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

The concept of human being as the image of God forms the basis of anthropology of all religions that belong to the tradition of the Bible. The key place for this concept is Gen 1:26. The detailed analysis of this verse must take into account both the history of “crystallization” of the concept in the development of the religion of the Ancient Israel, and the later exegesis. The article classifies interpretations of the meaning and function of the expression “the image of God” in the context of the Creation narrative. The difference between these interpretations may be clarified by an analogy with a coin having a king’s image. What exactly is meant by “king’s image”? The coin itself? The features of the king’s face represented on the coin? The stamp which impressed the king’s image upon it? Following this analogy we identify three models of understanding the wording of Gen 1:26 and trace their place in the history of interpretation of the verse. The first part of the article is devoted to linguistic aspects of interpretation of the Hebrew text with a special emphasis on the semantic of the Hebrew prepositions. The second part looks at the place of the concept of Man as God’s image in the development of the religion of the Ancient Israel. The third part analyses the treatment of this concept in the Greek translations. Of special interest for us are the texts of the Judeo-Hellenistic (Wisdom of Solomon) and early Christian (Paul’s letters) literature that reflect the interpretation of the Biblical text different from the LXX. The fourth part is devoted to the Platonizing interpretation of the LXX translation, represented, first of all, by Philo. The final part of the article summarizes the individual conclusions of specialists in the Hebrew Bible, LXX, Judeo-Hellenistic and early Christian literature and relates them to the three models of understanding the wording of Gen 1:26.

Bible, LXX, Judeo-Hellenistic literature, Genesis 1, Man, Creation, Image of God,

1. Barr J. (1968) “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: A Study of Terminology”. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 11‒26.
2. Hoftijzer J., Jongeling K. (1995) Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden.
3. Janowski B. (2008) “Die lebendige Statue Gottes. Zur Anthropologie der priesterlichen Urgeschichte”, in Janowski B. Die Welt als Schöpfung. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testament 4, Neukirchen-Vluyn, pp. 140‒171.
4. Jenni E. (1992) Die hebrä ischen Prä positionen. Bd. 1. Die Prä position Beth. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln.
5. Jenni E. (1994) Die hebrä ischen Prä positionen. Bd. 2. Die Prä position Kaph. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln.
6. Jonsson G. A. (1988) The Image of God: Genesis 1:26-28 in a Century of Old Testament Research. Stockholm.
7. Joüon P., Muraoka T. (2006) A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome.
8. Kutsko J. F. (1998) “Will the Real ṣelem ’elohim Please Stand Up? The Image of God in the Book of Ezekiel”, in Society of Biblical Literature 1998 Seminar Papers, Atlanta, vol. 1, pp. 55–85.
9. Meier G. (1944) “Die zweite Tafel der Serie bīt mēseri”. Archiv für Orientforschung. Bd. 14 (1941‒1944), pp. 139‒152.
10. Mettinger T. (1974) “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht”. ZAW, vol. 86, pp. 403–424.
11. Oppenheim A. L. (ed.) (1962) Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD). Vol. 16. Chicago.
12. Prestel P., Schorch S. (2011) “Genesis. Das Erste Buch Mose”, in M. Karrer, W. Kraus (eds) Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare I. Genesis bis Makkabäer, Stuttgart, pp. 145‒257.
13. Rösel M. (1994) Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung. Berlin.
14. Schellenberg A. (2009) “Humankind as the ‘Image of God’: On the Priestly Predication (Gen 1: 26-27; 5: 1; 9: 6) and Its Relationship to the Ancient Near Eastern Understanding of Images”. Theologische Zeitschrift, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 97‒115.
15. Seleznev M. (2016) “V poiskakh teologii Septuaginty″: metodologicheskie aspekty” [In search of the “Theology of the Septuagint”: methodological aspects]. State, religion, and church, vol. 34, no. 4, pр. 7‒28 (in Russian).
16. Shmaliy V., Taivan L. (2001) “Аntropologiia” [Anthropology], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, vol. 2, Мoscow, рр. 700‒709 (in Russian).
17. Stendebach F. J. (2003) “ צֶלֶם ”, in G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren (eds) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids (Mich.), vol. 12, pp. 386‒396.
18. Wenham G. (1987) Genesis. Vol. 1. Waco/Dallas.
19. Westermann C. (1984) Genesis (trans. J. Scullion). Vol 1. Minneapolis.
20. Wevers J. W. (1993) Notes on the Greek text of Genesis. Atlanta.
21. Wildberger H. (1997) “ צֶלֶם , Image”, in E. Jenni, C. Westermann (eds) Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, Peabody (Mass), pp. 1080‒1085.
22. Worthington J. D. (2011) Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before. Tübingen.

Seleznev Mikhail

*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.

At present, the place of beauty in Christian theology, in particular, in theology, is being actively discussed in Russia. At the moment, there is a lack of historical research devoted to the reconstruction of the moral and theological Beauty category in the Eastern Patristic. The article deals with the Divine Beauty concept in the works of St. Basil the Great. The issue has not yet been investigated. There are 15 fragments where Divine Beauty concept is used. In all cases it functions as part of the metaphor of the Divine Beauty optical perception and is merely one of its semantic components. Apart from Divine Beauty, other semantic components form out a metaphor, which describe not beauty itself but its influence on a subject contemplating. In particular, methafor describes anthropological organ of contempleting, feelings the subject is expierencing, etc. St. Basil does not assign a logical content to the Divine Beauty concept , but endows its meaning through interaction with other semantic components in the metaphor. The origin of the concept in St. Basil is considered. The conclusion is that the idea of the beauty of God and the main term (κάλλος) are taken in the Septuagint through the mediation of Origen. He finds a metaphor as a means of philosophical elaboreting the concept in the "Symposium"of Plato and also, probably, in "Ennaeades" I 6 and V 8 of Plotinus. St. Basil places the metaphor of the optical Divine Beauty perception in various theological contexts, which have no entirely correspondence to anyone of the previous authors. So, St. Basil seems to have borrowed from Origen Christological and moral-ascetic context of using the metaphor, but expands the using to protology and eschatology, which corresponds Plato. In the using of the Divine Beauty concept, St. Basil is to be considered not as a philosophical borrower, but rather as a creator, who shapes new synthesis on the basis of the previous thought.

