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

The article contains an overview of Christian commentaries on the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, presenting a particularly noteworthy case of intersection of two principal exegetical traditions, namely the typological and the allegorical one. The story is cited in the Gospels as an incontestable proof of the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic prophecy on the forthcoming King, sitting upon a donkey and its colt (Zech 9:9 according to Matth 21:1-11). Later exegetes come to search a figural meaning of this story by associating two mounts respectably with the Jewish people and the Christians (representing the new God’s chosen people). Such an interpretation was obviously inspired by the solid tradition typological exegesis, where the topic of two rival peoples, represented by the pairs of the biblical patriarchs’ rival sons, have being treated constantly. But the formal transferring of the standard typological meaning to the Gospel story on the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem attested a lacking comprehension of the practical value of the typological method, which was primary aimed to reveal the hidden prophetic and not simply symbolic sense of the Sacred history. The only attempt to connect these interpretations with a typological norm was made by John Chrysostom, who admitted the possibility of discovering a particular kind of prophecies, announced through deeds, not only in the Old, but also in the New Testament. However, even he does not take in account another essential feature of typological interpretations, which not only expanded the range of the so called Tesimonia, proving the validity of Christian belief in the actual coming of the Messiah, but also aimed to provide a justification of Christian claims to the role of the new God-chosen people for the Jewish opponents, for whom the reference to the allegorical meaning of the events of the New Testament history could not have served as a convincing argument.

New Testament, Old Testament, Lord's entry into Jerusalem, prophecies, typology, allegory

1. Albl M. C.(1999)“And Scripture CannotBe Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections,Leiden: Brill.
2. Boer P. A. H. de. (1948) “An Inquiry into the Meaningof the Term maśśa’ ”. Oudtestamentische Studien, deel 5, pp.197–214.
3. Canellis A. (2009) “L’In Zachariam de Jérôme et la Tradition Alexandrine”,in A. Cain, J. Lössel (eds.) Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy, Surrey: Ashgate,pp. 153–162.
4. Daniélou J. (1951) “Qu’est-ce que la typologie? ”, in P. Auvray (ed.) L’AncienTestament et les chrétiens, Paris : Éditions du Cerf, pp. 199–205.
5. Daniélou J. (1950) Sacramentumfuturi. Études sur les origines de la typologie biblique, Paris.
6. Dulaey M. (1993) Victorin de Poetovio, premier exégète latin, vol. 1, Paris : Institut des Etudes Augustiniennes.
7. Goppelt L. (1939) Typos. DieTypologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen. Gütersloh.
8. Hutchinson J. C. (2011) “The Vine in John 15 and Old Testament Imagery inthe ‘I AM’ Statements”. Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 168, pp. 63–80.
9. Levinskaya Olga L. (2010) “‘Metamorfozy, ili Zolotoj osel’ Аpuleya kak‘roman s klyuchom’: egipetskij klyuch” [“Metamorphoses, or The Golden Ass"by Apuleius as a “Novel with a Key”: the Egyptian Key”]. Indoevropejskoeyazykoznanie i klassicheskaya filologiya, vol. XIV. SPb.: Nauka, pp.120–132 (in Russian).
10. Schlatter F. W. (1988) “The Author of the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum”.VigiliaeChristianae, vol. 42, pp. 364–375.
11. Simonetti M. (1960) “Notesu antichi commenti alle Benedizioni dei Patriarchi”. Annali delle Facoltàdi Lettere-Filosofia e Magistero, vol. 27, pp. 3-71.
12. Simonetti M. (1971) “Per una retta valutazione dell’ Opus imperfectum inMatthaeum”. Vetera Christianorum, vol. 8, pp. 87–97.
13. Trebilco P. R. (2017) Outsider Designations and Boundary Constructionin the New Testament: Early Christian Communities and the Formation of GroupIdentity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nesterova Olga

