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

The author examines the idea of an individual nature as conceived by Leontius of Byzantium, a defender of the Council of Chalcedon, who used it to counter the arguments of the Monophysites, who themselves developed the notion of a partial nature (substance). The author further attempts to define the influence which Leontius exerted over the formulation of a new concept of hypostasis as conceived by the Diophysites. In order to study this point in detail, the author examines the later work of Leontius, especially his Epilisis. By means of a thorough analysis of this work, he reveals the intention of Leontius to perfect the terminology of the Diophysites by stating the fundamental problem in philosophical terms. In this work, Leontius demonstrates that the idea of a self-sufficient hypostasis in the humanity of Christ is absent and shows that the idea of a hypostasis of this type is found only in Christ as the Logos. The author concludes that the human nature of Christ may be considered as a type of general nature and as a result it may be seen to relate to all other hypostases of human nature as the general to the particular in so much as there exists a real hypostatic unity with the Logos

Christological disputes, Diphysites, Monophysites, nature, hypostasis, individual nature, partial substance, common nature

1. Cross R. 2002. Individual Natures in the Christology of Leontius of Byzantium. Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 10.2, pp. 245–265.
2. Gorskij A. K., Setnickij N. A. 1995. Sochinenija (The Writings). Мoscow, 1995, pp. 19–96.
3. Grillmeier A. Le Christ dans la tradition chretienne. Рaris, 1993. Vol. 2.2.
4. Daley B. 1976. The Origenism of Leontius of Byzantium. Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 27, pp. 333–369.
5. Davydenkov O. V. Hristologicheskaja sistema Sevira Antiohijskogo: Dogmaticheskij analiz (Severus of Antioch’s christological system: dogmatic study). Мoscow, 2007.
6. Davydenkov O. V. 2008. «Voipostasnaja sushhnost'» v bogoslovii Ioanna Grammatika (Ἐνυπόστατος οὐσία in the Theology of John the Grammarian). Bulletin of St Tikhon’s University I, vol. 2 (22), pp. 7–13.
7. Davydenkov O. V. 2009. Koncepcii «slozhnaja ipostas'» i «slozhnaja priroda» v kontekste hristianskih sporov VI v. (Concepts of «complex hypostasis» and «complex nature» in Context of Christological Debates of the VI cen.). Bulletin of St Tikhon’s University I, vol. 1 (25), pp. 7–24.
8. Davydenkov O. V. 2012. Problema sootnoshenija obshhego i edinichnogo v hristologii umerennogo monofizitstva VI veka: Ioann Filopon (k voprosu o filosofskoj problematike hristologicheskih diskussij jepohi Vselenskih soborov) (The Correlation Problem of Common and Single in the Christology of the VI c. Temperate Monophysitismus: John Philopon). Vestnik OGU, vol. 2 (22), pp. 212–216.
9. Δελημβάση Α. Δ. Ἡ αἵρησις τοῦ μονοφυσιτισμοῦ χθες καὶ σῆμερον (The Heresy of the Monophysitism today and yesterday). Athens, 1994.
10. Dell’Osso K. Il calcedonismo Leonzio di Bisanzio. Rome, 2003.
11. Evans D. B. Leontius of Byzantium. An origenist Christology. Washington, 1970.
12. Florovskij G. V. Vostochnye otcy V–VIII vekov (Oriental fathers of V–VIII centuries). Мoscow, 1992.
13. Frend W. H. C. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge, 1979.
14. Hainthaler Th. 1990. Grillmeier A. Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1990, vol. 2.4, pp. 109–149.
15. Lang U. M. John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the sixth Century (a Study and Translation of the Arbiter). Leuven, 2001.
16. Lynch J. J. 1975. Leontius of Byzantium. A Cyrillian Christology. Theological Studies, vol. 36.3, pp. 455–471.
17. Lur’e V. M. Vizantijskaja filosofija. Formativnyj period (Byzantine Philosophy. Formative Preiod). Saint-Peyersburg, 2006.
18. Mejendorf I. Iisus Hristos v vostochnom pravoslavnom bogoslovii (Christ in the Eastern Christian Thought). Мoscow, 2000.
19. Murphy F.-X., Sherwood P. Constantinople II et III. Paris, 1974.
20. Petrov V. V. Maksim Ispovednik: ontologija i metod v vizantijskoj filosofii VII veka (Maximus the Confessor: ontology and method in the 7th century byzantine philosophy). Мoscow, 2007.
21. Richard M. 1947. Leontius de Byzance etail-il origeniste? Revue des Etudes Byzantines, vol. 5, pp. 31–66.
22. Shhukin T. A. 2009. Antologij a vostochno-hristianskoj bogoslovskoj mysli (Anthology of the orient Christian theological Thought). Saint-Petersburg, 2009, vol. 1, pp. 645–657.
23. Sokolov V. 2005. Pravoslavie i monofizitstvo (Orthodoxy and Monophysitism). Perm, 2005. pp. 76–113.
24. Sokolov V. Zavershenie Vizantijskoj hristologii posle Leontij a Vizantijskogo (Completion of the byzantine history after Leontius of Byzantium). Perm, 2005.
25. Sokolov V. 2006. Leontij Vizantijskij : sbornik issledovanij (Leontius of Byzantium: collected studies). Мoscow, 2006, pp. 10–458.