Divine Beauty, Theology of Beauty, Theological Aesthetics, St. Basil the Great, metaphor, Patrology, Christian Platonism

1. Angeles D. (2004) Aisthetike Bysantine: E ennoia tou kallous ston Mega Basileio [Byzantine Aesthetics: Concept of Beauty by Basil the Great]. Athens (in Greek).
2. Armstrong A. H. (1979) “Beauty and the Discovery of Divinity in the Thought of Plotinus”, in Plotinian and Christian Studies, London, pp. 155‒163.
3. Arnim H. von. (ed.) (1964) Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Vol. II. Chrisippi fragmenta logica et physica. Stuttgart.
4. Arnim H. von. (ed.) (1964) Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Vol. III. Chrisippi fragmenta moralia. Fragmenta successorum Chrisippi. Stuttgart.
5. Balthasar H. U. v. (1961) Herrlichkeit. Eine theologische Ästhetik. Bd. 1. Schau der Gestalt. Einsiedeln.
6. Balthasar H. U. v. (1961). Herrlichkeit. Eine theologische Ästhetik. Bd. 2. Fächer der Stile. Tl. 1. Klerikale Stile. Einsiedeln.
7. Bender M. (2010) The Dawn of the Invisible. The Reception of the Platonic Doctrine on Beauty in the Christian Middle Ages: Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite — Albert the Great — Thomas Aquinas — Nicholas of Cusa. Münster.
8. Blanc C. (ed.) (1966) Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean. Tome I (Livres I‒V). [SC № 120]. Paris.
9. Blanc C. (ed.) (1982) Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean. Tome IV (Livres XIX‒XX). [SC № 290]. Paris.
10. Borret M. (ed.) (1969) Origène. Contre Celse. Tome III (Livres V et VI). [SC № 147]. Paris.
11. Bychkov O. V., Fodor J. (eds) (2008) Theological Aesthetics after von Balthasar. Hampshire; Burlington.
12. Bychkov V. V. (1995) AESTHETICA PATRUM. Estetika Ottsov Tserkvi. I. Apologety. Blazhennyi Augustin [AESTHETICA PATRUM. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. I. Apologists. St. Augus tine]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Bychkov V. V. (2004) Estetika [Aesthetics]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Bychkov V. V. (2015) Simvolicheskaya estetika Dionisia Areopagita [Symbolical Aesthetics of Denys the Areopagite]. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Camelot P. Th. (ed.) (1977) Athanase d’Alexandrie. Contre les païens. 2e ed. [SC № 18 bis]. Paris.
16. Camelot P. Th., Mondésert Cl. (eds) (1954) Clément d’Alexandrie. Les Stromates. Stromate II. [SC № 38]. Paris.
17. Courtonne Y. (1934) Saint Basile et l’hellénisme: Étude sur la rencontre de la pensée chrétienne avec la sagesse antique dans l’Hexaméron de Basile le Grand. Paris.
18. Davydov O. (2020) Otkrovenie lyubvi. Trinitarnaya istina bytiya [Revelation of Love. Trinitarian Truth of Being]. Moscow (in Russian).
19. Dehnhard H. (1964) Das Problem der Abhängigkeit des Basilius von Plotin: Quellenuntersuch zu seinen Schriften “De spiritu”. Berlin.
20. Evdokimov P. (1970) L’art de l’icône. Théologie de la beauté. Paris.
21. Fedwick P. J. (1981) “A Chronology of the Life and Works of Basil of Caesarea”, in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, Toronto, pp. 3‒19.
22. Gerson L. P. (1990) God and Greek Philosophy. Studies in the Early History of Natural Theology. London; New York.
23. Goold G. P. (ed.) (1930) Saint Basil. The Letters. In 4 vols. Vol. 3. London; New York.
24. Grünert A. (2022) O trepete pered krasotoy mirozdaniya (po svt. Basiliyu Velikomu) [The awe of world beauty], available at: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6171267 (accessed 12.01.2023; in Russian).
25. Harl M., De Lange N. (eds) (1983) Origène. Philocalie 1‒20 et Lettre à Africanu. [SC № 302]. Paris.
26. Hart D. B. (2004) The Beauty of the Infi nite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth. Cambridge.
27. Hartman N. (2004) Ästhetik. Moscow (Russian translation).
28. Hyland D. A. (2008) Plato and the Question of Beauty. Bloomington.
29. Jaeger W. (1947) The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. Oxford.
30. Karahan A. (2012) “Beauty in the Eyes of God. Byzantine Aesthetics and Basil of Caesarea”. Byzantion, vol. 82, pp. 165‒212.
31. Louth A. (2007) The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition. From Plato to Denys. 2nd ed. Oxford.
32. Meyendorf J. (2007) Vvedeniie v sviatootecheskoie bogosloviie [Introduction into the theology of the Holy Fathers]. Minsk (in Russian).
33. Michailov P. (2009) “Basilii Velikii. Sochineniia. Bogoslovie” [Basil the Great. Works. Theology], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopedia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 7, pp. 141‒161 (in Russian).
34. Mondésert Cl., Marrou H.-I. (eds) (1948) Clément d’Alexandrie. Le Pédagogue. Livre III. [SC № 158]. Paris.
35. Naldini M. (ed.) (1990) Basilio di Cesarea. Sulla Genesi (Omelie sull’Esamerone). Milano.
36. Page T. E. (ed.) (1928) Saint Basil. The Letters. In 4 vols. Vol. 2. London; New York.
37. Peter K. (1964) Die Lehre von der Schönheit nach Bonaventura. Werl.
38. Pruche B. (ed.) (1968) Basile de Césarée. Sur le Saint-Esprit. [SC № 17 bis]. Paris.
39. Rahlfs A. (ed.) (1935) Septuaginta. Stuttgart.
40. Rist J. M. (1967) Plotinus: Road to Reality. Cambridge (Russian translation).
41. Rist J. M. (1981) “Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism’: its Background and Nature”, in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic. Toronto.
42. Sammon B. Th. (2013) The God Who Is Beauty: Beauty as a Divine Name in Thomas Aquinas and Dionysius the Areopagite. Princeton.
43. Seppä lä S. (2011) “Functions of Beauty in St. Basil the Great”, in The Actuality of St. Basil the Great: Conference Lectures: Texts from the Conference The Actuality of St. Basil the Great in Turku 2010, Turku, pp. 235‒256.
44. Sesboüé B. (1982) “Introduction”, in Basile de Césarée. Contre Eunome. [SC. № 299], Paris, pp. 15‒136.
45. Tatarkiewicz W. (2002) A History of Six Ideas: An Essay in Aesthetics. Moscow (Russian translation).
46. Van Riel G. (2016) Plato’s Gods. London.

Ovcharenko Artem, диакон

The author claims that Graeco-Roman, Hindu and Chinese catalogues of virtues have much more common with each other than what is permitted by contemporary agnosticism in cultural studies which has only the appearance of wisdom. As to the differences, they are connected with the soteriological intention behind the Hindu catalogues while the Greek (before Neoplatonism) and Chinese ones label the development of secular personal dignity and social responsibility. The author does not conceal his preferences as well while asserting that the quadrangle of cardinal virtues as developed in Platonism had evident advantages in consistency over its Aristotelean restructuring via the division of virtues into intellectual and moral ones. He also is sure that this quadrangle was immensely improved in its Latin version by Cicero and Apuleius by means of narrowing the “multi-seated” Greek concept of sophrosyne up to “single-seated” temperantia. The initial Christian receptions of Graeco-Roman cardinal virtues are also estimated, and an alternative of their inbuilding into one of three human vocations in accordance with three Jesus Christ’s ministries is offertd. The author claims that Graeco-Roman, Hindu and Chinese catalogues of virtues have much more common with each other than what is permitted by contemporary agnosticism in cultural studies which has only the appearance of wisdom. As to the differences, they are connected with the soteriological intention behind the Hindu catalogues while the Greek (before Neoplatonism) and Chinese ones label the development of secular personal dignity and social responsibility. The author does not conceal his preferences as well while asserting that the quadrangle of cardinal virtues as developed in Platonism had evident advantages in consistency over its Aristotelean restructuring via the division of virtues into intellectual and moral ones. He also is sure that this quadrangle was immensely improved in its Latin version by Cicero and Apuleius by means of narrowing the “multi-seated” Greek concept of sophrosyne up to “single-seated” temperantia. The initial Christian receptions of Graeco-Roman cardinal virtues are also estimated, and an alternative of their inbuilding into one of three human vocations in accordance with three Jesus Christ’s ministries is offertd.