*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 article is devoted to the development in the Roman church tradition of the idea of a special status in the Universal Church of the three Peter’s sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The question of the origins of this ecclesiological construction is connected with the possibility of attributing the third part of the Decretum Gelasianum to the Council of Rome, 382. This hypothesis still causes debate in the scientific literature. The author analyzes references to the special status of Peter's sees in the subsequent tradition up to the middle of the 5th century. We are talking about the texts of Popes Innocent I, Boniface I and Leo the Great, as well as Praefatio longa, which is an introduction to the Nicene canons and dated from the same time. The peculiarity of these texts in comparison with the third part of the Decretum Gelasianum is the correlation in one form or another of the idea of the special ecclesiastical status of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch with the canons of Council of Nicaea (325). The 6th Nicene canon establishes the jurisdiction of the See of Alexandria over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis and notes the special significance of Rome and Antioch, but in this text these sees do not line up in any hierarchy, in contrast to the texts of the Roman ecclesiological tradition. There is also no mention in this canon of St. Peter. Considering these circumstances, the author supports the dating of the third part of the Decretum Gelasianum by the period of the pontificate of Pope Damasus I (366–384), believing that the idea of the special status of the three Peter's sees was originally formulated without connection with the 6th canon of the Council of Nicaea, but then was further confirmed by a peculiar interpretation of this text. On the whole, the idea of special significance in the Universal Church of the three sees of Peter is interpreted in the article as a polemical construction, directed mostly against the claims of Constantinople to the status of the New Rome and not strongly correlated (unlike the later model of the pentarchy) with the really existing regional ecclesiatical structures.

early Christianity, saint Peter, ecclesiology, Roman primacy, Council of Nicaea (325), Council of Rome (382), Damasus I, Innocent I, Boniface I, Leo the Great, Decretum Gelasianum, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople

1. Blaudeau P. (2020) “Podgotovka, vospriiatie i zashchita Khalkidonskogo sobora so storony Rimskogo papy L′va Velikogo” [Pope Leo and Chalcedon: How to prepare, appreciate and defend a problematic council]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, vol. 94, pp. 11–30 (in Russian).
2. Caspar E. (1930) Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, vol. 1, Tübingen.
3. Dunn G. D. (2015) “Boniface I’s Theology of Papal Authority in Manet beatum and a Proposed Illyrian Synod in 422”. Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, vol. 47, pp. 255–270.
4. Dvornik F. (1964) Byzance et la primauté romaine. Paris.
5. Gratsianskiy M. (2019) “Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri: obosnovanie iskliuchitel′nykh vlastnykh prerogativ rimskogo episkopa papoi L′vom Velikim” [Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri. Arguments of Pope Leo the Great for the exceptional prerogatives of power for the bishop of Rome”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, vol. 89, pp. 27–48 (in Russian).
6. Gratsianskiy M. (2016) “Papa Gelasii I (492‒496) i ego ekkleziologicheskie vozzreniia” [Pope Gelasius I (492–496) and his ecclesiological views”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, vol. 3 (65), pp. 25‒41 (in Russian).
7. Gratsianskiy M. (2016) “Papa Lev Velikii i ego tolkovanie 6-go nikeiskogo kanona” [Pope Leo the Great and his interpretation of the Sixth Nicene Canon], in Tserkov′ v istorii Rossii, 11: K 70-letiiu Nikolaia Nikolaevicha Lisovogo, Moscow, pp. 159‒175 (in Russian).
8. Gratsianskiy M. (2020) “Rol′ i mesto Rimskoi Tserkvi v mezhtserkovnykh otnosheniiakh v pontifi kat Innokentiia I (402–417)” [The role and place of the Roman Church in inter-church relations in the pontificate of Innocent I (402–417)]. Vizantiiskii vremennik, vol. 104, pp. 77–78 (in Russian).
9. L’Huillier P. (2005) Pravila pervykh chetyrekh Vselenskih soborov [The rules of the first four ecumenical councils]. Moscow (Russian translation).
10. Michel A. (1953) “Der Kampf um das politische oder petrinische Prinzip der Kirchenführung”, in A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht (eds) Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2, Würzburg, pp. 491–562.
11. Pashkov D. (2020) “Pentarkhiia patriarkhatov pri imperatore Iustiniane I: predposylki” [Pentarchy of patriarchates in the time of Emperor Justinian I: prerequisites]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, vol. 97, pp. 23–39 (in Russian).
12. Pietri Ch. (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440). Rome.
13. Reutter U. (2009) Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366–384). Leben und Werk. Tübingen.
14. Schwartz E. (1930) “Der sechste nicaenische Kanon auf der Synode von Chalkedon”, in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Berlin, pp. 611–640.
15. Schwartz E. (1930) “Zum Decretum Gelasianum”. Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, vol. 29, pp. 161–168.
16. Wojtowytsch M. (1981) Papsttum und Konzile von den Anfängen bis zu Leo (440–461). Stuttgart.
17. Zakharov G. E. (2014) “Obraz Konstantinopolia v tvoreniiakh svt. Grigoriia Bogoslova” [The image of Constantinople in St Gregory Nazianzen’s texts]. Vestnik Universiteta Dmitriia Pozharskogo, vol. 1, pp. 244–251 (in Russian).
18. Zakharov G. E. (2019) Vneshniaia kommunikatsiia i bogoslovskaia traditsiia Rimskoi Tserkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov [External communication and theological tradition of the Roman Church in the period of the Arian controversy]. Moscow (in Russian).
19. Zakharov G. E. (2020) “Rimskii prestol i Vostochnye Tserkvi v konfl ikte vokrug sv. Ioanna Zlatousta” [The Roman see and the Eastern Churches in the confl ict around St. John Chrysostom]. Vestnik drevnei istorii, vol. 80/3, pp. 697–711 (in Russian).