Davydenkov Oleg, archpriest

This article is dedicated to illuminating problems associated with one of the main sources of the history of the early church up to the time of the First Ecumenical Council — The Church History and the Life of the Emperor Constantine — both written by Eusebius of Pamphilus. The author points to the fact that these works have little to say about the theological disputes which were part and parcel of the First Ecumenical Council. Eusebius, instead, fills his account with details of the disputes concerning the date of the celebration of Easter. The arian controversies which dominate the pages of the works of other early Church Fathers are passed over in silence by Eusebius. Researchers have concluded that this was precisely the intention of Eusebius since he himself belonged to the party which sympathized with the heretic Arius. The author of this article attempts to refute this argument and offers another explanation. The author points out that Eusebius always devotes special attention to events and functions organized by Constantine. These events and activities are described by Eusebius in a way which deliberately excludes theological controversies. The author concludes that Eusebius, like Constantine himself, 28 М. Рицци. Евсевий о Константине и Никейском соборе: намерения и умолчания deliberately avoids mentioning the theological disputes since both considered them of relatively little importance and that their solution should be reserved to the narrow circle of intellectuals among the early churchmen. Eusebius thought that the conservation of ecclesiastical peace and unity was of primary importance for all his fellow bishops.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine the Great, First Ecumenical council, Local council, Arius, Athanasius the Alexandria, arianism, triadology, date of Easter celebration, Church of Alexandria, bishop in the Church

1. Alikin V. A. The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering. Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries. Leiden, 2010.
2. Allace Hadrill D. S. Eusebius of Caesarea. London, 1960.
3. Barnes T. D. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, 1993.
4. Cristofoli R. Costantino e l’Oratio ad sanctorum coetum. Napoli, 2005.
5. Dainese D. 2012. Bonamente G., Lenski N., Lizzi R., (eds.). Costantino prima e dopo Costantino. Constantine before and after Constantine. Bari, 2012, pp. 405–417.
6. De Navascues P. Pablo de Samosata y sus adversarios. Estudio historico-teologico del cristanismo antioqueno en el siglo III. Rome, 2004.
7. Di Berardino A. 1992. Bonamente G., Fusco F. (eds.). Costantino il Grande, dall’antichita all’umanesimo. Macerata, 1992. P. 362–384.
8. Drake H. A. Constantine and the bishops. The politics of intolerance. Baltimore, 2000.
9. Fischer J. A., Lumpe A. Die Synoden von den Anfangen bis zum Vorabend des Nicaenums. Paderborn, 1997.
10. Girardet K. M. 1974. Appellatio. Ein Kapitel kirchlicher Rechtsgeschichte in den Kanones desvierten Jahrhunderts. Historia, vol. 23. pp. 98–127.
11. Kaser M. Das romische Zivilprozessrecht. Munchen, 1966.
12. Lyman J. R. Christology and cosmology. Models of divine activity in Origen, Eusebius and Athanasius. Oxford, 1993.
13. Martin A. Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’Eglise d’Egypte au IVe siecle (328–373). Rome, 1996.
14. Millar F. 1971. Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Thirdcentury Syria. Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 61, pp. 1–17.
15. Mommsen T. De collegiis et sodaliciis Romanorum, accredit inscriptio lanuvina. Kiel, 1842.
16. Perrone L. 1992. L’enigma di Paolo di Samosata. Dogma, chiesa e societa nella Siria del III secolo: prospettive di un vent’ennio di studi. Cristianesimo nella Storia, vol. 33, pp. 253–327.
17. Perry J. S. The Roman collegia: the modern evolution of an ancient concept. Leiden, 2006.
18. Pietras H. 2001. Le ragioni della convocazione del Concilio Niceno da parte di Costantino il Grande. Gregorianum, vol. 82, pp. 5–35.
19. Pietras H. 2008. Lettera di Costantino alla Chiesa di Alessandria e Lettera del sinodo di Nicea agli Egiziani (325): i falsi sconosciuti da Atanasio? Gregorianum, vol. 89, pp. 727–739.
20. Robertson J. Christ as mediator. A study of the theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria. Oxford, 2007.
21. Strutwolf H. Die Trinitatstheologie und Christologie des Euseb von Caesarea. Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung seiner Platonismusrezeption und Wirkungsgeschichte. Gottingen, 1999.
22. Waltzing J. P. Etude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains, depuis les origines jusqu’a la chute de l’Empire d’Occident. Louvain, 1895–1900.
23. Weckwerth A. Ablauf, Organisation und Selbstverstandnis westlicher antiker Synoden im Spiegel ihrer Akten. Munster, 2010.

Rizzi Marko

Saint Augustine of Hippo often quoted the last verses of the 125th psalm and several times meditated its content in his tractates and sermons. The author of this article examines a selection of these citations, in which the verses are not only quoted but also, both directly and indirectly, commented upon. In his exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, Augustine merely mentions the fact of the possibility of a spiritual understanding of the passage. The most thorough and most complete exposition of this passage is found in Augustine’s 31st Homily. This exposition is actually more thematic than exegetical. The main points of this homily include the idea of an explanation of the various reasons for tears shed by people during their earthly lives (the tears of martyrs, the tears deriving from earthly pains and sorrows, the tears of a just man separated from his God). But the most profound interpretation of these psalm verses is found in Augustines’s exposition of Psalm 125 (11–13). Here Augustine enumerates all the good actions which he considers to be symbolized by the idea of sowing (almsgiving, aid rendered through deed, aid rendered through word, the mere desire to render aid). At the same time, Augustine does not develop in this exposition the idea of forgiving offences as a type of almsgiving. On the other hand he reveals the essence of good works as charity and the Goal of those who practise good works as the union of the faithful soul with Christ. The author includes a Russian translation of the 31st homily at the end of his article.

