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

This article deals with the history of the Homoian church party in Thrace and Illyricum at the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries. The article examines the scientifi c discussion on the meaning of the concept of “Homoianism” and its relationship to the concept of “Arianism”. It also outlines the general direction of development of the Homoian tradition. The author of the article argues that it is necessary to distinguish between the early Homoanism and the late Homoianism, which, despite the existence of continuity between them on a personal level and in self-identifi cation, were at the same time very diff erent in their theological orientation. If early Homoianism was a broad movement of supporters of the doctrinal compromise adopted at the councils in Rimini-Seleucia and Constantinople (359‒360), the late Homoian party, which included a number of Illyrian and Thracian bishops, took a rather radical subordinationist position in their triadology. Rigidly contrasting themselves with the Nicene and other church parties, the late Homoians also developed a rather specifi c ecclesiology. They defended the equivalence of the status of bishops, denied the primacy of the Roman see as the sedes Petri, but remained committed to the idea of the special signifi cance of Constantinople in the Christian world. Late Homoianism was made close to the early Homoianism by the lack of reliance on the patristic tradition and the idea of the unity of the Church as a simultaneous concord of the episcopate. At the same time, the later Homoians considered it possible to bring theological disputes to arbitrage of non-Christians (pagans and Jews). The absence of a developed idea of continuity in the interpretation of Divine Revelation was obviously a weakness in the Homoian theological tradition, which manifested itself in the “synod of heresies” organised by Emperor Theodosius I in Constantinople (383).

Thrace, Illyricum, early Christianity, ecclesiology, Arian controversy, church parties, Homoianism, Constantinople

1. Ayres L. (2004) Nicaea and its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Brennecke H. C. (1993) “Homéens”, in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, XXIV. Paris: Brepols, p. 932–960.
3. Brennecke H. C. (2014) “Introduction: Framing the Historical and Theological Problems”, in G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (eds) Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed. Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, p. 1–19.
4. Brennecke H. C. (1988) Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer: der Osten bis zum Ende der homöischen Reichskirche. Tübingen: Mohr.
5. Campenhausen H. F., von (1929) Ambrosius von Mailand als Kirchenpolitiker. Berlin; Leipzig: De Gruyter.
6. Giulea D. A. (2019) “Reassessing Arianism in Light of the Council of Antioch 268”. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 95(1), p. 63–96.
7. Graumann T. (2010) “The Synod of Constantinople, AD 383: History and Historiography”. Millennium, 7, p. 133–168.
8. Gryson R. (1980) “Introduction”, in Scolies ariennes sur le concile d’Aquilée (SC. 267). Paris: Cerf, p. 23–200.
9. Gwynn D. M. (2007) The Eusebians. The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the “Arian Controversy”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Hanson R. P. C. (2005) The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
11. Heil U. (2014) “The Homoians”, in G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (eds) Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed. Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, p. 85–115.
12. Lienhard J. T. (1993) “The “Arian” Controversy: some Categories Reconsidered”, in Doctrines of God and Christ in the Early Church. New York; London: Garland Publishing, p. 415–437 (87–109).
13. Löhr W. A. (2014) “Izmenchivyi obraz inakomysliia: eres’ v rannekhristianskii period” [The changing construction of doctrinal dissent: Heresy in Early Christian times”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 4 (59), p. 9–27 (in Russian).
14. Markschies Ch. (1995) Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie: Kirchen- und theologiegeschichtliche. Studien zu Antiarianismus und Neunizänismus bei Ambrosius und im lateinischen Westen (364–381 n. Chr.). Tübingen: Mohr.
15. Markschies Ch. (2017) “Politische Dimensionen des homöischen Bekenntnisses? Oder: Ursacius und Valens in Sirmium 359 n. Chr.”, in U. Heil, J. Ulrich (Hrsgg.) Kirche und Kaiser in Antike und Spätantike: Festschrift für Hanns Christof Brennecke zum 70. Geburtstag. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, p. 111–130.
16. Meslin M. (1967) Les Ariens d’Occident, 335–430. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
17. Parvis S. (2014) “Was Ulfi la really a Homoian?”, in G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (eds) Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed. Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, p. 49–65.
18. Simonetti M. (2006) “Alla ricerca dei cosiddetti Omei”, in M. Simonetti. Studi di cristologia postnicena. Roma: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, p. 259–267.
19. Simonetti M. (2015) “Arianesimo e omeismo”. Augustinianum, 55/2, p. 619–629.
20. Simonetti M. (1967) “Arianesimo latino”. Studi Medievali, VIII/2, p. 663–744.
21. Williams D. H. (1996) “Another Exception to Later Fourth-Century “Arian” Typologies: The Case of Germinius of Sirmium”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 4, p. 335–357.
22. Williams R. (1987) Arius: Heresy and Tradition. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
23. Zakharov G. E. (2019) Vneshniaia kommunikatsiia i bogoslovskaia traditsiia Rimskoi Tserkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov [External communication and theological tradition of the Roman Church in the period of the Arian controversy]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo PSTGU (in Russian).
24. Zakharov G. E. (2014) «…Ibo nadlezhit byit i raznomyisliiam mezhdu vami»: Ekkleziologicheskaia problematika v istorii arianskikh sporov [“For there must be diff erences among you”: Ecclesiological problems in the history of the Arian controversy]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo PSTGU (in Russian).
25. Zakharov G. E. (2014) Illiriiskie tserkvi v epokhu arianskii sporov (IV — nachalo V v.) [Illyrian Churches in the period of the Arian controversy (4th and the beginning of 5th centuries]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo PSTGU (in Russian).
26. Zakharov G. E. (2019) “Fenomen tserkovnogo techeniia v korpuse pisem svt. Vasiliia Velikogo” [Phenomenon of a church faction in the corpus of letters of St. Basil the Great]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 89, pp. 9–26 (in Russian).
27. Zakharov G. E. (2016) “Polemiziruia s blzh. Avgustinom: ekkleziologicheskie vozzreniia «arianskogo» episkopa Maksimina” [Polemising with St. Augustine: Ecclesiological views of the “Arian” bishop Maximinus”], in: P. Khondzinsky, N. Sukhova (eds) Blazhennyi Avgustin i avgustinizm v zapadnoi i vostochnoi traditsiiakh [St. Augustine and Augustinism in Western and Eastern traditions]. Moscow: PSTGU, p. 32–46 (in Russian).
28. Zakharov G. E. (2015) Retsenziia [Review of]: G. M. Berndt, R. Steinacher (eds) Arianism: Roman Heresy and Barbarian Creed. Farnham. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 4 (65), p. 153–159 (in Russian).

