. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the attributes of existence, life and thought, on the example of which the principles of unity and distinction of the Divine names and attributes are uncovered, which include synonyms, common and proper acts, potential and actual being, hiddenness and manifestation, as well as the doctrine of the "implication and predominance" of the attributes as an anticipation of the medieval theory of appropriation. In conclusion it is mentioned that Marius Victorinus for the first time in the history of Christianity brought Neoplatonic doctrine of Divine simplicity into Christian theology, applying it to explaining such basic Christian dogmata as God’s existence, substance and attributes, consubstantiality of Divine hypostases, discretion of hypostatic differences. The author also poses a question of the influence of Victorinus’s doctrine on the formation of the subsequent Western Christian theological tradition and its basic differences from the Eastern Christian tradition.
ancient philosophy, metaphysics, substance, accidence, potency, act, Neoplatonism, Christian theology, Patristics, trinitarian doctrine, Marius Victorinus, St Augustine
  1. Ayres L. (2004) Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth Century Trinitarian Theology. New York.
  2. Bolotov V. V. (1994) Lektsii po istorii Drevnei Tserkvi [Lectures on the History of Ancient Church]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Bradshaw D. (2004) Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Russian translation 2012).
  4. Courcelle P. (1948) Les letters grecques en Occident de Macrobe à Cassiodore. Paris.
  5. Flint Th., Rea M. (eds.) (2009) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Russian translation 2013).
  6. Fokin A. R. (2007) Khristianskii platonizm Mariia Viktorina [Marius Victorinus’ Christian Platonism]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Fokin A. R. (2011) “Uchenie ob «umopostigaemoi triade» v neoplatonizme i patristike” [“The Doctrine of the “Intelligible Triad” in Neoplatonism and Patristics”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2011, vol. 37, pp. 7–22; 2011, vol. 38, pp. 7–29 (in Russian).
  8. Fokin A. R. (2016) “Aristotelevskie kategorii v latinskoi trinitarnoi teologii (Marii Viktorin, Avgustin, Boetsii)” [“Aristotle’s Categories in Latin Trinitarian Theology (Marius Victorinus, Augustine, Boethius)”]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 2016, vol. 9, pp. 106–108, 112–113 (in Russian).
  9. Fokin A. R. (2016) “Modusy sushchego i ne sushchego u Mariia Viktorina” [“Marius Victorinus’ Modes of Being and Non-Being”]. Platonovskie issledovaniia, 2016, vol. 4, pp. 148–152 (in Russian).
  10. Fokin A. R. (2017) Formirovanie trinitarnoi doktriny v latinskoi patristike [Formation of Trinitarian Doctrine in Latin Patricistics]. Moscow (in Russian).
  11. Hadot P. (1960) “Commentaire”. Marius Victorinus. Traités théologiques sur la Trinité. Paris.
  12. Hadot P. (1968) Porphyre et Victorinus. Paris.
  13. Hadot P. (1971) Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres. Paris.
  14. Hanson R. P. C. (1988) Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Edinbourgh.
  15. Henry P. (1934) Plotin et l’Occident: Firmicus Maternus, Marius Victorinus, Saint Augustine and Macrobe. Louvain.
  16. Henry P. (1950) “The “Adversus Arium” of Marius Victorinus: the First Systematic Exposition of the Doctrine of the Trinity”. Journal of Theological Studies. New Series, 1950, vol. 1, pp. 49– 50, 52–53.
  17. Moreschini C. (2004) Storia della filosofia patristica. Brescia.
  18. Saffrey D., Westerink L. G. (eds.) (1968‒1987) Proclus. Theologie platonicienne. Paris.
  19. Sennett J. F. (ed.) (1998) The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (Russian translation 2014).
  20. Simonetti M. (1975) La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Rome.
Fokin Alexey
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2554-005X;
Email: al-fokin@yandex.ru. *According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.
Фокин А. А. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2019. Вып. 83. С. 147-151. — Rev. op.: Grigore M., Kührer-Wielach F. Orthodoxa Confessio? Konfessionsbildung, Konfessionalisierung und ihre Folgen in der östlichen Christenheit Europas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. 359 s.
PDF
Fokin Alexander
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5126-6883;
Email: alexanderfokin@bk.ru.