Augustinus of Hippo, exegesis, homelies, psalms, Psalm 125, «Commentary on psalms, Epistle to the Galatians, « Commentary on Epistle to the Galatians», image of sowing, tears, good deeds, charity, mercy, love

1. Dulaey M. 2003. Le «Confessioni» di Agostino (402–2002): Bilancio e prospettive. Roma, 2003, pp. 230–231.
2. Fitzgerald A. 1989. Signum Pietatis. Festgabe fur C. P. Mayer. Wurzburg, 1989, pp. 445–459.
3. Rondeau M.-J. Les commentaires patristique du Psautier (IIIe–Ve siecles). Rome, 1985.

Stepantsov Sergei

Although the theology of the layman — Laientheologie — left its mark on the history of the Russian spiritual tradition during the synodal period, no academic work examining the phenomenon as a whole, and the studies in which it played a role, with its characteristic ideas and methodology, has appeared until our time. The fi rst premise of this article is to clarify the following questions: 1) What can be considered the main characteristic trait found in and unifying the works of those who profess to adhere to Laientheologie?; 2)Does there exist a real and characteristic difference between the proponents of laientheologie and those who follow the path of school theology in regard to method?; 3) What is the difference between Laientheologie and religious philosophy? The results of the author’s research have led him to posit the following conclusions: 1) the characteristic trait of those who adhere to Laientheologie is their lack of any academic theological formation; 2) Laientheologie distinguishes itself from academic theology in that it springs from a personal religious experience which tries to make sense theologically of the experience of Church. In other words, it implies the identity of the first and second — that is religious experience and Church; 3) This school of thought also insists that those written studies which follow its method be classified as theology rather than as philosophy. These conclusions are based on a comparison of the differences and similarities between theological and philosophical knowledge and on an examination of those authors who profess to belong to the school of Laientheologie, as well as on the work of more recent Russian religious philosophers and on contemporary research.

Laientheologie, Theology and philosophy, A. Khomyakov, I. Kireyevsky, Yu. Samarin, Holy Tradition, consensuns partum, scholastic theology

1. Antonov K. M. 2009. Fenomen religioznogo obrashhenija i stanovlenie refleksivnyh struktur religioznyh tradicij (The Phenomenon of Religious Conversion and Making of the Reflexive Structures of the Religious Traditions). Religiovedenie, vol. 4, pp. 90–102.
2. Cvyk I. V. Duhovno-akademicheskaja filosofija v Rossii XIX v. (Thheological-academical philosophy in XIX c. Russia). Мoscow, 2002.
3. Florovskij G. Puti russkogo bogoslovija (Ways of the Russian theology). Мoscow, 2009.
4. Hondzinskij P. 2011. Russkoe bogoslovie: tradicija i sovremennost' (Russian Theology: Tradition and the Present). Мoscow, 2011, pp. 47–55.
5. Kartashev A. V. Istorija Russkoj Cerkvi (History of the Russian Church). Мoscow, 1997.
6. Lonergan B. Metod v teologii (The methos in theology). Мoscow, 2010.
7. Losskij N. O. Istorija russkoj filosofii (History of the Russian Philosophy). Мoscow, 1991.
8. Müller L. 1960. Der Einfluss der liberalen Protestentismus auf die russische Laientheologie des 19. Jahrhundert. Kirche im Osten, vol. 3, pp. 21–32.
9. Zen’kovskij V. Istorija russkoj filosofii (History of the Russian Philosophy). Мoscow, 2001.

Khondzinskii Pavel, archpriest

The author examines the relationship between scientific and theological components in a selection of the works of well-known Biblical scholars active at the Kiev Theological Academy around the turn of the nineteenth century and the begin ning of the twentieth. Among them figure the names of F. J. Pokrovsky, V. P. Rybinsky, D. I. Bogdashevsky, and Father A. A. Glagolev. The work of these experts has been little studied until today. The spiritual, intellectual, and ideological context of the time has been taken into account by the author. The author of this article pays special attention to the ideological background surrounding the polemic between Russian Orthodox biblical scholars and those proponents of the negative school of biblical exegesis. The focus is on several key elements of understanding the Bible, the research and exposition of biblical history, as well as points of dogmatic and moral import stemming from an interpretation of the scriptures. The author demonstrates that the position of the Kievan biblical scholars was apologetic, contrasting the theological and scientific schools against the background of a more than positivistic understanding of history and the Bible seen as the sacred scripture of the Church. In this way, they contributed to academic research, and the way of teaching the scriptures of the schools, as well as the exposition of the scriptures for the purpose of dogmatic and moral enlightenment. At the same time, they began the process of working towards a synthesis as an approach for further scientific and theological research. Important for the continuing development of Russian Orthodox biblical studies during the twentieth century was finding a balance between Orthodox biblical apologetics and scientific thought . This attempt at re-discovering and reconstructing the apologetic atmosphere of the Kievan biblical scholars was made possible through a combination of several factors — one of the most important being the handing down of their methods by teachers to their students. Thus we can have an idea of the importance which these teachers assigned above all to their own personal faith, as well as to their methodological and hermeneutic concerns. The author has attempted to elucidate the work of these biblical apologists against the general cultural and religious background of the Russian Empire of the time as well as the specific atmosphere particular to Kiev. Through a thorough analysis of their work, we are able today to make use of their experience in biblical apologetics to solve contemporary problems of teaching and explaining to students the Sacred Scriptures.