Zakharov Georgy

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article considers some key diff erences between the descriptions of Christian religious leader in the texts of Late Antiquity and Early Modern time through the lens of the theory of the thought style (Denkstiel) and thought collective (Denkkollektiv) developed by L. Fleck. It is argued that both descriptions are rational and objective in terms of the two diff erent thought styles. Late Antiquity produced the hierarchical description of the priest that was related to Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of the closed world and teleological motion. Late Platonism accentuated the role of certain persons in mediation between God and men (rulers, philosophers, priests). This thought style defi ned the position of the religious leader that allowed him to move the believers towards God and the grace of God towards men. Paradigm shift that occurred in the 17th century replaced the notions of the closed world and teleological motion with infinite space and inertial motion. These serve as a basis for the change of political and ethical programmes. These programmes (e.g. Hobbesian and Pufendorfi an) defi ned the ethical value of the action according to the laws and prescribed actions, i.e. to duties. This thought style described the priest in terms of the duties, superimposed on the duties of man and citizen. Since the thought styles and views of the word are diff erent, the descriptions made according to them should be incommensurable. For this reason, in the cases of religious leadership described in “ancient” thought style, the description should not be set aside as mere religious, but deserves special attention.

priest, religious leadership, hierarchy, duty, Late Antiquity, Early Modernity, thought style

