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

Pallady Rogovsky was the first Russian doctor of theology and philosophy. While a student of the Slavyano-Greek-Latin Academy directed by the Brothers Lichudes, he left his homeland for the West in order to obtain a full university education. The years which he spent in Europe and particularly in Italy have attracted little notice on the part of Church historians. The study of unpublished materials in Italian archives together with those already published by the Russian researcher E. Shmurlo from the archive of the Propaganda de Fide and the Greek College, which however, remain unnoticed for the great majority of academics, permit us to have an idea of what occupied Rogovsky during this time, as well as to draw a more precise portrait of his personality. Most remarkable is the fact of his priestly ordination in the Roman Catholic Church and the correspondence relating to Rome’s acceptance of his Russian Orthodox diaconal ordination. One of the most informative documents found among those relating to his ordination and addressed to the Roman Curia is the letter of a Russian Catholic, the deacon (later defrocked) Petr Artem’ev, in which Artem’ev revealed that Rogovsky already had converted to Roman Catholicism before he left Russia. Equally noteworthy is Rogovsky’s own letter which he composed while in Venice and in which he formulated his plans for the propagation of Roman Catholicism in Russia

Pallady Rogovsky, Slavyano-Greek-Latin Academy, Rome, Venice, College of Saint Athanasius, Petr Artem’ev, Meletios Tipaldos, Uniatism, Jesuit seminaries

1. Rodotà P. Dell’origine, progresso e stato presente del rito greco in Italia, Rome, 1758.
2. Βελούδης Ι. Ελλήνων ορθοδόξων αποικία εν Βενετία (Colonies of Orthodox Greeks in Venice), Venice, 1893.
3. Καραθανάση А. Η Βενετία των Ελλήνων, Κυριακίδη (Venice of Greeks),Thessalonike, 2010.
4. Καραθανάση А. Η Φλαγγίνειος Σχολή της Βενετίας (Flanginian School in Venice),Thessalonike, 1987.
5. Τσιρπανλής Ζ. Το ελληνικό κολλέγιο της Ρώμης και οι μαθήτες του (1576–1700) (Greek College in Rome and Its Disciples (1576–1700)),Thessalonike, 1980.
6. Τσιτσέλης Η. “Τυπάλδος (Τζαννάτος) Μελέτιος” (Meletius Tipaldos) in: Κεφαλληνιακά, σύμμικτα, Athens, 1904, vol. 1.
7. Bushljakova V. A. 2002 “Avtograf Palladija Rogovskogo v fondah Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo ob’edinennogo muzeja” (Pallady Rogovsky’s Autograph in Funds of Tver State Associated Museum) in: Dni slavjanskoj pis'mennosti i kul'tury. Sbornik dokladov i soobshhenij, Tver, 2002, vol. 6, pp. 54–57
8. Novikov N. I. (ed.) Drevnjaja Rossijskaja Vivliofika (Old Russian Library). Moscow, 1791, vol. 18.
9. Nadezhdin N. I. 1840 “Palladij Rogovskij, pervyj russkij doctor” (Pallady Rogovsky, First Russian Doctor) in: Syn Otechestva, Saint-Petersbourg, 1840, vol. 4, pp. 598–621.
10. Nazarko I., svjashh. Kiivs'ki i Galic'ki mitropoliti (Metropolitans of Kiev and Halych), Rome, 1962.
11. Nikol'skij M. 1862 “Grigorij Skibinskij. Ocherk iz istorii duhovnogo prosveshhenija v konce XVII v.” (Grigory Skibinsky. An Essay from History of Spiritual Education in the End of XVII Cent.) in: Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, 1862, vol. 11, pp. 167–178
12. Nikol'skij M. 1863 “Russkie vyhodcy iz zagranichnyh shkol v XVII stol. Palladij Rogovskij” (Russian Expatriates from Foreign Schools in XVII Cent.: Pallady Rogovsky) in: Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, 1863, vol. 10, pp. 162–172.
13. Pis'ma i donesenija iezuitov o Rossii konca XVII i nachala XVIII v. (Letters and Reports of Jesuits about Russia of the End of XVII and Beginning of XVIII Cent.), Saint-Petersbourg, 1904.
14. Polikarpov F. 1791 “Istoricheskoe izvestie o Moskovskoj Akademii” (Historical Report about Moscow Academy) in: Drevnjaja Rossijskaja Vivliofika, Moscow, 1791, vol. 16, pp. 302.
15. Smelovskij A. 1845 “Brat'ja Lihudy i napravlenie teorii slovesnosti v ih shkole” () in: Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveshhenija, 1845, vol. 45, no. 5.
16. Smirnov S. K. Istorija Moskovskoj Slavjano-greko-latinskoj akademii (History of Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy), Moscow, 1855.
17. Solov'ev S. M. Istorija Rossii s drevnejshih vremen (Rusian History from the Oldest Times), Moscow, 1991, vol. 14.
18. Ustrjalov N. G. Istorija carstvovanija Petra Velikogo (History of Reign of Peter the Great), Saint-Petersbourg, 1858, vol. 3.
19. Shmurlo E. F. Poezdka B. P. Sheremeteva v Rim i na ostrov Mal'tu (Rise of B. Sheremetyev to Rome and Malt). Prague, 1929.
20. Shmurlo E. F. Rossija i Italija. Sbornik istoricheskih materialov i issledovanija, kasajushhihsja snoshenij Rossii s Italiej (Russia and Italy. Collection of Historical Materials and Studies concerning of Their Relations), London, 1927, vol. 4.
21. Shmurlo E. F. 1933 “Russkie katoliki konca XVII v. po dannym arhivov Propagandy I Kollegii sv. Afanasija” (Russian Catholics of the End of XVII Cent. According to Archives of Propaganda and Collegium of St Athanasius) in: Zapiski Russkogo nauchnogo instituta v Belgrade, Belgrad, 1933, vol. 3, pp. 1–29
22. Shmurlo E. F. P. V. Postnikov. Neskol'ko dannyh dlja ego biografii (), Juryev, 1894.
23. Jastrebov A. O., svjashh. Svjatyni Venecii. Pravoslavnyj istoriko-hudozhestvennyj putevoditel' po bazilike San-Marko i cerkvjam goroda (Sacred Places of Venice. Orthodox Historical-Artistic Guide through Basilica Sab-Marco and Churches of City), Paduja, 2013.