Zakharov Georgy

*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.

Disputes about Newton's religious beliefs have already began during Sir Isaac’s life. Over the past two hundred years his beliefs been classified as Anglican, Puritan, Arian, Socinian, Deistic, and even Judaic. Now researchers have come to an unambiguous agreement about Newton's hetero-doxy - the first two versions are refuted, as well as the statement about Sir Isaac's deism. Howev-er, later divergences arose, emphasizing different traditions, whose influence, as different scholars suggest, had the greatest influence on Newton's theology. These discrepancies are related to two problems. First, they require a critical analysis of existing hypotheses, as well as their correlation with each other, in order to establish the validity of each one of them. Some scholars have empha-sized the originality of Newton's theology and rejected attempts to "squeeze" him into any particu-lar tradition. True in itself, this thesis suffers from vagueness, since the real uniqueness of New-ton's theology can be regarded as the specific combination of two theological traditions: Arianism with Socinianism. The author of the article, recognizing the fundamental importance of both for the thought of Sir Isaac, aims to show that the uniqueness of his theology is constituted by the combination of Socinian premises with Arian results in triadology. The version about the influ-ence of Judaism on Newton's antitrinitarianism is denied: though it has some grounds, after closer examination in turn out to be untenable. All the parallels and connections of Newton with Juda-ism, which the researchers has pointed out, are either false, or have analogues in the Christian tra-dition.

Isaac Newton, arianism, socinianism, judaism, Maimonides, antitrinitarianism, Faustus Socinus, John Crell

1. Dmitriev I. S. (1999) Neizvestnyi N′iuton. Siluet na fone epokhi [The unknown Newton. Profile against the background of the period]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
2. Faur J. (1991) “Newton, Maimonides, and esoteric knowledge”. Cross Currents, vol. 40/4, pp. 526–538.
3. Goldish M. (1998) Judaism in the theology of Sir Isaac Newton. Springer.
4. Hanson R. P. C. (1988) The Search fot the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381. Edinburgh.
5. Herd V. A. (2008) The theology of Sir Isaac Newton. Norman, Oklahoma.
6. Hume D. (1996) Collected work in 2 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow (Russian translation).
7. Iliff e R. (2017) Priest of Nature: The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton. Oxford.
8. Irenaeus (2008) Adversus haereses. Demonstratio apostolicae praedicationis. St Petersburg (Russian translation).
9. Keynes J. M. (2010) Newton, the man. Essays in Biography. London.
10. Manuel F. E. (1974) The Religion of Isaac Newton. Oxford.
11. Matar N. I. (1985) “The Idea of the Restoration of the Jews in English Protestant Thought, 1661–1701”. Harvard Theological Review, vol. 78/1–2, pp. 115–148.
12. More L. T. (1934) Isaac Newton: a biography. New York; London.
13. Moses ben Maimon (2010). Putevoditel′ rasteriannykh [Guide for the Perplexed]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Newton I. (1989) Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Moscow (Russian translation).
15. Pfi zenmaier T. C. (1997) “Was Isaac Newton an Arian?”. Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 58/1, pp. 57–80.
16. Popkin R. H. (1990) “Some Further Comments on Newton and Maimonides”, in Essays on the Context, Nature, and Infl uence of Isaac Newton’s Theology, Dordrecht, pp. 1–7.
17. Popkin R. H. (1992) The Third Force in Seventeeth-Century Thought. Leiden.
18. Rogers J. (2019) “Newton’s Arian epistemology and the cosmogony of paradise lost”. English Literary History, vol. 86/1, pp. 77–106.
19. Schaff P. (1988) The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches with a history and critical notes in 3 vols. Vol. 3. Michigan.
20. Snobelen S. D. (2005) “Isaac Newton, Socinianism and Þthe One Supreme God″”, in M. Mulsow, J. Rohls (eds) Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe, Leiden, pp. 241–298.
21. Stewart L. (1981) “Samuel Clarke, Newtonianism, and the Factions of Post-Revolutionary England”. Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 1, pp. 53–72.
22. Stukeley W. (1936) Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton’s Life. London.
23. Voltaire (1988) Filosofskie sochinenia [Philosophical writings]. Мoscow (Russian translation).
24. Westfall R. S. (1981) Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton. Cambridge.
25. Williams G. (1962) Radical Reformation. Philadelphia.

