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

St. Tikhon’s University Review I :83


Khondzinskii Pavel, archpriest

“In the language of Sophiology”: priest Sergiy Bulgakov’s criticism of St. Augustine’s Triadology

Khondzinskii Pavel (2019) "“In the language of Sophiology”: priest Sergiy Bulgakov’s criticism of St. Augustine’s Triadology ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 11-25 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201983.11-25
As is known, Revd. Sergiy Bulgakov understood his Sophiology not only as a specifi c doctrine of Sophia the Divine and the created, but as a sui generis key to all theological problems which in order to be solved need to be formulated in the “language of Sophiology”. Hence, it is necessary to understand in what way this language corresponds to the traditional languages of theology and whether its employment really leads to a really new level of theological reasoning and theological knowledge. This article deals with this problem with Priest Sergiy’s triadology as an example. The main statements of this triadology are formulated following the prius of the subject, who presents himself as I, you, he. In the created subject these are acts of cognition, whereas in the absolute Divine Subject they are represented as a threefold unity of the Divine Persons. Such presentation of the dogma is contrasted by Revd. Sergiy with the western tradition, which in his opinion since St. Augustine’s time has been following the prius of the substance and is ultimately refl ected in works of Thomas Aquinas. However, the analysis of Augustinian triadology demonstrates that the fragments of his texts mentioned by Revd. Sergius hardly allow a non-ambiguous interpretation: in Trinity the essence is primary with regard to the person; the property of being threefold is not deduced by St. Augustine from the relations (as is done by St. Thomas); St. Augustine’s psychological analogies imply not only the prius of the subject but also his property of being of three hypostases. Thus, Bulgakov’s meanings in actual fact appear to be much closer to the conception of the western theologian whom he is criticising than it would seem at fi rst look. The latter circumstance makes one analyse the language of Sophiology with the aim of identifying its internal parameters and raises the question of the possibility of reading at least some of Bulgakov’s theses while putting them out of the sophiological context which was so cherished by their author himself.
Revd. Sergiy Bulgakov, Sophiology, triadology, person (in theology), St. Augus tine, Russian theology
  1. Augustinus. De Trinitate, available at http://www.augustinus.it/latino/index.htm (22.05.2019).
  2. Bulgakov S. (1993) Sochineniia v 2 tomakh [Works in 2 vols.], vol. 1. Moscow.
  3. Bulgakov S., archpriest (2000) Agnets Bozhii [Divine Lamb]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Bulgakov S., archpriest (2001) Trudy o Troichnosti [Works on Trinitarianism]. Moscow.
  5. Bulgakov S., archpriest (2003) Uteshitel’ [Consoler]. Moscow.
  6. Bulgakov S., archpriest (2005) Nevesta Agntsa [Bride of the Divine Lamb]. Moscow.
  7. Drobner H. (1986) Person-Exegese und Christologie bei Augustinus. Leiden.
  8. Florenskii P., priest (2012) Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny [The Pillar and Ground of the Truth]. Moscow.
  9. Kany R. (2007) Augustins Trinitätsdenken. Bilanz, Kritik und Weiterführung der modernen Forschung zu “De Trinitate”. Tübingen.
  10. Khomiakov A. (1995) Sochineniia bogoslovskie [Works in Theology]. St Petersburg.
  11. Losev A. (2000) Istoriia antichnoi estetiki. Itogi tysiacheletnego razvitiia [History of Ancient Aesthetics. Results of Millenarian Development], Book 1. Moscow.

Khondzinskii Pavel, archpriest

Academic Degree: Doctor of Theology;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Dean of Faculty of Theology;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9805-045X;
Email: paulum@mail.ru.
Khramov Alexander

