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

Ecclesiology came to be one of the main theological areas that was developed by the Russian Diaspora in the 20th century. An important factor in its development was the immersion of its representatives in the domain of Western European religious thought. For example, an incentive for Georgy Florovsky to develop his own theories was his acquaintance with the Augustinian doctrine of totus Christus — the entire Christ — through the works of such authors as E. Mersch and K. Adam. Revd. Georgy intended to use this basis in order to develop one of directions of his neo-patristic synthesis. He stated that St. Augustine’s doctrine needs to be supplemented by the concept of spiritual unity (Rus. соборность). This was understood as a unity of persons, each of them carrying the whole self-consciousness of the church. In order to solve the question whether the juxtaposition of these theses is correct in the framework of Augustinian theology, we need to study how Augustine correlates the divine and the created personae. There is no uniform opinion about this in current Augustinian studies. This article shows an essential asymmetry in Augustine’s correlation of these concepts and proposes a hypothesis that the link which he establishes between Persona Dei and persona hominis is determined by the opportunity for the divine personality of Christ to be identified with personalities of members of His body of the Church. But this conclusion requires an obvious correction of Revd. Georgy’s project. Otherwise we will inevitably encounter diffi culties distinguishing the fi rst and the third properties of the church or will face the necessity of delimiting in the Church the acts of Christ and the acts of the Holy Spirit. The latter circumstance poses a problem of the correct juxtaposition of the Christocentric and the Trinitarian ecclesiology, which can be a topic for further studies.

ecclesiology of 20th century, Revd. Georgy Florovsky, St. Augustine, V. N. Lossky, totus Christus, unity, theology of Russian Diaspora, persona

1. Adam K. (1946) Das Wesen des Khatholizismus. Düsseldorf.
2. Aurelius Augustinus. Opera omnia. Available at http://www.augustinus.it/latino/index.htm (10.05.2020).
3. Bavel T. J. van (1954) Recherches sur la Christologie de St. Augustin L’humain et le divin dans le Christ d’aprés saint Augustin. Friburg.
4. Bavel Tarsicius J. van, Bruning Bernard (1975) “Die Einheit des ‘Totus Christus’ bei Augustin“, in AA.VV., Scientia Augustiniana. Studien über Augustinus, den Augustinianismus und Augustinerorden, Festschrift A. Zumkeller. Würzburg. P. 43–75.
5. Bermon E. (2016) “Persona”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, Vol. 4, Fasc. 5/6. Basel. Col. 693–700.
6. Bulgakov S. (2005) Nevesta Agntsa [Bride of the Lamb]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Dassman E. (2011) “Die Enstehung des Personbegriff s im früher Christentum und seine Entwicklung bis zum früher Mittelalter”, in Ausgewählte kleine Schriften zur Patrologie, Kirchengeschichte und christlichen Archäologie. Münster. P. 39–49.
8. Drobner H. R. (1986) Person-Exegese und Christologie bei Augustinus. Leiden.
9. Feofan Zatvornik (2003) Put’ ko spaseniiu [The Way to Salvation]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Feofan Zatvornik (2005) Tolkovanie Poslaniia apostola Pavla k Galatam [Interpretation of the Epistle of Apostle Paul to the Galatians]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Feofan Zatvornik (2005) Tolkovaniia Poslanii apostola Pavla: Pastyrskie poslaniia [Interpretation of the Epistles of Apostle Paul: Pastoral Epistles]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Florovskii G. (2002) Vera i kul’tura [Faith and culture]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
13. Florovskii G. (2009) Puti russkogo bogosloviia [Ways of Russian theology]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Florovskii G. (2016) “Edinstvo vo Khriste” [Unity in Christ]. Metaparadigma, 9, pp. 170–176 (in Russian).
15. Florovskii G. Hristos i ego Cerkov’. Tezisy i kriticheskie zamechaniya [Christ and his Church. Theses and criticisms], available at: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Georgij _Florovskij /bogoslovskiestati- o-tserkvi/ (10.05.2020) (in Russian).
16. Franz E. (1956) Totus Christus. Studien über Christus und die Kirche bei Augustin. Bonn.
17. Friedrowicz M. (1997) Psalmus vox totius Christi. Studien zu Augustins „Enarrationes in psalmos“. Freiburg; Basel; Wien.
18. Lloyd A. C. (1972) “On Augustine’s Concept of a Person”, in Augustine. Collection of Critical Essays. New York. P. 191–205.
19. Losev A. F. (2000) Istoriia antichnoi estetiki: Itogi tysiacheletnego razvitiia [History of Ancient aesthetics. Results of the millennial development], vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
20. Losskii V. N. (1995) Po obrazu i podobiiu [In the image and likeness]. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Mersch É. (1933) Le corps mystice du Christ. Études de théologie historique. Louvain.
22. Milano A. (1996) Persona in Teologia. Alle origini del signifi cato di persona nel cristianesimo antico. Roma.
23. Moreschini, Cl. (2016) “Persona (Prosopon)”, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart. Teilband 27, col. 299–331.
24. Morgan E. (2006) “The Concept of Person in Augustine’s Trinitate”. Studia patristica, XLIII. Louvain. P. 201–206.
25. Nisula T. (2017) “You are Adam”, in Adam and Eve story in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic perspectives. Indiana. P. 119–159.
26. Wisse M. (2011) Augustine’s De Trinitate and Contemporary Theology. London.

