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

In the article, the conceptual model of the holy emperor in one of the first monuments of Christian hagiographic literature, “Life Constantine” by Eusebius of Caesarea, is investigated. The analysis is based on the typological comparison of Emperor Constantine with the biblical figure of Moses, conducted by Eusebius. As part of this comparison, the development of a “sacred image” in history is traced, which forms a kind of “sacred history” beyond the biblical framework. Philo of Alexandria’s view of the unity of the laws of nature and the written legislation of Moses as having a single source - the Logos of God, Eusebius extends to the conformity of the biblical character and the contemporary historical figure of the emperor. Following the Logos, Constantine performs the same pattern Moses fulfilled in his life. In the development of the typological line of Moses-Constantine, three moments of the formation of the figure of Constantine in sacred history are traced: receiving the kingdom, accepting the ministry of the priesthood, and gaining the gift of prophecy. The descriptive convergence of the biblical story and modern (to the author) history means not so much the dependence of one narrative on the other but their general dependence on the Logos acting in history as the Law of nature, which guides the course of history and shapes its events. Eusebius reflects in the biography of the emperor the Principle, which equally acts both in the sacred events of the history of Moses and in the relatively recent events for Eusebius Constantine. In this single Beginning, the biblical story, perceived “by ear” and therefore having the “look of a myth”, acquires visible features, and current reality is endowed with the meaning of the sacred biblical story. The “Life of Constantine” thus demonstrates the mechanism of fixation in the memory of sacred events that make up a particular, sacred line of history.

Eusebius of Caesarea, sacred history, holiness, biography, typology, logos, Bible, myth, emperor, Moses, symbol

1. Barnes T. D. (1989) “Panegyric, History and Hagiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine”, in R. Williams (ed.) The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge, pp. 94–123.
2. Barnes T. D. (1981) Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge; London.
3. Bas B. (2013) “Interpretation of Scripture in Eusebius of Caesarea’s ‘Imperial Theology’”, in T. Kirby, R. Acar, B. Bas (eds) Philosophy and the Abrahamic Religions: Scriptural Hermeneutics and Epistemology, Cambridge, pp. 69–80.
4. Bruns J. E. (1977) “The ‘Agreement of Moses and Jesus’ in the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius”. Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 31, pp. 117–125.
5. Cameron A. (1997) “Eusebius’ Vita Constantini and the Construction of Constantine”, in S. Swain, M. Edwards (eds) Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire, Oxford, pp. 145–174.
6. Cameron A. (1999) “The Literary Character of VC”, in A. Cameron, S. G. Hall (eds) Eusebius. Life of Constantine, Oxford, pp. 27–35.
7. Cameron A., Hall S. G. (eds) Eusebius. Life of Constantine. Oxford, 1999.
8. Chesnut G. F. (1976) The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius. Paris.
9. Damgaard F. (2013) “Propaganda against Propaganda: Revisiting Eusebius’ Use of the Figure of Moses in the Life of Constantine”, in Eusebius of Caesarea: Traditions and Innovations, Washington, pp. 203–233.
10. Danielou J. (1960) From Shadow to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers. Westminster, MD.
11. Danielou J. (1958) The Lord of History. Refl ections on the Inner Meaning of History. London; Chicago.
12. Winkelmann F. (ed.) (1975) Eusebius Caesariensis. “Vita Constantini”, in Eusebius Werke, vol. 1.1, Berlin, pp. 3–151.
13. Hollerich M. J. (1989) “The Comparison of Moses and Constantine in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Life of Constantine”. Studia patristica, vol. 19, pp. 80–85.
14. Hollerich M. J. (1989) “Myth and History in Eusebius’s ‘De vita Constantini’: ‘Vit. Const. 1.12’ in its Contemporary Setting”. The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 82, no. 4 (Oct.), pp. 421–445.
15. Hollerich M. J. (1990) “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian’”. Church History, vol. 59, iss. 3, pp. 309–325.
16. Kurdybajlo D. S. (2018) “O poniatii ßsimvol″ v ßEvangeláskom dokazatelástve″ Evseviia Kesariiskogo” [On symbols and symbolism in Eusebius’ of Caesarea Demonstratio Evangelica]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofi ya. Religiovedenie, vol. 78, pp. 11–27 (in Russian).
17. Lausberg H. (1960) Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Munich.
18. Martens J. W. (2003) One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law. Boston.
19. Rapp C. (1998) “Comparison, Paradigm and The Case of Moses in Panegyric and Hagiography”, in M. Whitby (ed.) The Propaganda of Power: the Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, Leiden, pp. 277–298.
20. Rapp C. (1998) “Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea on Constantine as ‘Bishop’”. The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 685–695.
21. Blenkinsopp J. (2003) “Type and Antitype”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., Gale, vol. 14, pp. 254–255.
22. Van Dam R. (2011) Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge. Cambridge.
23. Van Nuffelen Р. (2013) “The Life of Constantine: The Image of an Image”, in Eusebius of Caesarea: Traditions and Innovations, Washington, pp. 234‒261.
24. Wilson A. (1998) “Biographical Models: the Constantinian Period and Beyond”, in Lieu S. N. C., Montserrat D. (eds) Constantine: History, Historiography and Legend, London; New York.
25. Zhivov V. M. (1994) “Sviatostá” [Holiness], in Kratkii slovar agiograficheskikh terminov [Brief dictionary of hagiographic terms], Moscow, pp. 93–112 (in Russian).

