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

The paper deals with the interpretation of the image of locusts, which belongs to the so-called demonic bestiary in the Apocalypse, and its interpretation in the Latin patristic commentaries by Ticonius the African (4th c.) and his two successors, Caesarius of Arles (5th c.) and Primasius of Hadrumetum (6th c.). The interpretation of locusts by Ticonius as cruel persecutors, who pretend to be the true Church, fully correlates with his idea of the ‘bipartite Church,’ divided into the right (i.e. true) and left (false, hypocritical) sides, while the parallel between the fi ve months of power given to the locusts and the fi ve years of persecution againts Donatists in Africa is in accordance with Ticonius’ perception of the Apocalypse as the book not only about the future, but also about the present, abouth the earthly Church. Using the Commentary of Ticonius, his two above-mentioned successors follow his ecclesiology and characterise the locusts as a symbol of the heretics; however, they create rather dissimilar commentaries. Caesarius of Arles, surpassing Ticonius in the style of his homilies, is clearly inferior in terms of the originality of his ideas. Primasius’ commentary is based on Ticonius but contains original ideas; his interpretation is, on the whole, no less vivid and colourful than that of his predecessor Ticonius the African.

locusts, ecclesiology, Ticonius, Caesarius of Arles, Primasius of Hadrumetum, Apocalypse, Revelation of John, early Christian exegesis, Physiologus

1. Adams A. W. (ed.) (1985) Primasius episcopus Hadrumetinus. Commentarius in Apocalypsin. Cura et studio A. W. Adams. Turnhout; Brepols (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina; XCII).
2. Beal G.K., McDonough S. (2013) “Revelation of John”, in Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, vol. 3, Chercasy, pp. 459–590 (Russian translation).
3. Dittmann S. (2018) “Skorpione als Bild des Schreckens in der Johannesapokalypse”, in Apollon, Artemis, Asteria und die Apokalypse des Johannes, Leipzig: Evangelishe Verlagsanstalt, pp. 213–228.
4. Gryson R. (ed.) (2011) Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos. Accedunt eiusdem Expositionis a quodam retractatae Fragmenta Tauriniensa. Cura et studio Roger Gryson. Turnhout (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina; CVII A).
5. Gryson R. (ed.) (2011) Tyconius. Commentaire de l’Apocalypse. Turnhout.
6. Gryson R. (ed.) (2019) Caesarii Arelatensis Expositio de Apocalypsi Sancti Iohannis. Cura et studio Roger Gryson. Turnhout; Brepols (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina; CV).
7. Kaimakis D. (ed.) (1974) Der Physiologus nach der ersten Redaction. Meisenheim am Glan.
8. Ley W. (1959) Exotic zoology. New York.
9. Materova E. (2020) “Оbraz liagushki v ″Kommentarii na Apokalipsis″ Tikhoniia Afrikanskogo (Otkr. 16. 13–14)” [Frog as a symbol in the Commentary on the Book of Revelation by Ticonius the African (Rev. 16. 13–14)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III. Filologiia, no. 64, pp. 82–94 (in Russian).
10. Materova E. (ed.) (2016) “Tikhonii Afrikanskii. Kommentarii na Apokalipsis (Otkr. 1)” [Tyconii Afri Expositio Apocalypseos. Rev 1]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III. Filologiia, no. 48, pp. 108–117 (in Russian).
11. Nebol′sin A. (2016) “Tikhonii Afrikanskii — tolkovatel′ Apokalipsisa” [Ticonius Africanus as an exegete of the Apocalypse]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III. Filologiia, no. 48, pp. 102–107 (in Russian).
12. Pakis V. A. (2010) “Contextual Duplicity and Textual Variation: The Siren and Onocentaur in the Physiologus Tradition”. Mediaevististik, vol. 23, pp. 115–186.
13. Portalatin A. (2020) “The Apocalyptic Lamb and Dragon: from symbols to ugly images”. Biblica, vol. 101 (2), pp. 248–271.
14. Vanni U. (1988) Apocalisse: ermeneutica, esegesi, teologia. Bologna.

Materova Elizaveta

*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.

Acknowledgments: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44125\21).