practical philosophy, aretology, the catalogues of virtues, the cardinal virtues, Hinduism, Classical Antiquity, Neoplatonism, Confucianism, Christianity

1. Bhagavata Purana (2019). Gorakhpur.
2. Brandwood L. (2006) “Stylometry and Chronology”, in R. Kraut (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge, pp. 90–120.
3. Dovatur A. I. (ed.) (1984) Aristoteles. Opera. Vol. 4. Moscow (Russian translation).
4. Düring I. (1966) Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens. Heidelberg.
5. Fokin A. (2007) “Evagrii Pontiiskii” [Evagrius Ponticus], in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 16, Moscow, pp. 557‒579 (in Russian).
6. Harvey P. (2000) An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues. New York.
7. Irwin T. (1988) “Aristotle”, in E. Craig (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 4, New York; London, pp. 414–435.
8. Liddell H. G., Scott R., Jones H. S. (eds) (1996) A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford.
9. MacIntyre A. (1991) “Incommensurability, Truth, and the Conversation Between Confucians and Aristotelians about the Virtues”, in E. Deutsch (ed.) Culture and Modernity: East-West Philosophical Perspectives, Honolulu, pp. 104‒122.
10. MacIntyre A. (2007) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 3rd ed. Notre Dame (Ind).
11. Norden B. W. van (2019) “Mencius”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mencius/#VirtTheiCult (accessed 09.09.2022).
12. Norden B. W. van (transl.) (2008) Menghzi with Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Indianopolis (Ind).
13. Rykov S. (2015) “Dolg ili spravedlivost): eshche raz o termine v drevnekitaiskoi filosofii” [Duty or justice: revisiting the term in ancient Chinese philosophy]. Istoriia filosofii, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 22‒46 (in Russian).
14. Šāstrī Panśīkar W. L. S. (ed.) (1936) Yādnyavalkyasmŗti of Yogīśvara Yājňavalkya with the Commentary Mitākşarā of Vij ňāneśvara. Bombay.
15. Shichalin Iu. (2008) “Alkinoi” [Alcinoos], in Antichnaia filosofiia. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar [Ancient philosophy. Encyclopaedic dictionary], Moscow, pp. 96‒99 (in Russian).
16. Shichalin Iu. (ed.) (1986) Al)bin. “Uchebnik platonovskoi fi losofi i” [Introduction to Plato’s dialogues], in Platon. Dialogi [Dialogues], Moscow, pp. 437‒475 (Russian translation).
17. Shokhin V. (2020) Filosofiia prakticheskogo razuma: agatologichekii proekt [Philosophy of practical reason: agathological project]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
18. Silius V. (2013) “Neo-Aristotelean Confucianism? Applicability of Virtue Ethics in Early Confucian Studies”. International Journal of Area Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 70‒89.
19. Solopova M. (2011) “K probleme trekh srednikh knig Nikomakhovoi″ i Evdemovoi″ etik Aristotelia” [The problem of three middle books in Ethica Nicomache and Ethica Eudemia], in M. Solopova (ed.) Aristoteles. Ethica Eudemia, Moscow, pp. 371–406 (in Russian).
20. Stoliarov A. (1995) Stoia i stoitsizm [Stoa and Stoicism]. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Swarup G. A. (ed.) (1968) The Vāmana-purāņa with English Translation. Delhi.
22. Takho-Godi A. A. (ed.) (1978) Aristoteles. “Ars Rhetorica”, in Antichnye ritoriki [Ancient Rhetorics], Moscow, pp. 15‒164 (Russian translation).
23. Thesleff H. (1982) Studies in Platonic Chronology. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
24. Yu Jiyuan (2007) The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of Virtue. New York; London.
25. Zheleznova N. (2022) “
26. Tatpar’ia-vritti″ Padmaprabkhi Maladkharidevy i dzhainskaia etika” [“Tatpar’ia-vritti” by Padmaprabkhi Maladkharidevy and Jain ethics]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 114‒144 (in Russian).

Shokhin Vladimir

*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 concept of religious feeling in the beginning XX century Russian thinkers dealing with the philosophy of religion are increasingly becoming the focus of attention, but the meaning of this concept is often not explicated, which makes it necessary to study the sources of this concept, one of which (the most important) are the works of F. Schleiermacher. This article is devoted to the analysis of the perception of his concept of religious feeling in theological academies: spiritual and academic periodicals, individual works on the philosophy of religion and textbooks of basic theology (apologetics) are considered. Basically, Schleirmacher's ideas are criticized, there are several ways to understand the "religious feeling": a number of authors adhere to the position of G.V.F. Hegel, feeling is considered by them as something secondary to reason and will (V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, Proto. T. Butkevich); the concept of religious feeling can also be understood in a negative way as the aestheticization of religion (N.M. Bogolyubov, D.S. Leonardov, etc.), but most often the concept of religious feeling by Schleiermacher is understood as psychologism, as the subjectivization of religion, excluding the concept of revelation (S.A. Ornatsky, F. Aleksinsky, etc.). Finally, representatives of theological academies, whose works were written already at the beginning of the XX century, share the point of view of V. Dilthey, giving a fundamentally new interpretation of the concept of religious feeling as a pre-rational unity of consciousness (S.S. Glagolev). Finally, the author of the article concludes about the philosophical productivity of the considered interpretations of the concept of "religious feeling", and also briefly characterizes its significance for the Russian philosophy of the period in question as a whole.

concept of religious feeling, the sense of absolute dependence, Schleiermacher's reception, Theological academies, philosophy of religion, Fr. Schleiermacher, V. Dilthey

1. Antonov K. (2008) Filosofiia religii v russkoi metafi zike XIX — nachala XX veka [Philosophy of religion in Russian metaphysics of the 19th — early 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Avdeev O. (2012) “Vospriiatie idei F. D. E. Shleiermahera v russkoi fi losofi i pervoi poloviny XIX v.” [The perception of F. D. E. Schleiermacher’s ideas in the Russian philosophy of the first half of the 19th century”]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Teoriia iazyka. Semiotika. Semantika, vol. 1, pp. 7‒12 (in Russian).
3. Avdeev O. (2013) “Vospriiatie idei F. D. E. Shlejermahera v russkoi fi losofi i vtoroi poloviny XIX — nachala XX v. Statia vtoraia” [The perception of F. D. E. Schleiermacher’s ideas in the Russian philosophy in the late 19th — beginning of the 20th centuries. Article 2]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Teoriia iazyka. Semiotika. Semantika, vol. 4, pp. 23‒31 (in Russian).
4. Plotnikov N. (2000) Zhizn i istoriia: filosofskaia programma Vilgelma Dilteia [Life and history: the philosophical programme of Wilhelm Dilthey]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Pylaev M. (2018) “Transtsendentalnaia filosofiia v filosofii religii Shleiermakhera” [Transcendental philosophy in Schleiermacher’s philosophy of religion]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia Filosofiia. Sotsiologiia. Iskusstvovedenie, vol. 3 (13), pp. 42‒54 (in Russian).
6. Shokhin V. (2015) “Russkaia dukhovno-akademicheskaia fi losofi ia religii i religiologiia Fridrikha Shleiermakhera” [Philosophy of religion in Russian theological academies and religiology of Friedrich Schleiermacher], in Philosophia religii: Almanach 2014‒2015 [Philosophy of religion. Almanac 2014‒2015], Moscow, pp. 158‒185 (in Russian).