Theistic evolutionism and the problem of Theodicy

Khramov Alexander (2019) "Theistic evolutionism and the problem of Theodicy ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 26-44 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201983.26-44
This article analyses the approaches to the problem of theodicy which have been developed by proponents of the reconciliation of Christian worldview and evolutionism. Theistic evolutionists regard the evolution as a medium by which God created the world and, in contrast to traditional theology, cannot consider the Fall to be the primary cause of the universal evil. Therefore, in order to reconciliate the fact of the existence of evil and the concept of the omnipotent and loving God, they have recourse to the two alternative explanations. According to the fi rst, evolution was the only possible way of creating the world, and, consequently, evil, which accompanies it, is an unavoidable condition to achieve the good aim, such as the emergence of man and of other living creatures. According to the other explanation, which often complements the former, evil, which is intrinsic to the developing world, is necessary to prepare human souls to eternal life in the kingdom of God (the so-called Irenaean theodicy). This article shows that both these explanations are contradictory and combine badly with the idea of the eschatological recompense, to which theistic evolutionists also have recourse. Namely, if God were to recompense man and other living creatures for the suff ering they have experienced in the course of the evolution, why would He not have created the world in such a shape that it is going to acquire at the end of history. The article also looks at the alternative version of theodicy which is based on the idea about the pre-world Fall, due to which the original perfection of the world was distorted.
evolution, universal evil, Irenaean theodicy, eschatology, John Hick, Wolfhart Pannenberg, John Polkinghorne, Robert Russell
  1. Brown R. (1978) “The First Evil Will Must Be Incomprehensible: A Critique of Augustine”. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 46, pp. 315–329.
  2. Domning D., Hellwig M. (2006) Original Selfi shness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution. Burlington.
  3. Hick J. (2010) Evil and the God of Love. New York.
  4. Khramov A. (2019) “Predmirnoe grekhopadenie i evoliutsiia v russkoi i angliiskoi religioznoi mysli 1870–1920 gg.” [Pre-World Fall and Evolution in the Russian and English Religious Thought of the 1870‒1920s]. Solov’evskie issledovaniia, vol. 1 (61), pp. 181–194 (in Russian).
  5. Kir’ianov D. (2017) “Teoriia evoliutsii v pravoslavno-khristianskom religiozno-fi losofskom kontekste” [Theory of Evolution in the Orthodox-Christian Religious and Philosophical Context]. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i iuridicheskie nauki, kul’turologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, vol. 12 (86), pp. 109–113 (in Russian).
  6. Murray M. (2008) Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford.
  7. Murray M., Schloss J. (2013) “Evolution”, in С. Taliaferro, V. Harrison, S. Goetz (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Theism. New York, pp. 224–240.
  8. Pannenberg W. (2004) Systematic Theology. Vols. 2, 3. London.
  9. Pedersen D. (2016) “«Irenaean» or «Schleiermacherian»?: An Evolutionarily Plausible Account of the Origins of Sin”. Theology and Science, vol. 14, pp. 190–201.
  10. Plantinga A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford.
  11. Polkinghorne J. (2000) “Eschatology: Some Questions and Some Insights from Science”, in J. Polkinghorne, M. Welker (eds.). The End of the World and the Ends of God: Science and Theology on Eschatology. Harrisburg, pp. 29–41.
  12. Polkinghorne J. (2002) The God of Hope and the End of the World. New Haven; London.
  13. Polkinghorne J. (2004) Nauka i bogoslovie: vvedenie [Science and Theology: An Introduction]. Moscow (Russian translation).
  14. Polkinghorne J. (2009) Theology in the Context of Science. New Haven; London.
  15. Ruse M. (2000) Can a Darwinian be a Christian? New York.
  16. Russell R. (2013) “Recent Theological Interpretations of Evolution”. Theology and Science, vol. 11, pp. 169–184.
  17. Russell R. (2008) “The Groaning of Creation. Does God Suff er with All Life?”, in G. Bennett, T. Peters, M. J. Hewlett, R. J. Russell (eds.). The Evolution of Evil. Göttingen, pp. 121–140.
  18. Shokhin V. (2016) “Problema zla: teoditseia i apologiia” [The Problem of Evil: Theodicy and Apology]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 5 (67), pp. 47–58 (in Russian).
  19. Swinburne R. (2014) Sushhestvovanie Boga [The Existence of God]. Moscow (Russian Translation).
  20. Teilhard de Chardin P. (2002) Fenomen cheloveka [The Phenomenon of Man]. Moscow (Russian translation).

Khramov Alexander

Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Biology;
Place of work: Paleontological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences; SS Cyril and Methodius School of Post-Graduate and Doctoral Studies; 4/2, Building 1, Piatnitskaia Str., Moscow 115035, Russian Federation;
Post: postdoctoral researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0002-6888-5162;
Email: a_hramov89@mail.ru.

*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.