This article deals with the doctrine of power of St. Victorinus of Pettau, the prominent Latin exegete of the 3rd c. and the author of the fi rst preserved commentary on the Apocalypse. The article looks at the level of his education, his intellectual horizon, the general trends of his works as well, his general knowledge of life and his political experience. It studies the issue of the wars and persecutions mentioned in the Commentary and proposes a hypothesis that the Commentary could have been written within the wide interval between 252 and 304. It is shown that in terms of theology St. Victorinus depends on the school of Asia Minor and is estranged from the conception of the symphony of the Roman Empire and the Church, which is present in its germinating form in St. Melitonus of Sardes. In spite of the links with the legacy of Tertullianus, he lacks the idea of the Roman state as the defense wall against Antichrist. On the contrary, the Antichrist concentrates the Roman power with its unlawfulness and crime because he is the resurrected Nero. The latter is, on the one hand, a symbol of the impious pagan Rome with its deifi cation of Man and, on the other hand, the symbol of the union of Jews and pagans directed against Christ and the Church. The image of Nero is connected with a certain numerology: the resurrected Nero will be the eighth emperor and the Antichrist; he will be the king of Jews and, at the same time, of the pagans, the most sordid and hideous parody of the resurrected Christ, his reign being the caricature of the eighth day of eternal life and glory of Christ. This image partly overlaps with the tradition refl ected in Commodianus, partly diff ers from it. The spiral model of history used by St. Victorinus is related to the theology of recapitulation, when one similar event precedes the following, which, in turn, takes places on a higher level. This allows one to suppose the presence of the idea of the “returning Nero”, when every eighth emperor is the forerunner of the resurrected Nero and, accordingly, of the Antichrist. This series includes the persecutors of the Christians: Traianus, Septimius Severus, Decius. The last in this series in Diocletianus, who almost completely corresponds to the features of the “resurrected Nero”, i.e. he comes from the East, kills three kings, behaves as an actor and hypocrite, and, most importantly, is the most ruthless persecutor of Christians of all the Roman emperors. The presence of his co-ruler Galerius may suggest an analogy with the false prophet of Antichrist, i.e. the Second Beast of the Revelation. The true power for St. Victorinus is theocracy, the reign of Christ, who is the only true king over heaven and the earth, and of Saints, who will co-reign with Christ.

St. Victorinus of Pettau, emperor, prinicipatus, dominatus, senate, Nero, Diocletian, historiosophy, catastrophism, persecution, wars, earthquakes, Antichrist, theology of recapitulation, spiral model of history