Iastrebov Aleksei, archpriest

The author discusses the nineteenth century Russian Orthodox Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) and his views on social and technical progress. Sources of this include: Nikanor’s sermon for the New Year of 1860, his sermon at the blessing of the train station at Odessa in 1884, and a few selected pages of the second volume of Nikanor’s tractate Positivistic Philosophy and Super-physical Reality (1876). In addition, a draft of Nikanor’s Odessa sermon exists and is found in the archbishop’s personal archive. Two sections of the draft are of essential significance and were later excluded by the author from the final version of his sermon. The author demonstrates how Nikanor, a representative of the world of the ecclesiastical academies attempted to respond to the challenge of progress, discover in it some sort of meaning and reveal its negative aspects. Nikanor worked from a specific gnoseological standpoint, at the root of which is the distinction between mind and intellect, between idea and understanding. According to Nikanor, the need for utilitarian progress is justified by rationalistic preconceptions, especially those of a pantheistic-idealistic and a materialistic nature. The author describes how Nikanor formulated his critique of progress and the railway. He mentions also several of Nikanor’s personal motives which determined his aversion to rapid transport. Nikonor was not alone in his rejection of progress. Contemporaries who shared his disposition included leading thinkers of the nineteenth century: N. V. Gogol’, P. I. Shalfeev, I. V. Kireevsky, K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, and K. N. Leont’ev. The author concludes that the sermons of Archbishop Nikonor are worthy of further study by students of Russian philoso

Archbishop Nikonor (Brovkovich), critique of progress, railways, Positivistic Philosophy and Super-physical Reality, archival fund of Archbishop Nikonor (Brovkovich)

