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

The article explores the issues of the naming of God: is it possible to name God, how the name and the Named are connected, does God have his own name, is the formula "the name of God is God" acceptable for the Christian worldview? The answers to these questions are given in the article using two methods: apophatic and antinomic. The objectives of the study are: firstly, to clarify the church's view of the phenomenon of the name of God, and secondly, to compare the two ways of this clarification, designated as apophatic and antinomic. The basis for understanding apophatic theology in the work is the writings of the Corpus Areopagiticum, where apophatic can be considered as a condition of spiritual vision and mystical theology, as well an intellectual cognitive path. The result of the apophatic approach in the article is called the principle of the unconfusedly and indivisible unity of the name and the Named. This principle, applied by Russian religious philosophers to express the connection of God and His name, is found in the priest Pavel Florensky, but his philosophy is associated by researchers primarily with the antinomic method. The unconfusedly and indivisible of the name and the Named in the antinomic reading acquires the paradoxical character of two mutually exclusive statements about the Divinity and non-divinity of the name of God. Also antinomy are statements taken at the same time and in the same relation, about the presence and absence of God's own name. The study concludes with the formulation of conclusions, among which the theological acceptability of the statement that «the name of God is God» is noted.

antinomy, apophasa, imyaslavie, philosophy of the name, unconfusedly and indivisibly union, Divine essence and energies,

1. Alfeiev I. (2021) Sviashchennaia taina tserkvi. Vvedenie v istoriiu i problematiku imiaslavskikh sporov [The sacred mystery of the Church. Introduction to the history and problems of the Onomatodoxic disputes]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Andronik (Trubachev) (2016) Put k Bogu. Lichnost, zhizn i tvorchestvo sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo [The Way to God. The personality, life and work of the Priest Pavel Florensky]. Book 4. Sergiev Posad (in Russian).
3. Bulgakov S. (1953) Filosofiia Imeni [The philosophy of the name]. Paris (in Russian).
4. Feuerbach L. (1995) Das Wesen des Christentums. Moscow (Russian translation).
5. Filaret (Drozdov) (2010) Izbrannye mesta iz sviashchennoi istorii Vetkhogo i Novogo zaveta s nazidatelJnymi razmyshleniiami [Selected passages from the sacred history of the Old and New Testaments with educational refl ections]. Samara (in Russian).
6. Florensky P. (2017) Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny [The Pillar and ground of the truth]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Florensky P. (2017) U vodorazdelov mysli [At the watersheds of thought]. Vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Frank S. (2000) “Nepostizhimoe” [The unknowable], in Sochineniia [Works], Moscow, pp. 247‒798 (in Russian).
9. Losev A. (1993) Ocherki antichnogo simvolizma i mifologii [Essays in ancient symbolism and mythology]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Losev A. (2009) Izbrannye trudy po imiaslaviiu i korpusu sochinenii Dionisiia Areopagita [Selected works on the Onomatodoxia and corpus of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
11. Lossky V. (2003) Bogovidenie [Vision of God]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Prokhorov G. (ed.) (2017) Corpus Areopagiticum. St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
13. Sidorov A. (ed.) (1994) Evagrius Ponticus. Opera. Moscow (Russian translation).
14. Sophroniy (Sakharov) (2008) Perepiska s protoiereem Georgiem Florovskim [Correspondence with Archpriest Georgy Florovsky]. Sergiev Posad (in Russian).
15. Tyulenev V. (ed.) (2020) Augustinus Hipponensis. In Evangelium Ioannis. Vol. 2. Moscow (Russian translation).

Goryachev Danil, priest

*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.