1. Agamben G. (2012) Opus Dei. Archeologia dell’uffi cio. Torino: Bolati Boringhieri.
2. Atkins J. W. (2011) “The Officia of St. Ambrose’s De offi ciis”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19, p. 49–77.
3. Averintsev S. S. (1975) “Poriadok kosmosa i poriadok istorii v mirovozzrenii rannego Srednevekov’ia (obshchie zamechaniia)” [The order of cosmos and the order of history in the worldview of the Early Middle Ages (general remarks)”], in Freidenberg L. A. (ed.) Antichnost’ i Vizantiia [Antiquity and Byzantium], Moscow: Nauka, p. 266–285 (in Russian).
4. Bernardi J. (ed.) (1978) Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 1–3. Paris: Cerf.
5. Birkin M. Yu. (2020) “Durnoi episkop kak tiran v «Sententsiiakh» Isidora Sevil’skogo” [“Evil bishop as a tyrant in Isidore’s of Seville Sententiae”]. Steps, vol. 6 (2), p. 259–291 (in Russian).
6. Boehling von F. (Hrsg.) (1998) S. Pufendorf. Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 4.1: Liber primus — Liber quartus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
7. Bourdieu P. (2016) Sur l’État. Cours au Collège de France (1989–1992). Moscow: Delo (Russian translation).
8. Brown P. (1971) “The Rise and Function of Holy Man in Late Antiquity”. The Journal of Roman Studies, 61, p. 80–101.
9. Brown P. (1978) The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.
10. Brown P. (1980) The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity in Protocol of the 34th Colloquy, 3 December 1978. Berkeley: University of California.
11. Brown P. (1993) “Il filosofo e il monaco: due scelte tardoantiche”, in Schiavone A. (ed.) Storia di Roma, vol. 3, Turin: Einaudi, p. 877–894.
12. Collins J. (2000) “Christian Ecclesiology and the Composition of Leviathan: A Newly Discovered Letter to Thomas Hobbes”. Historical Journal, 43, p. 217–231.
13. Elm S. (2012) Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14. Erwin R. E. (1991) Virtues and Rights. The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. London; New York: Routlegde.
15. Feyerabend P. (1986) Selected Works on the Methodology of Science. Moscow: Progress (Russian translation).
16. Fleck L. (1999) Genesis and Development of a Scientifi c Fact. Introduction to the Teaching of Thinking Style and Collective Thinking. Moscow: Dom intellektual’noi knigi (Russian translation).
17. Frede M. (1999) “Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy in Later Antiquity”, in Athanassiadi P., Frede M. (eds) Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 41–67.
18. Gaidenko P. P. (1980) Evoliutsiia poniatiia nauki. Stanovlenie i razvitie pervykh nauchnykh programm [The evolution of the science concepts. Formation and development of the first scientific programmes]. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).
19. Gaidenko P. P. (1987) Evoliutsiia poniatiia nauki (XVII‒XVIII vv.) [Evolution of the concept of science (XVII‒XVIII centuries)]. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).
20. Gaskin J. C. A. (ed.) (1998) T. Hobbes. Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Gersch S. (1978) From Iamblichus to Eriugena: An Investigation of the Prehistory and Evolution of the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition. Leiden: Brill.
22. Gooding N., Hoekstra K. (2020) “Hobbes and Aristotle on the Foundation of Political Science”, in Douglass R., Olsthoorn J. (eds) Hobbes’s On the Citizen: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 31–50.
23. Hartung G. (Hrsg.) (1997) S. Pufendorf. Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 2: De officio. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
24. Heil G., Ritter A. M. (Hrsgg.) (2012) Corpus Dionysiacum II: Pseudo Dionysius Areopagita De Coelesti Hierarchia De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia De Mystica Theologia Epistulae. 2. Aufl . Berlin; Boston: De Gryter.
25. Hoekstra K. (2003) “Hobbes on Law, Nature, and Reason”. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 41 (1), p. 111–120.
26. Hunter I. (1988) “Religious toleration and the pluralisation of personhood: Christian Thomasius’ program for the deconfessionalisation of society”. Southern Review, vol. 31 (1), p. 38–53.
27. Jesseph D. (2006) “Hobbes and the method of natural science”, in Sorell T. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 86–107.
28. Jesseph D. (2015) “Hobbes’s Theory of Space”, in De Risi V. (ed.) Mathematizing Space. Trends in the History of Science. Birkhäuser: Cham, p. 193–208.
29. Kalff P. A. W. (ed.) (1937) Ps.-Hieronymi. De septem ordinibus ecclesiae. Würzburg.
30. Kersting W. (1988) “Erkenntnis und Methode in Thomas Hobbes’ Philosophie”. Studia Leibnitiana, 20 (2), p. 126–139.
31. Kodalle K.-M. (1987) “Covenant. Hobbes’s Philosophy of Religion and his Political System ‘More Geometrico’”, in Walton C., Johnson P. J. (eds) Hobbes’s ‘Science of Natural Justice’. Dordrecht: Martin Nij hoff Publishers, p. 223–238.
32. Krausz M. (2011) “Varieties of Relativism and the Reach of Reason”, in Hales S. D. (ed.) A Companion to Relativism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 70–84.
33. Laird J. (1942–1943) “Hobbes on Aristotle’s «Politics»”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. New Series, 1942–1943, 43, p. 1–21.
34. Liubarsky G. Iu. (2018) Proiskhozhdenie ierarkhii: istoriia taksonomicheskogo ranga [The origin of hierarchy: the history of rank in taxonomy]. Moscow: KMK (in Russian).
35. MacIntyre A. (2000) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Moscow: Akademiheskii proekt; Yekaterinburg: Delovaia kniga (Russian translation).
36. Mahoney E. P. (1987) “Lovejoy and the Hierarchy of Being”. Journal of the History of Ideas, 48, p. 211–230.
37. O’Meara D. (2003) Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
38. Oliver S. (2005) Philosophy, God and Motion. London; New York: Routledge.
39. Minsky M. (1979) A Framework for Representing Knowlegde. Mosow: Energija (Russian translation).
40. Palladini F. (1990) Samuel Pufendorf discepolo di Hobbes: per una reinterpretazione del giusnaturalismo moderno. Bologna: Il Mulino.
41. Palladini F. (2001–2002) “Pufendorf and Stoicism”. Grotiana. New Series, 22/23, p. 245–256.
42. Portmann F. X. (1954) Die Göttlieche Paidagogia bei Gregor von Nazianz. Sankt Ottilien: Eos Verlag.
43. Rapp C. (2005) Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. Berkeley: University of California Press.
44. Reynolds R. (1970) “The Pseudo-Hieronymian «De septem ordinibus ecclesiae». Notes on its origins, abridgments and use in early medieval canonical collections”. Revue Bénédictine, 80, p. 238–252.
45. Sarasohn L. T. (1985) “Motion and Morality: Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes and the Mechanical World-View”. Journal of the History of Ideas, 46 (3), p. 363–379.
46. Schmitt J.-C. (1992) “La notion de sacré et son application a l’histoire du christianisme medieval”. Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherches Historiques [En ligne], 9, available at http://journals.openedition.org/ccrh/2798 (12.09.2020).
47. Schneewind J. B. (1987) “Pufendord’s Place in the History of Ethics”. Synthese, 72, p. 123–155.
48. Shaw G. (1987) “Apotheosis in Later Platonism Salvation as Theurgic Embodiment”, in Richards K. (ed.) Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, p. 111–120.
49. Shaw G. (2015) “Platonic Siddhas. Supernatural Philosophers of Neoplatonism”, in Kelly E. F., Crabtree A., Marshall P. (eds) Beyond Physicalism. Toward Reconsiliation of Science and Spirituality. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, p. 275–313.
50. Spargens T. (1973) The Politics of Motion. The World of Thomas Hobbes. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
51. Spinoza B. (1957) “Tractatus Politicus”, in Idem. Opera. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, p. 285–383 (Russian translation).
52. Worf P. (1956) “A linguistic consideration of thinking in primitive communities”, in Idem. Language, Thought and Reality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 65–87.
53. Yeo R. (2007) “Lost Encyclopedias: Before and after the Enlightenment”. Book History, 10, p. 47‒68.