Prokopchuk Yury

Religious and philosophical synthesis of L. Tolstoy and A. Huxley

Prokopchuk Yury (2019) "Religious and philosophical synthesis of L. Tolstoy and A. Huxley ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 47-64 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201983.47-64
This article makes an attempt of a comparative analysis of foundations of religious and philosophical ideas of the Russian and English writers. It discusses the ideas of Tolstoy and Huxley about religion and the religious truth, the unity of God, world and man, about time and eternity, the features of their understanding the divine basis. The analysis draws on the texts of the later period of Tolstoy’s work, including the collections of thoughts of the writer (“Circle of Reading”, “For Every Day”, “Path of Life”), his diaries and letters, as well as Huxley’s texts of the 1940s — 1960s (the novels “Time Must Have a Stop”, “The Island”, the collection “Perennial Philosophy”, his essayistic texts “Doors of Perception”, “Heaven and Hell”). The article traces a similarity in the approaches of the two classics which manifested itself in a specifi c religious and philosophical synthesis based on addressing traditions of the eastern and western thought. It is possible to speak about a specifi c extraconfessional approach of Tolstoy and Huxley, who made use of Hindu scriptures, Taoist literature, Sufism, Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and Modern Time, the Quakers, etc. The idea of the unity of man and the world, of all the living, played a prominent role in forming the shape of Tolstoy’s and Huxley’s worldviews. This was one of the key ideas in Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical work. Perceiving the identity of the source of life in people and in everything living, a specifi c perception of the Hindu tat tvam asi (the identity of Atman and Brahman), was expressed by Tolstoy both in his diaries and his literary works. The same idea made up the foundation of the “PerennialPhilosophy” by Huxley. The two thinkers followed a rational approach to the sources and believed in the existence of the single religious truth and the possibility for every person of assimilating it. Tolstoy and Huxley emphasised the role of the personal religious experience, the movement of the person towards internalising the truth, whereas such factors as specifi c confession, theological details, belonging to a certain cultural and religious traditions were seen as less important, compared with the approach of the believer to the religious ideal.
Leo Tolstoy’s philosophy, Tolstoy of the later period, Tolstoyism, Aldous Huxley’s worldview, Perennial Philosophy, philosophical and religious synthesis, tat tvam asi
  1. Antonov K. (2011) “L. N. Tolstoi i diskussiia o prirode dogmata v russkoi mysli kontsa XIX — nachala XX veka” [Tolstoy and Discussion about the Nature of Dogma in the Russian Thought of the Late 19th — Early 20th Centuries], in Sbornik materialov simpoziuma L.N. Tolstoi (1828–1910) i Tserkov’ ego vremeni [Proceedings of the Symposium “Tolstoy and the Church of his Time”]. Tula, 15–47 (in Russian).
  2. Bedford S. (1974) Aldous Huxley: A Biography. New York.
  3. Berdiaev N. (2002) “Vetkhii i Novyi Zavet v religioznom soznanii L. Tolstogo” [Old and New Testaments in Tolstoy’s Religious Conscience], in Russkie mysliteli o L’ve Tolstom [Russian Thinkers and Leo Tolstoy]. Tula, pp. 362–382 (in Russian).