In the history of the Anglican Church the top-ranked issue of the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century was disputes on women’s priesthood. As a result of these debates, the Anglican Church began to ordain women as deacons, then as priests, and finally as bishops. In Orthodox view, it was the radical change of the doctrine and the deviation from the apostolic tradition, though at the beginning of the 20th century the Anglican Church was considered as one of the closest churches to Orthodoxy. The first critical step in the direction of women’s priesthood was the opening the diaconate to women. Both in Russian and Western theological science little attention has been devoted to the analysis of this first step, since historically the hottest theological discussion was on the issue of women’s priesthood and women’s episcopate. However, the decision on women’s diaconate was very important since it actually opened the way for all subsequent decisions on women’s priesthood in the Anglican Church. This article offers an analysis of the historical processes and theological discussions that brought the Church of England to the appearance of deaconesses and then women deacons. The article considers the revival of sisterhoods and monastic communities in the Church of England in the middle of the 19th century, the initiative to revive the rank of deaconesses in 1862 and subsequent official decision of the 1920 Lambeth Conference, as well as the relevant reports of the Commissions of 1897, 1908, 1919 and 1935. Then we analyze the discussions about the functions of the deaconess, as well as additional factors that influenced the decision to allow women to be ordained as deacons. One of these factors was the general crisis of the diaconal ministry and the desire to strengthen the role of the laity in the life of the Anglican Church. As a result, the 1968 Lambeth Conference opened diaconate to all laymen remaining in secular occupations (both men and women). The Church of England turned out to be one of the most conservative churches in the Anglican Communion – it introduced women's diaconate almost 20 years later, in 1987. Conservative groups were concerned that this decision would put the Church of England on a "slippery slope" towards women's priesthood and women's episcopate. Subsequent history proved that these fears were completely justified.

Church of England, Anglican Church, women’s priesthood, female diaconate, ordination of women, deaconess, Orthodox view

1. Aldridge A. (1987) “In the Absence of the Minister: Structures of Subordination in the Role of Deaconess in the Church of England”. Sociology, 1987, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 377–392.
2. Deacons in the Ministry of the Church. A Report of the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England (1988). London.
3. Field-Bibb J. (1991) Women Towards Priesthood: Ministerial Politics and Feminist Praxis. Cambridge.
4. Fletcher W. (2013) “There for Burials; There for Birth: Women in Leadership in the Anglican Communion”, in Anglican Women on Church and Mission, Norwich.
5. Joanna S. (1961) “The Deaconess Community of St. Andrew”. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 12, issue 2, pp. 215–230.
6. Journal of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America otherwise known as The Episcopal Church Held in Houston, Texas from Oct 11 to 22, 1970 (2017). Austin.
7. Leggett R. G. (1993) Unity in Diversity: Anglican Ordination Rites 1970 to 1989. Notre Dame.
8. Lewis C. S. (1948) Priestesses in the Church?, available at: http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/priestesses.html (accessed 18.10.2022).
9. Marrett M. M. (1980) The Historical Background and Spiritual Authority of Lambeth Conferences and Their Impact on the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America with Particular Emphasis on The Ordination of Women to the Priesthood. PhD diss., New York University.
10. Picton H. (2015) A Short History of the Church of England: From the Reformation to the Present Day. Cambridge.
11. Posternak A. (2001) Ocherki po istorii obshchin sester miloserdiia [Essays on the history of communities of sisters of mercy]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Posternak A. (2013) “Tserkovnoe sluzhenie zhenshchin v Anglikanskoi Tserkvi po resheniiam Lambetskikh konferentsii” [Ministry of women in the Anglican Church according to the decisions of the Lambeth Conferences]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta im. M. A. Sholokhova. Istoriia i politologiia, vol. 3. pp. 72–82 (in Russian).
13. Report of the Archbishop’s Commission on the Ministry of Women (1935). Westminster.
14. Robbins K. (2008) England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales: The Cristian Church 1900–2000. New York.
15. The Lambeth Conference 1930. Encyclical letter from the bishops, with Resolutions and Reports (1930). London.
16. The Lambeth Conference 1968 — Resolution and Reports (1968). London.
17. The Mission and the Ministry of the Whole Church: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives (2007). London.
18. The Report of the Lambeth Conference (1978). London.
19. Williams T. J. (1947) “The Beginnings of Anglican Sisterhoods”. Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 350–372.
20. Women and Holy Orders. The Report of a Commission Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1966). London.
21. Women in Ministry: A Study. Report of the Working Party set up Jointly by the Ministry Committee of the Advisory Council for the Church’s Ministry and the Council for Women’s Ministry in the Church (1968). London.
22. World Council of Churches. Concerning the Ordination of Women (1964). Geneva.
23. Young F. (2015) Inferior Office? A History of Deacons in the Church of England. Cambridge.
24. Zheltov M. (2006) “Diakonissa” [Deaconess], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 14, Moscow, pp. 580–587 (in Russian).