Khondzinskii Pavel, archpriest

This article deals with the fi rst Russian proofs of God’s existence which were proposed by Zinovy Otensky in the Demonstration of the Truth. The author of the article believes that F. V. Kalugin’s and R. Mainka’s studies are not comprehensive. They did not take into account the historical and philosophical context of these proofs and therefore could not give an evaluation that would be relevant to the historical context. This article evaluates each of Zinovy’s proofs following the reconstruction of his philosophical views. The description of the latter is made more precise, which allows one to identify their sources in the philosophical booklore of Ancient Rus’ and to reconstruct the relevant historical and philological background of these proofs. Zinovy himself proposed fi ve proofs of God’s existence. They were designed to disprove the theory of independent emergence of all being which was ascribed to the famous heretic Theodosius Kosoy. Zinovy’s proofs have a syllogistic structure and a detailed substantiation of the prerequisites. Proof 1: all kinds of living beings are created. This proof is founded on the principle of immutability of created species which goes back to the 2nd Oration against the Arians by Athanasius of Alexandria. Proof 2: all being was created. This argument draws on the conception of motion and rest going back to Aristotle. This doctrine is expounded in the Dialectics by John of Damascus and in scholia on the Corpus Areopagiticum. Proof 3: man knows and seeks God by nature. This elaborates one of the statements of Damascene’s Theology. Proof 4: all beings are subject to passions and change and therefore could not appear independently. This proof is illustrated by the texts that contain Aristotelian doctrine of motion and aff ect. Proof 5: the order of the four elements evidences the presence of the Arranging One. This proof is based on the classical theory of elements and their order and harmony. The article concludes that Zinovy’s philosophical views were infl uenced by the tradition of Aristoteles Slavicus. One can claim that proofs 1 and 2 are original, whereas 3, 4, 5 are original developments of Greek prototypes.

Ancient Rus’, Christianity, Zinovy Otensky, Demonstration of the truth, natural theology, Aristoteles Slavicus, patristics, medieval philosophy, Old Russian theology, Old Russian philosophy

1. Anisimova T. (2016) “V poiskakh avtografa Zinoviia Otenskogo” [Looking for the autograph of Zinovy Otensky]. Observatoriia kul’tury, 13, 6, p. 736–745 (in Russian).
2. Barankova G., Mil’kov V. (2001) Shestodnev Ioanna ekzarkha Bolgarskogo [The Hexaemeron of John the Exarch]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
3. Bogatova G. (ed.) (2002) Slovar’ russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th — 17th centuries], vol. 26. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Dmitriev M. (1998) Dissidents russes. I. Feodosii Kosoi. Baden-Baden.
5. Eremin I. (1956) “Literaturnoe nasledie Kirilla Turovskogo” [Literary heritage of Kirill Turovsky], in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 12, p. 340–362 (in Russian).
6. Fokin A. (2019) “Argument ot sensus divinitatis i istoricheskii argument v pol’zu sushchestvovaniia Boga v istorii patristicheskoi mysli” [The Argument from Sensus Divinitatis and the historical argument for the existence of God in the history of patristic thought]. Trudy kafedry bogosloviya SPBDA, 1 (3), p. 17‒32 (in Russian).
7. Gavrushin N. (2003) Premudraia sviataia dialektika. «Filosofskie glavy» prepodobnogo Ioanna Damaskina na Rusi [Wise and holy dialectics. “The Philosophical Chapters» by John of Damascus in Ancient Rus’]. N. Novgorod (in Russian).
8. Goltz H., Prochorov G. (eds) (2011) Das Corpus des Dionysios Areiopagites in der slavischen Übersetzung von Starec Isaija (14. Jahrhundert). Bd. 2. Freiburg i. Br..
9. Koretskii V. (1965) “Vnov’ naidennoe protivoereticheskoe proizvedenie Zinoviia Otenskogo” [Newly found antiheretical work of Zinovy Otensky], in Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 12, p. 162–182 (in Russian).
10. Lytvynenko V. (ed.) (2019) Athanasius of Alexandria. Oratio II contra Arianos: Old Slavonic Version and English Translation. Turnhout: Brepols. (Patrologia Orientalis, Volume 248).
11. Lytvynenko V. (ed.) (2019) Athanasius of Alexandria. Oratio II contra Arianos: Old Slavonic Version and English Translation. Turnhout: Brepols. (Patrologia Orientalis, Volume 248).
12. Mainka R. M. (1961) Zinovij von Oten’: Ein russischer Polemiker und Theologe der Mitte des 16. Jh. Rome.
13. Morozova L. (1975) “Voprosy atributsii «Poslaniya mnogoslovnogo», polemicheskogo proizvedeniia XVI v.” [The attribution of “Poslanie mnogoslovnoe”, a polemical work of the 16th century]. Istoriia SSSR, 1, p. 101–109 (in Russian).
14. Prokhorov G., Miklas H., Bil’dug A. (eds) (2008) “Dioptra” Filippa Monotropa: antropologicheskaia entsiklopediia pravoslavnogo Srednevekov’ia [The “Dioptra” by Fhilip Monotrop. The antropological encyclopaedia of the Orthodox middle ages]. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Trefandilov H. (1998) ““Bogoslovie” Ioanna Damaskina v perevode Ioanna Ekzarkha Bolgarskogo (“Nebesa”) i original’nye proizvedeniia drevnerusskoi literatury XI–XVI vv.” [“Theology” of John of Damascus in John the Exarch’s translation and the original works of Old Russian literature of the 11th — 16th centuries]. Preslavska knizhovna shkola, 3, p. 85–119 (in Russian).
16. Zubov V. (ed.) (2019) Logika Aviasafa. Trudy po istorii religiozno-fi losofskoj mysli i nauki Drevnei Rusi [The Logic of Aviasaf. Works on the history of Old Russian religious and philosophical thought]. Moscow (in Russian).