Prikhodko Maksim, archpriest

*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 was funded by the Russian Science Foundation as part of the project no. № 22-18- 00214 “Sanctification of historical memory in the culture of Byzantium and Russia: from the event to the symbol” carried out at the Baltic State University.

The article attempts to reconstruct and comprehensively analyze the ecclesiological conception of Mikhail Mikhailovich Tareev (1867-1934), Professor of Moral Theology at the Moscow Theological Academy at the beginning of the 20th century. The study consistently outlines the characteristic features of Tareev's theological approach, examines the features of his ecclesiology, proves the author's definition of his ecclesiology as kenotic. The specifics of the Tareev’s method is the division of the elements of the problem being analyzed into categories of absolute (internal) and relative (external). In other words, this problem appears in his extensive legacy as a problem of the correlation of content and form. Russian theologian understands the Church as a form of Christianity. Christianity as an inner, mystical, spiritual life has the life of the Church as its vestment. Christianity is possible only in the Church, and produces it. Being the realization of spiritual life in the world (“mir”), the Church must be holy and free from the world. At the same time, it is through the Church that the Christian spirit, or the spirit of Christ, influences the world, transforms it by Christ’s grace. According to Tareev, Christians represent a golden chain, on the one hand, connected with Christ and the saints, on the other hand, uniting all the living faithful. The Church is defined by the Russian theologian as a Society, a Kingdom, an Organism, a Union etc.; it is founded by Christ during His sufferings. Church’s purpose is to serve as an intermediary between the mystical life of the individual and the historical life of society. Due to the symmetry of Tareev's Christology and ecclesiology, the latter is defined as kenotic. The article ends with the designation of possible reasons for Tareev's formulation of his idea of the Church

Ecclesiology, Christology, Russian theology of the Synodal period, Mikhail Tareev, kenosis, Christianity and the Church, mystical life

1. Bermas S. (2014) “Kenoticheskaia ekklesiologiia: v poiske aláternativnoi modeli tserkvi” [Kenotic ecclesiology: in search of an alternative model of the church]. Bogoslovskі rozdumi: Skhіdnoevropeiskii zhurnal bogoslovia, pp. 11–30 (in Russian).
2. Ermilov P. (2018) “Obraz Tserkvi v tvoreniiakh sviashhennomuchenika Damaskina Tsedrika” [Image of church in works of Holy Martyr Damaskin Tsedrik]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, vol. 75, pp. 28–47 (in Russian).
3. Kikin V. (2018) Uchenie o pervorodnom grekhe v russkom pravoslavnom akademicheskom bogoslovii vtoroi poloviny XIX — nachala XX vv. [Doctrine of the original sin in Russian Orthodox academical theology of the late 19th — early 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Legeev M. (2017) “Smysl istorii: torzhestvo ili kenozis Tserkvi? K postanovke voprosa” [The meaning of history: towards the question of the triumph or kenosis of the church]. Khristianskoe chtenie, vol. 5, pp. 33–43 (in Russian).
5. Malyshev A. (2022) Russkaia kenoticheskaia khristologiia kontsa XIX — nachala XX veka: genezis i problematika [Russian kenotic Christology of the late 19th — the early 20th centuries: genesis and problems]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Khondzinskii P. (2019) “Sobornostá v russkoi bogoslovskoi traditsii: beseda Aleksandra Kyrlezheva s protoiereem Pavlom Khondzinskim” [Sobornostá in the Russian theological tradition]. Voprosy teologii, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 427–440 (in Russian).
7. Khondzinskii P. (2020) “Personalisticheskaia ekklesiologiia prot. Sergiia Bulgakova, prot. Georgiia Florovskogo i V. N. Losskogo” [Personalistic ecclesiology of Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky and V. N. Lossky]. Khristianskoe chtenie, vol. 5, pp. 10–22 (in Russian).
8. Khondzinskii P. (2022) “Rozhdenie trinitarnoi ekklesiologii: kommentarii k chetvertomu pisámu Stolpa i utverzhdeniia Istiny″ o. Pavla Florenskogo” [Birth of Trinitarian ecclesiology: commentary on the 4th letter of Pavel Florensky’s “The Pillar and Ground of the Truth”]. Khristianskoe chtenie, vol. 3, pp. 102–110 (in Russian).
9. Pantueva Y. (2022) “Obzor vserossiiskoi (natsionalánoi) nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii Sofiologiia i ekkleziologiia protoiereia Sergiia Bulgakova i sviashhennika Pavla Florenskogo″ (Moskva, 3‒5 oktiabria 2022 goda)” [Overview of the Conference “Sophiology and Ecclesiology of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov and Priest Pavel Florensky” (Moscow, October 3–5, 2022)]. Vestnik Sviato-Filaretovskogo instituta, vol. 44, pp. 256–271 (in Russian).
10. Urakov S. (2019) “Problema opredeleniia essentsialánogo bytiia cheloveka v tvorcheskom nas ledii sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo i professora M. M. Tareeva” [The problem of determining the essential being of man in the heritage of Priest Pavel Florensky and Professor M. M. Tareev]. Trudy Nizhegorodskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, vol. 17, pp. 239–251 (in Russian).
11. Valliere P. (1974) M. M. Tareev: A Study in Russian Ethics and Mysticism. PhD Thesis. Columbia University.