1. Averintsev S. (1997) Poetika rannevizantiiskoi literatury [Poetics of early Byzantine literature]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Bardy G. (1950) “Victorin de Poetovio”, in Dictionnaire de la Theologie Catholique, vol. 14, col. 2884–2886.
3. Barnes T. (1982) The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
4. Bauckham R. (1993) The Climax of Prophecy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
5. Blois L. (1976) The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus. Leiden: Brill.
6. Bradley K. R. (1978) Suetonius. Life of Nero. A Historical commentary. (Collection Latomus 157). Brussels: Latomus.
7. Bratouhin A. (ed.) (2005) Tertullianus Quintus Septimius Florens. Apologeticum. Ad Scapulam. St. Petersrburg (Russian translation).
8. Bratož R. (1990) “Die Geschichte des Fruher Christentums in Gebiete zwischen Sirmium und Aquilea in Licht der neuren Forschungen”. Klio, vol. 72, pp. 508–550.
9. Bratož R. (1993) Kriscanstvo v Ogleju. Liubliana.
10. Bratož R. (1999) Il cristianesimo aquileise prima di Costantino: fra Aquileia e Poetovio. Udine: Instituto Pio Paschini; Gorizia: Ist. di storia sociale e religiosa.
11. Bratož R. (2002) “Der Bischof Victorinus und die Kirchengemeinde von Poetovio”. Zalai Museum, vol. 11, pp. 1–11.
12. Bratož R. (2003) Ptuj. Liubliana.
13. Bratož R. (2014.) “Episkop Viktorin i khristianskaia obshchina Petavia (vtoraia polovina III veka)” [Bishop Victorinus and the Christian community of Petavium (the second half of the 3rd century]. Khristianskoie chtenie, vol. 2/3, pp. 9–24 (in Russian).
14. Brent A. (1999) “The Imperial cult and development of Church order: concepts and images of authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the age of Cyprian”. Vigiliae Christianae,. vol. 45, suppl., pp. 164–209.
15. Bruce F. F. (1938) “The Earliest Latin Commentary on the Apocalypse”. The Evangelical Quarterly. vol. 10, p. 352–366.
16. Dubois J. (1965) Le Martyrologe d Usuard. Bruxelles.
17. Dulaey M. (1993) Victorin de Poetovio. Premier exégète latin. (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, vol. 139.) Paris: Cerf.
18. Dulaey M. (ed.) (1997) Victorin de Poetovio “De la Construction du Monde”, in Sources Chretiennes, vol. 423, Paris: Cerf, pp. 137–149.
19. Dulaey M. (ed.) (1997) Victorin de Poetovio “Trait sur l’Apocalypse”, in Sources Chretiennes, vol. 423, Paris: Cerf, pp. 45–135.
20. Fokin A.R. (2006) Latinskaia Patrologiia [Latin patrology] Moscow (in Russian).
21. Frend W. H. C. (1965) Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Confl ict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
22. Frend W. H. C. (1974) “Open Questions Concerning the Christians and the Roman Empire in the Age of the Severi”. Journal of Theologica Studies, vol. 1, pp. 110–140.
23. Gibson E. L. (2001) “Jewish Antagonism or Christian Polemic: The Case of the Martyrdom of Pionius Journal of Early Christian Studies”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 9, pp. 339–358.
24. Gibson E. L. (2003) “The Jews and Christians in the Martyrdom of Polycarp: Entangled or Parted Ways?”, in A. H. Becker, A. Y. Reed (eds) The Ways that Never Parted Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Thuebingen, pp. 145–158.
25. Halfmann H. (1986) Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im römischen Reich (Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien, II). Stuttgart: Steiner.
26. Helm R. (ed.) (1956) Eusebius Werke VII. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. (Griechische Christiliche Schriftsteller. Bd. 47.) Berlin: Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
27. Jones A. H. M. (1964) The Later Roman Empire. 284–602. Vol. 1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
28. Khandoga N. (2017) “Kosmologiia sviatitelia Viktorina Petaviiskogo: bogoslovsko-fi lologicheskii analiz latinskikh terminov” [St. Victorinus’ cosmology: theological and philological analysis of Latin terms]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, vol. 2 (18), pp. 13–33 (in Russian).
29. Klauck J. H. (2001) “Do they never come back? Nero redivivus and the Apocalypse”. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 63, pp. 684–698.
30. Kniazkii I., Khrapov A. (2006) “Gonenia na Khristian v Rimskoi Imperii” [Persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire], in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopedia [The Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 12, Moscow, pp. 50–69 (in Russian).
31. Kolb F. (1987) Diocletian und die Erste Tetrarchie. Improvisation oder Experiment in der Organisation monarchischer Herrschaft? (Untesuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte). Berlin; New York: de Gruyter.
32. Kos P. (1986) The Monetary Circulation in the Southeastern Alpine Region ca. 300 BC — AD 1000. (Situla. Dissertationes musaei Labanicensis. Vol. 24.) Liubliana.
33. Lawrence J.M. (1978) “Nero redivivus”. Fides et Historia, vol. 11, pp. 54–66.
34. Maier H.O. (2013) “Nero in Jewish and Christian Tradition from the 1st Cent. to the Reformation”, in E. Buckley, M. Dinter (eds) A Companion to the Neronian Age, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwella, pp. 385–404.
35. Meyendorf J. (1989) Imperial unity and the Christian divisions. New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press.
36. Millar F. (1964) A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
37. Minear P. S. (1953) “The Wounded Beast”. Jounal of Biblica Literatures, vol. 72.2, pp. 93–107.
38. Minors R. A. (ed.) (1966) C. Plini Caecili Secundi epistularum libri decem. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
39. Nebolsin A. (2010) “Ioanna Bogoslova Otkrovenie” [The Revelation of St. John the Theologian], in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopedia [The Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 24, Moscow, pp. 705–745 (in Russian).
40. North J. (1992) “The Development of Religious Pluralism”, in J. Lieu, J. North, T. Rajak (eds) The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, London: Routledge, pp. 180–200.
41. Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (2020). Kar′kov (Russian translation).
42. Pohlsander H. A. (1986) “The Religious Policy of Decius”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Roemische Welt, vol. 2, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1826–1842.
43. Popov I. (2018) “Neron” [Nero], in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopedia [The Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 49, Moscow, pp. 40–46 (in Russian).
44. Popovich R. (1995) Rano hrishchanstvo na Balkanu [The Early Christianity in Balcans]. Belgrade (in Serbian).
45. Rissi M. (1995) Die Hure Babylon und die Verführung der Heiligen. Ein Studium zur Apokalypse des Johannes. (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, 136) Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
46. Rostovtsev M. (2001) Obshchestvo i khoziaistvo Drevnego Rima [Society and household of the Ancient Rome], vol. 1–2. Мoscow (in Russian).
47. Salvadore I. (ed.) (2011) Commodiano. Carmen de duobus populis. Bologna: Patron.
48. Shtaerman M. (1985) “Ot grazhdanina k poddannomu” [From a citizen to a subject], in Kul′tura Drevnego Rima [Culture of the Ancient Rome], vol. 1, Moscow, pp. 22–100 (in Russian).
49. Stein A. (1937) “Ofonius Tigellinus”, in Pauly-Wissowa Reallexicon fuer Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, vol. XVII, 2, col. 2056–2061.
50. Strecker G., Schnelle U. (1996) Texte zur Briefl iteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse. Berlin: De Gruyter.
51. Thompson L. (1990) The book of Revelation. Apocalypse and the Empire. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Tuplin Ch. (1979) “The False Neros of the First Century A.D”. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 5, Brussels: Latomus, pp. 364–404.
53. Utchenko S. L. (1977) Politicheskaia teoria Rimskoi imperii [Political theory of the Roman Empire]. Moscow.
54. Victorini Poetovionensis “Opera quae supersunt” (2017), in Сorpus Christianorum. Series Latina, vol. 5. Turnhout: Brepols.
55. Waltraud J.-S. (1990) Untersuchungen zum Nero-Bild der Spätantike. (Altertumwissenschaftliche Texte und Studien, Bd. 18.) Hildesheim; Zurich; New York: Olms.
56. Watson A. (1999) Aurelian and the third century. London; New York.
57. Williams S. (2000) Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. New York: Routledge.
58. Zakharov G. (2014) Illiriiskie tserkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov [The Illyrian churches in the time of Arian controversies]. Moscow (in Russian).