Shpakovskiy Mikhail

The paper analyses the problem of the role of religion in the life of Napoleon Bonaparte. It shows main approaches to its solution, as well as theistic, atheistic, deistic interpretations. The Emperor’s contemporaries, assessing the degree of his religiosity, often followed their own interests, their views on the church, their political ideals. The problem was complicated by the fact that public statements of the Emperor about religion were fragmentary and were related to the solution of specifi c issues of current politics without revealing his ulterior motives. This creates contradictions in scholarly opinions about Napoleon’s attitude to religion. The article uses a phenomenological method. Drawing on the available facts, one can form a viable opinion about the evolution of Napoleon’s religious ideas. Rejecting for himself in the mature age the possibility to adhere to “blind faith”, he mentioned in conversations on St. Helena that as a child his attitude towards religion was exactly of that kind. The education that he received under guidance of the Franciscans at Brienne Military School, he admitted, gave rise to his fi rst doubts and shook the naive childlike faith. Napoleon blamed unskilful mentors for this as they did not notice how their way of teaching led to undesirable results. During his garrison service in Valence and Auxonne, he read the texts of the deists of the 18th century and was indoctrinated by their ideas. Returning from the Italian march, the glorious general answered those interested in his attitude to religion that he shared the views of the members of the national Institute, i.e. adherents of the school of “ideologists”, who held anti-clerical positions. But after coming to power, he rejects the approach of the “ideologists”, insisting that only Christianity can be the mainstay of good reign and of individual happiness. During this period, his thoughts on religion continue to bear traces of the infl uence of Enlightenment deism, but also go beyond it, severs with it in its key point that are made up of its calls for the eradication of existing religions.

Concordat, Pius VII, Napoleon, deism of 18 century, Ministry of Cults, Catholicism and First Empire in France, “ideologists”

1. Bainville J. (1958) Napoléon. Paris.
2. Bertot J. (1949) Napoléon I-er aux Tuileries. Paris.
3. Calvet H. (1969) Napoléon. Paris.
4. Cambacérès J. J. R. (1999) Mémoires inédits, vol. 2. Paris.
5. Casali D. (dir.), Auger A., Garnier J., Rollin V. (2004) Napoléon Bonaparte. Paris: Larousse.
6. Chateaubriand F. R. (1995) Mémoires d’outre-tombe. Moscow (Russian translation).
7. Chevallier A. (dir.) (2014) Napoléon raconté par ceux qui l`ont connu. Paris: Plon.
8. Fautrier P. (2018) Napoléon Bonaparte. Paris.
9. Godechot J. (1969) Napoléon. Paris.
10. Healey F.G. (1957) Rousseau et Napoléon. Genève.
11. Las Case E. de. (2018) Le mémorial de Sainte-Hélène. Le manuscrit retrouvé. Paris.
12. Lefebvre G. (1953) Napoléon. Paris.
13. Lentz T. (2013) 100 questions sur Napoléon. Paris.
14. Lentz T. (2016) Les ministres de Napoléon. Refonder l`Etat, server l`empereur. Paris.
15. Madelin L. (2003) Histoire du consulat et de l`empire, vol. 1. Paris.
16. Manfred A. (1980) Napoleon Bonapart [Napoleon Bonaparte]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Napoléon Bonaparte (2001) Oeuvres littéraires et écrits militaires, vols 1–3. Paris.
18. Napoléon Bonaparte (2004–2018) Correspondance générale, vols 1–15. Paris.
19. Norma P. (2004) Napoléon. Paris.
20. Petiteau N. (2019) Napoléon Bonaparte. La nation incarnée. Paris.
21. Ravignant P. (1969) Ce que Napoléon a vraiment dit. Paris.
22. Roederer P. L. (1942) Bonaparte me disait… Conversations notees par le comte. Paris.
23. Rousseau J.-J. (1969) Oeuvres complètes, vol. 4. Paris.
24. Soboul A. (1983) La civilisation et la révolution française. T. III. La France napoléonienne. Paris.
25. Staël G. (2017) Dix années d’exil. St Petersburg (Russian translation).
26. Tarle E. (2012) Napoleon. St Petersburg (in Russian).
27. Thiers A. (1972) Histoire du Consulat et de l`Empire. Paris.
28. Tulard J. (2006) Napoléon. Les grands moments d`un destin. Paris.
29. Tulard J. (2015) Le Monde selon Napoléon. Paris.
30. Tulard J. (2016) Napoléon ou le mythe du sauveur. Paris.
31. Tulard J. (2017) Napoléon ou le mythe du sauveur. Moscow (Russian translation).