Vorontsov Sergey

*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 research is funded by Russian Science Foundation (project № 19-78-10143). The organization is Saint Tikhon's Orthodox University.

The article discusses the concept of providence attributed to Aristotle by both ancient and early Christian authors. This concept was spread in two forms or versions: according to the fi rst and the main version, divine providence is limited to the celestial spheres up to the moon and does not include the earth and the sublunar area. The second implied that providence either covers only the most important areas of the world, or the world as a whole, including the earth, but sustains the existence common genera and species of creatures, and does not care for specifi c individuals and their needs. The author of the article shows that Aristotle himself never applied the concept of providence to his god, i. e. to the Prime Mover, which moves everything without being moved, and to the Intellect, which thinks only of itself. This concept was never used by Aristotle in a cosmological context either, but is found exclusively in an ethical or political and legal contexts, where it means “prudence”, “foresight”, or “intent”. At the same time, it is noted that the two aforementioned versions of the Aristotelian concept of providence either go back to the philosophy of Aristotle himself and his dualistic cosmology, which involves the division of the universe into two main parts, i.e. supralunar, containing celestial bodies and the sphere of motionless stars, consisting of ether and abiding in eternal and uniform circular motion, and the sublunar part, consisting of the four elements and composite bodies subject to the processes of generation and destruction; or go back to the interpretation of Aristotelian cosmology by later Peripatetics, such as Theophrastus, Critolaus, the author of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise “De mundo” and Alexander of Aphrodisias. The article demonstrates that the Aristotelian concept of providence in all its forms was fi ercely criticised by both ancient philosophers (Platonists and Stoics) and Christian theologians, beginning with early Christian apologists and ending with late Byzantine authors.