1. A. N. [Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep.]. “K pervomu dnju novogo goda” (For the First Day of the New Year) in: Pravoslavnyj sobesednik, 1870, vol. 1, pp. 66–79.
2. Abramov A. I. 1997 “Filosofija v duhovnyh akademijah (tradicii platonizma v russkom duhovno-akademicheskom filosofstvovanii)” (Philosophy in Theological Academies (Traditions of Platonism in Russian Theological-Academical Thought)) in: Voprosy filosofii, 1997, vol. 9, pp. 138–155.
3. Aksakov I. S. Otchego tak nelegko zhivetsja v Rossii (Why it is so Hard to Live in Russia), Moscow, 2002.
4. Aksakov K. S. Gosudarstvo i narod (State and People), Moscow, 2009.
5. Borisova S. G. Filosofsko-religioznoe uchenie arh. Nikanora (A. I. Brovkovicha) (opyt sistemnoj rekonstrukcii i interpretacii) (Philosophical-Religious Teaching of Archimandrite Nicanor (A. Brovcovich): Experience of Systematic Reconstruction and Interpretation), Moscow, 2002.
6. Voroncov A. A., prot. Metafizika preosvjashhennejshego Nikanora, Arhiepiskopa Hersonskogo i Odesskogo (Metaphysics of Reverent Nicanor Archpriest of Chersonese and Odessa), Kazan, 1900.
7. Gavrjushin N. K. 2011 “«Menja oficial'no provozglasili nepravoslavnym»: arhiepiskop Nikanor (Brovkovich)” (“I was officially called non-Orthodox”: Archpriest Nicanor (A. Brovcovich)) in: Russkoe bogoslovie: Ocherki i portrety, N. Novgorod, 2011, pp. 251–283.
8. Gogol' N. V. Nuzhno ljubit' Rossiju (It is necessary to love Russia), Moscow, 2008.
9. Gun'kin I. V. Ontologija v russkom duhovno-akademicheskom teizme XIX veka (Ontology in XIX c. Russian Theological-Academic Teism), Ussuriysk, 2006.
10. Dmitriev A. P. 2000 “Portret v cerkovnoj propovedi kak literaturno-kriticheskij zhanr (O «pouchenijah» arhiep. Nikanora)” (Portrait in the Church Preach as Literary-Critical Genre (On Archpr. Nicanor’s Sermons)) in: Perhin V. V. (ed.) Russkij literaturnyj portret i recenzija. Koncepcija i pojetika, Saint-Petersbourg, 2000, pp. 5–16;
11. Zamaraev G. I. 1995 “Pamjati K. N. Leont'eva” (In K. Leontyev’s Memory) in: A. A. Korol'kov, A. P. Kozyrev (eds.) K. N. Leont'ev: pro et contra. Kn. 1, Saint-Petersbourg, 1995, pp. 200–207.
12. Zen'kovskij V. V., prot. Istorija russkoj filosofii (History of Russian Philosophy). Moscow, 2001.
13. Zefirov E. A. 1893 “Moi vospominanija o preosvjashhennom Nikanore za vremja ego prebyvanija na Ufimskoj kafedre (1877–1884 gody)” (My Remembrances about Reverent Nicanor during His Stay on Ufa See) in: Strannik, 1893, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 450-467; vol. 3, no 9, pp. 112-138; no. 10, pp. 304-320; no. 11, pp. 507-524; no. 12, pp. 717-725.
14. Karaseva S. G. 2011 “Religioznaja metafizika arhiep. Nikanora (Brovkovicha): istoriko-kul'turnye predposylki i osnovnoe soderzhanie” (Religious Metaphysics of Archpr. Nicanor (Brovkovich): Historical-Cultural Premises and Main Content) in: Kutuzova N. A., Lazarevich A. A., Shmidt V. V. (ed.) Voprosy religii i religiovedenija (), Moscow, 2011, vol. 7, pp. 476–485.
15. Karaseva S. G. Religiozno-metafizicheskie osnovanija mirovozzrenija A. I. Brovkovicha (arhiepiskopa Nikanora) (Religious-Metaphysical Grounds of A. Brovkovich’s Ideology), Minsk, 2000.
16. Karaseva S. G. 2001 “Teisticheskaja metafizika arhiep. Nikanora (A. I. Brovkovicha)” (Archpr. Nicanor (Brovkovich)’s Theistic Metaphysics) in: VI Mezhdunarodnye Kirillo-Mefodievskie chtenija (Minsk, 25–26 ijunja 2000 g.): Materialy Chtenij, Minsk, 2001, vol. 1/2, pp. 102–106.
17. Kireevskij I. V. Razum na puti k Istine (Mind on the Road to Truth), Moscow, 2002.
18. Kolubovskij Ja. N. 1891 “Materialy dlja istorii filosofii v Rossii” (Materials for the History of Philosophy in Russia) in: Voprosy filosofii i psihologii, 1891, no. 4, pp.1-32.
19. Leont'ev K. N. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij: V 12 t (Completed Works in 12 Volumes), Saint-Petersbourg, 2007, vol. 8.
20. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep. 1870 “K pervomu dnju novogo goda (Pouchenie na novyj (1860) god. Hristianstvo i progress)” (To the First Day of the Year (Sermon on New 1860 Year. Christianity and Progress)) in: Pravoslavnyj Sobesednik, 1870, vol. 1, pp. 66–79.
21. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep. 1906 “Moj ot’ezd iz Novocherkasska v Ufu. 1877 god” (My Depart from Novocherkassk in 1877) in: Russkij arhiv, 1906, vol. 2, pp. 117–144.
22. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep. Pozitivnaja filosofija i sverhchuvstvennoe bytie (Positive Phylosophy and Pretersensual Being), Saint-Petersbourg, 1876, vol. 2.
23. Nikol'skij A. A. 1901 “Filosofskie vozzrenija Nikanora (Brovkovicha), arhiepiskopa Hersonskogo” (Nicanor (Brovkovich), Archpriest of Chersonese’s Philosophical Views) in: Vera i razum, 1901, vol. 16, 17, 19, 20. S. 105-131.
24. 1915 “Perepiska K. P. Pobedonosceva s Nikanorom, arhiepiskopom Hersonskim” (Correspondence of K. Pobedonostsev and Nicanor, Archpriest of Chersonese) in: Russkij arhiv, 1915, vol. 2, pp. 297-332.
25. Pishun S. V. 2000 “Jejdosnaja tipologizacija bytija arh. Nikanorom (opyt rekonstrukcii)” (Eidos Typologization Being of Archpr. Nicanor (Experience of Reconstruction)) in: Hristianstvo na Dal'nem Vostoke, Vladivostok, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 29-30.
26. Pol' V. A. Filosofskij teizm v Kazanskoj Duhovnoj Akademii (opyt sistemnoj rekonstrukcii i interpretacii) (Philosophical Theism in Kasan Theological Academy (Experience of Systematic Reconstruction and Interpretation)), Ussuriysk, 2007.
27. 1884 “Pouchenie pri osvjashhenii novyh zdanij vokzala zheleznoj dorogi v Odesse, skazannoe preosvjashhennym Nikanorom, episkopom Hersonskim i Odesskim” (Sermon on Consecration of Buildings of Rail Station in Odessa, said by Reverent Nicanor, bishop of Chersonese and Odessa) in: Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, 1884, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 342–343.
28. Solov'ev A. P. 2012 “Ocenka filosofskih idej arhiep. Nikanora (Brovkovicha) v istoriko-filosofskih issledovanijah k XIX–XX vv.” (Assessment of Archpr. Nicanor (Brovkovich) Philosophical Ideas in Historical-Philosophical Studies in XIX-XX c.) in: Frolov I. V. (ed.) Metodologicheskij seminar Bashkirskoj akademii gosudarstvennoj sluzhby i upravlenija pri Prezidente RB: Sbornik materialov, Ufa, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 37–57.
29. Solov'ev V. S. Izbrannoe (Selected Works), Moscow, 1990.
30. Solov'ev A. P. 2012 “«Sinteticheskaja filosofija» arhiepiskopa Nikanora (Brovkovicha) — opyt ontologicheskoj gnoseologii XIX v.” (“Synthetic Philosophy” of Archpr. Nicanor (Brovkovich) – Experience of XX c. Ontological Gnosiology) in: Voprosy filosofii, 2012, vol. 10, pp. 129–139.
31. Solov'ev A. P. 2012 “Arhiepiskop Nikanor (Brovkovich) i K. N. Leont'ev: kongenial'nost' mysli i duha” (Archpriest Nicanor (Brovkovich) and K. Leontyev: Congeniality of Thought and Spirit) in: Hristianstvo i russkaja literature, Saint-Petersbourg, 2012, vol. 7, pp. 185–224.
32. Solov'ev A. P. 2012 “Social'no-filosofskaja problematika v trudah pravoslavnyh myslitelej ufimskogo kraja kon. XIX — nach. XX v.” (Social-Philosophical Problematics in Works of Orthodox Thinkers of Ufa Region from the End of XIX c. till Beginning of XX c.) in: Social'naja politika i sociologija, 2010, vol 8, pp. 192–197.
33. Stepanova S. G. 2000 “Kategorii ≪ponjatie≫ i ≪ideja≫ v gnoseologicheskoj koncepcii arh. Nikanora (A. I. Brovkovicha)” (Categories “Conception” and “Idea” in Gnosiological Conception of Archpr. Nicanor (Brovkovich)) in: Filosofskoe obrazovanie na Dal'nem Vostoke: istorija, teorija, praktika, Vladivostok, 2000.
34. Stepanova S. G. 2000 “Chuvstva v gnoseologicheskoj koncepcii arh. Nikanora (Brovkovicha)” (Feelings in Gnosiological Conception of Archpriest Nicanor (Brovkovich)) in: Problemy slavjanskoj kul'tury i civilizacii, Ussuriysk, 2000, vol. 2.
35. Habibullin R. K., prot. 1995 “Korifej propovedi” (Coryphaeus of Sermon) in: Ufimskie eparhial'nye vedomosti, 1995, vol. 1–4, pp. 5–6.
36. Jakovenko B. V. Istorija russkoj filosofii (History of Russian Philosphy), Moscow, 2003.