Malyshev Artem

This study was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 23-28-00650, https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00650/. The study was carried out at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities.

The article analyses the polemics on the institutional and authoritative aspects of life of the Catholic Church in the international Catholic journals “Concilium” and “Communio”, created in the first few years following the Second Vatican Council. The former welcomed reforms and sought to extend the conciliar innovations to various spheres of Catholic Church life; the latter was represented mainly by conservative authors. These journals, which numbered among their authors the most prominent theologians of their time, express different views on the post-conciliar development of Catholicism, illustrate the long-standing conflict between modernism and traditionalism, reveal the specific make-up of the modern Catholic academic community as well as a new phase in the development of Catholic mass-media. The author concludes that the institutional aspect of the life of the Catholic Church constituted an important part of the discussion in these journals, especially in the 1970-ies - the early 1980-ies. Whereas the authors of “Concilium” advocated for democratization of Church life, the limitation of authoritative powers of the bearers of the Church office and the distribution of authority in the Catholic Church, “Communio” attempted to protect the authority of Catholic magisterium, warn against a hasty reinterpretation of the institutional power and emphasize its inextricable connection with the nature of the Church itself. At the same time, “Communio” took care to meet the requirements of the academic genre, while “Concilium” expressed a high degree of critical anti-institutional pathos, which the declared intention to accept Church reform does not directly imply. The texts published in the journals demonstrate a deep-rooted conflict, which dates back to the period of fighting modernism, and, being still unresolved, continues to determine the life of the Catholic Church. The contrasting editorial policies reflect, on the one hand, the intensifying polarization and the pluralistic character of Catholic theology after the Second Vatican Council, on the other hand – a close interaction between the religious and the socio-political life spheres of modern Catholics, which renders the analysis of religious communication even more relevant.

Catholic Church, Second Vatican Council, “Concilium”, “Communio”, modernism, institution, power, religious communication