Фокин А. Р. Критика и апология учения о «подобосущии» в латинской патристике IV века: Марий Викторин versus Иларий Пиктавийский // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2019. Вып. 85. С. 31-51. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201985.31-51
This article studies the doctrine of “homoeousion” (“similarity in substance”) of Father and Son in Latin patristics of the 4th century. It highlights a non-concordant reaction of Western Niceans to this doctrine, which was proposed in 358 by the leader of Homoeusians Basil of Ankyra. The article analyses the conciliatory position taken as to the Homoeousians and their doctrine by St. Hilary of Poitiers in his treatise De synodis. It is shown that St. Hilary introduces the concept of similarity to sililarity by essence or nature and equals such similarity with the equality of the nature, which also presupposes the unity of essence and allows one to avoid modalism. The similarity of Father and Son in some other aspects (properties, powers, actions, glory) is always considered by St. Hilary as insuffi cient and secondary in relation to the similarity or equality by nature. Thus, trying to forge a link between Western Niceans and Homoeousians, St. Hilary suggested that the Homoeousian terminology should be used along with the Homousian or as its complement, particularly by introducing the concept of “dissimilar similarity” of Father and Son by essence, which is identical with their homoiousia. Completely diff erent position as to the attitude to homoeousia was taken by Marius Victorinus. The article looks at the question of the degree of familiarity of Victorinus with theology of Homoeousians as well as at the circumstances around writing the fi rst book of his treatise Contra Arium. It is shown that Victorinus uses Aristotle’s logic and proves that the concept of similarity by essence is logicaly contradictory, as with its help it is impossible to express the idea of perfect equality of Father and Son, nor it is possible to substantiate the dissimilarity of Son and created beings. The articles makes the point that the conciliatory stand as to Homoeousians taken by St. Hilary was not accepted by the church, whereas the position of Marius Victorinus, which coincided with that of St. Athanasius the Great, came to be dominant.
Christianity, theology, Arian controversy, triadology, essence, property, unity, identity, similarity, Hilary of Poitiers, Maius Victorinus
  1. Ayres L. (2004) Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth Century Trinitarian Theology. New York.
  2. Abogado J. (2016) Hilary of Poitiers on Conciliating the Homouseans and the Homoeouseans: An Inquiry on the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Controversy. Bern.
  3. Beckwith C. (2008) Hilary of Poitiers on the Trinity. From De Fide to De Trinitate. Oxford; New York.
  4. Bolotov V. (1994) Lektsii po istorii Drevnei Tserkvi [Lectures on History of the Ancient Church], vols 1–4. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Fokin A. (2007) Khristianskii platonizm Mariia Viktorina [Christian Platonism of Marius Victorinus]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Fokin A. (2009) “Ilarii Piktaviiskii” [Hilary of Poitiers], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 22. Moscow, рp. 77–103 (in Russian).
  7. Fokin A. (2014) Formirovanie trinitarnoi doktriny v latinskoi patristike [Development of Trinitary Doctrine in Latin Patristics]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Hadot P. (1960) “Introduction”, in: Marius Victorinus. Traités théologiques sur la Trinité. Sources Chrétiennes, 68. Paris. Pp. 7–89.
  9. Hadot P. (1971) Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres. Vols 1–2. Paris.
  10. Hanson R. (1988) Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Edinbourgh.
  11. Henne P. (2006) Introduction à Hilaire de Poitiers. Paris.
  12. Marius Victorinus (1960). Traités théologiques sur la Trinité. Sources Chrétiennes, vol. 68. Paris.
  13. Meslin M. (1967) Les ariens d’Occident 335–430. Paris.
  14. Popov I. (2004) “Sviatoi Ilarii, episkop Piktaviiskii” [St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers], in: I. Popov. Trudy po patrologii [Studies in Patrology], vol. 1. Sergiev Posad. 1. Pp. 417–734 (in Russian).
  15. Quasten J. (1986) Patrology. Vol. 3. Westminster.
  16. Simonetti M. (1975) La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Roma.
  17. Smulders P. (1944) La doctrina trinitaria de S. Hilaire de Poitiers. Roma.
  18. Steenson J. (1985) “Basil of Ancyra on the Meaning of Homoousios”, in: R. Gregg (ed.) Arianism: Historical and Theological Assessment. Cambridge. Pp. 267–279.
  19. Weedman M. (2007) The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers. Leiden; Boston.
  20. Weedman M. (2007) “Hilary and the Homoiousians: using new categories to map the Trinitarian controversy”. Church History, 76, pp. 491–510.