Koreneva Nadezhda

The paper “The Concept of New Religious Consciousness as a Political Act: Remarks on the Influence of D. Merezhkovsky’s Ideas on the Elaboration of N. Berdyaev's Philosophy” claims to identify the influence of Merezhkovsky’s teaching on the development of Berdyaev’s philosophy using the methodology of intellectual history and the history of concepts. The author shows the discrepancies in current Berdyaev studies analyzing the place of concepts taken by Berdyaev from Merezhkovsky’s ‘new religious consciousness’ (criticism of ascetic Christianity, the idea of ‘the third testament’ and others) in Berdyaev’s philosophy. While some researchers interpret these concepts as just metaphors, others understand them as fundamental for Berdyaev’s thought. According to the author, this problem turns connected with the insufficiency of the methodology used by scholars, which does not allow to draw a consistent connection between the context and the internal logic of philosophical thought. The author argues that this problem can be solved with using the methodology of intellectual history, which considers philosophical texts to be actions (Skinner) and analyzes terms as dynamic, redefined concepts, for the content of which a political struggle is being waged (Lübbe). Outlining the intellectual history of the ‘new religious consciousness’, the author shows how this expression introduced in Merezhkovsky’s L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky becomes a concept redefined in discussions and used in a polemical way. Berdyaev played an important role in this conversion, developing the ‘new religious consciousness’ as a consistent doctrine. Approaching Merezhkovsky’s group, Berdyaev understands the ‘new religious consciousness’ as connected with Merezhkovsky’s ideas, but redefines its metaphysical content, linking it with spiritualistic personalism. Merezhkovsky responds Berdyaev by agreeing to recognize him as the main philosophical theorist of the ‘new religious consciousness’ if Berdyaev joins Merezhkovsky’s religious and political project. Although Berdyaev distances himself from religious and political practices of the Merezhkovsky family, he nevertheless continues to use the expression ‘new religious consciousness’ while claiming his teaching to be the genuine ‘new religious consciousness’. In The Meaning of a Creative Act (1916) Berdyaev formulates a complete metaphysical doctrine based on the intuitions expressed in an earlier polemic. The book publication was unequivocally perceived by Merezhkovsky's circle as Berdyaev’s claim to redefine the ‘new religious consciousness’. The author concludes that it is precisely this approach, considering the ‘new religious consciousness’ as a political concept, that allows to consistently trace the influence of this concept on the internal logic of Berdyaev’s philosophy.

Berdyaev, Merezhkovsky, new religious consciousness, history of Russian philosophy, intellectual history, history of concepts, H. Lübbe, performativity

1. Antonov K. (2020) “Kak vozmozhna religiia?”: Filosofiia religii i filosofskie problemy bogosloviia v russkoi religioznoi mysli XIX–XX vekov [“How is religion possible?” Philosophy of religion and philosophical problems of theology in Russian religious thought of the 19th — 20th cc.]. In 2 vols. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Askol)dov S. (2009) “O starom i novom religioznom soznanii” [On the old and new religious consciousness], in Religiozno-fi losofskoe obshchestvo v Sankt-Peterburge (Petrograde): istoriia v materialakh i dokumentakh [Religious-philosophical society in St. Petersburg: its history in materials and documents], in 3 vols, vol. 1, 1907–1909, Moscow, pp. 33–72 (in Russian).
3. Berdyaev N. (1989) “Smysl tvorchestva” [The meaning of a сreative act], in Filosofiia svobody. Smysl tvorchestva [Philosophy of freedom. The meaning of a creative act], Moscow, pp. 251–580 (in Russian).
4. Berdyaev N. (1991) Samopoznanie. Opyt filosofskoi avtobiografii [Self-cognition: an attempt of a philosophical autobiography]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Berdyaev N. (1999) Novoe religioznoe soznanie i obshchestvennost [New religious consciousness and society]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Berdyaev N. (2002) Sub specie aeternitatis. Opyty filosofskie, sotsialnye i literaturnye (1900–1906 gg.) [Sub specie aeternitatis. Philosophical, social and literary essays (1900–1906)]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Berdyaev N. (2004) Mutnye liki [The dim faces]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Berdyaev N. (2018) “Eticheskaia problema v svete fi losofskogo idealizma” [Ethical problem in the light of philosophical idealism], in Problemy idealizma [Problems of idealism], Moscow, pp. 113–164 (in Russian).
9. Kolerov M. (1996) Ne mir, no mech. Russkaia religiozno-filosofskaia pechat ot “Problem idealizma” do “Vekh”. 1902–1909 [Not peace, but a sword. Russian religious and philosophical press from “Problems of Idealism” to “Landmarks”. 1902–1909]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
10. Lübbe H. (2017) “Sein und Heißen. Bedeutungsgeschichte als politisches Sprachhandlungsfeld”. Sotsiologiia vlasti, 2017, vol. 29 (4), pp. 240–256 (Russian translation).
11. Meier A. (2009) “Novoe religioznoe soznanie i tvorchestvo N. A. Berdiaeva” [New religious consciousness and creative work of N. A. Berdyaev], in Religiozno-filosofskoe obshchestvo v Sankt-Peterburge (Petrograde): istoriia v materialakh i dokumentakh [Religious-philosophical society in St. Petersburg: its history in materials and documents], in 3 vols, vol. 3, 1914–1917, Moscow, pp. 409–440 (in Russian).
12. Merezhkovsky D. (2000) L. Tolstoi i Dostoevskii. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Merezhkovsky D. (2000) Ne mir, no mech [Not peace, but a sword]. Kharkov; Moscow (in Russian).
14. Mjør K. (2020) “Russisk religiøs fi losofi i ein sekulær tidsalder”. Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik, 2020, vol. 35, pp. 263–282 (Russian translation).
15. Pavlov I. (2021) Vliianie sekuliarnykh i antisekuliarnykh aspektov “novogo religioznogo soznaniia” na stanovlenie metafi ziki N. A. Berdiaeva [The influence of secular and anti-secular dimensions of the “new religious consciousness” on the formation of N. Berdyaev’s metaphysics]. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Polovinkin S. (2017) “Berdyaev i pravoslavie” [Berdyaev and Orthodoxy]. Vestnik RHGA, 2017, vol. 18 (3), pp. 142–148 (in Russian).
17. Polovinkin S. (ed.) (2005) Zapiski peterburgskikh Religiozno-filosofskikh sobranii (1901–1903 gg.) [Proceedings of St. Petersburg religious and philosophical meetings (1901–1903)]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Rozanov N. (1999) “O novom religioznom soznanii″ (Merezhkovskii i Berdiaev)” [On the “new religious consciousness” (Merezhkovsky and Berdyaev)], in N. Berdyaev, Novoe religioznoe soznanie i obshchestvennost’ [New religious consciousness and society], Moscow, pp. 320–354 (in Russian).
19. Scherrer J. (1973) Die Petersburger Religiös-Philosophischen Vereinigungen: Die Entwicklung des religiösen Selbstverständnisses ihrer Intelligencija-Mitglieder (1901–1917). Berlin.
20. Skinner Q. (2018) “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”, in Kembridzhskaia shkola: teoriia i praktika intellektualnoi istorii [The Cambridge school: theory and practice of intellectual history], Moscow, pp. 53–122 (Russian translation).
21. Struve P. (2020) “Religiia i obshchestvennost). Otvet Z. N. Gippius” [Religion and society. Answer to Z. N. Gippius], in A. Kolerov, Petr Struve: revoliutsioner bez mass, 1870–1918 [Peter Struve: a revolutionary without masses, 1870–1918], Moscow, pp. 331–337 (in Russian).
22. Volkogonova O. (2010) Berdyaev. Moscow (in Russian).
23. Vorontsova I. (2008) Russkaia religiozno-filosofskaia mysl v nachale XX veka [Russian religiousphilosophical thought at the beginning of the 20th c.]. Moscow (in Russian).
24. Zen)kovskii V. (2001) Istoriia russkoi filosofii [History of Russian philosophy]. Kharkov; Moscow (in Russian).
25. Zweerde E. van der (2014) “On the Political (Pre-)conditions of Philosophical Culture”. Transcultural Studies, 2014, vol. 10 (1), pp. 63–92.