Biblical Studies, Kiev Theological Academy, Theology and Science, Biblical History, Biblical Religion, Biblical Apologetics

1. Bogdashevskij D. I. 1909. Istoricheskij harakter knigi Dejanij Apostol'skih (Historical Nature of the Book of the Acts). Trudy KDA, vol. 3.11, pp. 381–425.
2. Bogdashevskij D. I. 1900. O Evangel'skih chudesah (Zametka protiv racionalistov i, v chastnosti, protiv grafa L. Tolstogo) (On Gospel Miracles (A Note against Rationalists and particularly against L. Tolstoy)). Trudy KDA, vol. 8, pp. 473–493.
3. Bogdashevskij D. I. 1902. O Evangelijah i evangel'skoj istorii (protiv sovremennogo racionalizma). Publichnoe chtenie (About the Gospel and Gospel History (Against Modern Racionalism). Public Reading). Trudy KDA, vol. 2, pp. 269–302.
4. Glagolev A. A. 1909. Vethij Zavet i ego neprehodjashhee znachenie v hristianskoj Cerkvi (Po povodu drevnih i sovremennyh literaturnyh i obshhestvennyh techenij protiv obshheprinjatogo znachenija i upotreblenija hristianami vethozavetnyh svjashhennyh pisanij) (Old Testament and Its Everlasting Significance in the Christian Church (On the Ancient and Modern Literary and Public Movements, against Standart Meaning and Usage of Old Testament by the Christians)). Trudy KDA, vol. 3.11, pp. 353–380; vol. 3.12, pp. 517–550.
5. Glagolev A. A. 1902. Непреходящее значение Ветхого Завета. Библиологическая заметка на: Die bleibende Bedeutung des Alten Testaments, von Emil Kautzsch, Tübingen und Leipzig, 1902. § 38 (Everlasting Significance of the Old Testament. Bibliographical Note on: Die bleibende Bedeutung des Alten Testaments, von Emil Kautzsch, Tübingen und Leipzig, 1902. § 38). Trudy KDA, vol. 3.11, pp. 491–504.
6. Glagolev A. A. 1906. Sed'moj vsemirnyj sionistskij kongress v evrejstve (VIIth World Zionistic Congress). Trudy KDA, vol. 1.2, pp. 328–341.
7. Glagolev A. A. 1905. Sionistskoe dvizhenie v sovremennom evrejstve i otnoshenie jetogo dvizhenija ko vsemirno-istoricheskoj zadache biblejskogo Izrailja (Zionistic Movement in the Contemporary Jewry and its Attitude to the World-Historic Task of the Biblical Israel). Trudy KDA, vol. 1.4, pp. 513–565.
8. Golovashhenko S. I. 2012. Vikladannja bіblіologіchnih disciplіn v Kiїvs'kіj Duhovnіj Akademії XIX — pochatku XX st.: struktura і zmіst (The Teaching of Bible Disciplines in Kiev Theological Academy in XIX-XX c.: The Structure and Content) Magіsterіum, vol. 47, pp. 60–67.
9. Golovashhenko S. I. 2011. Issledovanie Svjashhennogo Pisanija v Kievskoj Duhovnoj Akademii v 1861–1914 godah: osnovnye temy i problem (The Bible Research in Kiev Theological Academy in 1861-1914: Basic Subjects and Problems). Trudy KDA, vol. 14. pp. 40–54.
10. Golovashhenko S. I. 2007. Recepcia europejskiej krytyki biblij nej w Akademii Kij owskiej. Wymiar hermeneutyczny i ideologiczny. ΣΟΦΙΑ. Pismo Filozofow Krajow Słowiańskich, vol. 7, pp. 191–200.
11. Luzin M. Biblejskaja nauka (Biblical studies). Tula, 1898, vol. 1.
12. Men’ A. 1987. K istorii russkoj pravoslavnoj bibleistiki (For the History of Russian Orthodox Bible Studies). Bogoslovskie trudy, vol. 28, pp. 272–289.
13. Nikol’skij M. V. 1875. Nasha biblejskaja nauka (Our Bible Theology). Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, vol. 2.2, pp. 84–196.
14. Pokrovskij F. Ja. 1890. Po povodu vozrazhenij sovremennoj kritiki protiv sushhestvovanija Moiseeva zakona ranee drevnejshih prorokov-pisatelej (Rech', proiznesennaja na godichnom akte Kievskoj Duhovnoj Akademii 15 oktjabrja 1889 g.) (On Objection of Modern Critics and against Existence of Moses’ Law earlier than The most Ancient Prophets (The Speech said at the Annual Act of Kiew Theological Academy 15 October 1889)). Trudy KDA, vol. 1.1, pp. 61–98.
15. Pokrovskij F. Ja. 1894. Uchebnik biblejskoj istorii Vethogo Zaveta, doktora Avgusta Kelera, ord. profesora Bogoslovija v Jerljangene. T. 1; Jerljangen, 1875. T. 2; Jerljangen, 1884. T. 3; Jerljangen, 1893 (The Textbook of Scriptural History of the Old Testament by Dr. A. Keler. 1875–1893. T. 1–3). Trudy KDA, vol. 2.8, pp. 630–663; vol. 3.9, pp. 146–170.
16. Rybinskij V. P. 1908. Biblejskaja vethozavetnaja kritika (Biblical Critics of the Old Testament). Trudy KDA, vol. 3.12, pp. 575–613.
17. Rybinskij V. P. 1903. Vavilon i Biblija (po povodu rechi Delicha «Babel und Bibel») (Babylon and Bible (Concerning Delič’s Speech «Babylon and Bible»)). Trudy KDA, vol. 5, pp. 113–144.
18. Suhova N. Ju. 2006. Nesostojavshajasja duhovno-uchebnaja reforma 1890-h godov (Abandoned Theological-School Reform in 1890-s). Bulletin of St Tikhon’s University II, vol. 3 (20), pp. 7–26.
19. Troickij N. I. 1877. Russkaja biblejskaja nauka i ee sovremennye zadachi (Russian Bible Theology and its Contemporary Problems). Chtenija v Obshhestve ljubitelej duhovnogo prosveshhenija, vol. 10, pp. 351–412.