1. Anisimova E. (2018) “Osobennosti katolicheskogo gazetno-publitsisticheskogo diskursa v FRG” [Special features of Catholic newspaper and essayistic discourse in Germany]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye nauki, vol. 14, no. 809, pp. 118–131 (in Russian).
2. Balthasar H. U. von, Hemmerle K. (1975) “Institution: gefl ohen und gesucht”. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Communio, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 127–138.
3. Brand P., Häring H. (1993) “Aggiornamento als wissenschaftliches Projekt. Über Anfänge und Programmatik der Internationalen Zeitschrift für Theologie “Concilium”, in Hans Küng, neue Horizonte des Glaubens und Denkens, Munich, pp. 779–794.
4. Brand P., Schillebeeckx E., Weiler A. (eds) (1983) Twenty Years of Concilium: Retrospect and Prospect. Edinburgh.
5. Chong V. A. (2019) Theological Aesthetics of Liberation: God, Art, and the Social Outcasts. Eugene, Oregon.
6. Davis Ch. (1971) “Heutige Fragen an das Papsttum”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 235–239.
7. Davydov O. (2017) “Novoe bogoslovie″ v kontekste evolutsii katolicheskoi mysli” [“New theo logy” in the context of evolution of the Catholic thought]. Khristianskoe chtenie, vol. 6, pp. 39–51 (in Russian).
8. Díez-Alegría J. (1971) “Manipulation und Freiheit in der Kirche”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 343–346.
9. Dolgov V. (2012) “ßAmerikanizm″ v katolichestve: natsionalánaia “eresá” ili chastá katolicheskogo otveta na modern?” [“Americanism” in Catholicism: the national “heresy” or part of the Catholic response to Modern?]. Vestnik Buriatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiia, vol. 14, pp. 54–62 (in Russian).
10. Hanssler B. (1985) “Autorität in der Kirche”. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Communio, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 493–504.
11. Häring H. (2014) “Wie Lämmer und die Wölfe. Die Internationale Zeitschrift Communio von 1971–2009”, in W. Hömberg, T. Pittrof (eds) Katholische Publizistik im 20. Jahrhundert. Positionen, Probleme, Profile. Internationale Tagung vom 25. bis 27. Februar 2010, Freiburg; Berlin; Vienna, pp. 601–625.
12. Höff e O. (1979) “Freiheit in sozialen und politischen Institutionen”. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Communio, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 433–451.
13. Iersel van B., Schillebeeckx E. (1974) “Jesus Christus und die menschliche Freiheit”. Concilium, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 159–162.
14. Kasper W. (1969) “Neue Akzente im dogmatischen Verständnis des priesterlichen Dienstes”. Concilium, vol. 5, pp. 164–170.
15. Kaufmann F.-X. (1974) “Kirche als religiöse Organisation”. Concilium, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 30–36.
16. Kirwan J. (2018) An Avant-garde Theological Generation. The Nouvelle Théologie and the French Crisis of Modernity. Oxford.
17. Kliuev A., Metel O. (2012) “Sovokupnostá vsekh eresei ili obnovlenie very? Katolicheskii modernizm kontsa XIX — nachala XX v.” [A collection of all heresies or an upgrade of faith? Catholic modernism of the late 19th — early 20th cc.]. Vestnik OmGU, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 73–78 (in Russian).
18. Kowalska-Stus H. (2012) “Modernizm i liberalizm v osuzhdenii Vatikana” [Vatican’s condemnation of modernism and liberalism]. Logo Sfera, available at http://www.runivers.ru/philosophy/logosphere/450862/ (accessed 03.04.2023; in Russian).
19. Kiyak M. (2013) “Rimo-katolicheskaia Tserková I media v informatsionnuiu epokhu” [Roman Catholic Church and media in information age]. Studia Humanitatis, no. 2, available at https://st-hum.ru/contentayakk-mt-rimsko-katolicheskaya-cerkov-i-media-v-informacionnuyuepohu (accessed 10.10.2023; in Russian).
20. Larionov D. (2016) “Borába mezhdu modernistskimi i traditsionalistskimi tendentsiiami v Katolicheskoi Tserkvi (XIX — nachalo XXI v.)” [The Modernism-Traditionalism controversy within the Catholic Church (19th — early 21st century)]. Kultura i tsivilizatsiia, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 69–76 (in Russian).
21. Lasch N. (1974) “Die Kirche und die Freiheit Christi”. Concilium, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 203–209.
22. Lehmann K. (1971) “Zur dogmatischen Legitimation einer Demokratisierung in der Kirche”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 171–181.
23. Lehmann K. (1980) “Zur Ausübung geistlicher Vollmacht. Einige Beobachtungen zum paulinischen Autoritätsverständnis”. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Communio, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 394–398.
24. Lehmann K. (1981) “Der Auftrag des Amtes in der heutigen Kirche”. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Communio, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 446–457.
25. McCue J. (1971) “Der römische Primat in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 245–250.
26. Molinari F. (1990) “Der junge Montini. Zwischen Prophetie und Institution”. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Communio, vol. 9, pp. 158–166.
27. Moltmann J. (1974) “Das befreiende Fest”. Concilium, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 118–123.
28. Neuner J. (1974) “Kein Monopol in der Förderung der Freiheit”. Concilium, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 170–175.
29. Pesch R. (1971) “Die Stellung und Bedeutung Petri in der Kirche des Neuen Testaments: Zur Situation der Forschung”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 240–245.
30. Pesch R. (1971) “Neutestamentliche Grundlagen kirchlichdemokratischer Lebensform”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 166–171.
31. Pesch R. (1974) “Jesus, ein freier Mann”. Concilium, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 182–188.
32. Petrushkevich M. (2014) “Religioznaia kommunikatsiia v kontekste media-kulátury” [Religious communication in context of media culture]. Antropologicheskie izmereniia filosofskikh issledovanii, no. 5, pp. 56–68 (in Russian).
33. Rahner K., Schillebeeckx E. (1965) “Wozu und für wen eine neue internationale theologische Zeitschrift?”. Concilium, vol. 1, pp. 1–3.
34. Ratzinger J. (1970) Glaube und Zukunft. Munich.
35. Rowland T. (2017) Catholic Theology. London.
36. Schneider H. (1971) “Demokratie: Idee und Wirklichkeit”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 152–165.
37. Smolik J. (1969) “Revolution und Säkularisation”. Concilium, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 564–571.
38. Vidler A. (1934) The Modernist Movement in The Roman Church. Its Origins & Outcome. Cambridge.
39. Vidler A. (1970) A Variety of Catholic Modernists. Cambridge.
40. Vorontsova I. (2017) “Modernizm (1890–1914) v Rimsko-Katolicheskoi Tserkvi i putá v nem Aláfreda Luazi” [Modernism (1890‒1914) in the Roman Catholic Church and Alfred Loisy’s path in it]. Istoricheskie issledovaniia. Zhurnal Istoricheskogo fakul<teta MGU imeni M. V. Lomonosova, vol. 8. pp. 315–331 (in Russian).
41. Vries, de W. (1971) “Neuerungen in Theorie und Praxis des römischen Primates: Die Entwicklung nach der konstantinischen Wende”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 250–253.
42. Walatka T. (2017) Von Balthasar & the Option for the Poor Theodramatics in the Light of Liberation Theology. Washington, DC.
43. Weinacht P.-L. (1978) “Kulturelle Freiheit und institutionelle Zwänge”. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Communio, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 240–246.
44. Weiss O. (1998) Modernismus und Antimodernismus im Dominikanerorden: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum “Sodalitium Pianum”. Regensburg.
45. West M. (1970) “Gründe für die Unruhe in der Kirche”. Concilium, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 3–7.
46. Winter A. (1988) “Autorität gegen Argumente? Zwanzig Jahr nach Humanae vitae”. Internationale katholische Zeitschrift Communio, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 367–373.
47. Yazkova V. (2018) “Modernizm i traditsionalizm: novye aspekty dialoga katolicheskoi tserkvi i svetskoi kulátury” [Modernism and traditionalism: new aspects of the dialogue of the Catholic church with secular culture]. Nauchno-analiticheskii vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN, no. 2. pp. 239–244 (in Russian).
48. Zizola G. (1971) “Demokratisierung des Gottesvolkes”. Concilium, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 206–211.
49. Zulehner P. M. (2014) Mitgift. Autobiografi sches anderer Art. Ostfildern.