Pavlov Ilia

*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 implemented in the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2022.

The article deals with the case of veneration of the holy fool Fyodor Derekh. It is important to note that the considered figure of a resident of one of the villages of the Sosnovsky district of the Tambov region was not unique. For the local population in the post-war Soviet period, interaction with holy fools was part of ordinary religious life: they were turned to for advice or prophecy, they were given alms or allowed to live for a while. The description of the veneration of such "ordinary holy fools" allows us to expand our understanding of both the forms of folk Orthodoxy in the Soviet period and the phenomenon of foolishness in the 20th century.The article deals with the case of veneration of the holy fool Fyodor Derekh. It is important to note that the considered figure of a resident of one of the villages of the Sosnovsky district of the Tambov region was not unique. For the local population in the post-war Soviet period, interaction with holy fools was part of ordinary religious life: they were turned to for advice or prophecy, they were given alms or allowed to live for a while. The description of the veneration of such "ordinary holy fools" allows us to expand our understanding of both the forms of folk Orthodoxy in the Soviet period and the phenomenon of foolishness in the 20th century.The article deals with the case of veneration of the holy fool Fyodor Derekh. It is important to note that the considered figure of a resident of one of the villages of the Sosnovsky district of the Tambov region was not unique. For the local population in the post-war Soviet period, interaction with holy fools was part of ordinary religious life: they were turned to for advice or prophecy, they were given alms or allowed to live for a while. The description of the veneration of such "ordinary holy fools" allows us to expand our understanding of both the forms of folk Orthodoxy in the Soviet period and the phenomenon of foolishness in the 20th century.

Foolishness, folk religiosity, holiness, Soviet village, klokhoz, Tambov region,

1. Alymov S. (2010) “Nesluchainoe selo: sovetskie etnografy i kolkhozniki na puti ot starogo k novomu″ i obratno” [Non-random village: Soviet ethnographers and collective farmers on the way “from the old to the new” and back]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, vol. 1 (101), pp. 109–129 (in Russian).
2. Andrianov N., Lopatkin R., Pavliuk V. (1966) Osobennosti sovremennogo religioznogo soznaniia [Features of modern religious consciousness]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Beglov A. (2019) “Eskhatologiia v SSSR kak religioznaia i politicheskaia praktika” [Eschatology in the USSR as a religious and political practice], in Konfessionalnaya politika sovetskogo gosudarstva v 1920–1950-ye gody: Materialy XI Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Religious policy of the Soviet State in the 1920s‒1950s: proceedings of the 11th international conference], Moscow, 2019, pp. 17–30 (in Russian).
4. Vorontsova E., Yelagina V. (2021) “Istoriia blazhennoi Nasti Viriatinskoi: prikryvaias) religioznymi predrassudkami vela antisovetskuiu agitatsiiu” [The case of the Blessed Nastya of Viratyino: hiding behind religious prejudices, she was making anti-Soviet propaganda]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 3, pp. 244–270 (in Russian).
5. Vorontsova E., Allenov A., Yelagina V., Korshikova Ye. (2021) Derevenskie sviatyni: sbornik statei, interviu, dokumentov [Village shrines: articles, interviews and documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Dem)ianov A. (1977) Istinno pravoslavnoe khristianstvo. Kritika ideologii i deiatelnosti [True Orthodox Christianity: criticism of its ideology and activity]. Voronezh (in Russian).
7. Kormina Zh., Shtyrkov S. (2014) “Staritsa i smert): zametki na poliakh sovremennykh zhitii” [The old woman and death: notes on the margins of modern vitae]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov, vol. 1 (32), pp. 107‒130 (in Russian).
8. Lavrov A. (2000) Koldovstvo i religiia v Rossii 1700‒1740 [Witchcraft and religion in Russia, 1700‒1740]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Lavrov A. (2001) “Iurodstvo i reguliarnoe gosudarstvo” [Foolishness for God and the regular state], in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, St. Petersburg, vol. 52, pp. 432‒447 (in Russian).
10. Levin O. (2021) “Poezdka v Ialtunovo” [A trip to Ialtunovo]. Tambovskie eparkhialnye vedomosti, 2021, vol. 8 (164), pp. 46‒48 (in Russian).
11. Likhachev D., Panchenko A., Ponyrko N. (1984) Smekh v Drevnei Rusi [Laughter in Ancient Russia]. Leningrad (in Russian).
12. Lotman Yu., Uspenskii B. (1977) “Novye aspekty izucheniya kul)tury Drevnei Rusi” [New aspects of studying the culture of Ancient Russia]. Voprosy literatury, vol. 3, pp.148‒166 (in Russian).
13. Mitrokhin L. (1961) “Reaktsionnaia deiatel)nost) “Istinno-pravoslavnoi tserkvi” na tambovshchine” [The reactionary activity of the “True Orthodox Church” in Tambov region]. Voprosy istorii religii i ateizma, Moscow, vol. 9, pp. 144–160 (in Russian).
14. Moroz A. (2019) “Mestnye chudaki i originaly: tipichnoe i/ili unikal)noe” [Local eccentrics and original types: typical and/or unique], in Unikalnoe i tipichnoe v slavianskom folklore [The unique and the typical in Slavic folklore], Moscow, pp. 205‒229 (in Russian).
15. Morozov Ye. (1966) Protiv religioznykh zabluzhdenii — vo vseoruzhii znaniia [Against religious delusions — fully armed with knowledge]. Voronezh (in Russian).
16. Nikol)skaia Z. (1961) “K kharakteristike techeniia tak nazyvayemykh istinno-pravoslavnykh khristian” [To the characteristics of the faction of the so-called True Orthodox Christians]. Voprosy istorii religii i ateizma, Moscow, vol. 9, pp. 161‒188 (in Russian).
17. Rudi T. (2008) “O topike zhitii iurodivykh” [On the topic range of the lives of holy fools for God], in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury [Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature], St. Petersburg, vol. 58, pp. 443‒484 (in Russian).
18. Kushner P. (ed.) (1958) Selo Viriatino v proshlom i nastoiashchem. Opyt etnografi cheskogo izucheniia russkoi kolkhoznoi derevni [The village of Viryatino in the past and present. An attempt in ethnographic study of the Russian collective-farm village]. Moscow (in Russian).
19. Slovar russkikh narodnykh govorov (1972‒) [Dictionary of Russian dialects]. Vol. 8. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
20. Sovremennoe sektantstvo i ego preodolenie (1961) [Modern sectarianism and its overcoming]. Voprosy istorii religii i ateizma, Moscow, vol. 9 (in Russian).
21. Foucault M. (2005) Nenormalnye: kurs lektsii, prochitannykh v Kollezh de Frans v 1974‒1975 uchebnom godu [Les Anormaux]. St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
22. Shevarenkova Yu. (2012) “Novomuchenitsa Duniushka Suvorovskaia: zhitie ustnoe i knizhnoe” [The New Martyr Dunyushka Suvorovskaia: oral and book life]. Zhivaia starina, vol. 1, pp. 11‒14 (in Russian).
23. Shchepanskaia T. (2003) Kultura dorogi v russkoi miforitualnoy traditsii XIX‒XX vv. [The culture of the road in the Russian mythological and ritual tradition of the 19th — 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).