Solov'ev Artem

Indian culture, like other polytheistic religions and philosophies, does not exclude a certain acceptance of a relative theism, which naturally differs from the absolute type of Christian theism or from monotheism. Indian philosophy seems to use the notion Ishvara for the concept of a personal deity and the teaching about this deity or Indian theism is known as Ishvara - vada. The proofs for the existence of God in the Indian philosophical tradition according to the rules of logical argumentation (Ishvaranumana) are best studied in the traditional Hindu darshana nyaes and in the vaysheshika (nyaya-vaysheshika). These contain the proofs for the essential attributes of Ishvara (the source of the movement of the universe, of the rationality and the purpose of the world) together with his personal attributes (the benevolent Guardian and Guide of all that lives). Usually, the work known as the Nyaya-kusmanjali written in the tenth century by Udayana are considered to contain the most complete formulation of the doctrine of Ishvaranumana. After refuting the arguments of the Indian anti-theists or Nirishvaravadins, Udayana proceeds to define the celebrated eight arguments for the existence of God: 1) as the active cause (karya); 2) as the originator of the bringing together of the atoms (ayojana); 3) as the conserver (dhrti) and the destroyer (samhara) of the world: 4) on the basis of words (padat); and 5) sentences (vacyat); 6) because of authority (pratyaya); 7) revelation (shruti); and 8) number, or the numerical structure of the universe (samkhya). Certain proofs (1, 2, 3 and 8) are cosmological in character; others (4, 5, 6 and 7) are ethical or pragmatic.

theism, Ishvara, nirishvada-vada, nyaya, vaysheshika, Ishvaranumana

1. Bronkhorst J. 1996 “God’s Arrival in the Vaişeşika System” in: Journal of Indian Philosophy, 1996, vol. 24, pp. 281–294.
2. Bulcke C. The Theism of Nyaya-vaisesika, its Origin & Early Development, Delhi, 1968.
3. Carpenter J. E. Theism in Medieval India, New York, 1980.
4. Chemparathy G. 1968 “The Īśvara Doctrine of Praśastapāda” in: Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, 1968, vol. 6, pp. 65–87.
5. Cultural Heritage of India, London, 1958.
6. Dasgupta S. N. History of Indian Philosophy, Delhi, 1975.
7. [Gaņgeša]Tattvacintāmaņi. Delhi, 1974r.
8. Jacobi H. Die Entwicklung der Gottesidee bei den Indern, Berlin, 1923.
9. Langbauer D. Indian Theism and Process Philosophy in: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2357.
10. Macdonell A. A. India’s Past: A Survey of her Literature, Religions, Languages, and Antiquities, London, 1956.
11. Macnicol N. Hindus Theism: from the Vedic to the Muhammadan Period, Bombay, 1955.
12. Thakur A. (ed.) Nyāyā Bhāşyavārttika of Bhāradvāja Uddyotakara, N. Delhi, 1997.
13. Sinha B. (ed.) Nyayakusumanjali: Hindus Rational Enquiry into the Existing of God — Interpretative Exposition of Udayanachacharya’s Auto Commentary with translations of Karikas, N. Delhi, 1999.
14. Jha V. N. (trans.) Nyayamanjari of Jayantabhatta. Ahnika I, Patna; Satguru, 1995.
15. Sharma S. Theistic and non-theistic Hindus Philosophiers in: http://www.oocities.org/lamberdar/aastika_nastika.html.
16. The Nyāyakusumaņjali of Udayanāchācharya / N. S. Dravid, trans., ed. N. Delhi, 1996. Vol. 1
17. Dravid N. S. (ed.) Udayana Ātmatattvaviveka, Shimla, 1955.
18.Woods J. H. (ed.) [Vāchaspatimiçra. Tattva-Vaiçāradī] The Yoga System of Pataņjali, or… Yoga-Sūtras of Pataņjali and the Comment, Called Yoga-Bhāshya,.. and the Expanation, called Tattva-Vaiçāradī, of Vāchaspatimiçra, Delhi, 1992r.
19. Visvesvari A. Udayana and his Philosophy, Delhi, 1985.
20. Jelty J. S. (ed.) [Udayana. Kiranāvalī] Prabhāşyam Prašastsapādabhāshyam with the Commentary Kiranāvalī of Udayanāchācharya, Baroda. 1971.
21. Raviraj G., Šastri D. (eds.) Vyomavatī, Benares, 1924–1931.
22. Anikeeva E. N. Osnovy indijskoj religioznosti: dialektika lichnogo — bezlichnogo (Foundation of Indian Religiosity: Dialectics of Personal / Impersonal), Moscow, 2010.
23. Anikeeva E. N. Problemy indijskogo teizma: filosofsko-komparativnyj analiz (Problems of Indian Theism: Philosophical-Comparative Analysis), Moscow, 2013.
24. Kupreeva I. V. (ed.) Ansel'm Kenterberijskij. Sochinenija (Anselm of Canterbury. Writings), Moscow, 1995.
25. Semencov V. S. (ed.) Bhagavadgita, Moscow, 1992.
26. Kanaeva N. A. 2009 “Nav'ja-n'jaja” (Navya-Nyāya) in: Indijskaja filosofija: Jenciklopedija, Moscow, 2009, pp. 544–545.
27. Kochergina V. A. Sanskritsko-russkij slovar' (Sanskrit-Russian Dictionary), Moscow, 1978.
28. Shohin V. K. (ed.) N'jaja-sutry. N'jaja-bhash'ja (Nyāya Sūtras. Nyāya Bhagya), Moscow, 2001.
29. Lysenko V. G. (ed.) Prashastapada. «Sobranie harakteristik kategorij» («Padartha-dharma-sangraha») s kommentariem «Cvetushhee derevo metoda» («N'jaja-kandali») Shridhary (Prashastapada. “Collection of Properties of Matter” with Commentary “Kanada”), Moscow, 2005.
30. Radhakrishnan S. Indijskaja filosofija (Indian Philosophy), Moscow, 1956.
31. Syrkin A. Ja. (ed.) Upanishady: V 3 kn. (Upanishads: in 3 Volumes), Moscow, 2000.
32. Shohin V. K. 2008 “Teisticheskaja doktrina Shridhary. Shridhara. N'jajakandali” (Theistic Doctrine of Shridhara. Shridhara. Nyāya Kanada) in: Vestnik RUDN. Serija «Filosofija», 2008, vol. 3, pp. 72–83.
33. Shohin V. K. 2009 “Udajana” (Udayana) in: Indijskaja filosofija: Jenciklopedija, Moscow, 2009, pp. 807–810.
34. Shohin V. K. 2013 “Filosofskij teizm Uddjotakary. Uddjotakara. N'jaja-vartika IV. 1. 19–21” (Philosophical Theism of Uddyotakara. Uddyotakara. Nyāya vārṭika) in: Filosofija religii. Al'manah. 2012–2013, Moscow, 2013, pp. 290–332.