Christianity, Ancient Philosophy, Aristotle, Peripatetics, physics, cosmology, theology, God, providence, Patristics, genera and species, individuals

1. Benevich G. I. (2013) Kratkaia istoriia «promysla» ot Platona do Maksima Ispovednika [A brief history of “Providence” from Plato to Maxim the Confessor]. St Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii (in Russian).
2. Bergjan S.-P. (2002) Der fürsorgende Gott. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
3. Festugière A.-J. (1932) L’idéal religieux des grecs et l’Évangile. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre.
4. Hager F. P. (1975) “Proklos und Alexander von Aphrodisias über ein Problem der Vorsehung”, in J. Mansfeld, L. M. de Rijk (eds) Kephalaion: Studies presented to C. J. de Vogel. Assen: Van Gorcum, p. 171‒182.
5. Kraye J. (1990) “Aristotle’s God and the authenticity of “De mundo”. An early modern controversy”. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 28/3, p. 339‒358.
6. Lebedev A. V. (2008) “Aetii” [“Aetios”], in M. A. Solopova (ed.) Antichnaia filosofiia. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Ancient philosophy. Encyclopaedic dictionary]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, p. 204 (in Russian).
7. Lebedev A. V. (2008) “Aristotel’ Stagirit” [Aristotle of Stagira], in M. A. Solopova (ed.) Antichnaia filosofiia. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Ancient philosophy. Encyclopaedic dictionary], Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia, p. 164‒175 (in Russian).
8. Mansfeld J. (1992) “ΠερÌ κόσμου: A Note on the History of a Title”. Vigiliae Christianae, 46, p. 391–411.
9. Moraux P. (1949) “L’exposé de la philosophie d’Aristote chez Diogène Laerce”. Revue philosophique de Louvain, 47, p. 5‒43.
10. Moraux P. (1970) D’Aristote à Bessarion. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
11. Moreschini C. (2011) Storia della filosofia patristica. Moscow: Greko-latinskii kabinet Iu. A. Shichalina (Russian translation).
12. Sharpies R. W. (1982) “Alexander of Aphrodisias on Divine Providence: Two problems”. Classical Quarterly, 32, p. 198–211.
13. Sharples R. W. (1983) “Nemesius of Emesa and some Theories of Divine Providence”. Vigiliae Christianae, 37/2, p. 141–156.
14. Sharples R. W. (2002) “Aristotelian Theology after Aristotle”, in: Ed. D. Frede, A. Laks (eds) Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, Its Background and Aftermath. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, p. 1–40.
15. Sorabji R. (ed.) (2004) The Philosophy of the Commentators, 200–600 AD. Vol. 2. Physics. London: Duckworth.
16. Thom J. C. (ed.) (2014) Cosmic Order and Divine Power: Pseudo-Aristotle, On the Cosmos. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
17. Wehrli F. (1969) Die Schule des Aristoteles, 10. Hieronymos von Rhodos, Kritolaos und seine Schüler. Basel: Stuttgart.

Fokin Alexey

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

The article deals with the interpretation of Kant’s theory of knowledge by Matteo Liberatore, a major representative of Neo-Scholastics in the middle of the 19th century, in his treatise Della conoscenza intellettuale (1858). It is shown that his study of to Kant was conditioned by a number of tasks that were solved by Neo-Scholastics, i. e. (1) apologetic: overcoming Kant’s criticism of theological argumentation; (2) critical: refuting the concurrent doctrines like Ontologism, Hermesianism, etc.; (3) conceptual: actualising scholastic philosophy in the context of the issues of Modern Time. A range of responses given by Liberatore’s predecessors (G. Sanseverino, J. Balmes, J. Kleutgen) could not adequately present and eff ectively substantiate the Thomist theory of knowledge. Liberatore solved that problem on the basis of a consistent reconstruction of Aquinas’ epistemology as part of the questions posed by the theories of knowledge in Modern Time. Taking into account the break in continuity between scholasticism and Modern European philosophy (for which Descartes is responsible), Liberatore notes that the subject content of both types of concepts is the same, although the method of determining the sources of knowledge diff ers. In particular, Liberatore denies the need to assume the original givenness of a certain content (innate ideas) or forms of constituting objects (a priori forms) that mediate the relationship of subject and the objective world. On the contrary, Liberatore assumes only the actual capacity of knowledge as a substantial quality of the rational soul, but it is devoid of content independent of the known reality (tabula rasa); it is formed due to a cognitive mechanism of abstractions and mediations (which Liberatore, like Aquinas and other scholastics, describes as intellectus agens et patiens), driven by aff ections on the part of objects. According to Liberatore, it is a mistake to give this mechanism its own place and a special non-objective content that becomes the focus of knowledge and obscures reality. However, this criticism of Kantianism did not mean that certain aspects of this theory could not be integrated as counter-arguments into Neo-Scholastic epistemology. Liberatore laid the ground for further research and interpretation of Kant’s philosophy by Catholic intellectuals.