Chernyi Aleksei, priest

*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 was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 19-78-10143, https://rscf.ru/project/19-78-10143/. The study was carried out at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities.

This paper considers some provisions of Father Pavel Florensky's philosophy of language (and more broadly, the philosophy of the symbol) from the perspective of its reception in contemporary historical-philosophical and linguophilosophical studies. It is shown that the problematization of the question of personalistic or imperpersonalistic nature of Florensky's philosophy can be carried out in several perspectives: critical, apologetic, constructivist. As an example of critical reception we considered the theses of S. S. Khoruzhy, who noted the absence of a developed anthropology in Florensky's symbolist discourse and evaluated his philosophy of the symbol as impersonalistic. It is shown that Khoruzhy's categorical assessment requires correction in the perspective of a more detailed analysis of the intention concept in Florensky's philosophy. The paper also considered the apologetic reception of S. M. Polovinkin, who revealed the personalistic content of Florensky's philosophy (including the philosophy of language) by considering the inherent subject-object unity and asserting the fundamental importance of the volitional aspect ("striving") in the realization of the connection between man and objective reality (symbolic-creation). As an example of creative reconstruction we considered the works of L. A. Gogotishvili, who proposed to consider the status of "ego" in Florensky's linguophilosophy from two points of view: on the one hand, as a condition for expressing transcendental meaning in immanent forms; on the other hand, as a guarantee of communicative intension and attention, connecting the personal "ego" with the word and image. This reconstruction of Florensky's ideas was labeled by Gogotishvili with the term "round" discourse. It is shown that Gogotishvili's reception is novative and developing Florensky's ideas in the linguophilosophical perspective. In conclusion, it was suggested that Gogotishvili's concept of "round" discourse and the possibility of communicative interpretation of Florensky's linguophilosophy lies in his epistemology related to the idea of personalization of cognizable reality.It is concluded that the absence of a detailed comprehension of the problematics of communicativity and intensionality in Florensky's philosophical discourse, on the one hand, reveals his vulnerability to criticism (accusation of impersonalism), on the other hand, allows for a creative reconstructive reception associated with the actualization of not always obvious potentialities of personalism in Florensky's thought.

linguophilosophy, symbolism, communicativity, interpretativity, intensionalism, Florensky, Khoruzhiy, Polovinkin, Gogotishvili

1. Biriukov D., Gravin A. (2023) “Palamism, Humboldtianism, and Magicism in Pavel Florensky’s Philosophy of Language”. Religions, iss. 14, vol. 197.
2. Biriukov D. (2020) “Sinenergeticheskoe otkrovenie realánosti″: nabliudeniia o predystorii, istochnikakh i soderzhanii poniatii simvol″, ßsinergiia″, energiia″ u P. A. Florenskogo v kontekste retseptsii palamizma v russkoi mysli nachala XX v.” [“Synenergetic revelation of reality”: observations on the background, sources and content of the concepts “symbol”, “synergy”, “energy” by P. A. Florensky in the context of the reception of Palamism in Russian thought at the beginning of the 20th century]. Voprosy filosofii, no. 6. pp. 103–115 (in Russian).
3. Boneckaya N. K. (2018) Mezhdu Logosom i Sofi ej (Raboty raznyh let). [Between Logos and Sophia (Works of diff erent years)] Moscow; Saint-Petersburg.: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ. (in Russian).
4. Cassedy S. (1991) “Pavel Florenskii’s Philosophy of Language: Its Contextuality and its Context”. The Slavic and East European Journal, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 537–552.
5. Florensky P. (1996‒2000) Sochineniia [Works]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Florensky P. (2015) Iz istorii antichnoi filosofii [From the history of Ancient philosophy]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Gogotishvili L. (2004) “Retseptsiia simvolizma v gumanitarnykh naukakh (lingvofi losofskii aspekt)” [Reception of Symbolism in the humanities (linguistic and philosophical aspect)], in Literaturovedenie kak literatura [Literary criticism as literature], Moscow, pp. 148–175 (in Russian).
8. Gogotishvili L. (2021) Lestnitsa Iakova: arkhitektonika lingvofi losofskogo prostranstva [Jacob’s Ladder. Architectonics of linguo-philosophical space]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Gogotishvili L. (1997) “Lingvisticheskii aspekt trekh versii imiaslaviia (Losev, Bulgakov, Florensky)” [Linguistic aspect of three versions of Onomatodoxy (Losev, Bulgakov, Florensky)], in A. Losev. Imia. Izbrannye raboty, perevody, besedy, issledovaniia, arkhivnye materialy [Name. Selected works, translations, conversations, studies, archival materials], St. Petersburg, pp. 580–614 (in Russian).
10. Goriachev D. (2023) “Imenuemostá Boga: apofaticheskii i antinomicheskii podkhody” [The naming of God: apophatic and antinomic approaches]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofi ia. Religiovedenie, vol. 106, pp. 9–24 (in Russian).
11. Gravin А. (2022) “Osmyslenie imiaslaviia v sovremennoi otechestvennoi lingvofilosofii” [Understanding Onomatodoxy in Modern Russian linguistic philosophy]. Platonovskie issledovaniia, vol. 16, no. l, pp. 266–285 (in Russian).
12. Khondzinskii P. (2023) “Misticheskoe bogoslovie ottsa Pavla Florenskogo v kontekste Corpus Areopagiticum” [Mystical theology of Pavel Florensky in the context of Corpus Areopagiticum]. Rossiisko-vizantiiskii vestnik, vol. 1 (12), pp. 51–62 (in Russian).
13. Khoruzhii S. (2001) “Filosofskii simvolizm P. A. Florenskogo i ego zhiznennye istoki” [Philosophical symbolism of P. A. Florensky and its sources in life], in P. A. Florensky: pro et contra, St. Petersburg, pp. 521–553 (in Russian).
14. Khoruzhii S. (2018) “Imiaslavie i kulátura Serebrianogo veka: fenomen Moskovskoi shkoly khristianskogo neoplatonizma” [Onomatodoxy and the Silver Age Culture: phenomenon of Moscow school of Christian Neoplatonism], in S. Khoruzhii. Opyty iz russkoi dukhovnoi traditsii [Essays on the Russian spiritual tradition], Moscow, pp. 274–292 (in Russian).
15. Khoruzhii S. (1999) Mirosozertsanie Florenskogo [Worldview of Florensky]. Tomsk (in Russian).
16. Kurdybailo D. (2017) “O dialektike simvola v Areopagiticheskom korpuse” [On the dialectic of the symbol in the Corpus Areopagiticum]. Voprosy filosofii, vol. 10, pp. 169–181 (in Russian).
17. Pavliuchenkov N. (2008) “ßFilosofi ia imeni″ sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo v kontekste imiaslavcheskoi polemiki nachala XX v.” [Revd. Pavel Florensky’s “Philosophy of the Name” in the context of the Onomatodoxy controversy of the early 20th century]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 2 (22), pp. 75–88 (in Russian).
18. Pavliuchenkov N. (2011) “Antropologiia sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo: kriticheskie otsenki i issledovaniia” [Revd. Pavel Florensky’s anthropology: critical perspectives and research]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 3 (35), pp. 68–82 (in Russian).
19. Plakhtii S. (2022) “Mirovozzrenie sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo kak osnovanie ego filosofi i imeni” [The worldview of Revd. Pavel Florensky as a basis of his philosophy of name]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, vol. 37, pp. 31–55 (in Russian).
20. Polovinkin S. (2015) Khistianskii personalizm sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo [Revd. Pavel Flor ensky’s Christian personalism]. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Sotnikov A. (1998) Arkhiv sviashhennika Pavla Aleksandrovicha Florenskogo. Vyp. 2. Perepiska s M. A. Novoselovym [Archive of Revd. Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky. Pt. 2. Correspondence with M. A. Novoselov]. Tomsk (in Russian).