Vorontsova Elena

*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.

Allenov Andrei

*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 was prepared within the framework of the project "Traditional Communities in the Post-Secular Era" with the support of the Orthodox St. Tikhon University and the Living Tradition Foundation.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the mechanisms of formation of modern religious post-secular consciousness. The principal feature of this consciousness is the combination of religious and secular elements, which creates, according to the apt expression of the religious scholar Dm. Uzlaner, post-secular hybrids. It seems that the main mechanism for creating such hybrids is bricolage. Post-secular bricolage manifests itself in the phenomena of reconstruction and reinterpretation. The process of reconstruction is necessarily involved in the fixation and rationalization of religious tradition and has two components. Firstly, it is an appeal to the remnants of tradition preserved in folk beliefs and practices, and secondly, it is the use of materials of scientific ethnographic research, both conducted in the previous period and modern ones. The result of this process is the emergence of "neotradition", when the reconstruction of lost and forgotten practices based on scientific approaches leads to the emergence of post-secular hybrids, where the religious form of the recreated phenomena is combined with the secular goals of this activity and the secular understanding of their content. There is also reflection, comprehension of traditional beliefs, a certain theology of tradition is created, but in the process of this, concepts of secular scientific (or paranientific) language are often used, applied according to the principle of "everything will do", i.e., according to the principle of bricolage. Reinterpretation affects tradition more deeply. During reinterpretation, such a transformation of the religious system occurs, in which the primary system remains in the final product of the process as an element, and the original system is radically rethought, the product of reinterpretation is not completed, it is open for further changes. The reinterpretation product can also be characterized as a post-secular hybrid. Our proposed analysis of the features of the functioning of the mechanism of intellectual bricolage in the post-secular era, consideration of the phenomena of reconstruction and reinterpretation in this perspective gives, in our opinion, new tools for studying the processes of formation of modern religious consciousness.The conclusions of the article, in addition to the analysis of published studies of the modern religiosity of the peoples of the Russian Federation, are also based on field studies conducted by us since 2013 in the Nenets, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District and some other regions of the Russian Federation.

bricolage, post-secular consciousness, post-secular hybrid, tradition, neotradition, reconstruction, reinterpretation