Vasilik Vladimir, protodeacon

*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.

Great thanks to dr. of history Fr. Pavel Ermilov, dr. of philosophy (habilitated) Alexey Fokin, dr. of history Alexey Panteleev.

The paper is devoted to the transformation of concept of death in philosophy and theology of XX century. We analyze the influence of Martin Heidegger’s version of the statement about human mortality on Christian theology. For Heidegger, death is the "existential of totality" in the structure of Dasein; death determines and embraces the totality of human existence. Death leaves man "open," or necessarily pointing to something beyond himself, ultimately to being itself. In Christian theology the new understanding of death is presented in theology of Karl Rahner, Eberhard J?ngel and Sergei Bulgakov. Death, for Rahner, is a personal act embodying our personhood and freedom and our responsibility of love and faithfulness. We recognize the notion "theonomous death". It is both an act of freedom and an act of Grace, for as the fullest self-communication of God, it is the Grace of Christ that, as one existentially open to divine self-communication, exposes the hearer of the word. Eberhard J?ngel seeks an understanding of man's death which is not concerned with his preservation but with the presence of God to man in death. The meaning of man's death lies not within himself and his survival, but beyond him, in God who is all in all. Death is "an anthropological passive". We discuss also the problem of theological language about death. According J?ngel Christian language about death is a "word from beyond death". In the analysis of the problem of death in the theology of S.N. Bulgakov, we note his attempts to develop a positive attitude towards death. Death is understood not as "some ontological misunderstanding", but as arising from the foundation of the universe. The centre of Bulgakov's understanding of death is its incorporation in the antinomy of the divine kenosis. We argue that if Heidegger accentuates Being toward death as running ahead of possibility , Christian theologians conceptualize death as dying with Christ.

death, immortality, finitude, existence, freedom, being, kenosis

1. Bulgakov S. (1933) Agnets Bozhii [The Lamb of God]. Paris (in Russian).
2. Bulgakov S. (1978) “Sofiologiia smerti” [The sophiology of death]. Vestnik RHD, № 127 (IV), 1978, № 130 (IV), 1979 (in Russian).
3. Demske J. (1970) Being, Man & Death. A Key to Heidegger. University Press of Kentucky.
4. Heidegger M. (1997) Sein und Zeit. Moscow (Russian translation).
5. Jüngel E. (1969) “Das dunkle Wort vom ‚Tode Gottes‘”. Evangelische Kommentare, vol. 2, pp. 133–138.
6. Jüngel E. (1976) “Der Tod als Geheimnis des Lebens”, in Paus A. (ed.) Grenzerfahrung Tod, Graz, Vienna, pp. 9–39.
7. Jüngel E. (1973) “Lob der Grenze”. Attempto, vol. 47/8, pp. 12–15.
8. Jüngel E. (1971) Tod. Stuttgart: Kreuz-Verlag.
9. Ochs R. (1969) The Death in Every Now. New York: Sheed and Ward.
10. Phan P. C. (1988) Eternity in Time: A Study of Karl Rahner’s Eschatology. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press.
11. Rahner K. (1966) Theological Investigations: Volume IV. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
12. Rahner K. (1962) On the Theology of Death. London: Burns and Oates, 1962.
13. Vaganova N. (2011) Sofiologiia protoiereia Sergiia Bulgakova [Sophiology of Priest Sergii Bulgakov]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Webster J.B. (1986) Eberhard Jüngel: An Introduction to his Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. White C.J. (2005) Time and Death: Heidegger’s Analysis of Finitude. Haunts: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Konacheva Svetlana