Krotov Artem

*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 deals with a complicated question about the emergence of the methodology of knowledge about religion (primarily of comparative religious studies or history of religion and of psychology of religion) in the continental thought of the latter half of the 19th — early 20th centuries. It is this material that allows one to trace methodological transformations that took place in the Protestant liberal theology and favoured the fi nal formation of the institutionalised schientifi c knowledge of religion. The first part of the article studies early ideas of the theologian and religious scholar C. P. Tiele which pertain to the correlation between theology and religious studies: theology has an artifi cial structure, it has lost its ideological positions and, consequently, it is subject to radical transformations and must fi nally give way to the unbiased empirical and comparative religious science that would formulate its universal laws. These views of Tiele were actively discussed in the Netherlands within the framework of adopting the Dutch Higher Education Act of 1876 and were partly taken into account there. The second part of the article deals with the development of experimental psychology of religion in Germany which was accompanied by a discussion between the philosophising theologian G. Wobbermin and one of the pioneering theologiansexperimenters W. Stählin (the latter was later supported by F. Traub). Stählin and Traub insist on complete independence of psychology of religion from theology and philosophy; its material should only be data of psychological experiments. It cannot be guided by either the generalising philosophical interest or objectives of theological systematisation. Besides, psychology of religion cannot by any means substantiate the veracity of religious experience, its only aim being to observe and describe it. In conclusion, one can see that the scientifi c knowledge of religion is to a large extent rooted in the theological soil due to the fi nal methodological fracture related to the secularisation and emancipation of humanities-related studies under the infl uence of the positivist ideal of science. This change of paradigm does not, of course, imply the rejection of the personal religiosity, nor the necessity of abandoning one’s theological career.

history of religion, psychology of religion, theology, history of humanities, methodology of humanities, secularisation, C. P. Tiele, G. Wobbermin, W. Stählin