Anikeeva Elena

The author attempts to reconstruct the context surrounding the projects for a reformed epistemology and an affi rmation of the Christian faith by Alvin Plantinga. An analysis of Plantinga’s epistemological presuppositions reveals how they are intertwined. The basic problem surrounding the dispute between fundamentalists and anti-fundamentalists concerning the nature of knowledge constituted the background against which the theistic philosophy of Plantinga began to take form. Examining this dispute, the author of this article attempts to define the position of the philosophers in question and to clarify the differences in terminology which are found in the appropriate literature. The relationship between evidentialism and reliabilism on the one hand and internalism and externalism on the other is noted. The author distinguishes between an early (weak) and later (strong) type of reformed epistemology. In the former type, Plantinga was concerned with refuting the classical version of epistemological fundamentalism; in the latter, he concentrated his attention on constructing a philosophical scheme which could grant to the basic teachings of theism an epistemological foundation. The author discusses and analyses the main objections to Plantinga. These objections are of two kinds: theological and philosophical. The philosophical objections are aimed at the epistemological presuppositions suggested by Plantinga. The author concludes that, in spite of the value and longevity of Plantiga’s arguments, the solutions to the questions which he raised are dependent on contemporary discussions of analytical epistemology.

Alvin Plantinga, reformed epistemology, affi rmation, affi rmation of Christian faith, fundamentalism. anti-fundamentalism, basic dogmas, model of Aquinas/ Calvin, objection de jure, objection de facto, Great Pumpkin Objection