Kokosh Artem, priest

The article examines the theological content of the controversy that unfolded between the leaders of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius in connection with the proposal of Archpriest Sergiy Bulgakov on the "partial intercommunion" – the Eucharistic communion of Anglicans and Orthodox, members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. The Fellowship was founded at the second Anglo-Orthodox Congress in St. Albans in 1928. Bulgakov put forward a proposal for communion at one of the annual conferences of the Fellowship in 1933, i.e. after five years of its existence. According to Bulgakov, partial intercommunion could not replace the whole reunion of churches, but could serve as its beginning. Bulgakov's proposal for communion caused a heated discussion that lasted for three years. Opinions were divided on both the Anglican and Orthodox sides. The discussion was preserved on the pages of the Journal of the Fellowship and in the confidential correspondence of the members of the Executive Committee and the Paris Group, which was conducted in English. The main exponents of the opposite positions were Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov and Archpriest George Florovsky. At the heart of these disagreements was a different idea of the nature of the Church. Both sides assumed that the Church is one and catholic ("sobornaya"), but they understood the content of these concepts differently. In Florovsky's understanding, "sobornost" should have a dogmatic basis, while Bulgakov believed that "sobornost" has a mysterious-charismatic basis. In practical terms, the discussion turned around two possible ways of the ecumenical movement and their combination: the "diplomatic" method of reunification and the "molecular" action. The translation of several documents from the correspondence of the members of the Executive Committee of the Fellowship and the Paris Group is published as an appendix for the first time: a confidential note by A.F. Dobbie-Bateman to the members of the Executive Committee, letters from A.V. Kartashev and Archpriest George Florovsky, as well as a letter from N. Zernov, which outlines the discussion of Bulgakov's project at a meeting of the Brotherhood of Saint Sophia on October 29, 1933 in Paris.

ecclesiology, Archpriest Sergiy Bulgakov, Archpriest George Florovsky, Church, Church unity, ecumenical movement, Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, partial intercommunion, molecular approach, sobornost

1. Antipina Iu. (2021) “¸Tainstvo soborovaniia″ kak put preodoleniia tserkovnykh razdelenii v trudakh prot. Sergiia Bulgakova” [“The Sacrament of Unction” as a way to overcome Church divisions in the works of Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov], in XXVII Sretenskie chteniia: Materialy Vserossiiskoi (natsionalJnoi) nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem (Moskva, 19–20 fevralia 2021 g.) [XXVII Sretenskie Readings: papers from the National Theological Conference with International Participation (Moscow, 19‒20 February 2021)]. Moscow, pp. 116‒121 (in Russian).
2. Antipina Iu. (2022) “Zhurnal Sodruzhestva Sv. Albaniia i Sv. Sergiia kak ploshchadka dlia ekumenicheskogo dialoga” [Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius as a platform for ecumenical dialogue]. AktualJnye voprosy tserkovnoi nauki: nauchnyi zhurnal / Sankt-Peterburgskaia dukhovnaia akademiia, vol. 1, pp. 13‒26 (in Russian).
3. Arsenev N. (1928) “Lozanskaia konferentsiia” [Lausanne conference]. Put, no. 10, pp. 102‒111 (in Russian).
4. Bulgakov S. (1928) “Lozannskaia konferentsiia i papskaia entsiklika” [Lausanne conference and Papal encyclical]. Put, no. 13, pp. 71‒82 (in Russian).
5. Bulgakov S. (1933) “U kladezia Iakovlia (In 4:23). O realºnom edinstve razdelennoi Tserkvi v Vere, Molitve i Tainstve” [By Jacob’s Well (John 4,23): on the actual unity of the divided church in Faith, Prayer and Sacraments], in Khristianskoe vossoedinenie. Ekumenicheskaia problema v khristianskom soznanii [Christian reunifi cation. The ecumenical problem in the Christian consciousness]. Paris, pp. 9‒32 (in Russian).
6. Bulgakov S. (1935) “Spiritual intercommunion”. Sobornost, no. 4, pp. 3‒7.
7. Bulgakov S. (1938‒1939) “Una Sancta (osnovaniia ekumenizma)” [Una Sancta (the foundations of ecumenism)]. Put, no. 58, pp. 3‒14 (in Russian).
8. Bulgakov S. (1997) “Dogmat i dogmatika” [Dogma and dogmatics], in Zhivoe predanie. Pravoslavie v sovremennosti [Living tradition: Orthodoxy and the present day]. Moscow, pp. 8‒25 (in Russian).
9. Bulgakov S. (2003) Uteshitel [The Comforter]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Bulgakov S. (2005) Nevesta Agntsa [The bride of the lamb]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Clarke O. F. (1934) “The Healing of Schism. The Report of the Fellowship Conference, June 1934”. Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius, no. 25, pp. 3‒7.
12. Dobbie-Bateman A. F. (1944) “Footnotes (IX) — In quos fines saeculorum”. Sobornost, no. 30. Elena (Kazimirchak-Polonskaya) (2003) Professor protoierei Sergii Bulgakov. 1871‒1944: lichnost, zhizn, tvorcheskoe sluzhenie, osiianie favorskim svetom [Professor Archpriest Sergiy Bulgakov. 1871‒1944: personality, life, creative ministry, shining with the light of Tabor]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Florovskii G. (2000) Dom Otchii [Father’s house], in Izbrannye bogoslovskie sochineniia [Selected theological works]. Moscow, pp. 9‒36 (in Russian).
14. Florovskii G. (2005) Khristianstvo i tsivilizaciia. Izbrannye trudy po bogosloviiu i filosofii [Christianity and civilisation. Selected works on theology and philosophy]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
15. Kartashev A. V. (1934) “The Paths Towards the Reunion of the Churches”. Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, no. 26, pp. 7‒13.
16. Sharman A. S. (2014) The hour is coming, and now come: Sergei Bulgakov and the search for the ecumenical future. University of St. Michael’s College.