Regulskiy Ivan

The recent growth in research interest in sophology forces us to revisit the criticisms of this teaching that were voiced during the so-called "Paris controversy". The failure of the critique of Father Sergius Bulgakov's sophology by the latter is becoming more and more evident. The criticism of Bulgakov's theology by theologians is becoming increasingly obvious. In particular, the sources of the doctrine were incorrectly identified, and the accusations of heresy made on behalf of some hierarchs of the Russian Church made it impossible to continue the polemic. It now seems that sophology was the moment of a crisis of philosophy in Russian theology. In order to make the critique of sophology more substantive, a revision of the accusations that have been made against Bulgakov's teaching is necessary. The article proposes a return to the first stage of the critique of sophology, which has not been continued due to historical circumstances. As early as 1918 E.N. Trubetskoy wrote that Bulgakov's main mistake was the Gnostic understanding of Sofia. According to Trubetskoy, introducing the qualities of subjectivity and psychologism into Sofia leads to a similarity with the demiurge from Plato's dialogue "Timaeus". The analysis of Trubetskoy's criticism shows that the real reason for this accusation was his rejection of the version of the solution to the transcendental problem of religion which Bulgakov proposed in 'The Everlasting Light'. Here Bulgakov, based on his Philosophy of Economy, develops the concept of Sofia in connection with the concept of the transcendental subject in Kant's philosophy and points out the fundamental connection of the above problematics with Kant's third critique. From Trubetskoy's point of view, a Christian resolution of the "problem of Sofia" is possible only by identifying Sofia with Plato's world of divine ideas. By the Christian doctrine of Wisdom he understands his own interpretation of Platonic idealism. An analysis of Trubetskoy's sophiological ideas leads to the conclusion that they incorporate both the views and intuitions of V.S. Soloviev and many of Bulgakov's ideas and are not original.

sophiology, fr. Sergius Bulgakov, «Paris dispute», «The Unfading Light», Evgenii Trubetskoi, criticism, religion, Kant, transcendental problem, Platonic idealism

1. BelyjAndrej, Nachalo veka, Moscow,1990.
2. BulgakovS.N., Svet Nevechernij. Moscow, 1994.
3. Klement'ev A.K.Materialy k istorii polemiki o tvorchestve professora protoiereja SergijaNikolaevicha Bulgakova (1924– 1937 gg.) in. VestnikEkaterinburgskoj duhovnoj seminarii, 2019, № 2 (26), 275–370.
4. LosskijV.N. Spor o Sofii in Bogovidenie, Moscow,2006, 11-108.
5. NatorpPaul'. Filosofija i psihologija in Izbrannyeraboty, Moscow, 2006, 26-54.
6. Solov'evV.S. Ponjatie o Boge. V zashhitu filosofii Spinozy // Voprosy filosofii ipsihologii. M., 1897. God VIII. Kn. 3 (38). S. 383-414.
7. TrubeckojE.N., Metafizicheskie predposylkipoznanija. Opyt preodolenija Kanta i kantianstva, Moscow, 1917.
8. TrubeckojE.N. Smysl zhizni in Smysl zhizni, Moscow,1994, 5-220.
9. Trubeckoj S.N. O svjatoj Sofii, Premudrosti Bozhiejin Voprosy filosofii, 9, 1995,120-168