*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 attempts to reconstruct the epistemological concept of Archpriest V. V. Zenkovsky, highlighting what place the philosopher's idea of the Church occupies in them and revealing their apologetic orientation. It is shown that the topic of the Church ("church reason» in comparison with the individual reason) is included by Zenkovsky in the context of the apologetic problems of faith and knowledge, as it is evidenced by the lecture notes of the 1940s and 50s. It is revealed that Zenkovsky emphasizes the supra-individual, transcendental, conciliar (soborniy) nature of cognition, but questions the existing concepts of a unified subject of reason: "formal" concepts ("epistemological subject" by G. Rickert, "conciliar consciousness" by S. Trubetskoy) require clarification of their ontological sense. The subject of reason must be thought of as universal, single, but at the same time multi-hypostatic (holding the idea of a multitude of empirical consciousnesses). Such a subject of reason, according to Zenkovsky, is the Church, understood as a consubstantial multi-hypostatic humanity and representing "natural conciliarity (sobornost)". The idea of God-manhood also solves, according to Zenkovsky, the question of "epistemological coordination" (N. Lossky), since "the unity of the subject and the object is realized only in the One who, being human (the "subject of knowledge"), is at the same time God — the Creator of being (the object)." The article shows the connection of Zenkovsky's constructions, in which the philosopher distinguishes between the historical Church and "the Church in the metaphysical sense", with the concepts of S. L. Frank, as well as the difference between the concepts of God-manhood in Zenkovsky and V. Solovyov. It is analyzed that in the epistemological constructions of Zenkovsky, the teachings of A. S. Khomyakov (on the Church) and S. N. Trubetskoy (on the conciliar nature of consciousness) are closed and complete each other. The conclusion is proposed that Zenkovsky's epistemological constructions have an apologetic orientation: concepts that do not resort to the data of Christian Revelation leave some essential questions of the theory of knowledge unanswered. The idea of the Church and the data of the Christian Revelation represent, according to Zenkovsky, a "philosophical benefit".

Church, apologetics, faith and reason, epistemological subject, conciliatory consciousness, sobornost, God-manhood, B. P. Vysheslavtsev, V. V. Zenkovsky, A. A. Kozlov, N. O. Lossky, G. Rickert, V. S. Solovyov, S. N. Trubetskoy, E. N. Trubetskoy, S. L. Frank, A. S. Khomyakov.