Kantianism, Thomism, Neo-Scholasticism, criticism, Transcendentalism, theory of knowledge, reason, a priori quality

1. Henrici P. (2010) “Matteo Liberatore und Joseph Kleutgen, zwei Pioniere der Neuscholastik”. Gregorianum, 91 (4), р. 768‒789.
2. Kant I. (1999) Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Moscow: Nauka (Russian translation).
3. Limentani L. et al. (1928) La filosofia contemporanea in Italia dal 1870 al 1920. Napoli: Città di Castello.
4. McCool G. (1996) Nineteenth-Century Scholasticism: The Search for an Unitary Method. 2nd ed. New York: Fordham University Press.
5. Mori M. (2016). “Realismus versus Transzendentalismus. Die Kant-Rezeption in Italien im 19. Jahrhundert”, in Buchheim T., Noller J. (eds) Philosophia Transalpina. Deutsch-italienische Wechselwirkungen in der Philosophie der Moderne. Freiburg: Karl Alber Verlag, p. 124‒150.

Savinov Rodion

*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 deals with the problem of God's relation to sin in classical theism. It is shown that from the perspective of classical theism the problem of God's relation to sin lies in the diffi culty of reconciling the divine attribute of simplicity with the presence of the evil of sin in the world created and controlled by God, and that the future of classical theism directly depends on its ability to off er an adequate solution to this problem. The article provides a critical analysis of two traditional approaches to solving the problem, Thomism and Molinism, which shows that they are not able to off er an adequate solution, because they claim the real diff erence either within the divine will or within the divine knowledge. As an alternative, an aretic approach to understanding the divine is proposed, which makes use of some ideas of S. Menn and L. T. Zagzebski. The central idea of this approach is that the divine is to conceive not as a mental subject exemplifying some set of properties to a maximal degree, but as a single and absolutely simple source of these properties. According to the tradition, which originates in the works of Plato and Aristotle, this source of being and good is identifi ed with virtue itself. It is shown that the aretic approach makes it possible to clarify some important aspects of classical theism. Firstly, it provides an opportunity to demonstrate how God can be love itself, righteousness itself, wisdom itself, omnipotence itself, but at the same time not to be identified with an abstract entity. Secondly, it allows us to conceive of the divine providence in terms of interaction between God and the world, but hierarchically. Third, the aretic approach explains how God, not being a person in the sense of a subject of mental properties, can be the ultimate source of personal properties in the created things. The fact that the aretic approach rejects the unqualifi ed identifi cation of God with a person allows to avoid the problem of evil in the form which is typical for the contemporary philosophical theology and philosophy of religion.

Classical Theism, sin, problem of evil, Thomism, Molinism, Theory of Divine Motivation, L. T. Zagzebski, S. Menn