1. Arzyutov D. (2015) “Slovo pis’mennoe i pechatnoe: social’naya zhizn’ narrativov i konstruirovanie altajskoj «nacional’noj religii»” [“The written and printed word: the social life of narratives and the construction of the Altai ‘national religion’”], in Zh. Kormina, A. Panchenko, S. Shtyrkov (eds) Izobretenie religii: desekulyarizaciya v postsovetskom prostranstve [The Invention of Religion: Desecularization in the Post-Soviet Space], Saint Petersburg, pp. 104–131 (in Russian).
2. Berger P. (1969) A Rumor of Angels, Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatura. New York.
3. Berger P. (1999) The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview, in P. Berger (ed.) The desecularization of the world: resurgent religion and world politics, Washington, pp. 1–18.
4. Berger P. (2019) The sacred veil. Elements of the Sociological Theory of Religion. Мoscow (Russian translation).
5. Bourdieu P. (2005) “Genese et structure du champ religieux”, in Bourdieu P. Sotsial’noe prostranstvo: polja i praktiki [Social space: fields and practices], Saint Petersburg: Aleteja, pp. 7–74 (Russian translation).
6. Filatov S. (2002) “Altajskij burhanizm” [“Altai Burkhanism”], in S. Filatov (ed.) Religiya i obshchestvo: Ocherki religioznoj zhizni sovremennoj Rossii [Religion and Society: Essays on the Religious Life of Modern Russia.], Мoscow; Saint Petersburg, pp. 233–246 (in Russian).
7. Filatov S. (2002) “Religiya v postsovetskoj Rossii” [“Religion in Post-Soviet Russia”], in S. Filatov (ed.) Religiya i obshchestvo: Ocherki religioznoj zhizni sovremennoj Rossii [Religion and Society: Essays on the Religious Life of Modern Russia], Мoscow; Saint Petersburg, pp. 70–484 (in Russian).
8. Filatova V. (2012) “O semioticheskom opisanii magii” [“On the semiotic description of magic”]. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya. Sociologiya. Pravo, vol. 8 (127), pp. 75—84 (in Russian).
9. Gavrilova K. (2015) “«Marij skaya tradicionnaya religiya» v sel’skoj obshchine marij cev: vozvrashchenie publichnyh molenij i diskursivnye strategii ih osvoeniya” [“‘Mari Traditional Religion’ in the Mari rural community: the Return of Public Prayers and discursive strategies for their development”], in Zh. Kormina, A. Panchenko, S. Shtyrkov (eds) Izobretenie religii: desekulyarizaciya v postsovetskom prostranstve [The Invention of Religion: Desecularization in the Post-Soviet Space], Saint Petersburg, pp. 132–162 (in Russian).
10. Goleneva L. (2017) Dialogi antropologii i psihoanaliza. Klod Levi Stross — Brikolazh [Dialogues of anthropology and psychoanalysis. Claude Levi Strauss — Bricolage], available at: https://golenevalada.ru/blog/klod-levi-stross-brikolazh/ (07.08.2022) (in Russian).
11. Habermas J. (2011) Against “militant atheism”. “Post-secular” society — what is it?, available at: http://www.islam-portal.ru/communication/stat/100/1411/ (20.11.2022) (Russian translation).
12. Kimeeva T., Abramova P., Nasonov A. (2021) “Interpretaciya i rekonstrukciya tradicionnoj obryadnosti s pozicii semioticheskogo podhoda (na primere shorskogo obryada shachyg)” [“Interpretation and reconstruction of traditional rites from the perspective of a semiotic approach (on the example of the Shor rite of shachyg)”]. Nauchnyj dialog, vol. 6, pp. 361–377 (in Russian).
13. Lazareva L. (2010) “Mif o Perune v kontekste teorii brikolazha” [“The Myth of Perun in the context of bricolage theory”]. Vestnik Chelyabinskoj gosudarstvennoj akademii kul’tury i iskusstv, vol. 2, pp. 89–95 (in Russian).
14. Lévi-Strauss C. (1994) La pensee sauvage. Мoscow: Pespublika (Russian translation).
15. Lévi-Strauss C. (2001) Myth and Meaning. London, New York.
16. Lyotard J.-F. (1994) “A note on the meaning of “post-””. Inostrannaja literature, vol. 1, pp. 56–59 (Russian translation).
17. Orehanov Yu. L. (2015) “«Patchwork-religiosität» — «loskutnaya religioznost’»: osobennosti izucheniya yavleniya v sovremennom nemeckom kontekste” [“«Patchwork-religiosität»: A Study on the Features of this Phenomena in the Modern German Context”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriya I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiya, vol. 6 (62), pp. 94–112 (in Russian).
18. Rogacheva E. (2018) “Filosofi ya marij skoj tradicionnoj religii” [“Philosophy of the Mari Traditional Religion”]. Marijskaya pravda, 12.09.2018 (in Russian).
19. Slezkine Yuri (1994) Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North. Мoscow (Russian translation).
20. Stroeva O. (2014) “Modeli proizvodstva sovremennoj kul’tury: brikolazh i dekonstrukciya. Naskal’naya zhivopis’ megapolisov” [“Production models of modern culture: bricolage and deconstruction. Rock art of megacities”]. Filosofiya i obshchestvo, vol. 2 (74), pp. 135–141 (in Russian).
21. Tadina N. (2013) “Dva vzglyada na burhanizm u altaj-kizhi” [“Two views on Burkhanism in Altai-Kizhi”]. Zhurnal sociologii i social’noj antropologii, vol. 4, pp. 159–166 (in Russian).
22. Taylor Ch. (2017) A Secular Age. Мoscow (Russian translation).
23. Uzlaner D. (2020) Postsekulyarnyj povorot. Kak myslit’ o religii v XXI veke [A post-secular turn. How to think about religion in the XXI century]. Мoscow (in Russian).
24. Volkova P. (2009) “Reinterpretaciya v svete fi losofi i iskusstva: k postanovke problem” [“Reinterpretation in the light of the Philosophy of Art: towards the formulation of the problem”]. Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya, vol. 2, pp. 170–182 (in Russian).

Gipp Konstantin, archpriest

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

This discussion deals with the issue of validity of the methodological significance of the concept of postsecularity for the study of religions. In this regard, it touched upon the theoretical description of such phenomena as secularisation, secularity, bricolage, hybridisation, privatisation and deprivation of religion, as well as a number of other issues in the sphere of scientifi c discourse on religions.

methodology of religious studies, conceptual framework of religious studies, postsecularity, secularisation