Vaganova Natalia

*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 article examines the point of Soviet art's 1920-1930 influence on secular processes in society. The model of the psychology of art proposed by L. Vygotsky, based on Marxist dogmatics, becomes the starting point for the search of creative elite, particularly, for the film director and art theorist Sergei Eisenstein. They are brought together by a common understanding of art as a sign system aimed at awakening strong emotional disturbances in a person, the culmination of which is by Eisenstein's opinion ecstasy, from Vygotsky's point of view - catharsis. Scientists of the Vygotsky's circle, which also includes Eisenstein, study the phenomena of expanded consciousness, looking for ways to influence an individual, including through the practices of art. The article focuses on Eisenstein's interest in the topic of mystical ecstasy. In his article “Stanislavsky and Loyola”(1937), considered in detail, there's set a parallel between the spiritual practices of medieval ascetics and acting exercises according to the system of K. Stanislavsky. Eisenstein introduces the experience of ecstatic practices, drawn from the exercises of Ignatius Loyola, into the Dionysian art renewed by the revolution. In particular, using the method of editing as a psychotechnics, S. Eisenstein effects the mind of a viewer, inspiring him with utopian ideas of social justice, dating back to classical Marxism.. Avant - garde practices of Soviet art 20-30 years of the 20th century, embodied by S. Eisenstein in cinema, are interpreted according to the tradition of J. Wach – P. Tillich, respectively, as pseudo- and quasi-religious, as well as in the context of the theory of "atheistic fideism" in the mode of building an "atheistic church" as part of the secularization process. Special attention is paid to the synthesis of science and art. A version is put forward about the implicit nature and secular implications of this large-scale phenomenon, expressed in the transfer of native religious functions to related areas. For the first time in historiography, S. Eisenstein is considered in his quasi-religious persona.

secularization, pseudo-religion, quasi-religion, "expectation of a new order", mystical ecstasy, psychotechnics, "new man", utopia, montage