Antipina Julia

The article traces the history of the division of Platonic tradition into Middle and New Platonism, as well as the origin and usage of the term "Neoplatonism". The division of Platonism into the periods of Ancient Academy, Middle Platonism and New Platonism, which had been useful in the past, nowadays hinders the formation of a reliable historical view, as it turns out to be not strict at all for such authors as Longinus, Chalcidius, Numenius, Amelius and Porphyry, and also creates an impression of the closed nature of the mentioned periods in both diachronic and synchronic dimensions. The term "Neoplatonism" was introduced in German historiography by J. Brucker and initially conveyed a sharply negative assessment. The distaste for a specific type of philosophizing led Brucker's followers to make a clear distinction between the original Platonism and the subsequent 'distortions'. An analysis of Brucker's use of the term shows its biased character, distorting the representation of late Platonism and creating a strain according to which the terminological break represents a valid break in late Antique Platonism. This approach has caused among scholars a marginalization of Neoplatonism, presented as a self-sufficient and closed school, impervious to the influence of other philosophical schools, including Christianity (an approach shared by H. Dörrie, L. Brisson, A. Segon, Ph. Offmann and C. de Vogel). The author has identified the reasons of the pejorative attitude to the late Platonists in the science of XVIIIth – first half of XXth centuries, which did not take into account the self-perception of Platonists and their method of treatment of philosophical material, and also analyses modern attempts to reassess the established classification (L. Katana, L. Gerson, T. Rodriguez). The examples of interschool interaction (Celsus, Numenius, St. Justin, Amelius and Porphyry) given in the article not only in diachronic, but also in synchronic aspect, have allowed us to question the necessity of retaining the term "Neoplatonism", as well as the cliché about the closedness of the Roman Neoplatonic school of the third century.

Late Antique philosophy, Neoplatonism, Middle Platonism, historiographical stamps, J. Brooker, Plotinus,