Golovashchenko Sergei

This article examines the Moscow period of the activity of I.A. Il’in and especially his philosophical study entitled On Kindness. The distinguishing particularity of this study is the fact that Il’in used the methods of the descriptive psychology of Wilhelm Dilthey and of the sociology of Georg Simmel. The author investigates the type of infl uence and to what degree the works of Dilthey and Simmel influenced the method of Il’in. He concludes that Il’in, following the methods proposed by these two thinkers, was able to compose a brilliant analysis of the phenomenon of kindness. The author also examines the personal reasons why Il’in might have chosen to try this psychological-sociological experiment. He concludes that Il’in was motivated to attempt this study after refl ecting on his own personality and character. It is known that Il’in himself was known for his self-assuredness and his hot temper, both of which influenced the way he interacted with colleagues and the cultural elite of his own time. This article reconstructs the activity of Il’in in both its theoretical and personal aspects through one of the main works of his Moscow period. It also examines Il’in’s own method of scientifi c research.

I. Ilyin, W. Diltey, G. Simmel, S. Freud, the Moscow’s period of creativity of I. Ilyin, courtesy, descriptive psychology, social diff erentiation

1. Dil’tej ej V. Opisatel’naja psihologija (Descriptive psychology). Saint-Petersburg, 1996.
2. Evlampiev I. I. Bozhestvennoe i chelovecheskoe v filosofii Ivana Il’ina (Divine and human in I. Ilyin’s philosophy). Saint-Petersburg, 1998.
3. Zimmel’ G. Social’naja differenciacija: Sociologicheskie i psihologicheskie issledovanija (Social differentiation: sociological and psychological studies). Мoscow, 1909.
4. Evlampiev I. I. (ed.). I. A. Il’in: pro et contra (I. Ilyin: pro et contra). Saint-Petersburg, 2004.

Rozhnov Vladimir

The author examines in this article the religious phenomenology of Jacques Waardenburgh, a Dutchman known for his studies of the phenomenology of religion of the new type. After a brief examination of various tendencies in the study of religious phenomenology and their classification, the author turns his attention to the phenomenology of religion of the new type as exemplified by the classical proponents of the Dutch school (Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussayee, William Kristensen and Gerardus van der Leeuw). By comparing concepts stated as answers to specific questions, Waardenburgh appears to employ critical acumen in his formulation of the material left by his predecessors in the field. But the elements of religious phenomenology which relate to an existential conception of data and which were accepted by the classical school are excluded by Waardenburgh. Waardenburgh, on the other hand, attempts to substitute a philosophical hermeneutic with one drawn from the applied sciences, in as much, and this is the author’s opinion, that the phenomenology of religion of the new type refuses to mediate between the disciplines which study empirical material and the philosophical conception of religion. In addition, Waardenburgh remarks that the constant task of the phenomenology of religion is to mediate among the disciplines which employ the empirical method and those cognitive spiritual needs which face the student of religious phenomena. Among these disciplines, sociology replaces history to take first place, followed by cultural anthropology. Thus, the cognitive factor become more pragmatic.

Phenomenology of religion, Applied hermeneutics, Religious meanings and signifi cance