1. Basinger D. 1991 “Plantinga, Pluralism, and Justified Religious Belief” in: Faith and Philosophy, 1991, vol. 8, pp. 67–80.
2. DeRose K. Voodoo Epistemology in: Ресурс: http:in:pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/voodoo.htm
3. Fales E. 2003 “Critical Notice of Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga” in: Nous, 2003, vol. 37, pp. 419-432.
4. Fales E. 2001 “Reformed Epistemology and Biblical Hermeneutics” in: Philo, 2001, pp. 169–184;
5. Grigg R. 1990 “The Crucial Disanalogies Between Properly Basic Belief and Belief in God” in: Religious Studies, 1990, vol. 26, pp. 389–401.
6. Helm P. 2001 “Review of Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga” in: Mind, 2001, vol. 110, vol. 440, pp. 1110–1111.
7. Clark K. J. (ed.) Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journey of 11 Leading Thinkers, Downers Grove (Ill.), 1993.
8. Jeffreys D. S. 1997 “How Reformed is Reformed epistemology? Alvin Plantinga and Calvin’s «Sensus Divinitatis»” in: Religious Studies, 1997, vol. 33, pp. 419–432.
9. Le Morvan P., Radcliffe D. 2003 “Plantinga on Warranted Christian Belief” in: The Heythrop Journal, 2003, vol. 44, pp. 345-351.
10. LeBlanc J. Aquinas and Plantinga, 2000.
11. Macintosh J. J. Locke, Plantinga, and the A/C model, 2000.
12. 1980 “Modernizing the Case for God” in: Time, 5 April, 1980.
13. Flew A., MacIntyre A. (eds.) New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, 1955.
14. Plantinga A. 1984 “Advice to Christian Philosophers” in: Faith and Philosophy, 1984, vol. 1, pp. 253–271.
15. Plantinga A. Does God Have a Nature? Wisconsin, 1980.
16. Plantinga A. 1983 “Reason and Belief in God” in: Plantinga A., Wolterstorff N. (eds.) Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, Notre Dame, 1983.
17. Silver D. 2001 “Religious experience and the facts of religious pluralism” in: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2001, vol. 49, pp. 1-17.
18. Strawson P. Individuals. An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, London, 1959.
19. Swinburne R. 2001 “Plantinga on Warrant” in: Religious Studies, 2001, vol. 37, pp. 203-214.
20. Tilley T. W. 1990 “Reformed Epistemology and Religious Fundamentalism: How Basic are our Basic Beliefs?” in: Modern Theology, 1990, vol. 6, pp. 237–238.
21. Willard J. 2003 “Plantinga’s Epistemology of Religious Belief and the Problem of Religious Diversity” in: The Heythrop Journal, 2003, vol 44, pp. 59-74.
22. Sennet Dzh. F., Karpov K. V. (ed.) Analiticheskij teist: antologija Alvina Plantingi (Analytical Theist: Plantinga’s Anthology), Moscow, 2014.
23. Borodin F. Ju. 2001 “«Reformistskaja jepistemologija» v istorii analiticheskoj filosofii religii” (“Reformist Epistemology” in History of Analytical Philosophy of Religion) in: Universitas: Nauka v kontekste sovremennoj kul'tury. Mezhdisciplinarnyj sbornik nauchnyh trudov molodyh uchenyh SPbGU, Saint-Petersbourg, 2001, pp. 13–24.
24. Gorbatova Ju. V. 2010 “Alvin Plantinga i Foma Akvinskij o prostote i bolee slozhnyh svojstvah Boga” (A. Plantinga and Thomas Aquinas on Simplicity and More Complicated God’s Property) in: Filosofija. Jazyk. Kul'tura. Materialy nauchnoj konferencii aspirantov i molodyh uchenyh, Moscow, 2010, pp. 40–52.
25. Gorbatova Ju. V. 2011 “Alvin Plantinga o kosmologicheskom dokazatel'stve bytija Boga svjatogo Fomy Akvinskogo. Kriticheskij obzor nekotoryh aspektov” (A. Plantinga on Cosmological Argument for Existence of God by Thomas Aquinas) in: Voprosy filosofii, 2011, vol. 1, pp. 150–159.
26. Gorbatova Ju. V. 2011 “Ob otozhdestvlenii ob’ektov cherez vozmozhnye miry v koncepcii Alvina Plantingi” (On Identification of Objects through Possible Worlds in A. Plantinga’s Conception) in: Imenovanie, neobhodimost' i sovremennaja filosofija, Moscow, 2011, pp. 241–253.
27. Gorbatova Ju. V. 2012 “Plantinga i ego modal'naja versija ontologicheskogo dokazatel'stva” (A. Plantinga and His Modal Version of Ontological Proof) in: Istorija filosofii, 2012, vol. 17, pp. 243–261.
28. Kezin A. V. (trans.) 1993 “Karnap R. Preodolenie metafiziki logicheskim analizom jazyka” (R. Carnap. The Elimination of Metaphysics through Logical Analysis of Language) in: Vestnik MGU. Ser. 7 «Filosofija», 1993, vol. 6, pp. 11-26.
29. Plantinga A. Bog, svoboda i zlo (God, Freedom and Evil), Novosibirsk, 1993.
30. Plantinga A. 1994 “Metodologicheskij naturalizm?” (Methodological Naturalism?) in: Kimelev Ju. A. (trans.) Problemy hristianskoj filosofii: Materialy pervoj konferencii Obshhestva hristianskih filosofov, Moscow, 1994, pp. 75–124.
31. Tolstoj A. B. (trans.) 2010 “Plantinga A. Reformatskoe vozrazhenie protiv estestvennoj teologii” (Plantinga A. The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology) in: Filosofija religii: Al'manah. 2008–2009, Moscow, 2010, pp. 210–227.

Karpov Kirill

The author examines the work of the celebrated German religious researcher Friedrich Heiler in relation to the problematic surrounding the psychology of religion. Heiler himself subtitled his first classic work, Prayer , with the words a study of religious-history and of religious-psychology . This presumably meant that he considered himself a student of the psychology of religion. The author contrasts Heiler’s ideas on this subject with those put forward by his contemporaries, all of whom studied the psychology of religion: William James, Evelyn Underhill, and Sigmund Freud. The author’s analysis reveals that Heiler was very familiar with the studies produced by several early students of the psychology of religion: Leub, Starbuck, and Sabbate. He often employs them to glean examples for his own research but does not take any of them seriously. James’ division of religious believers into the twice-born and the once-born has similarities with Heiler’s own types of mystic and prophetic religiosity. There are also many similarities between the theory of mystical ascension proposed by Evelyn Underhill and the examples of religious mysticism proposed by Heiler. While analyzing the phenomenon of matrimonial mysticism, Heiler often refers to elements of Freud’s psychoanalysis, thinking it adequate to explain certain erotic elements inherent in religious reflection, but at the same time, unable to explain the religious phenomenon on the whole.