1. Antonov K. (2018) “Filosofiia religii i filosofskaia teologiia mezhdu veroi i znaniem: russkii filosofskii spiritualizm kontsa XIX veka (A. A. Kozlov)” [Philosophy of religion and philosophical theology between faith and knowledge: Russian philosophical spiritualism of the late 19th century (A. A. Kozlov)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: teologiia, filosofiia, religiovedeniie, vol. 79, pp. 43–55 (in Russian).
2. Antonov K. (2020) “Kak vozmozhna religiia?”: Filosofiia religii i filosofskie problemy bogosloviia v russkoi religioznoi mysli XIX–XX vekov [“How is religion possible?”: philosophy of religion and philosophical problems of theology in Russian religious thought of the 19th — 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Berdyaev N. (1936) “O kharaktere russkoi religioznoi mysli XIX veka” [On the nature of Russian religious thought in the 19th century]. Sovremennie zapiski, vol. LXII, pp. 309–343 (in Russian).
4. Eremeev S., Yudin A. (transl.) (2002) Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologiae. Kiev.
5. Ermishin O. (2019) Vasilii Zenkovsky. St Petersburg: Nauka (in Russian).
6. Frank S. (1992) “Russkoie mirovozzreniie” [Russian worldview], in Dukhovnyie osnovy obshchestva [Spiritual foundations of society], Moscow: Respublika, pp. 471–500 (in Russian).
7. Frank S. (1995) “Predmet znaniia” [The subject of knowledge], in Predmet znaniia. Dusha cheloveka [The subject of knowledge. Human soul], St. Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 33–416 (in Russian).
8. Frank S. (2011) “S nami Bog. Tri razmyshleniia” [God is With Us. Three speculations], in Svet vo t′me [The light in the darkness], Minsk: Izdatelskiy Dom Belorusskogo Ekzarhata, pp. 415–872 (in Russian).
9. Kireevsky I. (2014) Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete works]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Lettsev V. (2011) “Emigrantskii period v tvorchestve V.V. Zen′kovskogo” [The emigrant period of V. V. Zenkovsky], in Y. Mukhachev (ed.) Russkoe zarubezhie: istoriia i sovremennost′ [Russian Diaspora: history and modernity], Moscow, pp. 97 –117 (in Russian).
11. Lossky N. (1995) Chuvstvennaia, intellektual′naia i misticheskaia intuitsiia [Sensual, intellectual and mystical intuition]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Nizhnikov S. (2018) “Vera i znanie: problemy ontologii i epistemologii v istoriko-fi losofskom kontekste” “Faith and knowledge: problems of ontology and epistemology in the historical and philosophical context]. Sotsium i vlast′, no. 2 (70), pp. 76–82 (in Russian).
13. Obolevitch T. (2015) “Faith as the Locus Philosophicus of Russian Thought”, in T. Obolevitch, P. Rojek (eds) Faith and reason in Russian thought, Krakow, pp. 7–24.
14. Obolevitch T. (2019) Faith and Science in Russian Religious Thought. Oxford.
15. Rickert H. (1988) “Der Gegenstand der Erkenntnis: Einführung in die Transzendentalphilosophie”, in Filosofiia zhizni [Philosophy of life], Kiev, pp. 13–163 (Russian translation).
16. Rovbo M. (2019) “Kantovskoe poniatie transtsendental′nii sub′′iekt″ v filosofii neokantiantstva” [The Kantian notion of “transcendental subject” in the philosophy of neo-Kantianism], in V. Gigin (ed.) Filosofiia i sotsial′nye nauki v sovremennom mire: materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferenstii k 30-letiiu fakul′teta filosofii i sotsial′nykh nauk BGU [Philosophy and social sciences in the modern world: materials of the international scientifi c conference dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences of BSU], Minsk, pp. 102–107 (in Russian).
17. Shmakov V. (2016) “Ideia Tserkvi v fi losofi i i sotsial′noi antropologii S.L. Franka” [The idea of the Church in S.L. Frank’s philosophy and social anthropology]. Solov′evskie issledovaniia, vol. 4 (52), pp. 163–171 (in Russian).
18. Soloviev V. (2011) Chteniia o Bogochelovechestve [Readings on God-manhood]. Moscow (in Russian).
19. Stöckl K. (2006) “Modernity and its critique in 20th century Russian Orthodox thought”. Studies in East European Thought, vol. 58, no. 4., pp. 243–269.
20. Trubetskoy E. (1994) “Smysl zhizni” [The meaning of life], in Gavryushi N. (ed.) Smysl zhizni. Antologiia [The meaning of life. Anthology], Moscow, pp. 243–488 (in Russian).
21. Trubetskoy S. (1994) “O prirode chelovecheskogo soznaniia” [On the nature of human consciousness], in Sochineniia [Works], Moscow, pp. 483–595 (in Russian).
22. Trubetskoy S. (1994) “Osnovaniia idealizma” [The foundations of idealism], in Sochineniia [Works], Moscow, pp. 595–717 (in Russian).
23. Vysheslavtsev B. (1994) Etika preobrazhennogo erosa [Ethics of the transformed eros]. Moscow (in Russain).
24. Zenkovsky V. (1962) “Otcherk moiei fi losofskoi sistemy” [Outline of my philosophical system]. Vestnik RSKhD, 66–67, pp. 37–39 (in Russian).
25. Zenkovsky V. (1962) “Otcherk moiei vnutrennei biografi i” [Outline of my inner biography]. Vestnik RSKhD, 66–67, pp. 8–15 (in Russian).
26. Zenkovsky V. (1993) Problemy vospitaniia v svete khristianckoi antropologii [Problems of education in the light of Christian anthropology]. Moscow (in Russian).
27. Zenkovsly V. (2008) Retsenziia na knigu: N. O. Losskiy. Tsennost′ i bytie [Book review: N. O. Lossky. Value and being”], in Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], Moscow, vol. 1, pp. 120–122 (in Russian).
28. Zenkovsky V. (2008) “Ideia pravoslavnoi kul′tury” [The idea of Orthodox culture”], in Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], Moscow, vol. 2, pp. 65–86 (in Russian).
29. Zenkovsky V. (2008) “Otcherk ideologii russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia” [Outline on the ideology of the Russian student Christian movement”], in Sobranie sochinenii [Collected Works], Moscow, vol. 2, pp. 246–251 (in Russian).
30. Zenkovsky V. (2008) “Rossiia i Pravoslavie” [Russia and Orthodoxy], in Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], Moscow, vol. 2, pp. 7–64 (in Russian).
31. Zenkovsky V. (2011) “Osnovy hkristianskoi fi losofi i” [Fundamentals of Christian Philosophy], in Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], Moscow, vol. 4, pp. 213–466 (in Russian).
32. Zenkovsky V. (2011) “Printsipy pravoslavnoi antropologii” [Principles of Orthodox anthropology], in Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], Moscow, vol. 4, pp. 469–507 (in Russian).
33. Zenkovsky V. (2011) Istoriia russkoi filosofii [History of Russian philosophy]. Moscow (in Russian).
34. Zenkovsky V. (2017) Apologetika [Apologetics]. Moscow; Berlin (in Russian).