1. Appolonov A. V. (transl.) (2006) Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologiae. Moscow: Izdatel’ Savin S. A. (Russian translation).
2. Buckareff A., Nagasawa Yu. (eds) (2016) Alternative Concepts of God. Essays on the Metaphysics of the Divine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Davies B. (2011) Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Erickson M. J. (1988) God the Father Almighty: a contemporary exploration of the divine attributes. Grand Rapids.
5. Feser E. (2010) Classical Theism. Available at http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classicaltheism.html (17.02.2020).
6. Flint Th. (1998) Divine Providence. The Molinist Account. Cornell University Press.
7. Freddoso A. J. (1994) “God’s General Concurrence with Secondary Causes: Pitfalls and Prospects”. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 67/2, p. 131‒156.
8. Freddoso A. J. (2001) “Suarez on God’s Causal Involvement in Sinnful Acts”, in Kremer E., Latzer M. (eds) The Problem of Evil in Early Modern Philosophy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, p. 10‒34.
9. Gabriel A. K. (2011) The Lord is the Spirit. The Holy Spirit and the Divine Attributes. Eugen: Pickwick Publications.
10. Hartshorne Ch. (1948) The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven: Yale University Press.
11. Hartshorne Ch. (1941) Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism. Chicago: Willet, Clark & Company.
12. Hartshorne Ch. (1967) A Natural Theology for Our Time. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
13. Kärkkäinen V.-M. (2004) The Doctrine of God: A Global Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
14. Kubitskii A. V. (transl.) (2006) Aristotle. Metaphysica. Moscow: Eksmo (Russian translation).
15. Leftow B. (1998) “Classical theism”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/god-concepts-of/v-1/sections/classical-theism (17.02.2020).
16. Menn S. (1992) “Aristotle and Plato on God as Nous and as the Good”. Review of Metaphysics, 45/3, p. 543‒573.
17. Pinnock C. H., Rice R., Sanders J., Hasker W., Basinger D. (1994) The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
18. Plantinga A. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rissler J. “Open Theism”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/ (17.02.2020).
19. Schärtl Th. (2016) “Rethinking the Concept of a Personal God”, in Schärtl Th., Tapp Ch., Wegener V. (eds) Rethinking the Concept of a Personal God: Classical Theism, Personal Theism and Alternative Concepts of God. Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, p. 3‒27.
20. Shokhin V. K. (2018) Filosofskaia teologiia: kanon i variativnost’ [Philosophical theology: Canon and variety]. St Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia (in Russian).
21. Swinburne R. (1993) The Coherence of Theism. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Swinburne R. (2014) The Existence of God. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur (Russian translation).
23. Viney, D. “Process Theism”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/process-theism/ (17.02.2020).
24. Whitehead A. N. (1978) Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York: Free Press.
25. Whitehead A. N. (1997) Religion in the Making. New York: Fordham University Press.
26. Zagzebski L. T. (2004) Divine Motivation Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gasparov Igor

*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 supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project 19-18-00441 “The phenomenon of evil: from metaphysics to moral theories”.

The article attempts to provide the most complete presentation of the views of Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918), the most prominent representative of the “Social Gospel” movement in American Protestantism, in Russian-language scientifi c literature. Particular attention is paid to the revision of the history of Christianity in the works of W. Rauschenbusch and, above all, his position as to the negative impact of the ascetic ideal on understanding the mission of the church in Medieval Christianity. The article also examines the idea of a “social hope” for approaching the “kingdom of heaven” on earth as the main conceptual element of the doctrine of the “Social Gospel”. It is shown that “social hope”, contrary to popular belief, is not utopian, but based on a restrained view of the real possibilities of man. Calling for an active transformation of society, W. Rauschenbusch himself does not experience any illusion about the “ease” of this task or the “sinlessness” of human nature. At the same time, the introduction of specific social reforms (accompanied by a constant humble prayerful appearance before God) is, from the point of view of W. Rauschenbusch, a direct duty of the Christian, aimed at alleviating the situation of the affl icted and oppressed groups of the population. The article also describes the main lines of critical refl ection on the ideas of Walter Rauschenbusch in the doctrines of Reinhold Niebuhr and Richard Rorty. It shows the influence of the concept of “social Gospel” on the movement in defense of the rights of African-Americans in the second half of the 20th century. The conclusion is made about the relevance of the ideas of Walter Rauschenbusch at the beginning of the 21st century in connection with the formation of the trend of “post-metaphysical thinking” in the modern philosophical and religious-philosophical tradition, as well as in connection with the need for a careful and thoughtful rethinking of Christian history.

Walter Rauschenbusch, Social Gospel, Christian asceticism, social hope, history of Christianity, church, Christianity