Friedrich Heiler, William James, Evelyn Underhill, Sigmund Freud, the phenomenology of religion, the psychology of religion, religious experience

1. Dupré L. 2005 “Mysticism” in: Encyclopedia of religion, Thompson Gale, 20052. vol. 9, pp. 6340–6354.
2. Heiler F. Das Gebet: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung, München, 19213.
3. Heiler F. 1954 “Der Gottesbegriff der Mystik” in: Numen: International review for the history of religions, 1954, vol. 1, pp. 161–183.
4. Heiler F. Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion, Stuttgart, 1961.
5. Pfister O. Bankrott eines «Apostels»: eine vorläufige Schlußabrechnung mit dem Ex-Sadhu Sundar Singh und Prof. Dr. Friedrich Heiler,Görlitz, 1928.
6. Anderhill Je. Misticizm: Opyt issledovanija prirody i zakonov razvitija duhovnogo soznanija chelovechestva in: http://psylib.org.ua/books/andev01/txt08.htm.
7. Dzhejms U. Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta (The Varieties of Religious Experience), Moscow, 1993.
8. Meshherjakov B. G., Zinchenko V. P. Bol'shoj psihologicheskij slovar' (Big Psychological Dictionary), Moscow, 2002.
9. Samygin S. I., Nechipurenko V. N., Polonskaja I. N. Religiovedenie: sociologija i psihologija religii (Religious Studies: Sociology and Psychology of Religion), Rostov, 1996.
10. Tereza Avil'skaja. Vnutrennij zamok (Teresa of Ávila The Interior Castle), Moscow, 1992.
11. Flurnua T. 2008 “Principy religioznoj psihologii” (Principles of Religious Psychology) in: Religo: Al'manah Moskovskogo religiovedcheskogo obshhestva, Moscow, 2008, vol. 1/1, pp. 203–222.

Samarina Tat'iana

The author discusses how linguistics influenced the formation of the methodology and the theory of religious studies. Changes in religious paradigms were connected with the following new theories in linguistics: comparative methodology, structuralism, and cognitive linguistics. It was these three branches of linguistic studies which were most influential for the formation and later development of religious studies. The author asks precisely why it was that linguistics constituted the source of global changes in the methodology of religious studies. According to the author, this fundamental role was played by the understanding of language and its rapport with religion. By examining both language and religion together, one may study religious phenomena through the prism of linguistic phenomena. Models for combining religion and language include the following: 1) religion as a linguistic phenomenon; 2) religion as the product of linguistic processes; 3) religion and language are homologous phenomena; 4) religion is formed by means of linguistic instruments. All this allows us to understand the history of religious studies in rapport with the development of linguistics. The author demonstrates that the problem of the rapport linking language and thought helped constitute the tie between linguistics and religious studies. It unifies in itself all the various linguistic theories of religion: nature-mythological, structuralist, and cognitive. The author then discusses the various attainments of each of these theories. Comparative-historical linguistics begets the comparative and nature-mythological theory in religious studies. Structural linguistics and semiotics explains the symbolic nature of religion and its communicative character. The appearance of extra-linguistic science will allow religious studies to defi ne new subjects of study, such as the link uniting religion language and the religious group (ethno-linguistics and socio-linguistics) or to reveal the variables of religious experience (psycho-linguistics).

linguistics, comparative methodology, M. Müller, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Vyacheslav Ivanov, stucturalism, semiotics, cognitive studies, mythology

1. Ayer A. The Problem of Knowledge. L., 1956.
2. Barrett J. L. Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It? // Religion Compass. 2007. Vol. 1. № 6. Р. 768–787.
3. Barrett J. L. Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology: From Human Minds to Divine Minds. West Conshohocken (PA), 2011.
4. Boyer P. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. N. Y., 2001.
5. Kalmykova E. Dissolving Dualism. A Tripartite Model of Cognition for Religious Truth. Uppsala, 2011.
6. Muller F. M. Three Lectures on the Science of Language and its Place in the General Education delivered at the Oxford University Extension Meeting. Chicago, 1899.
7. Philips D. Z. Religion without Explanation. Oxford, 1977.
8. Plantinga A. The Warrant Christian Belief. N. Y., 2000.
9. Pyysiäinen I. How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion, Cognition and Culture. Leiden, 2001.
10. Usener H. Götternamen. Bonn, 1896.
11. Walterstorf N. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Refl ections on the Claim that God Speaks. Oxford, 1997.
12. Bajburin A. K. Ritual v tradicionnoj kul'ture: strukturno-semioticheskij analiz vostochnoslavjanskih obrjadov. SPb., 1993.
13. Gerder I. G. Idei k filosofii istorii. M., 1977.
14. Gumbol'dt V. O razlichii stroenija chelovecheskih jazykov i ego vlijanii na duhovnoe razvitie chelovechestva // Vil'gel'm fon Gumbol'dt. Izbrannye trudy po jazykoznaniju. M., 2000. S. 37–301.
15. Ivanov Vjach. Vs. Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kul'tury. M., 2009.
16. Lakoff Dzh. Zhenshhiny, ogon' i opasnye veshhi: chto kategorii jazyka govorjat nam o myshlenii. M., 2004.
17. Levi-Stross K. Strukturnaja antropologija. M., 1985.
18. Levi-Stross K. Totemizm segodnja // On zhe. Pervobytnoe myshlenie. M., 1999. S. 37–111.
19. Lich Je. Kul'tura i kommunikacija. Logika vzaimosvjazi simvolov. K ispol'zovaniju strukturnogo analiza v social'noj antropologii. M., 2001.
20. Mjuller F. M. Vvedenie v nauku o religii. Chetyre lekcii, prochitannye v Londonskom Korolevskom institute v fevrale–marte 1870 goda. M., 2002.
21. Potebnja A. A. Slovo i mif. M., 1989.
22. Samarina T. S. Metodologicheskie osnovy religiovedcheskogo issledovanija v koncepcii Fr. Hajlera // Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija. 2014. Vyp. 1 (45). S. 57–71.
23. Terner V. Simvol i ritual. M., 1983.
24. Tolstoj N. I. Jazyk i narodnaja kul'tura. Ocherki po slavjanskoj mifologii i jetnolingvistike. M., 1995.
25. Toporov V. N. Mif. Ritual. Simvol. Obraz: Issledovanija v oblasti mifopojeticheskogo: Izbrannoe. M., 1995.
26. Shahnovich M. M. Kognitivnaja nauka i issledovanija religii // Gosudarstvo, religija i cerkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom. 2013. № 3. S. 32–63.
27. Jeliade M. Nostal'gija po istokam. M., 2006.
28. Jablokov I. N. Religiovedenie: Ucheb. posobie. M., 2004.
29. Jazyki kak obraz mira. M.; SPb., 2003.
30. Jakobson R. O. Lingvistika i ee otnoshenie k drugim naukam // On zhe. Izbrannye raboty. M., 1985. S. 369–421.