1. Allen D. 2005. Encyclopedia of religion, pp. 7086–7101;
2. Chantepi de la Saussaye. Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte. Freiburg, 1887.
3. Cox J. L. A Guide to the Phenomenology of Religion. London, 2006;
4. Gebelt J. 2009. Court J., Klocker M. (eds.). Wege und Welten der Religionen: Forschungen und Vermittlungen. Frankfurt am Main, 2009, pp. 157–164.
5. Krasnikov A. N. Metodologicheskie problem religiovedenija (Methodological questions of
religious studies). Мoscow, 2007;
6. Krasnikov A. N. 2002. Sovremennaja fenomenologija religii (Contemporary Phenomenology of Religion) Religiovedenie, vol. 2, pp. 102–103.
7. Kristensen W. B. The meaning of religion.The Hague, 1960.
8. Leeuw G. van der. Einfuhrung in die Phanomenologie der Religion. München, 1925.
9. Pylaev M. A. Kategorija «svjashhennoe» v fenomenologiireligii, teologii i filosofii XX veka (Thecategory of «Holy» in the XX c. phenomenology of religion, theology and philosophy). Мoscow, 2011.
10. Rahmanin A. Ju. Metateoreticheskie procedury v sovremennom religiovedenii(Metatheoretical processes in modern religious studies). Saint-Petersburg, 2008;
11. Shahnovich M. M. 2001. Fenomenologicheskoe religiovedenie: mezhdu teologiej i «naukoj o religii» (Phenomenological Religious Studies: between Theology and «Science about Religion»). Vestnik of the St. Petersburg university: Philosophy, vol. 4, pp. 3–12;
12. Waardenburg J. Religionen und Religion. Berlin, 1986.
13. Waardenburg J. 2001. Religionsphänomenologie 2000. Michaels A., Pezzoli-Olgiati D., Stolz F. (eds.). Nocheine Chance fur die
Religionsphanomenologie? Bern, 2001, pp. 441–488.
14. Waardenburg J. Reflections on the Study of Religion. The Hague, 1978.
15. Waardenburg J. 1972. Religion between Reality and Idea: A century of phenomenology of religion in the Neverlands. Numen, vol. 19. 2/3, pp. 128–203.
16. Zabijako A. P. 2010. Fenomenologija religii (Phenomenology of Religion). Religiovedenie, vol. 4, pp. 152–164;
17. Zabijako A. P. 2011. Fenomenologija religii (Phenomenology of Religion). Religiovedenie, vol. 1, pp. 114–162.

Koltsov Aleksandr

The main theme of this article is the question of how it became possible to see a rapprochement between psychoanalysis and theology. At its beginnings, psychoanalysis was viewed as only psychological theory whose competence did not include the analysis of cultural problems and moral values. However, psychoanalysis continued to develop and concern itself with more and more aspects of the human condition including questions dealing with the psychological nature of religion. An important role in this process was played by the metapsychology of Freud and by psychoanalytical anthropology. It was possible on this basis to study the interaction of psychoanalysis and the various branches of philosophy, and finally the unprecedented rapprochement of psychoanalysis and theology, the latter of which found expression in the works of Pfi ster, Muller-Braunschweig, Jung, Niebuhr, Gerres, Rudin and Drewermann. Western researchers feel that besides the influence of metapsychology and anthropology, the rapprochement of psychoanalysis and theology owed a great deal to the concept of love which is considered a strong creative fundament by the authors mentioned above. Soviet researchers uncovered another side of this question. They held that an entire series of presuppositions of the psychoanalytical theory were based on a very general and often contradictory principle and admit various interpretations both drawn from philosophy as well as from theology. The author agrees with these Soviet specialists on the contradictory nature and generality of the principles of psychoanalysis and examines some concrete examples, particularly as regards the Freudian theory of the origin of religion and morality. The methodology used by the author may be defined as a comparative-historical method employing a descriptive and analytical approach.