1. Benjamin V. Fate and Character: Essay / Walter Benjamin; translated from German by I. Alexseva, N. Bakshi, A. Belobratova, etc. St. Petersburg: ABC-Atticus, 2021.
2. Vygotsky L. S. The tool and the sign // Sobr. soch.: In 6 vol. t. 6. M., 1984.
3. Vygotsky L. S. Psychology of art. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1998.
4. N. Kleiman. Introduction to the article by S. M. Eisenstein "Stanislavsky and Loyola" // Kinovedcheskie zapiski 2000 No. 47. pp. 107-133.
5. Kolkunova K. A. The theological roots of the concepts of quasi-religions // Vestnik PSTGU. 2012. No. 4(42). pp. 62-75.
6. Kurilov V. A. The Soviet model of secularization: Political and legal regulation of freedom of conscience in the USSR (the second half of the twentieth century). St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022.
7. E Lessing. Hamburg drama. / And a revised translation. P. Rassadina. M. – L.: Academy, 1936.
8. Muskhelishvili N., Antonenko A., Bazliev M.. About the religious method of Ignatius Loyola in the "Spiritual Diary" // State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2019. No. 4(37). pp. 212-233.
9. Bubbles A. A. Psychology. Psychotechnics. Psychogogy. M.: Sense, 2005.
10. Smolkin V. The Holy place is never empty: the History of Soviet Atheism / Victoria Smolkin; translated from the English by O. B. Leontieva, scientific ed. by M. Y. Smirnov. – M.: New Literary Review, 2021.
11. Stanislavsky K. S. Collected works: In 9 volumes, 1988 – 1999.
12. Stanislavsky K. S. From notebooks: In " T. M.: WTO, 1986.
13. Tillich P. Favorites. Theology of culture. / Translated from English. Comp. S. Ya. Levit, S. V. Lezov. – M.; St. Petersburg: Center for Humanitarian Initiatives, 2015.
14. Feringer M. Avant-garde and psychotechnics: Science, art and methods of experiments on perception in post-revolutionary Russia / Margarita Feringer; translated from the German by K. Levinson and V. Dubina. M. : New Literary Review, 2019.
15. Cherkassky S. D. Stanislavsky and Yoga. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2018.
16. Shokhin V. K. The phenomenon of atheistic fideism // Proceedings of the Department of Theology of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. 2018. Issue. 2. pp. 6-18.
17. Shokhin V.K. What is the novelty of the "new atheism"? // Bulletin of PSTSU. Ser.1.Theology, Philosophy, Religious Studies, 2016.No.65. pp. 149-157.
18. Elbakyan E. S. Quasi - religion // Encyclopedia of Religions. Moscow: Academic Project Gaudeamus, 2008.
19. Eisenstein S. M. Methods of staging "1905" // Battleship Potemkin. M., 1969.
20. Eisenstein S. M. Montage. M.: Museum of Cinema, Eisenstein Center, 2000.
21. Eisenstein S. M. Caring Nature. Vol. 1. Moscow: Cinema Museum, Eisenstein Center, 2006.
22. Eisenstein S. M. Caring nature. Vol.2. M.: Cinema Museum, Eisenstein Center, 2006.
23. S. M. Eisenstein "Stanislavsky and Loyola" // Kinovedcheskie zapiski 2000 No. 47. pp. 107-133.
24. Eisenstein S. M. Transcripts of director's seminars 1933-1935. Tbilisi.: Sa.Ga, 2017.
25. Eisenstein for the XXI century // ed. comp. N. I. Kleiman. M. : Garage Museum of Modern Art.
26. Epstein M. N. Religion after Atheism. New possibilities of theology. Moscow: AST- PRESS BOOK, 2013.
27. De Michelis E. The History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism. New York: Continuum, 2004.
28. James W. Psychology. New York. Henry and Company, Copyright, 1892.
29. Kapsali M. The presence of yoga in the work of Stanislavsky // Stanislavsky Studies. 2013. Vol.2. Iss.1.
30. Paris D. Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of Militant Atheists, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1998.
31. Ramacharaka. A series of lessons on Raja Yoga. Chicago: Yogi Society Publishing House, 1906.
32. Ramacharaka. Hatha Yoga: or the Philosophy of physical well-being of yogis. Chicago: Yogi Society Publishing House, 1904.
33. White A. Stanislavsky and Ramacharaka: The Influence of yoga and the occult revival of the system // The Routledge Companion to Stanislavsky / ed. Author: R. Andrew White. London; New York: Rutledge, 2014.
34. White A. Stanislavsky and Ramacharaka: The influence of Yoga and occultism of the Turn of the Century on the System // Review of the theater. 2006. Volume 47. Iss. 1 (May).

Do Egito Tinatin

The modern processes of national revival of the minor indigenous people of Russia include not only a return to the origins of national culture, they also have a religious component. Attempts are being made everywhere to reproduce ancient religious traditions and cult practices. However, the transformation of the religious state that took place during the XX century has not been studied enough, in particular, we have little reliable data on how the active introduction of Soviet ideology influenced this. This article examines the secularization processes that took place during the Soviet period on the territory of the Nenets Autonomous District, reveals the peculiarities of their influence on the life of the minor indigenous people of Russia – the Nenets. The Nenets are heterogeneous due to their wide area of settlement; therefore, various factors influenced the formation of their religious worldview. The Nenets of the NAO differ from the Nenets living in the Yamalo-Nenets and Taimyr Autonomous Districts not only in their linguistic dialect, but also in their cultural traditions. When considering the Nenets of the NAO, it was revealed that the Soviet secularization influenced them to a greater extent than the Nenets of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District and the Taimyr Autonomous District. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to find out how the Soviet secularization influenced the worldview of the Nenets of the NAO. The methodology of this study is based on the K. Dobbelere’s concept of the three-level model of secularization. The materials of the State Archive of the Nenets Autonomous District, the local newspaper “Naryana Vynder” and the results of the field research on the territory of the Nenets Autonomous District from 2014 to 2019 were used as sources.

secularization, Soviet secularization, Dobbelaere, bricolage, Nenets, Nenets Autonomous District, Yamalo-Nenets District