Gravin Artryom

*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.

The study was carried out as part of the Programme for Fundamental Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics.

The article, which based on materials from pre-revolutionary periodicals, describes in detail and systematically analyzes the mourning meeting in honor of the memory of actress Vera Komissarzhevskaya. This meeting was organized and held on the morning of February 13, 1910 by the founders of the Moscow Art Theater - V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko and K.S. Stanislavsky. This memorial event, which took place in the foyer of the Moscow Art Theater, was named by V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko "the first experience of a civil memorial service," during his opening speech. The event received such a definition, since no clergyman took part in it, due to a ban from the Moscow church authorities to serve a church memorial service for Komissarzhevskaya in the theater building in Kamergersky Lane. The article hypothesizes that the term "civil memorial service" (“grazhdanskaia panikhida”) was used for the first time at that time.Funeral and memorial ceremonies without the participation of the clergy were sometimes held in Russia before that (during the revolutionary events of 1905). The meeting on February 13, 1910 at the Moscow Art Theater, being an important milestone in the evolution of the Russian civil funeral rite, stood apart in this row. The civil memorial ceremony for Komissarzhevskaya had no direct internal connection with the current political conflicts (within the framework of which the atheistic worldview was already openly opposed to the religious worldview). It rather reflected the discrepancy in the perception of the status of dramatic art and the personality of the dramatic actor-artist (as well as personal creativity in general) between the church consciousness typical of that time and the consciousness of the creative intelligentsia, within the limits of a single Christian paradigm. "The first experience of a civil memorial service" is considered in the article not as an attempt to redesign, but as an attempt to strengthen the existing memorial rite in the therapeutic aspect, adapting it to the mental characteristics of the artistic community.

civil memorial service, funeral rite, Komissarzhevskaya, Nemirovich-Danchenko, Stanislavski, Hermogenes (Dolganev), Church and theater.