S. Freud, C. Jung, O. Pfister, psychoanalysis, metapsychology, theology, religion, unconscious, cure of souls, morality

1. Boas F. 2006. Metody jetnologii (Methods of Etnology). Mostovaja L. A. (ed.). Antologij a issledovanij kul’tury. Interpretacii kul’tury (Anthology of cultural studies. The interpretations of culture). Saint-Petersburg, 2006, pp. 519–527.
2. Bukina I. N. 1968. Vozniknovenie i razvitie zapadnoj psihologii religii (Genesis and Development of the Western psychology of Religion).Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, vol. 5, pp. 253–282.
3. Bukina I. N., Popova M. A. 1971. Vozniknovenie i razvitie burzhuaznoj psihologii religii (Genesis and Development of the Bourgeois psychology of Religion). Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, vol. 11, pp. 113–147.
4. Chebotarev S. N. Ponologicheskaja teorija religii. Opyt postroenija social’no-trudovoj teorii (Ponological theory of the religion. Experience of constructing the social-labor theory). Leningrad, 1928.
5. Daim W. Tiefenpsychologie und Erlosung. Wien, 1954.
6. Drewermann E. Psychoanalyse und Moraltheologie. Mainz, 1983.
7. Ekentajte L. 1976. Frejdizm i sovremennoe hristianstvo (Freudism and Modern Christianity). Voprosy filosofii, vol. 11, pp. 150–157.
8. Frejd Z. Vvedenie v psihoanaliz: Lekcii (Introduction to Psychoanalysis). Мoscow, 1989.
9. Frejd Z. 1989. Budushhee odnoj illjuzii (The Future of an Illusion). Jakovlev A. A. (ed.) Sumerki bogov (Twilight of gods). Мoscow, 1989, pp. 94–142
10. Fromm Je. 1989. Psihoanaliz i religija (Psychoanalysis and Religion). Jakovlev A. A. (ed.) Sumerki bogov (Twilight of gods). Мoscow, 1989, pp. 143–221.
11. Groddeck G. Das Buch vom Es: Psychoanalytische Briefe an eine Freundin. Frankfurt am Main, 1990.
12. Gurev G. 1929. Religija v svete frejdizma (Religion in the Light of Freudizm). Antireligioznik, vol. 1, pp. 40–60;
13. Jevans-Pritchard Je. Teorii primitivnoj religii (Theories of primitive religion). Мoscow, 2004.
14. Jung K. G. Bog i bessoznatel’noe (On God and Unconscious). Мoscow, 1998.
15. Jung K. G. Bog i bessoznatel’noe (On God and unconscious). Мoscow, 1998
16. Kroeber A. L. 1920. Totem and Taboo: An Ethnologic Psychoanalysis. American Anthropologist, vol. 22.1, pp. 48–55.
17. Levi-Stros K. Strukturnaja antropologija (Structural anthropology). Мoscow, 1985.
18. Lukachevskij A. T. Proishozhdenie religii: obzor teorij (Origin of religion: overview of theories). Мoscow, 1929;
19. Majskij V. I. Frejdizm i religij a. Kriticheskij ocherk (Freudianism and religion. Critical essay).Мoscow, 1930.
20. Malinovskij B. Seks i vytesnenie v obshhestve dikarej (Sex and exclusion in the society of savages). Мoscow, 2011.
21. Mamleev V. Z. 1930. Frejd «Budushhnost' odnoj illjuzii» (Freud and his «The Future of an Illusion»). Antireligioznik, vol. 7, pp. 119–124;
22. Mihajlov F. T. 1999. Bog «antihrista» Frejda (The God of Freud the «Antichrist»). Ovcharenko V. I., Lejbin V. M. (eds.). Antologij a rossij skogo psihoanaliza (Anthology of the Russian psychoanalysis), vol. 1, pp. 799–805.
23. Pfister O. Analytische Seelsorge. Einführung in die praktische Psychoanalyse für Pfarren und Laien. Gottingen, 1927.
24. Pfister O. Psychoanalyse und Weltanschauung. Leipzig, 1928
25. Pfister O. Die Frommigkeit des Grafen Lüdwig von Zinzendorf. Eine psychoanalytische Studie. Leipzig, 1925;
26. Pfister O. 1922. Die primären Gefühle als Bedingungen der höchsten Geistesfunktionen. Imago. Zeitschrift für Anwendung der Psychoanalyse auf die Geisteswissenschaften, vol. 8.1, pp. 46–53;
27. Popova M. A. Frejdizm i religija (Freudianism and religion). Мoscow, 1985.
28. Popova M. A. 1977. Psihoanaliz i religija (Psychoanalysis and Religion). Bogomolov A. S. (ed.). Sovremennaja burzhuaznaja filosofija i religija (Modern bourgeois philosophy and religion). Мoscow, 1977, pp. 91–138.
29. Portnov A. A. Shahnovich M. I. Psihozy i religija (Psychosis and religion). Leningrad, 1967.
30. Rank O., Zaks G. Znachenie psihoanaliza v naukah o duhe (Signifi cance of psychoanalysis in studies on the spirit). Saint-Petersburg, 1913;
31. Rejsner M. A. 1924. Frejd i ego shkola o religii (Freud and his School on Religion). Pechat’ i revoljucija, vol. 1, pp. 40–60; vol. 3 (2), pp. 81–106;
32. Reik T. Dogma und Zwangsidee. Eine psychoanalytische Studie zur Entwicklung der Religion. Leipzig, 1927.
33. Rubinshtejn S. L. Principy i puti razvitija psihologii (Principles and ways of psychological development). Мoscow, 1959.
34. Rudin J. Psychotherapie und Religion. Seele — Person — Gott. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1960.
35. Rutkevich A. M. Psihoanaliz i religija (Psychoanalysis and religion). Мoscow, 1987.

Damte David

This article deals with one of the most important themes of the history of the Soviet school — atheism in theory and practise in general education. This article examines the problem from the perspective of atheism as one of the fundamental and indispensable requirements of the Soviet school system and views Soviet atheistic formation as a sum total of several practical activities which were intended to lead to the formation of the new man, especially during the period from 1950-1960. Various elements went into the making of this ideological complex: elements of education with obligatory content which were inserted into the school curriculum as well as ideological formation outside the scholarly curriculum. In addition, this article also studies the way ideological elements of atheism were inserted into concrete subject material and the way it was ingrained into the students by teachers who used their own initiative to organize atheistic practical activities. All of this was done in order to instill within soviet youth the images of the Enemy and that of a Plot or Conspiracy. The activity of the atheistic Soviet School was also studied in relation to the parents of the students exposed to this sort of formation. As research sources, the author has examined juridical acts of the state, party directives, school programs and theoretical manuals for teachers. The author also investigates the level of competency and the organization of atheistic activities with special reference to the Gorky Region and takes into account the changes in the division of administration and territory undertaken during the period in question. He also analyses the eff ectiveness and competency of party and governmental functionaries and their influence on the regional and local level.

atheism, propaganda, doctrine, ideology, comprehensive school, materialism, the educational process