1. Abeysekara A. (2008) The Politics of Postsecular Religion: Mourning Secular Futures. New York.
2. Antonov K. (2020) “Desekuliarizatsiia ili postsekuliarnoe sostoianie obshchestva?” [Desecularisation or a post-secular society?], in K. Antonov, “Kak vozmozhna religiia?”: Filosofiia religii i filosofskie problemy bogosloviia v russkoi religioznoi mysli XІX–XX vekov [“How is religion possible?” Philosophy of religion and philosophical problems of theology in Russian religious thought of the 19th — 20th centuries], vol. 2, Moscow, pp. 319–329 (in Russian).
3. Appolonov A. (2016) “Kriticheskie zamechaniia o postsekuliarnosti″ i postsekuliarnom″” [Critical notes on “post-seculatiry” and the “post-secular”], in Religiovedcheskii al’manakh [Almanac of religious studies], vol. 1, Moscow, pp. 4–36 (in Russian).
4. Asad T. (2020) Formations of the Secular. Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Moscow (Russian translation).
5. Beaumont J., Molendij k A. L., Jedin C. (eds) (2010) Exploring the Postsecular: The Religious, the Political, the Urban. Amsterdam.
6. Berger P. (1999) “Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview”, in P. L. Berger (ed.) The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, Grand Rapids, pp. 1–18.
7. Berger P. (2003) “Secularization and the Problem of Plausibility”. Neprikosnovennyi zapas, vol. 6, pp. 5–20 (Russian translation).
8. Berger P. (2012) “Falsified Secularisation”. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 2 (30), pp. 8–20 (Russian translation).
9. Berger P. (2014) The Many Altars of Modernity: Toward a Paradigm for Religion in a Pluralistic Age. Boston; Berlin.
10. Bogatyrev D., Shishova M. (2015) “Postsekuliarnaia gipoteza i osobennosti rossiiskoi postsekuliarnosti” [Post-secular hypothesis and specifi ty of Russian post-secularity]. Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 95–109 (in Russian).
11. Caputo J. (2011) “How Secular World Became Post-Secular”. Logos, vol. 3, pp. 186–205 (Russian translation).
12. Casanova J. (2006) “Rethinking Secularization: A Global Comparative Perspective”. The Hedgehog Review, vol. 8 (1/2), pp. 7–22.
13. Habermas J. (2006) “Religion in the Public Sphere”. European Journal of Philosophy, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–25.
14. Habermas J. (2008) “A ‘post-secular’ society — what does that mean?”. Rossiiskaia filosofskaia gazeta, vol. 4 (18) (in Russian).
15. Habermas J. (2010) “A Postsecular World Society? On the Philosophical Signifi cance of Postsecular Consciousness and the Multicultural World Society”. MR online, 21.03.2010, available at: https://mronline.org/2010/03/21/a-postsecular-world-society-on-the-philosophicalsignificance-of-postsecular-consciousness-and-the-multicultural-world-society/ (accessed 18.01.2022).
16. Habermas J., Rattsinger I. (Benedikt XVI) (2006) Dialektik der Sakularisierung: Über Vernunft and Religion. Moscow (Russian translation).
17. Inglehart R. (2022) Religion’s Sudden Decline: What’s Causing It, and What Comes Next? St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
18. Kargina I. G. (2014) “Kachestvennye izmeneniia diskursa sekuliarizatsii v kontse XX — nachale XXI v.” [Quality changes of secularisation discourse in 19th — 20th centuries]. Teoriia i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiia, vol. 1, pp. 109–114 (in Russian).
19. Karpov V. (2012) “Kontseptual)nye osnovy teorii desekuliarizatsii” [Conceptual foundations of the secularisation theory]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 2 (30), pp. 114–164 (in Russian).
20. Kazanova Kh. (2018) “Razmyshliaia o postsekuliarnom: tri znacheniia
21. sekuliarnogo″ i tri vozmozhnosti vykhoda za ego predely” [Refl ections on the post-secular: three meanings of the “secular” and three ways to move beyond]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 4, pp. 143–174 (in Russian).
22. Khoruzhii S. (2012) “Postsekuliarizm i antropologiia” [Post-secularism and anthropology]. Chelovek.Ru, vol. 8, pp. 15–34 (in Russian).
23. Korolev S. (2015) “Sekuliarizatsiia i desekuliarizatsiia v kontekste kontseptsii psevdomorfnogo razvitiia Rossii” [Secularisation and desecularisation in the context of theory of pseudomorph development of Russia]. Filosofskaia mysl, vol. 4, pp. 1–54 (in Russian).
24. Kurilov V. (2022) Sovetskaia model sekuliarizatsii: politicheskoe i pravovoe regulirovanie svobody sovesti v SSSR (vtoraia polovina XX veka) [Soviet model of secularisation: regulation of freedom of will in the USSR]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
25. Kyrlezhev A. (2011) “Postsekuliarnoe: kratkaia interpretatsiia” [The post-secular: brief interpretation]. Logos, vol. 3 (82), pp. 101–106 (in Russian).
26. Kyrlezhev A. (2013) “Sekuliarizm i postsekuliarizm v Rossii i v mire” [Secularity and post-secularity in Russia and worldwide”]. Otechestvennye zapiski, vol. 1 (52), available at http://www.strana-oz.ru/2013/1/sekulyarizm-i-postsekulyarizm-v-rossii-i-v-mire (accessed 18.01.2023; in Russian).
27. Martin D. (2019) “Religioznye otvety na proiavleniia sekuliarizma” [Religious responses to secular phenomena]. Vestnik Sviato-Filaretovskogo instituta, vol. 32, pp. 152–175 (in Russian).
28. Mashchit)ko O. (2016) “Nevidimaia, rasseiannaia, passivnaia: sposoby funktsionirovaniia postsekuliarnoi religioznosti” [Invisible, disperse, passive: ways of functioning of post-secular religiosity]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. 17, vol. 2, pp. 100–107 (in Russian).
29. Matetskaia A. (2020) “Formirovanie postsekuliarnogo obshchestva v Rossii” [Formation of a post-secular society in Russia]. Gumanitarii Iuga Rossii, vol. 9 (45), no. 5, pp. 93–107 (in Russian).
30. Matetskaia A. (2022) “Posle politicheskoi religii: osobennosti rossiiskogo postsekuliarizma” [After political religion: specifi cs of Russian post-secularity]. Politiia, vol. 3 (106), pp. 48–64 (in Russian).
31. McLennan G. (2010) “The Postsecular Turn”. Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 27 (4), pp. 3–20 (in Russian).
32. Milbank J. (2022) Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Moscow (Russian translation).
33. Mramornov A., Chelovenko T. (eds) (2015) Pravoslavie i sovremennost: problemy sekuliarizma i postsekuliarizma [Orthodoxy and the present day: problems of secularity and post-secularity]. Moscow; Orel; Livny (in Russian).
34. Rorty R., Vattimo G. (2005) The Future of Religion. New York.
35. Rutkevich E. (2017) “Religiia v global)nom prostranstve: podkhody, opredeleniia, problemy v zapadnoi sotsiologii” [Religion in global space: approaches, notions, problems in Western sociology]. Vestnik Instituta sotsiologii RAN, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 132–161 (in Russian).
36. Scott D., Hirschkind C. (eds) (2006) Powers of the Secular Modern: Talal Asad and his Interlocutors. Palo Alto, CA.
37. Shishkov A. (2012) “Nekotorye aspekty desekuliarizatsii v postsovetskoi Rossii” [Some aspects of desecularisation in post-Soviet Russia]. Gosudarstvo, religiia i tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 2 (30), pp. 165–177 (in Russian).
38. Smirnov M. (2022) “Fenomen sekuliarizatsii v sovetskom i postsovetskom obshchestve” [Phenomenon of secularisation in the Soviet and post-Soviet society]. Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, vol. 23, no. 3 (1), pp. 173–181 (in Russian).
39. Stark R. (1999) “Secularization, R.I.P. — rest in peace”. Sociology of Religion, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 249–273.
40. Stepanova E. (2009) “Teorii sekuliarizatsii v
41. proekte Moderna″: vozmozhnosti i granitsy” [Theories of secularisation in the “project of Modern”: possibilities and limitations]. Nauchnyi ezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava Ural’skogo otdeleniia Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, vol. 9, pp. 54–73 (in Russian).
42. Stepanova E. (2015) “Postsekuliarnaia religioznost): individ versus institut” [Post-secular religiosity: individual versus institution]. Religiovedenie, vol. 3, pp. 56–65 (in Russian).
43. Stepanova E. (2016) “Novoe vino i starye mekhi: khristianstvo postsekuliarnoi epokhi” [“New vine and old bottles: christianity of post-secular age”], in Filosofiia v XXI veke: vyzovy, tsen nosti, perspektivy [Philosophy in 21th century: challenges, values, perspectives], Ekaterinburg, pp. 40–52 (in Russian).
44. Stoeckl K. (2012) “K opredeleniiu postsekuliarnogo″” [To the defi nition of the “post-secular”]. Chelovek, vol. 8, pp. 51–67 (in Russian).
45. Taylor Ch. (2007) A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA.
46. Trainor B. T. (2007) “Theorising Post-Secular Society”. Philosophy & Theology, vol. 19, no. 1–2, pp. 95–124 (in Russian).
47. Turner B. (2012) “Religion in Postsecular Society”. State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide, vol. 2 (30), pp. 20–51.
48. Uzlaner D. (2019) Konets religii? Istoriia teorii sekuliarizatsii [The end of religion? A history of secularisation theory]. Moscow (in Russian).
49. Uzlaner D. (2020) Postsekuliarnyi povorot: kak myslit o religii v XXI veke [Post-secular turn: how to think on religion in the 21st century]. Moscow (in Russian).
50. Vinogradov A. (2014) “Sovremennyi vzgliad na polozhenie religii v ramkakh kontseptsii postsekuliarnosti. K postanovke problemy” [Contemporary view of religious situation in the framework of post-secular concept]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriia: fi losofi ia. Sotsiologiia. Iskusstvovedenie, vol. 10, pp. 213–221 (in Russian).
51. Wohlrab-Sahr M., Burchardt M. (2012) “Multiple Secularities: Toward a Cultural Sociology of Secular Modernities”. Comparative Sociology, vol. 11, pp. 875–909.

Antonov Konstantin

*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.

Polskov Konstantin, 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.

Mikhail Smirnov

*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.