  4. Ghose S. (1962) Aldous Huxley: a Cynical Salvationist. London; Bombay.
  5. Golovacheva I. (2008) Nauka i literatura: Arkheologiia nauchnogo znaniia Oldosa Khaksli [Science and Literature. Archaeology of Auldos Huxley’s Scientifi c Knowledge]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  6. Grof S. (2005) Za predelami mozga. Rozhdenie, smert’ i transtsendentsiia v psikhoterapii [Beyond the Brain. Birth, Death and Transcendence in Psychotherapy]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Gustafson R. (2003) Obitatel’ i Chuzhak. Teologiia i khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo L’va Tolstogo [The Resident and the Alien. Theology and Literary Works of Leo Tolstoy]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  8. Holmes Ch. (1970) Aldous Huxley and the Way to Reality. Bloomington; London.
  9. Makovitskii D. (1979) “Iasnopolianskie zapiski” [Notes from Yasnaya Polyana]. Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 90/3 (in Russian).
  10. Men’ A., priest (1991) “«Bogoslovie» L’va Tolstogo i khristianstvo” [Leo Tolstoy’s “Theology” and Christianity], in Tolstoi L. N. Ispoved’. V chem moia vera? [L. Tolstoy. Confession. What is My Faith?]. Leningrad, pp. 5–27 (in Russian).
  11. Nikitin V. (1980) “«Bogoiskatel’stvo» i bogoborchestvo Tolstogo” [Tolstoy’s “Looking for God” and Theomachy], in Iu. Seleznev (ed.). Prometei: Istoriko-biografi cheskii al’manakh serii «Zhizn’ zamechatel’nykh liudei» [Prometheus. Historical and Biographical Almanach of the Series “Lives of Remarkable People”], 12. Moscow, pp. 113‒138 (in Russian).
  12. Orekhanov G., archpriest (2016) Lev Tolstoi. «Prorok bez chesti»: khronika katastrofy [Leo Tolstoy. “Prophet with no Honour”: Chronicle of a Catastrophy]. Moscow.
  13. Palievskii P. (1062) “Gibel’ satirika” [Death of a Satirist], in Sovremennaia literatura za rubezhom [Contemporary Foreign Literature]. Moscow, pp. 451–476 (in Russian).
  14. Prokopchuk Iu. (2012) “Religiozno-filosofskie idei L.N. Tolstogo i kontseptsiia «Vechnoi filosofii» Oldosa Khaksli” [Tolstoy’s Religious and Philosophical Ideas and the Concept of “Perennial Philosophy” by Huxley], in Iasnopolianskii sbornik, 2012: Stat’i, materialy, publikatsii [Collection from Yasnaya Polyana 2012. Articles, Materials, Publications]. Tula, pp. 304–314 (in Russian).
  15. Rabinovich V. (1998) Oldos Khaksli: evoliutsiia tvorchestva [Auldos Huxley: Evolution of Literary Work]. Ekaterinburg (in Russian).
  16. Redina O. (2004) “Put’ O. Khaksli k «Vechnoi fi losofi i»” [Auldos Huxley’s Way to “Perennial Philosophy”]. Ideino-khudozhestvennoe mnogoobrazie zarubezhnoi literatury novogo i noveishego vremeni, vol. 5, pp. 50–58 (in Russian).
  17. Semenov Iu. (1965) Obshchestvennyi progress i sotsial’naia fi losofi ia sovremennoi burzhuazii [Social Progress and Social Philosophy of Contemporary Bourgeoisie]. Moscow, pp. 123–136.
  18. Torchinov E. (2005) Religii mira: Opyt zapredel’nogo. Psikhotekhnika i transpersonal’nye sostoianiia [Religions of the World. Experience of the Beyond. Psychotechnics and Transpersonal States]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  19. Zen’kovskii V. (1999) Istoriia russkoi fi losofi i: v 2 t. [History of Russian Philosophy, in 2 vols.], vol. 1. Rostov na Donu (in Russian).