1. Antonov K. (2012) “Teologiia kak nauchnaia spetsial’nost’” [Theology as a scientifi c specialisation]. Voprosy filosofii, 6, p. 73–84 (in Russian).
2. Belzen A. van (2015) Religionspsychologie. Eine historische Analyse im Spiegel der Internationalen Gesellschaft. Berlin.
3. Bokova O., Karandashov V. (2015) “Diskussii o teologii v rossiiskoi vysshei shkole” [Discussions about theology in Russian higher education]. Vestnik LGU im. A. S. Pushkina, 4, p. 194–201 (in Russian).
4. Cabanel P. (1994) “L’institutionnalisation des «sciences religieuses» en France (1879-1908): Une entreprise protestante?”. Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français (1903– 2015), 140, p. 33–80.
5. De Jong J. (1968) “De wetgever van 1876 en de theologie”. Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis / Dutch Review of Church History, 48, 2, p. 313–332.
6. Hjelde S. (2010) “Die Geburt der Religionswissenschaften aus dem Geist der protestantischen Theologie”, in Graf F. W., Friedemann V. (eds) Religion(en) deuten. Transformationen der Religionsforschung. Berlin. P. 9–28.
7. Hjelde S. (2016) “Religionswissenschaft und Theologie zwischen Grenzziehung und Verschmelzung. Eine historische Perspektive im Kontext der Entstehungszeit der Religionswissenschaft”, in Ceylan R., Saglam C. (eds) Die Bedeutung der Religionswissenschaft und ihrer Subdisziplinen als Bezugswissenschaften für die Theologie. Berlin. P. 87–115.
8. Krasnikov A. (2020) Metodologicheskie problemy religiovedeniia [Methodological problems of religious science]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Lessing E. (2000) Geschichte der deutschsprachigen evangelischen Theologie von Albrecht Ritschl bis zur Gegenwart. Göttingen.
10. Malevich T. (2014) “Empiricheskie metody issledovaniia religioznogo opyta v psikhologii religii: istoriia i sovremennye tendentsii (konets 19 — pervaia polovina 20 v.)” [Empirical methods of the study of religions experience in psychology of religion: History and present-day tendencies”]. Vestnik VolGU: Filosofiya, 5 (25), p. 60–69 (in Russian).
11. Ilarion (Alfeev) (2016) “Teologiia v sovremennom rossiiskom akademicheskom prostranstve” [Theology in the present-day Russian academic space]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom, 3 (34), p. 224–239 (in Russian).
12. Molendij k A. L. (2000) “Abschied vom Christentum: Der Fall Allard Pierson”, in Krop H., Molendij k A. L., Hent de Vries (eds) Post-Theism: Reframing the Judeo-Christian Tradition. Leuven. P. 141–157.
13. Molendij k A. L. (2005) The Emergence of the Science of Religion in the Netherlands. Leiden.
14. Pruette L. (1926) G. Stanley Hall. A Biography of a Mind. New York.
15. Samarina T. (2018) “Dizainerskii proekt fenomenologicheskogo ponimaniia religii: komparativistika F. Maksa Miullera” [Designer project of phenomenological understanding of religion: F. Max Müller’s comparative studies”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 78, p. 121–131 (in Russian).
16. Stählin W. (1921) “Die Wahrheitsfrage in der Religionspsychologie”. Archive für Religionspsychologie, 2–3, p. 136–159.
17. Shishkov A. (2019) “Teologiia bez ideologii” [Theology without ideologii], available at https://www.opendemocracy.net/ru/theology-without-ideology (08.11.2020) (in Russian).
18. Vande Kemp H. G. (1992) “Stanley Hall and the Clark School of Religious Psychology”. American Psychologist, 47, 2, p. 290–298.
19. White Chr. (2008) “A Measured Faith: Edwin Starbuck, William James, and the Scientifi c Reform of Religious Experience”. Harvard Theological Review, 101, 3/4, p. 431–450.
20. Wobbermin G. (1921) “Religionspsychologische Arbeit und systematische Theologie”. Archive für Religionspsychologie, 2–3, p. 200–205.

Zolotukhin Vsevolod

*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.

Our paper aims to present a comprehensive study of the present-day freethinkers in Moscow and St Petersburg. By means of a questionnaire-based survey (N=669), we analyse social and political attitudes and features of freethinkers’ worldview. The article proposes an operational defi nition of a freethinker. In compliance with this defi nition, we, for example, exclude from the study representatives of other faiths. Beside the analysis of the general sample, the article identifi es the specifi city of the organised freethinking in both capitals. Organised freethinking is represented by a number of public organisations and non-formal societies of cultural, educational, and social orientation whose aim is to criticise religion, church and to promote secular ideas in society. Apart from the questionnaire, we have used data of 14 interviews with leaders of organisations and with their active members. The data obtained by the questionnaire show that freethinkers do not make up a homogenous community, but are a milieu that consists of subgroups with diff erences in their worldview, political preferences, attitudes to religion and the church. The following previously observed regularities have been confi rmed: the freethinker is most often a man younger than 39, with a higher or incomplete higher technical education, with medium income. A signifi cant percentage of those inclined to superstitions shows a contradictory character of freethinkers’ worldview. Anticlerical and antireligious attitudes are rather strong, but the interviewees demonstrate tolerance towards religious persons. There is no signifi cant diff erences between those belonging to organisations and communities (N=150) and other freethinkers in terms of their social and demographic properties or views. But the organised freethinkers have a more active position as to defending their ideals in the Internet and in the public domain. Organised freethinking in both capitals is not a mass phenomenon. Despite the increase in the anticlerical attitudes in society, freethinkers are not eager to unite into organisations and are considerably disjointed.

atheism, unbelief, freethought, organisations of freethinkers, religion, Russian Orthodox Church, secularism, worldview