1. Albrecht M. von, et al. (2002) Jamblich, Pythagoras: Legende — Lehre — Lebensgestaltung. Darmstadt.
2. Annas J. (1999) Platonic Ethics, Old and New. Ithaca, London.
3. Becker M. (ed.) (2013) Eunapios aus Sardes: Biographien über Philosophen und Sophisten. Stuttgart.
4. Brisson L., Segonds A. Ph. (eds) (1966) Jamblique. Vie de Pythagore. Paris.
5. Brittain Ch. (2019) “Plato and Platonism”, in G. Fine (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Plato (2nd ed.), Oxford, pp. 530–541.
6. Burnyeat M. F. (2005) “Platonism in the Bible: Numenius of Apamea on ‹Exodus› and Eternity”, in R. Salles (ed.) Metaphysics, Soul, and Ethics in Ancient Thought. Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji, Oxford, pp. 143–169.
7. Catana L. (2005) “The Concept “System of Philosophy”: The Case of Jacob Brucker’s Historiography of Philosophy”. History and Theory, vol. 44 (1), pp. 72–90.
8. Catana L. (2013) “Changing Interpretations of Plotinus: The 18th-Century Introduction of the Concept of a ‘System of Philosophy’”. International Journal of Platonic Tradition, vol. 7 (1), pp. 50–98.
9. Catana L. (2013) “The Origin of the Division between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism”. Apeiron, vol. 46/2, pp. 166–200.
10. Catana L. (2019) Late Ancient Platonism in Eighteenth-Century German Thought. Cham.
11. De Vogel C. J. (1985) “Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common Ground?”. Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 39 (1), pp. 1–62.
12. Dillon J. (1996) The Middle Platonists. A Study of Platonism 80 B. C. to A. D. 220. New York.
13. Dillon J. (2009) “St John in Amelius’ Seminar”, in P. Vassilopoulou, S. R. L. Clark (eds) Late Antique Epistemology: Other Ways to Truth, Great Britain, pp. 30-43.
14. Dörrie H. (1972) “Une exégèse néoplatonicienne du Prologue de l’Évangile de saint Jean (Amélius chez Eusèbe)”, in Épektasis: mélanges patristiques off erts au cardinal Jean Daniélou, Paris, pp. 75–87.
15. Dörrie H. (1981) “Die Andere Theologie”. Theologie und Philosophie, vol. 56 (1), pp. 1–46.
16. Edwards M. (ed.) (2000) Neoplatonic Saints: the Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their Students. Liverpool.
17. Gerson L. P. (ed.). (2010) The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, vol. 1. Cambridge.
18. Hager F. P. (1983) “Zur Geschichte, Problematik und Bedeutung des Begriff es ʽNeuplatonismusʼ”. Diotima, Bd. 11, pp. 98–110.
19. Jerphagnon L. (1990) “Les sous-entendu anti-chrétiens de la Vita Plotini ou l’évangile de Plotin selon Porphyre”. Museum helveticum, vol. XLVII, pp. 41–52.
20. Kristeller P. O. (1943) The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino. New York.
21. Kudryavcev O. F. (2018) Florentijskaya Platonovskaya akademiya. Ocherk istorii duhovnoj zhizni renessansnoj Italii [Plato’s Academy in Florence. Essays on the history of the spiritual life of Renaissance Italy]. Moscow, 2018 (in Russian).
22. Meinhardt H. (1984) “Neuplatonismus”, in J. Ritter (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 6, Basel; Stuttgart, col. 754–756.
23. Mesyac S. V. (2008) “Yamvlih” [Yamblichus], in Antichnaya filosofiya: Enciklopedicheskij slovar’ [Ancient Philosophy: An Encyclopedic Dictionary], Moscow, pp. 837–848 (in Russian).
24. Miller P. C. (1983) Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley.
25. Rodríguez T. (2015) “Basta con desechar la categoría “neoplatonismo” para rehabilitar a los neoplatónicos?”. Signos Filosóficos, vol. XVII, no. 33, pp. 8–27.
26. Saffrey A. D. (1992) “Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il édité Plotin?”, in L. Brisson (éd.) Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, Etudes d’introduction, texte grecque etc., vol. II, Paris, pp. 31–64.
27. Schneider J. (1998) “Das Eklektizismus-Problem der Philosophiegeschichte”, in W. Schmidt- Biggemann, Th. Stammen (eds) Jacob Brucker (1696–1770): Philosoph und Historiker der europäischen Aufklärung, Berlin, pp. 135–158.
28. Sedley D. (1997) “Plato’s Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition”, in J. Barnes, M. Griffin (eds) Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Oxford, pp. 110–129.
29. Shichalin Yu. (2013) “The Traditional View of Late Platonism as a Self-contained System”, in M. Vinzent (ed.) Studia Patristica, vol. LXII. Papers presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2011, vol. 10: The Genres of Late Antique Literature, pp. 3–9.
30. Shichalin Yu. A. (2000) Istoriya antichnogo platonizma v institucional’nom aspekte [The History of Ancient Platonism in the Institutional Aspect]. Moscow (in Russian).
31. Simmons M. B. (1997) “The Function of Oracles in the Pagan-Christian Confl ict during the Age of Diocletian: the Case of Arnobius and Porphyry”, in E. A. Livingstone (ed.) Studia Patristica, vol. XXXI, Leuven, pp. 349–356.
32. Stamatellos G. (2007) Plotinus and the Presocratics. A Philosophical study of Presocratic Influence in Plotinus’ Enneads. Albany.
33. Tardieu M. (1992) “Les gnostiques dans la Vie de Plotin”, in: L. Brisson (ed.) Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, Etudes d’introduction, texte grecque etc., vol. II, Paris, pp. 503–546.
34. Zeyer K. (2012) “Neuplatonismusrezeption im Umfeld der deutschen Idealisten — eine Recherche mit Blick auf Schelling und Cusanus”. Verbum, vol. 14, pp. 61–81.
35. Zueva E. V. (2011) Vliyanie pereskazannyh dialogov Platona na literaturnuyu formu “Dialoga s Trifonom Iudeem” sv. Iustina Filosofa [The infl uence of Plato’s retold dialogues on the literary form of St. Justin the Philosopher’s Dialogue with Tryphonus Judaeus]. Moscow (in Russian).