1. Chudnovtsev M. I. (1970) Tserkov’ i teatr. Konets XIX — nachalo XX veka [Church and theatre. Late 19th — early 20th century]. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).
2. Florensky P. (2018) Filosofiia kul’ta (Opyt pravoslavnoi antropoditsei) [Philosophy of the cult (Treatise on Orthodox anthropodicy)]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt (in Russian).
3. Hertz R. (2019) “A Contribution to the Study of the Collective Representation of Death”, in Smert’ i pravaia ruka [Death and the Right Hand], Moscow: ARS Press, pp. 43–179 (Russian translation).
4. Koganitskii I. (1923) “V bor’be so starym mirom” [“In the fight against the old world”]. Krasnaia letopis’, vol. 8, pp. 167–168 (in Russian).
5. Kostomarov G. D. (1931) Chernaia sotnia pod fl agom religii v 1905 godu [The Black Hundred under the flag of religion in 1905]. Moscow: Bezbozhnik (in Russian).
6. Kremleva I. A. (1999) “Pokhoronno-pominal’nye obychai i obriady” [“Funeral and memorial customs and rites”], in V. A. Aleksandrov, I. V. Vlasova, N. S. Polischuk (eds) Russkie [Russians], Moscow: Nauka, pp. 517–533 (in Russian).
7. Miriteev I. N. (1975) “V Orekhove-Zueve” [“In Orekhovo-Zuevo”], in Na barrikadakh Moskvy. Sbornik vospominanii, dokumentov i materialov [On the barricades of Moscow. Collection of memoirs, documents and materials]. Moscow: Moskovskij rabochij , pp. 204–216 (in Russian).
8. Nemirovich-Danchenko V. (1936) Iz proshlogo [From the past]. Moscow, Leningrad: ACADEMIA (in Russian).
9. Polishchuk N. S. (1991) “Obriad kak sotsial’noe iavlenie (na primere “krasnykh pokhoron”)” [“The rite as a social phenomenon (on the example of the “red funeral”)”]. Sovetskaia ėtnografiia, vol. 6, pp. 25–39 (in Russian).
10. Razumova I. A., Barabanova L. A. (2012) “Situaisiia pogrebeniia i pokhoronnyi ritual s tochki zreniia vzaimodeistviia sotsial’nykh institutov” [“Funeral situation and ritual through the prism of interaction between social institutions”]. Trudy Kol’skogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN. Gumanitarnye issledovaniia, vol. 3, pp. 42–61 (in Russian).
11. Rudnev P. A. (2003) Teatral’nye vzgliady Vasiliia Rozanova [Theatrical views of Vasily Rozanov]. Moscow: Agraf (in Russian).
12. Schmemann A. D. (2013) The Liturgy of Death. Moscow: Granat (Russian translation).
13. Skobtsova M. (1997) “Tipy religioznoi zhizni” [“Types of Religious Life”]. Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia, vol. 176, pp. 5–51 (in Russian).
14. Sokolova A. D. (2022) Novomu cheloveku — novaia smert’? Pokhoronnaia kul’tura rannego SSSR [A New Death for a New Man? Funeral Culture of Early USSR]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie (in Russian).
15. Weber M. (2006) Die protestantische Ethik und der «Geist» des Kapitalismus. Moscow: Rossijskaia politicheskaja entsiklopedia (ROSSPEN) (Russian translation).
16. Veresaev V. V. (1926) Ob obriadakh starykh i novykh: (k khudozhestvennomu oformleniiu byta) [About rituals old and new: (to the artistic design of everyday life)]. Moscow: NOVAJA MOSKVA (in Russian).

Perekatov Andrey

The article reconstructs the concept of J. Strube, a leading representative of the younger generation of esotericism researchers. In the first part of the article, his critical program is analyzed, it is established that he systematically deconstructed the existing ideas about Western esotericism with the help of a large source base. Starting with the demythologization of the story of the occult energy of Vril, he turned to the origins of the French esoteric community, finding them in the first generation of socialists. The second part examines the positive research program of Strube: having criticized global ideological attitudes (poststructuralism, postcolonialism, cultural relativism), he proceeded to substantiate a new religious studies program – global religious studies. To reveal its heuristic potential, Strube conducted a systematic reconstruction of the Western reception of Tantrism, including the identification of the esoteric background of Indian culture of the XIX century, the specifics of the activities of the theosophical society in India and the "Arthur Avalon project", which combined the efforts of the Shivachandra tantric school. Strube's research shows that the colonial process of appropriation of Indian doctrines by the West did not exist, in fact, esoteric discourse was a global form of constructing ideologies and identities around the world. Indians at the beginning of the XIX century used it to modernize the language of ancient religious doctrines, and later Bengalis with its help made a successful attempt to legitimize Tantra. In conclusion it is shown that the program of global religious studies is a revival of religious comparativism, but on a solid foundation based on new empirical material.

religious studies, western esotericism, theosophy, tantra, occultism, discourse, secularization, science and religion, Hinduism, socialism