Prokopchuk Yury

Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: State Museum of L. N. Tolstoy; 11/8 Prechistenka, Moscow, 119034, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of excursion and methodical service;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9969-4804;
Email: prokopchuk17@mail.ru.

*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 with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for basic research, project 19-011-00764 A.
Sudakov Andrey

Fichte's Philosophy of Religion and the Gospel of John

Sudakov Andrey (2019) "Fichte's Philosophy of Religion and the Gospel of John ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 65-86 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201983.65-86
After the “atheism dispute”, Fichte formulated, in an esoteric and essayistic form, the philosophy of life in God that would accord with the doctrine of the “true Christianity”, the only teacher of which, in Fichte’s opinion, was Apostle John. This article reconstructs the philosophical theology and Christology of the Way towards the Blessed Life and discusses Fichte’s arguments in favour of the specifi c signifi cance of the Gospel of John for contemplative philosophy and religious life, as well as a range of key problems of his philosophy of religion which Fichte sets out following John’s theology, i.e. the problem of the relationship of the metaphysical and historical in the text of the Gospel and in the content of the Christian doctrine; Fichte’s philosophical Christology; his specifi c iterpretation of the communion and the question about the “essence” of Christian life. The antithesis of metaphysical and historical appears to be their inseparable unity, because being separated, the metaphysical content of religion remains a mere “doctrine of religion” and, hence, a false conscience. Philosophical idea of Christ as the only embodiment of the blissful religious life in history that came to be the immediate conscience, serves as a speculative correction of the almost blasphemous appeals “to fully repeat it in one’s own personality”. The metaphor of transsubstantiation, transferred from the context of the religious sacrament to the context of the integrity of the “believing life”, because of its invariable emphasis on the practical activity in the spirit of one’s own belief, can become the source for the new philosophy of Christian life. On the whole, it becomes clear that in his interpretation of the Gospel of John, Fischte has a speculative “trnscription”, if not theological exegesis; the spirit and language of Fichte’s speculation do not allow this transcription to follow the way of the rational and secular decomposition of the content of the Evangelical message, which was naturally taking place in the philosophy of Enlightenment.
Fichte, Gospel of John, philosophical theology, being, existence, conscience, metaphysical and historical (content of religion), Logos, transsubstantiation
  1. Brito E. (2002) “La jésuslogie de Fichte”. Revue théologique de Louvain. 33ᵉ année, vol. 4, pp. 497–520.
  2. Danz Ch. (1995) “Im Anfang war das Wort. Zur Interpretation des Johannesprologes bei Schelling und Fichte”. Fichte-Studien. Bd. 8: Religionsphilosophie. Amsterdam; Atlanta, pp. 21–40.
  3. Fuchs E. (ed.) (1987) Fichte im Gespräch. Bd. 4. Stuttgart.
  4. Grätzel S. (2005) “Verkündigung in Übereinstimmung mit der Vernunft: Fichtes Auslegung des Johannes-Evangeliums”, in Ch. Helmer (ed.) Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality. Atlanta, pp. 103–112.
  5. Ivaldo M. (2011) “Fichte interprete del Prologo giovanneo”. Annuario Filosofico, vol. 27, pp. 165–180.
  6. Kinlaw C. (1992) “Fichte’s Kenotic Christology”. Idealistic Studies, 22, 39–51.
  7. Lomonosov A. (2018) “Filosofiia religii I. G. Fikhte kak razvitie kantovskogo vzgliada na prirodu religioznogo soznaniia” [Fichte’s Philosophy of Religion as a Development of Kantian View on the Nature of Religious Conscience], in Fikhte i sovremennost’: filosofiia, istoriia, religiia [Fichte and Our Time: Philosophy, History, Religion]. St Petersburg, pp. 242–268 (in Russian).
  8. Perovich A. (1994) “Fichte and the Typology of Mysticism”, in Fichte: Historical Contexts/ Contemporary Controversies. Atlantic Highlands, pp. 128–141.
  9. Schmidt-Kowarzik W. (2006) “Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Christentums. Zur Religionsphilosophie im Spätwerk Fichtes”, in Fichte-Studien. Bd. 29: Praktische Philosophie in Fichtes Spätwerk. Amsterdam, pp. 199–210.
  10. Schulze W. (1964) “Das Johannesevangelium im deutschen Idealismus”. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, vol. 18/1, pp. 85–118.
  11. Sudakov A. (1997) Iogann Gottlib Fikhte. Zhizn’ i fi losofskoe uchenie [Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Life and Philosophical Doctrine], in Fikhte Iogann Gottlib. Nastavlenie k blazhennoi zhizni [Way towards the Blessed Life]. Moscow, pp. 324–389 (in Russian).
  12. Tilliette X. (1979) “Christologie et Doctrine de la Science”, in K. Hammacher, A. Mues (eds.) Erneuerung der Transzendentalphilosophie. Stuttgart, pp. 425–435.
  13. Verweyen H. (1995) “Fichtes Religionsphilosophie. Versuch eines Gesamtüberblicks”, in Fichte-Studien. Bd. 8: Religionsphilosophie. Amsterdam, pp. 193–225.
  14. Verweyen H. (2008) Einführung in die Fundamentaltheologie. Darmstadt.
  15. Zöller G. (2010) “Ex aliquo nihil. Fichtes Anti-Kreationismus”, in Ch. Asmuth, K. Drilo (eds.) Der Eine oder der Andere. «Gott» in der Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus und im Denken der Gegenwart. Tübingen, pp. 39–52.