Fokin Alexey
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2554-005X;
Email: al-fokin@yandex.ru. *According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.
Фокин А. Р. Аристотелевская концепция промысла в свидетельствах античных и раннехристианских авторов // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2020. Вып. 91. С. 57-74. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202091.57-74
The article discusses the concept of providence attributed to Aristotle by both ancient and early Christian authors. This concept was spread in two forms or versions: according to the fi rst and the main version, divine providence is limited to the celestial spheres up to the moon and does not include the earth and the sublunar area. The second implied that providence either covers only the most important areas of the world, or the world as a whole, including the earth, but sustains the existence common genera and species of creatures, and does not care for specifi c individuals and their needs. The author of the article shows that Aristotle himself never applied the concept of providence to his god, i. e. to the Prime Mover, which moves everything without being moved, and to the Intellect, which thinks only of itself. This concept was never used by Aristotle in a cosmological context either, but is found exclusively in an ethical or political and legal contexts, where it means “prudence”, “foresight”, or “intent”. At the same time, it is noted that the two aforementioned versions of the Aristotelian concept of providence either go back to the philosophy of Aristotle himself and his dualistic cosmology, which involves the division of the universe into two main parts, i.e. supralunar, containing celestial bodies and the sphere of motionless stars, consisting of ether and abiding in eternal and uniform circular motion, and the sublunar part, consisting of the four elements and composite bodies subject to the processes of generation and destruction; or go back to the interpretation of Aristotelian cosmology by later Peripatetics, such as Theophrastus, Critolaus, the author of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise “De mundo” and Alexander of Aphrodisias. The article demonstrates that the Aristotelian concept of providence in all its forms was fi ercely criticised by both ancient philosophers (Platonists and Stoics) and Christian theologians, beginning with early Christian apologists and ending with late Byzantine authors.
Christianity, Ancient Philosophy, Aristotle, Peripatetics, physics, cosmology, theology, God, providence, Patristics, genera and species, individuals
  1. Benevich G. I. (2013) Kratkaia istoriia «promysla» ot Platona do Maksima Ispovednika [A brief history of “Providence” from Plato to Maxim the Confessor]. St Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii (in Russian).
  2. Bergjan S.-P. (2002) Der fürsorgende Gott. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  3. Festugière A.-J. (1932) L’idéal religieux des grecs et l’Évangile. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre.
  4. Hager F. P. (1975) “Proklos und Alexander von Aphrodisias über ein Problem der Vorsehung”, in J. Mansfeld, L. M. de Rijk (eds) Kephalaion: Studies presented to C. J. de Vogel. Assen: Van Gorcum, p. 171‒182.
  5. Kraye J. (1990) “Aristotle’s God and the authenticity of “De mundo”. An early modern controversy”. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 28/3, p. 339‒358.
  6. Lebedev A. V. (2008) “Aetii” [“Aetios”], in M. A. Solopova (ed.) Antichnaia filosofiia. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Ancient philosophy. Encyclopaedic dictionary]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, p. 204 (in Russian).
  7. Lebedev A. V. (2008) “Aristotel’ Stagirit” [Aristotle of Stagira], in M. A. Solopova (ed.) Antichnaia filosofiia. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Ancient philosophy. Encyclopaedic dictionary], Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, p. 164‒175 (in Russian).
  8. Mansfeld J. (1992) “ΠερÌ κόσμου: A Note on the History of a Title”. Vigiliae Christianae, 46, p. 391–411.
  9. Moraux P. (1949) “L’exposé de la philosophie d’Aristote chez Diogène Laerce”. Revue philosophique de Louvain, 47, p. 5‒43.
  10. Moraux P. (1970) D’Aristote à Bessarion. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
  11. Moreschini C. (2011) Storia della filosofia patristica. Moscow: Greko-latinskii kabinet Iu. A. Shichalina (Russian translation).
  12. Sharpies R. W. (1982) “Alexander of Aphrodisias on Divine Providence: Two problems”. Classical Quarterly, 32, p. 198–211.
  13. Sharples R. W. (1983) “Nemesius of Emesa and some Theories of Divine Providence”. Vigiliae Christianae, 37/2, p. 141–156.
  14. Sharples R. W. (2002) “Aristotelian Theology after Aristotle”, in: Ed. D. Frede, A. Laks (eds) Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, Its Background and Aftermath. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, p. 1–40.