1. Brackney W. H. (2017) “Walter Rauschenbusch: Then and Now”. Baptist Quarterly, 48/1, p. 23‒46.
2. Cook V. (2016) “Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Long Social Gospel Movement”. Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, 26 (1), p. 74‒100.
3. Dzhokhadze I. D. (2019) “Meshaet li religiia publichnomu dialogu?” [Does religion hinder public dialogue?]. Voprosy teologii, 1 (1), p. 81–96 (in Russian).
4. Guth K. V. (2020) “Laying Claim to Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Legacy”. Journal of Religious Ethics, 48 (1), p. 26–44.
5. Handy R. T (1964) “Walter Rauschenbusch in Historical Perspective”. Baptist Quarterly, 20/7, p. 313‒321.
6. Khristos i kul’tura. Izbrannye trudy Richarda Nibura i Rainhol’da Nibura (1996) [Christ and culture. Selected works of Richard Niebuhr and Reinhold Niebuhr]. Moscow: Iurist (in Russian).
7. Mitrokhin L. N. (1997) Baptizm: istoriia i sovremennost’ (fi losofsko-sociologicheskie ocherki) [Baptism: history and modernity (philosophical and sociological essays)]. St. Petersburg: RHGI (in Russian).
8. Nelson J. R. (2009) “Walter Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel: A Hopeful Theology for the Twenty-First Century Economy”. CrossCurrents, 59 (4), p. 442–456.
9. Niebuhr R. (1968) “Walter Rauschenbusch in Historical Perspective”. Faith and Politics. New York: George Braziller, p. 33‒45.
10. Rauschenbusch W. (1910) For God and the People. Prayers of the social awakening. Boston; New York; Chicago: The pilgrim press.
11. Rauschenbusch W. (2008) Christianity and The Social Crisis in the 21st century: The Classic That Woke Up the Church. New York: HarperOne.
12. Rorti R. (2008) “Anti-clericalism and atheism” Logos, no. 4(67), p. 111–119 (Russian translation).
13. Sukhovskii A. V. (2010) “Martin Liuter King: teologiia osvobozhdeniia v kontekste pravozashchitnoi deiatel’nosti” [Martin Luther King: Theology of liberation in the context of human rights activism], in Social’no-gumanitarnye problemy pravosudiia. Sbornik statei po materialam mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Social-humanitarian issues of justice. Conference papers]. St Petersburg: Petropolis, р. 80‒83 (in Russian).
14. The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr.: Advocate of the Social Gospel. September 1948 – March 1963. Vol. 6 (2007). Berkeley: University of California Press.
15. Zelenova O. V. (2015) “Vozmozhen li sotsial’nyi ideal: U. Raushenbush i R. Nibur” [Is the social ideal possible: W. Rauschenbusch and R. Niebuhr]. Problemnyi analiz i gosudarstvenno-upravlencheskoe proektirovanie, 4, p. 32‒35 (in Russian).

Khitruk Ekaterina

*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.

This article is a response to the detailed review by K. M. Antonov of my book “Philosophy of the Soviet time: Mamardashvili and Ilyenkov (the energies of repulsion and attraction)”. As indicated by its title, “Conservative criticism of culture as a historical and philosophical method: advantages and drawbacks”, the article by K. M. Antonov notes both the advantages and achievements of my work as well as makes a number of serious criticical comments. In my response, or “review of the review”, I focus on the second, polemical part of the article by K. M. Antonov. The controversy touches on such topics as the nature of the phenomenological epoch and the problem of the non-referential phenomenology of consciousness, the relationship of faith and reason, the problem of the autonomy of scientifi c knowledge and its relationship to ideology, criticism of Orthodoxy and Russian culture by Mamardashvili, etc. The answer is given as to how I understand the relationship between the philosophical and ideological aspects of creative Soviet philosophers and why pure science is impossible from this point of view. It is noted that the positive point in this dispute is going beyond the actual Soviet philosophy or the philosophy of the Soviet time. The latter becomes rather an occasion or material for general judgments about the possibilities of reason, the relationship of reason and faith, etc. This shows, among other things, that Soviet philosophy and its study have not only local historical and philosophical significance. I agree with the reviewer that a number of methodological premises of the book have insuffi ciently substantiated grounds, but I explain this as a consequence of the intermediate nature of the work in several senses at once, both in personal and biographical (which, nevertheless, belongs to the entire generation), and the scope of Russian culture and its opposed poles, i.e. Orthodoxy and atheism, radical Westernism and conservatism, Soviet socialism and autocratic monarchy, etc. It is extremely difficult to present this extraordinary scope, breadth and diversity of poles in a unifi ed and methodologically verifi ed, consistent picture.

Soviet philosophy, philosophy of the Soviet time, conservative criticism of culture, Mamardashvili, Ilyenkov, phenomenology, Marxism, religion, Christianity, autonomy of mind

1. Antonov K. M. (2019) “Konservativnaia kritika kul’tury kak istoriko-fi losofskii metod: dostoinstva i nedostatki” [Conservative criticism of culture as a historical and philosophical method: advantages and drawbacks]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 86, p. 113‒124 (in Russian).
2. Husserl E. (2004) Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. St Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’ (Russian translation).
3. Pushchaev Yu. (2018) Filosofiia sovetskogo vremeni. М. Мamardashvili i E. Il’ienkov (energii ottalkivaniia i pritiazheniia) [Philosophy of Soviet times. М. Mamardashvili and E. Il’yenkov (energies of repulsion and attraction)]. Мoscow: INION (in Russian).
4. Wittgenstein L. (1994) Philosophical works. Part I. Moscow: Gnozis (Russian translation).

Puschaev Yuri

*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.