1. Beard T. R., Ekelund R., Ford G., Gaskins B., Tollison R. (2013) “Secularism, Religion, and Political Choice in the United States”. Politics and Religion, 6, p. 753–777.
2. Blankholm J., Garcia A. (2016) “The Social Context of Organized Nonbelief: County-Level Predictors of Nonbeliever Organizations in the United States”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 55 (1), p. 70–90.
3. Bliznetsov V. Dazhe esli by politicheskie sily seichas, skazhem, popytalis’ «zapretit’ ateizm», to eto by ne poluchilos’ [Even if political forces tried to “prohibit atheism”, they wouldn’t succeed], available at https://neverie.ru/interview/bliznetsov/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
4. Bogachev M. (2016) “Votserkovlennost’ i politicheskie predpochteniia pravoslavnyh veruiushchikh: kolichestvennyi analiz” [Church attendance and political preferences of Orthodox believers: quantitative analysis”]. Religiovedcheskie issledovaniia, 1, p. 8–76 (in Russian).
5. Boghossian P. (2015) A Manual for Creating Atheists. St Petersburg (Russian translation).
6. Boguslavskii V. Skeptitsizm i agnostitsizm [Scepticism and agnosticism], available at http://philofi ot.narod.ru/Sceptic_i_Agnosticism.htm (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
7. Bullivant S., Lee L. (eds) (2016) Freethought in Oxford Dictionary of Atheism. Oxford.
8. Campbell D., Layman G. (2017) “The Politics of Secularism in the United States”, in R. A. Scott, S. M. Kosslyn (eds) Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. New York. P. 1–13.
9. Coleman T., Holcombe J., Hood R., Silver C. (2014) “The six types of nonbelief: a qualitative and quantative study of type and narrative”. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 1 (19), p. 990–1001.
10. Emigratsionnye nastroeniia [Emigrational Spirits] (2019), available at https://www.levada.ru/2019/11/26/emigratsionnye-nastroeniya-4/ (04.03.2020).
11. Europe’s Muslim Population will continue to grow — but how much depends on migration (2017), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/04/europes-muslim-populationwill-continue-to-grow-but-how-much-depends-on-migration/ (07.04.2020).
12. Freidenker in Meyers. Großes Konversations-Lexikon, 7, available at http://www.zeno.org/Meyers-1905/A/Freidenker?hl=freidenker (04.03.2020).
13. Golomolzin A. Malo tekh gumanistov, kotorye zanimaiutsya prodvizheniem gumanizma v massy [There are few those advocates of humanism who promote humanism in society], available at https://neverie.ru/interview/golomolzin/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
14. Golovin Ia. Gumanizm ne iavliaetsya meinstrimom dlia Rossii, ne podderzhivaetsia vlast’iu, a stanovitsia nekim oppozitsionnym dvizheniem [Humanism is not mainstream in Russia, gets no political support and tends to become opposition], available at https://neverie.ru/interview/golovin/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
15. Groschopp H. (1997) Dissidenten. Freidenkerei und Kultur in Deutschland. Berlin. Institutsional’noe doverie (2018) [Institutional confidence], available at https://www.levada.ru/2018/10/04/institutsionalnoe-doverie-4/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
16. Institutsional’noe doverie (2019) [Institutional confidence], available at https://www.levada.ru/2019/10/24/institutsionalnoe-doverie-5/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
17. Korostichenko E., Sleptsova V. (2019) “Mesto i rol’ rossiiskogo gumanisticheskogo obshchestva v dukhovnoi zhizni sovremennoi Rossii” [Russian humanist society: its place and role in the spiritual life of Russia”]. Idei i idealy, 39, 1 (1), p. 57–85 (in Russian).
18. Kofanova E., Mchedlova M. (2010) “Religioznost’ rossiian i evropeitsev” [Religiousness of Russians and Europeans]. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniia, 4 (98), p. 201–230 (in Russian).
19. Kublitskaia Е. (2014) “Razvitie protsessa desekuliarizatsii v megapolise (monitoringovye issledovaniia)” [Development of desecularisation process in a large city (monitoring research)”], in S. D. Lebedev (ed.) Sotsiologiia religii v obshchestve Pozdnego Moderna, Materialy IV Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Sociology of religion in the society of Late Modern. Materials of the 4th International Scientifi c Conference]. Belgorod. P. 171–175 (in Russian).
20. Lokosov V., Sinelina Iu. (2008) “Vzaimosviaz’ religioznykh i politicheskikh orientatsii pravoslavnykh rossiian” [The relationship of religious and political orientations of Orthodox Russians], in M. P. Mchedlov (ed.) Religiia v samosoznanii naroda (Religioznyi faktor v identifi katsionnykh protsessakh) [Religion in the identity of the people (religious factor in identifi cation processes)], Мoscow. P. 106–125 (in Russian).
21. McTague J., Layman G. (2010) “Religion, Parties, and Voting Behavior: A Political Explanation of Religious Infl uence”, in J. L. Guth, L. A. Kellstedt, C. E. Smidt (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics. P. 330–370.
22. Medvedev D. Po mere togo, kak u liudei apgreiditsia intellekt, oni mogut razobrat’sia v tom, kak ustroen mir, i bez etogo uproshcheniia, bez idei Boga [As people will upgrade their intellect, they will be able to understand the world without the idea of God], available at https://neverie.ru/interview/medvedev/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
23. Osuzhdaiushchikh abort stalo bol’she (2018) [There are more people against abortion], available at https://www.levada.ru/2018/01/11/osuzhdayushhih-aborty-stalo-bolshe/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
24. Otnoshenie k ateizmu i ateistam (2007) [Perception of atheism and atheists], available at https://bd.fom.ru/report/cat/rel_rel/religion/d072323 (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
25. Otnoshenie k RPTS i ee uchastiiu v raznykh sferakh zhizni strany (2017) [Perception of Russian Orthodox Church and its participation in the life of the country], available at https://fom.ru/TSennosti/13846 (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
26. Otnoshenie rossiian k religii otmecheno protivorechiiami (2017) [Contradictions in Russian perception of religion], available at https://vz.ru/society/2017/7/24/879944.html (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
27. Portret veruiushchego rossiianina (2016) [A portrait of a religious russian], available at http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2016/0685/opros03.php (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
28. Predskazaniia, koldovstvo, spiritizm... — verit’ ili ne verit’? (2015) [Divination, witchcraft, spiri tism... — to believe of not to believe?], available at https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=115446 (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
29. Svetlova E. Sotsiologi rasshifrovali religioznyi kod rossiianina (interv’iu s E.A. Kublitskoi) [Sociologists decypher Russian religious code, an interview with E. Kublitskaia], available at https://www.mk.ru/social/2016/02/10/sociologi-rasshifrovali-religioznyy-kod-rossiyanina.html (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
30. Simvol very pravoslavnogo ateista (2017) [The creed of an Orthodox atheist], available at https://www.levada.ru/2017/11/16/simvol-very-pravoslavnogo-ateista/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
31. Smirnov M. (2008) “O religiovedenii, religii i religioznosti” [On religious studies, religion and religiosity]. Vestnik RHGA, 2, p. 62–73 (in Russian).
32. Tazhurizina Z. (2006) “Svobodomyslie v otnoshenii religii” [Freethought in its relation to religion], in A. Zabiiako, A. Krasnikov, E. Elbakian (eds) Religiovedenie. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Religious Studies. Encyclopaedia]. Мoscow. P. 961–962 (in Russian).
33. Tazhurizina Z. (2015) “Ateofobiia v istorii khristianstva i svobodomysliia” [Atheophobia in history of Christianity and freethinking]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriia 7: Filosofiia, 1, p. 81–95 (in Russian).
34. The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050 (2015), available at https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ (07.04.2020).
35. Vera i sueverie (2017) [Faith and superstition], available at https://www.levada.ru/2017/11/16/17049/ (04.03.2020) (in Russian).
36. Veruiushchie i neveruiushchie (2004) [Believers and non-believers], available at: https://bd.fom.ru/report/cat/rel_rel/of041401 (04.03.2020) (in Russian).