  15. Sorabji R. (ed.) (2004) The Philosophy of the Commentators, 200–600 AD. Vol. 2. Physics. London: Duckworth.
  16. Thom J. C. (ed.) (2014) Cosmic Order and Divine Power: Pseudo-Aristotle, On the Cosmos. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
  17. Wehrli F. (1969) Die Schule des Aristoteles, 10. Hieronymos von Rhodos, Kritolaos und seine Schüler. Basel: Stuttgart.
Fokin Alexey
Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2554-005X;
Email: al-fokin@yandex.ru. *According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.
Фокина С. И. Леонид Успенский. Путь от безбожия к богословию // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2021. Вып. 41. С. 96-108. DOI: 10.15382/sturV202141.96-108
This article introduces the creation of two highly diff erent Russian artistsemigrants Nikolai Milioti and Leonid Uspensky. In the fi rst years of emigration the poverty and desire to overcome loneliness forced many artists, who left Russia, to stay in a circle of like-minded people, or rather, in a circle of people of similar fate, because this circle united not only like-minded people, it brought together artists who worked in highly different manners. The study of their work is prompted by the fact, that their heritage and life path, although the artistic heritage of the Russian emigration both in volume and quality cannot but arouse interest. Russian culture is generally considered to have been formed in the French capital in the twenties, which is often referred to as the «second Russian culture», but in fact was rather the result of desperate attempts by Russian artists to recreate the spirit of the artistic life of Moscow and St. Petersburg, which they had to leave. There were at least two reasons for this, namely the need and the desire to cope with loneliness. Russian culture abroad, the «second» or let's call it «nostalgic», strongly emphasised its Russianness, interest in Russian history, folklore, and antiquity, although it did not separate itself from the culture of the country that sheltered it. This explains the uniqueness of the creative path of Russian artists abroad, especially Leonid Uspensky, who in his childhood and youth did not have any interest in painting as a form of creative activity.
Nikolai Milioti, Leonid Uspenskii, Grigorii Krug, society «Icon», Brotherhood of St Photius, emigrant artists, Russian diaspora
  1. Emilie van Taack. (2018) Leonide Ouspensky, le mystère de l`Icône, in Leonide Ouspensky. Le mystère de l`Icône. 1987–2017. Paris, pp. 32–47 (in French).
  2. Kovalevskii M. (without date) Temoignage, in Jean de Saint-Denis, in memoriam. Paris, p. 20 (in French).
  3. La fondation de la paroisse des Trois Saints Hiérarques, Église Cathédrale des Trois Saints Docteurs: websait. Available at: https://trois-saints-docteurs.fr/ru/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/01/history-RU.pdf (07.12.2020).
  4. La Théologie en couleurs, la fresque des fêtes en la cathédrale des Trois Saints Hiérarques á Paris. (2007). Paris (in French).
  5. Leonide Ouspensky (2018). Le mystère de l`Icône. 1987–2017. Paris (in French).
  6. Milioti E. Y. (2002) Dedushkin Parizh [Grandfather's Paris]. Mir muzeia [The Museum world]. no 3. pp. 57–63 (in Russian).
  7. Muratova X. (2018) Ouspensky et l'icône en exil, in Leonide Ouspensky. Le mystère de l`Icône. 1987–2017. Paris, pp. 11–31 (in French).
  8. Ouspensky L. A. (2001) Biographie de Léonide A. Ouspensky in Pére Simon Doolan. La redécouverte de l`icône, la vie et l`oeuvre de Léonide Ouspensky. Paris, pp. 9-10 (in French).
  9. Ozoline N. (2018) L`actualité de l'iconologie de Leonid Alexandrovitch Uspensky, in Leonide Ouspensky. Le mystère de l`Icône. 1987–2017. Paris, pp. 50–79 (in French).
  10. Podkopaeva Y., Sveshnikova A. (comp., introduction, footnotes) (1979) Somov K. A. Pis`ma. Dnevniki. Suzhdeniia sovremennikov [Letters. Diaries. Opinions of contemporaries]. Мoscow (in Russian).
Fokina Snezhana
Student status: Graduate student;
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: State Tretyakov Gallery; 10 Lavrushinskii Lane, Moscow, 119017, Russian Federation;
Post: deputy head, Deaprtment of museum artefacts and museum collections;
ORCID: 0000-0002-9749-4443;
Email: FokinaSI@tretyakov.ru.