1. Abulhanov A. (1977). Neneckij avtonomnyj okrug [NenetsAutonomous District]. Arkhangelsk (in Russian)
2. Amelina M. (2011). Akcentnye harakteristiki neproizvodnyh imenv tundrovom narechii neneckogo yazyka. Chast' I. YAmal'skij i kaninskijdialekty [Accent characteristics of underived nouns in Tundra Nenets (theYamal and Canin dialects)] // Uralo-altajskie issledovaniya. 2011. №2 (5). S.7-38
3. Dobbelaere K. Secularization: AMulti-Dimensional Concept // Current sociology. 1981. V. 29. P. 10–24.
4. Gipp K., Epihina E. (2015) Religioznye verovaniya sovremennogonaseleniya Yugorskogo poluostrova [Religious beliefs of the modernpopulation of the Yugra Peninsula] // Gumanitarnoe prostranstvo: Mezhdunar.al'manah. T. 4. № 5. M.; YAvne, S. 850–862. (in Russian)
5. Lar L. (2008). Tradicionnaya religiozno-obryadovaya zhizn'nencev [Traditional religious and ceremonial life of the Nenets] //Izvestiya RGPU im. A. I. Gercena. № 62. S. 98–108. (in Russian)
6. Lenin V. (1935). Ob otnoshenii rabochej partii k religii [Socialismand Religion: On the attitude of the Workers' Party to religion] / Moscow (inRussian)
7. Tolkachev V. (2000). Rossiya. Krajnij sever. Vlast' [Russia.The Far North. Power]. Arhangel'sk (in Russian)
8. Uzlaner D. (2010). Sovetskaya model' sekulyarizacii [TheSoviet model of secularization] // Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. № 6. Iyun'2010. S. 62 – 69
9. Vagramenko T. Religiousconversion and Nenets bricolage: making modernity in the Polar Ural tundra.National University of Ireland Maynooth, 2014. 296 p.

Егорова Дарья

The article was prepared within the framework of the project "Traditional Communities in the post-secular era" with the support of the PSU and the Living Tradition Foundation.

This publication introduces the preface by Sergey Rachinsky, a profeccor of the Moscow University, to the book of Charles Darwin «On the Origin of Species». Rachinsky is best known in Russia as an educator and the founder of the school in Tatevo, Tver Oblast, and also as a founder of the temperance society in Tatevo. But in his correspondence Rachinsky repeatedly touches on religious and philosophical matters. For example, he gets into an argument with people like Vasily Rozanov and Leo Tolstoy. In addition, Rachinsky left some religious and philosophical works that are still in manuscript. This unpublished work was written in the 1882. Rachinsky touched upon the issues related to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Some of them had been raised before by his famous Russuan contemporaries, such as Nikolay Strakhov, Dmitry Pisarev, Kliment Timiryazev, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Konstantin Pobedonostsev. By the time that the preface was written, disputes over Darwin had been going on more than two decades. Disputes were related not only to «On the Origin of Species», but also to Darwin's later works. At the beginning of the preface Rachinsky commends the theory of natural selection which had proposed a general law of classification of living beings. The main body of the preface is devoted to Darwin's attempt to incorporate human into a genealogical tree of animal species. Rachinsky points out that Charles Darwin tried to gather some animal's characteristics and to work out the image not merely of a human being but of a Christian. Rachinsky calls it “a futile exercise”. He indicates that the inner human world has no precedent in the animal kingdom and believes that it is a miracle. Citing the principle of energy conservation as an example, and aims to show that “a miracle” exists in this theory. At the end of the preface author points out that Darwin's theory is applicable in some areas of science and it has no any contradictions with Christianity. He also points out to critics of this thesis that Church poses no restrictions to the exploration of nature.

Sergey Rachinsky, Russian philosophical publicism, Russian philosophy, criticism of darwinism, Charles Darwin, darwin's theory of natural selection, struggle for existence, the theory of evolution, origin of species

1. Kruglikova O. S. (2018) “Evoliutsionnaia teoriia Darvina v otrazhenii russkoi konservativnoi i liberal′noi pressy vtoroi poloviny XIX v.” [Darwin’s evolutionary theory in the refl ection of the Russian conservative and liberal press of the 2nd half of the 19th century]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 10: Zhurnalistika, 2018, no. 5, available at https://vestnik.journ.msu.ru/upload/iblock/529/vest-05-18-101-118.pdf (accessed 28.05.2021, in Russian).
2. Timiriazev K. A. (1941) Charlz Darvin i ego uchenie [Charles Darwin and his theory]. Moscow, Leningrad (in Russian).

Pantuev Petr