Korostichenko Ekaterina

*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.

Sleptsova Valeriya

*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 reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project № 18-311-00114.The authors are especially grateful to Fyodor N. Glazyrin (PhD) for his valuable advice, his assistance in collecting primary research data and its technical processing. E.K. and V.S. also express deep appreciation to Tamara O. Gordeeva, Professor, Department of Educational Psychology and Pedagogy, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, D. Sc.; to Anatolij N. Krichevets, Professor, Department of Methodology of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, D. Sc. and to V. A. Titova, graduate student, Lomonosov Moscow State University for their valuable advice.

This publication presents the editio princeps of the homily of ps.-Chrysostom In decollationem Praecursoris (CPG 4862; BHG 843n), prepared on the basis of two manuscripts of the 10th and 16th centuries. The publication of the text is preceded by a detailed literary, historical and theological analysis, which makes it possible to accept S. Voicu’s statement that the text in question is part of the homiletic heritage of Leontius Presbyter of Constantinople. C. Datema and P. Allen were the fi rst who supposed a connection of the text with this author that was unknown to historians. They tentatively suggested that he belongs to the same circle of homilists as Leontius. Using the methods previously tested for the analysis of texts of Leontius, as well as new methods that I developed in the process of studying the entire corpus of texts which is mentioned in the relevant literature in relation to Leontius, I consider that the belonging of the homily to this church rhetor has been proven. At the same time, I have no doubt that the text has come down to us in an edited form. First of all, the compiler adapted the exegetical conversation of Leontius for the feast of the Beheading of John the Baptist; then he added an alien preamble, taken with minor changes from another pseudochrysostomic (De virtute animi, CPG 4708); fi nally, he may have slightly reduced the series of the anaphores. When establishing the text, I became convinced of the validity of A. Ehrhard’s statement that the late manuscript Xeropotamou 134 is a selective copy of the ancient manuscript Parisinus 1171. In variae lectiones, which cannot be explained by anything else than the inattentiveness of the scribe of the Xeropotamou, I gave preference to the readings of the Parisinus everywhere. In several places I have offered conjectures. In the fi rst translation of homily into Russian, I aimed to adequately convey the rhetorical techniques and other stylistic features of the original text. In one difficult place, where the author intended to make his interpretation of the Gospel’s word τρίβος ‘paths’ (Luke 3, 4) more convincing and chose the same-root word from the moral lexicon — διατριβn ‘pastime, way of life’, — I decided to translate it as ‘ways (of the soul)’ to save the metaphor.