Matsan Konstantin

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 20-311-90024.

The article examines the life and creative connections of two prominent Russian thinkers of the 20th century, S. L. Frank and Revd. Georgy Florovsky. It fi rst looks the biographical aspects of their relationship and then analyses Revd. Georgy’s perception of Frank’s philosophy. There are several texts by Florovsky about Frank, dating from before 1950, i.e. during the philosopher’s lifetime. After Revd. Georgy’s participation in the Collection of the Memory, Frank entered even more into the orbit of Florovsky’s creative interests. The two thinkers communicated and valued each other, although one cannot speak of their close friendship. Frank’s name appears only rarely in Florovsky’s writings, although he wrote two reviews of Frank’s books, a preface to the American edition of Reality and Man. Florovsky also discussed his teaching in his other works, and corresponded extensively with his widow after Frank’s death. Despite appealing to diff erent traditions, both Frank and Florovsky emphasised the incomprehensibility of the divine essence, so this article also examines apophatic motifs in their work. Both philosophers noted the antinomian character of theology. While noting the importance of apophatic theology, they did not deny the importance of cataphatic theology. Florovsky appealed to the patristic doctrine of the distinction between the incomprehensible divine essence and the divine energies present in the created world. Frank, in turn, distinguished between the “unknowable in itself” and the “unknowable for us.” Both thinkers philosophised in the context of theology. Nevertheless, Florovsky, while admiring Frank’s “metaphysics of faith”, reproached him for his attachment to the Platonic tradition which in the Russian philosophy found its expression in the conception of unity that goes back to Soloviev. The conclusion is that Florovsky’s and Frank’s thought, while not strictly related or congenial, had some points of intersection.

S. L. Frank, Revd. Georgy Florovsky, religious philosophy, Russian philosophy in exile, apophaticism, panentheism, reception of Russian thought

1. Bulgakov S. (2002) “Pis′ma k G.V. Florovskomu (1923–1938)” [Letters to G.V. Florovsky (1923–1938)], in M. Kolerov (ed.) Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli. Ezhegodnik 2001–2002 [Studies in Russian intellectual history. Yearbook for 2001–2002], Moscow, pp. 175–223 (in Russian).
2. Kiejzik L., Orlova N. (eds) (2019) “Mne nado, chtoby moya zhizn′ imela kakuiu-nibud′ tsel′ i smysl”.
3. Klement′ev A. K. (2008) “Pedagogicheskaia i obshchestvenno-tserkovnaia deiatel′nost′ L.P. Karsavina v gody zhizni v Germanii i Frantsii (1922–1926)” [Pedagogical and social-ecclesiastical activities of L.P. Karsavin during his life in Germany and France (1922–1926)”]. Istoricheskie zapiski, no. 11 (in Russian).
4. Kolerov M. (2018) Iznutri. Pis′ma Berdiaeva, Bulgakova, Novgorodtseva i Franka k Struve. Perepiska Franka i Struve (1898–1905/1921–1925) [Inside. Letters of Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Novgorodtsev and Frank to Struve. Correspondence between Frank and Struve (1898–1905/1921–1925)]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. “Perepiska S. L. Franka s V. B. El′ashevichem i F. O. El′ashevich” (2016) [Correspondence between S. L. Frank and V. B. Eliashevich and F. O. Eliashevich], in M. Kolerov (ed.) Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli. Ezhegodnik 2015 [Studies in Russian intellectual history. Yearbook for 2015]. Moscow, pp. 40–240 (in Russian).
6. “Pis′mo Semyona Franka Georgiiu Fedotovu” (1952) [Letter of Semyon Frank to Georgy Fedotov]. Novyi zhurnal, no. 28 (in Russian).
7. Struve N. (ed.) (2000) Bratstvo sviatoi Sofi i. Materialy i dokumenty 1923–1939 [Brotherhood of St. Sophia. Materials and documents 1923–1939]. Moscow; Paris (in Russian).

Nun Тереза (Obolevitch T.)

*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.