Sudakov Andrey

Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; 2/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0001-7531-6024;
Email: asudakow2015@yandex.ru.

*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.


Gushcha Elena

Historiography of Jansenism: seven approaches

Gushcha Elena (2019) "Historiography of Jansenism: seven approaches ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 89-106 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201983.89-106
The article attempts to classify the historiography of Jansenism, the largest phenomenon in the history of Western Christianity after the Reformation. The main impetus of the research is conditioned by very meagre study of this movement in national historiography and the need to evaluate the systematization of approaches to the study of Jansenism in foreign historiography. The classifi cation of the history of ideas of Jansenism is based primarily on the experience and discoveries of foreign historians and philosophers of the 17th — 21st centuries. The bibliography of foreign works on the history of Jansenism is very diverse, because Jansenism, as a very complex phenomenon, on the one hand, can be called “Catholic Reformation” and its interpretation of the heritage of St. Augustine was very close to Calvin's (which his numerous opponents constantly pointed out), on the other hand, supporters of the movement, many of whom were exceptionally educated people, created an extensive polemical-apologetic, moral-oratorical, religious-moralistic, memoir-historical prose of the 17th century, contributing to the formation of the literary language — and therefore the conversation about Jansenism is associated not only with the theological fi ghts of their century. Due to the use of the chronological principle, the article analyzes the development of interest in the study of Jansenism among supporters and opponents of the movement over four centuries and substantiates seven main approaches to the historiography of Jansenism.
Jansenism, Society of Jesus, Reformation, historiography of religious studies, Port-Royal, Saint-Cyran, Saint-Beuve
  1. Al’-Faradzh E. (2014) “Existence in the World and Loneliness in the Writings of Antoine Arnaud”. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 52, 101‒114 (in Russian).
  2. Armogathe J.-R. (1974) “Jansénisme Historiographie”, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, VIII, col. 102–116. Paris.
  3. Borkenau F. (1934) Der Uebergang vom feudalistischen zum bürgerlichen Weltbild. Paris.
  4. Carreyre J. (1929–1933) Le jansénisme durant la Régence, 3. Paris.
  5. Carreyre J. (1935) “Pistoie (synode)”, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XII, col. 2134– 2230. Paris.
  6. Carreyre J. (1937) “Quesnel”, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XIII, col. 1460–1535. Paris.
  7. Carreyre J. (1950) “Unigenitus (Bulle)”, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XV, col. 2061– 2162. Paris.
  8. Codignola E. (1947) Illuministi, giansenisti e giacobini nell’Italia del Settecento. Firenze.
  9. Cognet L. (1949) Relation écrite par la Mère Angélique Arnauld sur Port-Royal. Paris.
  10. Cognet L. (1950) Claude Lancelot, solitaire de Port-Royal. Paris.
  11. Cognet L. (1950) La Réforme de Port-Royal (1591–1618). Paris.
  12. Cognet L. (1950–1951) La Mère Angélique Arnauld et son temps. Paris.
  13. Cognet L. (1961) Le Jansénisme. Paris.
  14. Cognet L. (1966) Histoire de la spiritualité chrétienne: La spiritualité moderne (1600–1650). Paris.
  15. Gazier A. (1923) Histoire générale du mouvement janséniste depuis des origines jusqu’à nos jours. Paris.
  16. Gazier A. (1924) Histoire générale du mouvement janséniste. Paris.
  17. Gazier S. (1966) Histoire de la société et de la bibliothèque de Port-Royal. Paris.
  18. Goldmann L. (1955) Le dieu caché. Étude sur la vision tragique dans les Pensées de Pascal. Paris.
  19. Jemolo G. (1928) Il giansenismo in Italia primo della Rivoluzione. Bari.
  20. Kashliavik K. (2014) Poetika Bleza Paskalia [Poetics of Blaise Pascal]. Moscow (in Russian).
  21. Matteucci B. (1954) Il giansenismo. Roma.
  22. Matteucci B. (1955) Giansenio e giansenismo. Torino.
  23. Maeda Y. (1949) Montaigne to Pascal to kiristokyo banshoron. Tokyo.
  24. Miki K. (1926) Pascal ni okeru ningen no kenkyu. Tokyo.
  25. Nakamura Y. (1965) Pascal to sono jidai. Tokyo.
  26. Namer G. (1964) Essai sur le jansénisme extrémiste intramondain. Paris.
  27. Orcibal J. (1944) Jean Duvergier de Hauranne, abbé de Saint-Cyran et son temps. Paris.
  28. Orcibal J. (1950) Le premier Port-Royal, Réforme ou Contre-Réforme. Paris.
  29. Orcibal J. (1961) Saint-Cyran et le jansénisme. Paris.
  30. Orcibal J. (1947–1962) Les Origines du Jansénisme, 1–6. Paris.
  31. Préclin E. (1929) Les Jansénistes du XVIIIe siècle et la Constitution civile du Clergé (Le développement du richérisme, sa propagation dans le Bas Clergé, 1713–1791). Paris.
  32. Sellier Ph. (2000) Port-Royal et la littérature II. Le siècle de saint Augusttin, La Rochefoucauld, Mme de Lafayette, Sacy, Racine. Paris.
  33. Shokhin V. (2014‒2015) “Sakramentologicheskaia polemika iansenistov s iezuitami i ee sovremennaia vostrebovannost’” [Sacramentological Polemic of Jansenists and Jesuits and Modern Demand for It]. Filosofiia religii: Al’manakh, 239–294 (in Russian).
  34. Strel’tsova G. (1979) Paskal’ [Pascal]. Moscow (in Russian).
  35. Strel’tsova G. (1994) Paskal’ i evropeiskaia kul’tura [Pascal and European Culture]. Moscow (in Russian).
  36. Tarasov B. (1979, 1982) Paskal’ [Pascal]. Moscow (in Russian).
  37. Tarasov B. (2002) “L. N. Tolstoi — chitatel’ B. Paskalia” [Tolstoy as a Reader of Pascal], in B. Tarasov. Kuda dvizhetsia istoriia? Metamorfozy liudei i idei v svete khristianskoi traditsii [Where the History is Moving? Metamorphoses of Persons and Ideas in the Light of Christian Tradition]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  38. Tarasov B. (2004) Mysliashchii trostnik. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo Paskalia v vospriiatii russkikh fi losofov i pisatelei [The Thinking Reed. Pascal’s Life and Creative Work as Seen by Russian Philosophers and Writers]. Moscow (in Russian).
  39. Zovatto P. (1970) Introduzione al giansenismo italiano (Appunti dottrinali e critico-bibliografici). Trieste.