1. Boldyrev N. I. 1951. Marksistsko-leninskoe uchenie o morali — osnova nravstvennogo vospitanija v sovetskoj shkole (Marx-Lenin’s Teaching about Moral – Basis of the Moral Education in Soviet School). Sovetskaja pedagogika (Soviet pedagogics), vol. 1, pp. 101–106.
2. Goncharov N. K. Osnovy pedagogiki (Foundations of pedagogics). Мoscow, 1947.
3. Ogorodnikov I. T., Shimbirev P. N. Pedagogika (Pedagogics). Мoscow, 1950.
4. Kairov I. A., Goncharov N. K., Konstantinov N. A., Koroljov F. F., Malyshev M. P., Smirnov V. Z. (eds.). Narodnoe obrazovanie v SSSR (National education in the USSR). Мoscow, 1957.
5. Pankratov V. F. 1968. O nekotoryh zadachah i formah antireligioznoj raboty v shkole (About Some Tasks and Forms of the Antireligious Work in the School). Lotyshev I. P. (ed.). Ateisticheskoe vospitanie v shkole. Krasnodar, 1968, pp. 3–14.
6. Smirnickij A. E. Razvitie sovetskoj obshheobrazovatel’noj shkoly v Gor’kovskoj i Kirovskoj oblastjah 1946–1952 gg.: sravnitel’nyj analiz (The development of comprehensive secondary schools in Gorkovskaya and Korivskaya oblasts in 1946–1952: comparative analysis). Nizhny Novgorod, 2006.
7. Shestun E. Pravoslavnaja pedagogika (Orthodox pedagogics). Мoscow, 2001.

Sazhin Dmitrii

This article presents a short excursus into the history of research on western esotericism. At the beginning the basic terms esoterica and esotericism are defi ned. Then the history of societies and academic chairs devoted to research on the subject is examined. The source for research on the subject is the Eranos Circle. Later authors such as Frances Yates took up the study which was continued and developed in the volumes authored by Antoine Faivre and Wouter Hanegraaff. Resorting to generalities in describing the various branches of thought on the subject, the author defi nes three main schools: the American School, the Old European School, and finally the New European School. The principle characteristics of the American School is the acknowledgement of the reality of esoteric experience and a tendency to override the border dividing the researcher and the phenomenon researched as well as attempting to popularize the subject in wide sectors of society. The Old European School is characterized by its extremely critical attitude to esotericism, seeing in it little more than a deviation on the path of the development of culture and religion. The New European School, on the other hand, is guided by a post-modern approach to research on this subject, which leads to the constant study of the problem of dialogue and demands a pluralistic attitude in regard to various forms of esotericism. Another characteristic of this school is the intention to include the study of esotericism as an accepted academic discipline. Some basic problems which face the contemporary researcher of this topic are studied by the author separately. The idea of combining the study of esotericism with the study of theology is also touched upon, pointing out the basic contradiction and incompatibility separating the two subjects. Two approaches for Christian researchers are defined — the approach of the tree and the modernistic approach.

Антуан Фэвр, western esotericism, religious studies, theology, apologetics, W. Hanegraaff, A. Faivre

1. Fischer E. Hermeneutics, Politics, and the History of Religions: The Contested Legacies of Joachim Wach and Mircea Eliade. Oxford, 2010, pp. 261–284
2. Fjevr A. 500 let gnosticizma v Rossii (500 years of Gnosticism in Russia). Мoscow, 1994, pp. 7–13.
3. Hanegraaff W. J. Esotericism and the academy: Rejected knowledge and western culture. Cambridge, 2012.
4. Hanegraaff W. J. 2006. Esoterica. Dictionary of gnosis and western esotericism, pp. 336–340.
5. Hanegraaff W. J. (ed.). Hermes in the academy: Ten years’ study of western esotericism at the university of Amsterdam. Amsterdam, 2009.
6. Hangraaf V. Ja. 2013. Zapadnyj jezoterizm: Sledujushhee pokolenie (Western Esoteric: Next Generation). Aliter, vol. 1, pp. 7–23.
7. Newman W., Principe L. Alchemy Tried in the Fire. Chicago, 2003.
8. Nosachev P. G. 2011. Jezoterika: Osnovnye momenty istorii termina (Esotericism: Main Fragments of the History of the Term). Bulletin of St Tikhon’s University I, vol. 2 (34), pp. 49–60.
9. Nosachev P. G. 2013. Issledovanija zapadnogo jezoterizma i religiovedenie: Evropejskij opyt (The Study of the Western Esotericism and Religious Studies: European Experience). Religiovedcheskie issledovanij a, vol. 7–8, pp. 87–100.
10. Nosachev P. G. 2013. Vozmozhen li konfessional'nyj podhod v issledovanii zapadnogo jezoterizma? (Is the Confessional Approach in Western esoteric Research Possible?). Aliter, vol. 2, pp. 3–15.
11. Nosachev P. G. 2012. Recenzija na knigu V. N. Nazarova «Vvedenie v jezoteriku» (Review of the Book: «Introduction into the Esoteric» by V. Nazarov). Aliter, vol. 1, pp. 144–150.
12. Stukrad fon K. Geschichte der Astrologie: von den Anfangen bis zur Gegenwart. Munchen, 2003.
13. Zhdanov V. 2009. Izuchenie jezoteriki v Zapadnoj Evrope: Instituty, koncepcii i metodiki (The Study of the Esotericism in Western Europe: Institutes, Conceptions and Methods). Pahomov S. V. (ed.). Mistiko-jezotericheskie dvizhenija v teorii i praktike. Istorija. Psihologija. Filosofija (Mystical-esoterical movement in theory and practice. History. Psychology. Philosophy). Saint-Petersburg, pp. 5–27.

Nosachev Pavel