Soloviev Roman

The article examines one of the most important features of the religious, philosophical and theological heritage of the priest Pavel Florensky. Despite the large amount of research literature, it remains not sufficiently studied. Unlike a number of other thinkers, elements of mysticism and mystical perceptions in Florensky's works are associated with his direct interest in those realities that relate to the theory and practice of magic and occultism. The article gives a brief overview of the opinions expressed by the leading researchers of Florensky's legacy, who dealt with this topic. There is a lack of serious developments on this topic after the publication of all Florensky's texts by the early 2010s. In the article, the research is carried out on three main aspects. The first one analyzes Florensky's concepts, in which his views on mysticism and mystical experience found expression. His beliefs stand out, on the basis of which he considered the mystical experience universal for all periods of human history. In the second aspect, evidence of the mystical experience of Florensky himself is revealed. Remarks are made regarding his distinction between genuine mysticism and false mysticism, respectively, as free and not free from the subjective “human factor”. The third aspect provides the main evidence of Florensky's actual attitude to the realities of “magical” relationships in the world, as well as to the theory and practice of occult teachings. It is noted that Florensky was convinced that these realities themselves are spiritually neutral, but can be used in various ways by those who have known them. The main conclusion is made that Florensky, as a Christian thinker, perceived mysticism as a “knowledge of the higher worlds” primarily in its soteriological aspect. The main danger of false mysticism, as well as the practice of “dark” magic and occultism, he saw only in the unconscious or conscious manifestation of human self-will and human subjectivity.

Florensky, mysticism, magic, occultism, mysteries, mystical experience, other worlds, visions, contemplation