Gushcha Elena

Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov per., Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0001-5603-6182;
Email: e5381717@yandex.ru.
Mamontov Andrei

Martyrdom in North Africa of the 4th — 5th centuries: self-identification and polemics

Mamontov Andrei (2019) "Martyrdom in North Africa of the 4th — 5th centuries: self-identification and polemics ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 107-123 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201983.107-123
The impact of martyrdom on the Christian identity did not disappear with the end of the persecutions. The 4th century saw many transformations of the classical conception of martyrdom as a testimony for Christ; one of these took place in Donatist literature. Everything started during the years of the Great Persecution (303‒313). Under the threat of execution, the clergymen were behaving very diff erently, which made the discourse about martyrdom and apostasy more active. Numidian bishops and particularly Secundus of Tigisi took a stricter position. When a schism began among the African Christians, the adherents of Donatus adopted this view; after a while, the Donatist conception of martyrdom came to be diff erent from the traditional, as its bearers were persecuted in a Christian empire. Apart from the Great Persecution, the milestone in the history of the schism was the persecution in the time of Constans (337‒350) or, as it is termed according to the executioner, the “times of Macarius”. All Donatist literature is replete with memories of these events. Hagiographic texts show that martyrdom for Donatists was an important element of their identity and simultaneously an instrument in polemic. One can clearly see the intention to build succession with martyrs of the past and justify the isolation, mixing the opponents (Catholics and the empire) together and condemning them all. Thus, in addition to the criticism for apostasy, the Catholics were accused of the organisation of blood-shedding. Having been created in the atmosphere of struggle and hatred, these texts replicated them and prepared the fl ock for the imitation of the heroes. Main attempts of the Catholics were, on the opposite, focused on the criticism against the Donatist martyrdom as being void of sense. The Catholics also had a positive agenda, by means of which they were trying to keep the link with the legacy of the era of persecutions and to make use of it. In his sermons, Augustine portrayed martyrs as ideal believers thus cultivating Christian virtues in his listeners. One can make a conclusion that both for the Catholics and particularly for the Donatists, martyrdom was an important component of their identity, and it is not surprising that this theme was recurrent in the polemic. The African discourse on martyrdom looks harmonious against the Mediterranean background; however, it was only in African church disputes that the theme of persecution and martyrdom came to be decisive, as in other regions it was, on the whole, less visible.
Donatists, hagiography, Augustine, Optate, martyrs and martyrdom, Great Persecution, North Africa, Late Antiquity, history of Christianity
  1. Barnes T. (1975) “The Beginnings of Donatism”. The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 26/1, pp. 13–22.
  2. Dearn A. (2016) “Donatist Martyrs, Stories and Attitudes”, in The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Contexts. Liverpool, pp. 70–100.
  3. Dearn A. (2011) “The ‘Passio S. Typasii Veterani’ as a Catholic Construction of the Past”. Vigiliae Christianae, 55 (1), 86–98.
  4. Croix G. de (1954) “Aspects of the ‘Great’ Persecution”. Harvard Theological Review, vol. 47 (2), pp. 75–113.
  5. Gaddis M. (2005) There is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
  6. Franchi de’Cavalieri P. (ed.) (1935) “La Passio dei martiri Abitinensi”. Note agiografiche, vol. 8, pp. 3–71.
  7. Dolbeau F (ed.) (1992) “La Passio Sancti Donati (BHL 2303b): une tentative d’edition critique”. Studi di Antichita Christiana, vol. 48, pp. 251–267.
  8. Kargal’tsev A. (2012) “Montanizm v rimskoi Severnoi Afrike: k probleme vospriiatiia muchenichestva” [Montanism in Roman Norhtern Africa: The Problem of Understanding Martyrdom]. Religiia. Tserkov’. Obshchestvo. Issledovaniia i publikatsii po teologii i religii, vol. 1, pp. 116–132 (in Russian).
  9. Mamontov A. (2017) “Donatistskaia agiografi ia i rimskoe gosudarstvo” [Donatist Hagiography and the Roman State]. Religiia. Tserkov’. Obshchestvo, vol. 6, pp. 126–149 (in Russian).
  10. Mamontov A. (2019) “Konstantin i donatistskii raskol: pervye shagi imperatora (313–314 gg.)” [Constantine and the Donatist Schism: Emperor’s First Steps (313‒314)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, vol. 86, pp. 9–24 (in Russian).
  11. Maier J.-L. (1987). Le Dossier du Donatisme. T. I: Des origines a la mort de Constance II (303–361) Berlin.
  12. Middleton P. (2013) “Early Christian Voluntary Martyrdom: A Statement for the Defence”. Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 64, pp. 556–573.
  13. Moss C. (2012) “The Discourse of Voluntary Martyrdom: Ancient and Modern”. Church History, vol. 81 (3), pp. 531–551.
  14. Mastandrea P. (1995) “Passioni dei martiri Donatisti (BHL 4473 e 5271)”. Analecta Bollandiana, vol. 113, pp. 39–88.
  15. Panteleev A. (2007) “Muchenichestvo i samoubiistvo: problemy vospriiatiia rannego khristianstva iazychnikami” [Martyrdom and Suicide: Problems of Pagans’ Understanding of Early Christian Martyrdom]. Problemy istorii, filologii i kul’tury, vol. 17, pp. 136–145 (in Russian).
  16. Panteleev A. (ed.) (2017) Rannie muchenichestva. Perevody, kommentarii, issledovaniia [Early Cases of Martyrdom. Translations, Commentaries, Studies]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  17. Ployd A. (2018) “«Non poena sed causa»: Augustine’s Anti-Donatist Rhetoric of Martyrdom”. Augustinian Studies, vol. 49 (1), pp. 25–44.
  18. Sághy M. (2012) “Martyr Bishops and the Bishop’s Martyrs in Fourth-Century Rome”, in J. Ott, T. Vedriš (eds.). Saintly Bishops and Bishops’ Saints. Zagreb, pp. 13–30.
  19. Shaw B. (2011) Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine. Cambridge; New York.
  20. Tilley M. (1995) “Sustaining Donatist Self-Identity: From the Church of the Martyrs to the Collecta of the Desert”. The Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 5, pp. 21–35.
  21. Tilley M. (1996) Donatist Martyr Stories. Liverpool.
  22. Tilley M. (1997). The Bible in Christian North Africa. The Donatist World. Minneapolis.
  23. Woods D. (1993). “Historical Source of the Passio Typasii”. Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 47 (1), pp. 78–84.