According to the Persian poetry canon, every mathnavi-poem begins with an introduction chapter, known in tradition as “tawhid”. These chapters give a rich material for research of the way the author interprets the Islamic key doctrine – the unity of the God (tawhid). Majdud Sanai is the founder of the Sufi poem tradition. The later authors like Farid al-Din Attar, Jalal al-Din Rumi and others relied on his works. The text of this article describes the preamble chapter, dedicated to the matter of the God’s oneness, as far as possible within the scope of the article and shows the specifics of the Sanai’s approach to the tawhid issue. Unlike other authors such as, for example, Mahmud Shabistari, Sanai, while discussing the God’s oneness, emphasizes not His self or essence oneness (tawhid al-dhat), but on his oneness of actions (tawhid al-af‘al). The oneness of the God for Sanai is His oneness as a universal actor, so as nothing can start or stop its motion without His action. This approach inluenced a lot at the Sanai’s vision of the God and the world relations. Though Shabistari and Sanai both were hanafites and sufies and both sought the eternal oneness of the God, Shabistari, emphasizing the oneness of the Gods selfness (dhat), would have to state the world’s illusory. Sanai, on the contrary, because of his adherence of the tawhid al-af‘al, treated the world as real, for in the context of his radical interpretation of the oneness of the God’s actions, irreality of the world entails irreality of the God.In the annex to the article, we give the first detailed commented Russian translation of the tawhid-preamble to the section “About the God Almighty’s Oneness” from the poem “The Garden of the Truth and the Law of the Path”.

tasawwuf, Iran, Sanai, unity of the God, tawhid, poem, mathnavi, The Garden of the Truth

1. Abdo Muhammad (2021) Traktat o edinobozhii [A treaty on God’s oneness]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Ash-Shakhrastani, Abu al-Fatkh (1993) Kitab al-milal va an-nikhal [The Book of Sects and Creeds]. Beirut: Dar al-maʻrifa (in Arabian).
3. Drozdov V. (2015) Musul′manskii mistitsizm: uchebnoe posobie [Muslim mysticism: a handbook]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Fatemi S. N., Ashrafzadeh R., Badizadeh M. (2021) “Nasser Khosrow and Sanai Poets of Bipolar or Multipolar? (Poetic awakening from dream to reality)”. Propositos y representaciones, vol. 9.
5. Ibn Arabi (2014) Izbrannoe [Selected works]. Moscow (Russian translation).
6. Islam: Entsiklopedicheskii slovar′ (1991) [Islam: encyclopaedic dictionary]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Lukashev A. (2020) Mir smysla v nemnogikh slovakh [The world of sense in a few words]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Lukashev A., Chalisova N. (eds) (2021) M. Shabistari. Tsvetnik tainy (persidskii tekst poemy, perevod, kommentarii) [The rose garden of mystery (Persian text, translation and commentary)]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. al-Madzhlisi (1983) Bikhar al-anvar [The sea of lights], vol. 1. Beirut: Dar al-vafa.
10. an-Nasafi , Abu al-Muʻin (2014) Bakhr al-kalam fi usul ad-din [Ocean of discussions on the foundations of religion]. Amman: Dar al-Fatkh.
11. Nasyrov I. (2016) “Ob åeticheskom voliuntarizme″ askharizma kak o åtraditsionnoi etike″ islama” [On the Asharian “ethical voluntarism” as “traditional ethics” of Islam]. Eticheskaia mysl′, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 84–105 (in Russian).
12. Nofal F. (2016) Kategoriia †vera″ v klassicheskoi islamskoi teologii. Istoriko-fi losofskie ocherki [The cathegory of belief in classical Islamic theology. Historical-philosophical essays]. Odessa (in Russian).
13. Reisner M. (2010) “åUtverzhdenie edinobozhiia″ (tawhid) v persidskoi klassicheskoi literature: ot religioznogo kontsepta k poeticheskoi teme” [The “statement of God’s oneness” (tawhid) in Classical Persian literature: from a religious notion to a poetical theme”]. Vestnik MGU, vol. 4 (in Russian).
14. Reisner M., Ardashnikova A. (2019) Persidskaia literatura domongol′skogo vremeni (IX — nachalo XIII v.). Period formirovaniia kanona: ranniaia klassika [Persian literature of the pre-Mongolian time (9th — early 13th cc.). The formative period of the canon: early classics]. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Smirnov A. (2015) Soznanie, iazyk, kul′tura, smysl [Consciousness, language, culture, sense]. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Smirnov A. (2021) “O formalizatsii umozakliucheniia v protsessual′noi logike” [Qiyās as a formal proof: the way the fuqahā’ argued], in Logika smysla kak fi losofi ia soznaniia: priglashenie k razmyshleniiu [Logic of meaning as philosophy of cognition: invitation to refl ections], Moscow, pp. 167‒215 (in Russian).
17. Smirnov A. (ed.) (2020) Istoriia arabo-musul′manskoi fi losofi i. Uchebnik i antologiia [History of Muslim Philosophy. Textbook and anthology]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. “Suzhdeniia Dukha razuma” (1997) [The spirit of reason’s utterances], in Zoroastriiskie teksty [Zoroastrian texts]. Moscow (in Russian).
19. Svet Sviashchennogo Korana: Raz»iasneniia i tolkovaniia (2016) [The light of the Holy Quran: clarifi cations and interpretations], vol. 5. Moscow (in Russian).

Lukashev Andrey

*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.