history of early Byzantine literature, homiletics, pseudo-epigraphy, exegesis, Leontius Presbyter of Constantinople, manuscript tradition, editio princeps

1. Allen P., Datema C. (1980) “Leontius, presbyter of Constantinople — a compiler?”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 29, p. 12–18.
2. Allen P., Datema C. (eds) (1991) Leontius Presbyter of Constantinople. Fourteen Homilies. Leiden.
3. Asmus M. (2013) “Les énigmes d’un presbytre de Constantinople”, in A. Rigo (ed.) Theologica minora. The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, Turnhout. P. 152–158.
4. Aubineau M. (ed.) (1972) Homélies pascales (cinq homélies inédites). Paris.
5. Bonnet M., Voicu S. (eds) (2012) Amphiloque d’Iconium. Homélies. Paris.
6. Datema C. (ed.) (1978) Amphilochii Iconiensis opera. Turnhout; Leuven.
7. Datema C., Allen P. (1981) “Text and Tradition of two Easter Homilies of Ps. Chrysosom”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 30, p. 87–102.
8. Datema C., Allen P. (eds) (1987) Leontii presbyteri Constantinopolitani homiliae. Turnhout.
9. Ehrhard A. (1937) Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfangen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts. Erster teil: Die Überlieferung. Band I. Leipzig.
10. Ettlinger G. H. (ed.) (1975) Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes. Oxford.
11. Juan Mateos S. I. (ed.) (1962) Le Typicon de la Grande Église. Ms. Sainte-Croix n 40, X siècle, I. Roma.
12. Kim S. S. (2011) “Propoved’ Severiana, episkopa Gaval’skogo, iz tsikla gomilii o sotvorenii mira (CPG 4195)” [Sermon of Severian Bishop of Gabala from the Cycle of Homilies on Creation of the World”]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 2, p. 262–275 (in Russian).
13. Leroy F. J. (1967) L’homilétique de Proclus de Constantinople. Tradition manuscrite, inédits, études connexes. Città del Vaticano.
14. Lipatov-Chicherin N. (2013) “Preaching as the Audience Heard It: Unedited Transcripts of Patristic Homilies”. Studia Patristica, 64, p. 277–297.
15. Nautin P. (1977) Origène. Sa vie et son oeuvre. Paris.
16. Nautin P. (1989) “Leontii presbyteri Constantinopolitani homiliae, quarum editionem curaverunt Cornelis Datema et Pauline Allen (Corpus christianorum, series graeca, 17). Turnhout et Leuven, Brepols 1987, in-8o, 470 p. (Recension)”. Revue des Études Grecques, 102, fasc. 485–486, p. 260–261.
17. Origène (1962) Homélies sur S. Luc. Paris.
18. Osiou Efraim tou Syrou erga (1988) [Works of Venerable Ephrem the Syrian], I. Thessaloniki (in Greek).
19. Sachot M. (1977) “Les Homélies de Léonce, prêtre de Constantinople”. Revue des Sciences Réligieuses, 51 (fasc. 2-3), p. 234–245.
20. Sachot M. (1981) L’homélie pseudo-chrysostomienne sur la Transfiguration CPG 4724, BHG 1975: contextes liturgiques, restitution a Léonce, prêtre de Constantinople, édition critique et commentée, traduction et études connexes. Frankfurt am Main; Bern.
21. Voicu S. J. (2001) “Dieci omelie di Leonzio di Costantinopoli”. Studi sull’oriente cristiano, 5, p. 165–190.
22. Voicu S. J. (2016) “La data di Leonzio presbitero di Costantinopoli. Una nuova proposta”. Augustinianum, 56, p. 247–252.
23. Voicu S. (2010) “Ioann Zlatoust, svt. (razdel: Sochineniia; podrazdel: Pripisyvaemye)” [St. John Chrysostom (works; ascribed works)], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 24. Moscow. P. 199–204 (in Russian).

Asmus Michael, priest

The publication was prepared with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project No. 19-012-00215 "Homiletic heritage of Leontius of Constantinople".This publication would not have been possible without the moral support and valuable advice of Scriptor Graecus of the Vatican Apostolic Library Sever J. Voicu, to whom we express our special gratitude.Electronic copies of the Athous Xêropotamou 134 manuscript by our order were provided by the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies at the Vlatadon Monastery (Thessaloniki, Greece).We would like to express our gratitude to the Deputy Director of the RGADA Eugenia E. Lykova, who contributed to the placement of an electronic copy of the Mosquensis RGADA Φ.1607 24 manuscript on the official website of the Archive.