Mamontov Andrei

Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Petersburg State University; 5 Mendeleevskaya liniya, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation;
Post: Department of Ancient History of Greece and Rome;
ORCID: 0000-0002-1172-7649;
Email: andrey-2006@mail.ru.
Razdyakonov Vladislav

Religious teaching of Elena Ivanovna Molokhovets and orthodox tradition

Razdyakonov Vladislav (2019) "Religious teaching of Elena Ivanovna Molokhovets and orthodox tradition ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 124-140 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201983.124-140
The topic of this article is the correlation of Orthodox tradition and spiritualism in the Russian culture of the last third of the 19th — early 20th centuries. The object of the study are materials pertaining to the spiritualistic activity of Elena Ivanovna Molokhovets. The aim of the study is to reconstruct the main events of the spiritualistic activity of Molokhovets, to reveal the sources and means by which she was creating her religious doctrine, and to demonstrate the main aspects of this doctrine. The article also aims to show the dependence of this dosctine upon the Orthodox cultural context and prove through this example the main thesis about the decisive role of Orthodoxy in assimilating spiritualism as a cultural phenomenon on the Russian soil. The article proposes the following main ideas: the religious doctrine of Molokhovets had been shaped by the early 1880s; the most important sources of her doctrine are specific hermeneutics of the sacred texts and Orthodox liturgy, messages received by the medium E.F. Tyminskaya, as well as “dreams” and “visions” of Molokhovets; the topics of her doctrine reveal the desire of Molokhovets to show the unity of all possible extremities, above all of science and faith, and to get rid of the confl ict between science and religion, characteristic of the latter half of the 19th century.
Orthodoxy, spiritualism, spiritism, history of religions, history of Russia, E. I. Molokhovets, E. F. Tyminskaya
  1. Kravetskii A. (2014) “Tainaia kukhnia Eleny Molokhovets” [Hidden Agenda of Elena Molokhovets]. Kommersant» DEN’GI, 2014, vol. 37 (in Russian).

Razdyakonov Vladislav

Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Russian State University for the Humanities; 6 Miusskaya sq., Moscow, GSP-3, 125993, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-3073-6476;
Email: razdyakonov.vladislav@gmail.com.

*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.


Lyutko Eugene, диакон

Michel Foucault and contemporary anglican ecclesiology — Rev. of Ogden S. G. The Church, Authority, and Foucault: Imagining the Church as an Open Space of Freedom (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies). London and New York: Routledge, 2017. X + 180 p.

Lyutko Eugene (2019) "Michel Foucault and contemporary anglican ecclesiology". Rev. of Ogden S. G. The Church, Authority, and Foucault: Imagining the Church as an Open Space of Freedom (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies). London and New York: Routledge, 2017. X + 180 p., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 143-147 (in Russian).


Lyutko Eugene, диакон

Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2859-3886;
Email: e.i.lutjko@gmail.com.
Fokin Alexander

Rev. of Grigore M., Kührer-Wielach F. Orthodoxa Confessio? Konfessionsbildung, Konfessionalisierung und ihre Folgen in der östlichen Christenheit Europas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. 359 s.

Fokin Alexander (2019) Rev. of Grigore M., Kührer-Wielach F. Orthodoxa Confessio? Konfessionsbildung, Konfessionalisierung und ihre Folgen in der östlichen Christenheit Europas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. 359 s., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 83, pp. 147-151 (in Russian).


Fokin Alexander

Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5126-6883;
Email: alexanderfokin@bk.ru.