1. Asprem E. (2012) Arguing with Angels: Enochian Magic and Modern Occulture. Albany.
2. Asprem E. (2014) The Problem of Disenchantment: Scientifi c Naturalism and Esoteric Discourse, 1900–1939. Leiden.
3. Asprem E., Taves A. (2020) “The Building Block Approach: An Overview”, in G. Larsson, J. Svensson (eds) Building Blocks of Religion: Critical Applications and Future Prospects, London, pp. 5‒25.
4. Burns D. (2018) “Gnosticism, Gnostics, and Gnosis”, in G. W. Trompf, G. B. Mikkelsen, J. Johnston (eds) The Gnostic World, London, pp. 9‒28.
5. Goodrick-Clarke N. (2013) “Western Esoteric Traditions and Teosophy”, in O. Hammer, M. Rothstein (eds) Handbook of the Teosophical Current, Leiden, pp. 261–307.
6. McIntosh C. (1972) Eliphas Levi and the French Occult Revival. London.
7. Natale S. (2016) Supernatural Entertainments: Victorian Spiritualism and the Rise of Modern Media Culture. University Park.
8. Nosachev P. (2016) Rev. of: D. M. Burns. Apocalypse of the Alien God: Platonism and the exile of Sethian Gnosticism. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 67, pp. 134‒137 (in Russian).
9. Nosachev P. (2022) “Zapadnyi ezoterizm: novoe pokolenie” [Western esotericism: a new generation]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 99, pp. 93-110 (in Russian).
10. Nosachev P. (2022) “Plotin — gnostic?” [Is Plotinus a gnostic?]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato- Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 104, pp. 147‒152 (in Russian).
11. Strube J. (2022) Global Tantra: Religion, Science, and Nationalism in Colonial Modernity. New York.
12. Strube J. (2017) “Occultist Identity Formations Between Theosophy and Socialism in fin-desiècle France”. Numen, vol. 64, pp. 568–595.
13. Strube J. (2017) “Socialism and Esotericism in July Monarchy France”. History of Religions, vol. 57 (2), pp. 197‒221.
14. Strube J. (2016) Sozialismus, Katholizismus und Okkultismus im Frankreich des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berlin.
15. Strube J. (2017) “The ‘Baphomet’ of Eliphas Lévi: Its Meaning and Historical Context”. Correspondences, vol. 4, pp. 37‒79.
16. Strube J. (2013) Vril: Eine okkulte Urkraft in Theosophie und esoterischem Neonazismus. Munich.
17. Urban H. (2010) The Power of Tantra: Religion, Sexuality, and the Politics of South Asian Studies. London.

Nosachev Pavel

*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 presents the results of a study conducted in one of the parishes of the Lipetsk region from 2019 to 2022. The study took place in two stages: the first stage took place in July-August 2019, the second - in July-August 2022. The study used predominantly non-included observation. During the study, the author kept observation diaries. On the example of the parish of D., the author of the article studied, described and analyzed the practices of interaction between the priest and parishioners.The theoretical sources of the study were the works of P. Bourdieu. In the article we pay special attention to the possibilities of applying the theoretical model of P. Bourdieu in the study of religious tradition. Our results show that, despite not certain limitations, the theoretical framework we have chosen allows us to see and describe the unmanifested mechanisms that affect the interaction between the priest and parishioners.One of the features of the arrival of D., which aroused research interest, was its rather high degree of conflict. For a long period, the parishioners quite actively and uncompromisingly clashed with all the priests who were appointed to this parish. The situation changed not so long ago, after the appointment of Fr. A. The new priest managed to build a more balanced relationship with the arrival and stop the demonstratively defiant behavior of the parishioners.The conflict between priest and parishioner can be described in terms of habitus, fields, capital, and the hierarchy of the dominant positions of the field. These observations allow us to state that in the conflict between the priest and the parish, the conflict of two habituses is manifested, the carriers of which are, on the one hand, the priest, and on the other, the parishioners. The basis for updating the contradictions is the reduction of the distance, both physical and social, between the priest and the parish, as well as the fundamental impossibility of an effective transfer of capital between fields.Overcoming conflicts, we assume, may be associated with the restoration of social distance and the efforts of the priest to change mental structures, which should subsequently lead to a change in the habitus of parishioners.

parish priest, habitus, religious field, tradition, practices, Orthodoxy, symbolic power

1. Bourdieu P. (2005) Espace social: Champs et pratiques, available at https://gtmarket.ru/library/articles/3039 (accessed 20.09.2023; Russian translation).
2. Bourdieu P. (2004) Choses dites. Moscow (Russian translation).
3. Bourdieu P. (1971) “Genèse et structure du champ religieux”. Revue française de sociologie, vol. XII, pp. 295–334.
4. Vrublevskaya P. (2015) “Issleduia tserkovnuiu obshchinu v malom gorode: rolá sviashchennika i drugie aspekty pravoslavnoi obshchnosti” [Studying a parish community in a small town: the role of the priest, and other aspects of Orthodox communality]. Laboratorium, vol. 7 (3), pp. 129–144 (in Russian).
5. Emeláyanov N. (2017) Rol sviashchennika v formirovanii religioznykh praktik sovremennogo Russkogo Pravoslaviia (religiovedcheskij analiz) [Role of priest in formation of religious practice in contemporary Russian Orthodoxy]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Emeláyanov N., Yudin G. (2018) “Strukturnaia pozitsiia sviashchennika v teoriiakh daroobmena” [Structural position of the priest in gift-exchange systems]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 9–29 (in Russian).
7. Krikhtova T., Aleksin K. (2018) “Sovremennye podkhody k rolevoi diff erentsiatsii sviashchennikov” [Contemporary approaches to the study of priest role diff erentiation]. Rossiiskii gumanitarnyi zhurnal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 119–130 (in Russian).
8. Sitnikov A. (2017) “Metody izucheniia religii v sotsialánoi teorii P. Burdáe” [Approaches to the study of religion in Pierre Bourdieu’s social theory]. RUDN Journal of Sociology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 38–50 (in Russian).

Panteleeva Anna

This article was written as a part of the project “Methodology for studying the dynamics of tradition: texts and practices” with the support of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities and the Foundation for the Support of Scholarship, Education, and Family “Living Tradition”.