Tselkovskii Gennadii

The author analyses the semiotic particularities in the formation and development of various levels of meaning of religious ritual. He suggests that various contexts, which reflect the specific design of various religious and cultural processes and give form to a unique semiotic space, affect the development of ritual. He interprets ritual as the union of word and action, which allows him to examine ritual discourse as a type of metalinguistic discourse. Genetically, ritual derives from an utterance in an ordinary language, which later (because of the specific paradigm germane to religious communication) takes on ritual form - and in that way special language of religious ritual originates. To explain the specifics of the ritual semiosis, the principles of the theory of the semiotic drift are used, which in this situation permits the author to explain in what way elements of the ritual complex may cause variations in the semiotic attributes of sign and symbol. The author examines various levels of the semiotic drift using the example of the ritualogeme of the veneration of icons in the High Church Lutheranism of the Scandinavian countries. The author examines the structural-semiotic meaning of religious ritual and analyses the mechanisms surrounding the formation of various levels of meaning in ritual communication. He also discusses the particularities of the transformation of meaning of religious rituals, which is made possible by the transposition of rituals (TR) from one cultural-religious context to another, an action which provides the semiotic interpretation of this process, a process which does not ignore the meaning of the elements of the religious ritual and their semiotic collaboration in the framework of the ritual complex. The author ends with an analysis of the symbolic levels of the ritual semiosis, defi ned by the characteristics particular to the space and time of the contemporary ritual action.

semiotics of religion, transposition of rituals, religious discourse, ritual complex, transformation of ritual, structure of ritual, semantics of ritual.

1. Abaev V. I. 1948 “Poniatie ideosemantiki” (Concept of ideo–semantics) in: Iazyk i myshlenie, vol. XI, pp. 13–18
2. Finucane R. C. Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England, New York, 1995.
3. Grigorenko A. Ju. 2012 “«Svoj – chuzhoj» v istorii religii” («Friend» or «Foe» in the History of Religion ) in: Izvestija Rossijskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A. I. Gercena, 2012, vol. 146, pp. 41–47.
4. Ruedas J. 2003 “Social Context and Creation of Meaning in Indigenous Amazonian Performances of Myth and Oral History” in: Journal of Ritual Studies, 2003, vol. 17 (2), pp. 35–71.
5. Joel B. Green. 2002 “Scripture and Theology” in: Interpretations, 2002, vol. 56, pp. 5–20.
6. Langer R., Luddeckens D., Radde K., Snoek J. 2006 “Transfer of Ritual” in: Journal of Ritual Studies, 2006, vol. 20 (1), pp. 1–10.
7. Lebedev V. Ju. 2004 “Semioticheskij drejf i problema modelirovanija semiozisa” (Semiotic drift and problem of modeling of semiosis) in: Ritorika i interpretacija (Rhetoric and interpretation), Tver, 2004, pp. 105–116.
8. Parsalaw, J. W. A History of the Lutheran Church Diocese in the Arusha Region. Arusha, 1999.
9. Pastoureau M. Une histoire symbolique du moyen âge occidental, Paris, 2004.
10. Prilutski A. M. 2009 “«Vysokocerkovnoe ljuteranstvo» na severo–zapade Rossii” (“High Church Lutheranism” in northwestern Russia) in: Materialy po issledovaniju religioznoj situacii na severo–zapade Rossii i v stranah Baltii, Saint-Petersburg, 2009, pp. 97–103.
11. Prilutski A. M. 2006 “Primenenie koeffitsienta konvergentsii pri reshenii zadachi klassifikatsii gumanitarnogo znaniia” (Application convergence factor in solving the problem of classification of the humanities) in: Sistemy upravleniia i informatsionnye tekhnologii, 2006, vol. 1(27), pp. 169–174.
12. Prilutski A. M. 2011 “Funktsional'no–semioticheskii analiz modifikatsii i transformatsii religioznogo ritual” (The functional and semiotic analysis of the modifications and transformations of religious ritual) in: Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A. S. Pushkina, 2011, vol. 4, pp. 57–65.
13. Ryan W. F. The Bathhouse at Midnight: An Historical Survey of Magic and Divination in Russia, University Park, 1999.
14. Schilbrack K. 2004 “Ritual Metaphysics” in: Journal of Ritual Studies, 2004, vol. 18.1, pp. 77–90.
15. Warner W. L. The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans, New Haven (Conn.), 1959.
16. Watts J. W. 2005 “Ritual legitimacy and Scriptural authority” in: Journal of Biblical Literature, 2005, vol. 2, pp. 401–417.

Prilutskii Aleksandr