1. Bonetskaya N. (1995) “Russkaia sofiologiia i antroposofiia” [Russian Sophiology and anthroposophy]. Voprosy filosofii, 1995, vol. 7, pp. 79–97 (in Russian).
2. Bonetskaya N. (2001) “Forum florenkovedov” [Forum of Florenskologists]. Voprosy filosofii, 2001, vol. 7, pp. 177–184 (in Russian).
3. Bonetskaya N. (2000) “Florenskii i Gete” [Florenskii and Goethe]. Polignozis, 2000, vol. 3, pp. 113‒119 (in Russian).
4. Bonetskaya N. (2003) “P. Florenskii: russkoe geteanstvo” [P. Florenskii: Russian Goetheanism]. Voprosy filosofii, 2003, vol. 3, pp. 97‒116 (in Russian).
5. Florenskii P. (1990) Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny [The pillar and ground of truth]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Florenskii P. (1992) Detiam moim. Vospominaniia proshlykh dnei [To my children. Memories of past days]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Florenskii P. (1994–2000) Sochinenia: v 4 t. [Works: in 4 vols]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Florenskii P. (1996) “Ikonostas” [Iconostasis], in P. Florenskii. Izbrannye trudy po iskusstvu [Selected works on art], Moscow, pp. 73‒198 (in Russian).
9. Florenskii P. (2000) Imena [The names]. Kharkov; Moscow.
10. Florenskii P. (2004) Filosofiia kulta (Opyt pravoslavnoi antropoditsei) [The philosophy of the cult (a project of Orthodox anthropodicy)]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Florenskii P. (1990) U vodorazdelov mysli [At the watersheds of thought]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Florenskii P. (2018) Bogoslovskie trudy. 1902–1909 [Theological works. 1902–1909]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. “Florenskij segodnia: tri tochki zreniia” (1997) [Florensky today: three points of view]. Voprosy filosofii, 1997, vol. 5, pp. 125–156 (in Russian).
14. Florovskii G. (1991) Puti russkogo bogosloviia [The ways of Russian theology]. Vilnius (in Russian).
15. Khoruzhii S. (1994) Posle pereryva. Puti russkoj fi losofi i [After the break. The ways of Russian philosophy]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
16. Khoruzhii S. (1999) Mirosozertsanie Florenskogo [Florensky’s worldview]. Tomsk (in Russian).
17. Lur'e V. (1997) “Posleslovie” [Afterword], in I. Meiendorf, prot. ZhiznJ i trudy svt. Grigoriia Palamy. Vvedenie v izuchenie [Life and works of St. Gregory Palamas. Introduction to its study], St. Petersburg, pp. 327–372 (in Russian).
18. Nikoliukin A. (ed.) (2010) “Perepiska V. V. Rozanova i P. A. Florenskogo” [Correspondence of V. V. Rozanov and P. A. Florensky], in V. Rozanov. Literaturnye izgnanniki. Kniga vtoraia [Literary exiles. Book Two], Moscow; St. Petersburg, pp. 9–412 (in Russian).
19. Pavliuchenkov N. (2018) “¸Ellinskaia religiia stradaiushchego boga″ v ¸Filosofii kulta″ sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo: k postanovke problem” [“Hellenic religion of a suffering god” in P. Florensky’s “Philosophy of Cult”: formulation of problems]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofi ia. Religiovedenie, 2018, vol. 78, pp. 75–91 (in Russian).
20. Trubetskoi S. (2003) Metafizika v Drevnej Gretsii [Metaphysics in Ancient Greece]. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Vasilenko L. (2004) “O magii i okkulºtizme v nasledii o. Pavla Florenskogo” [On magic and occultism in the legacy of Priest Pavel Florensky]. Vestnik PSTGU, 2004, vol. 3, pp. 81–99 (in Russian).

Pavliuchenkov Nikolai

*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 represents a hypothesis about the interrelation between religion and the "Russian marriage paradox", which consists of simultaneously high levels of marriage and divorce rates as well as a significant proportion of marriages with a short duration. In contrast to the arguments about the "value shifts" and "weak institutions" used today in sociology and demography to explain the transformation of attitudes towards marriage, we propose a hypothesis about the significance of religious ethics - a source of competencies that contribute to the sustainability of married life. Our assumption is that due to the so-called “forced secularization” and detraditionalization of family life in post-Soviet Russia a radical disengagement took place between the normative side of marriage, and the relational side of marriage, which is responsible for manifestations of reciprocity and community in family life. One of the manifestations of this relational ethics, formulated in the social sciences, is associated with the importance of detachment from “Self” in marriage in favor of the “We”, which reflects the Christian ideas of humility, forgiveness, self-sacrifice in the family and promotes marital reciprocity. Studies of recent decades show that the relationship between individual measures of religiosity and family well-being is not linear, but is mediated by the manifestation of virtues in marriage. Based on data from a survey of married Russians who identify themselves as Orthodox (N = 583), we test the assumption that the importance of detachment from “I” in marriage will increase with the rise in the frequency of attendance of religious services and the marriage duration. The theoretical arguments of the hypothesis indicate the significant role of relational competencies responsible for the interconnection between the value of marriage and marriage sustainability. On the one hand, we show that the higher is the duration of marriage and the frequency of attending religious services, the higher is the value of detachment from the “Self”. On the other hand, the relationship between these measures is rather weak. As the conclusion, the explanation for the "Russian marriage paradox" could be related to the "relational poverty" of young people entering into marriage.

Marriages and divorces, religiosity, virtues, ethics of relationships, reciprocity, sociology of religion, Orthodox Christianity

1. Antonov A., Karpova V., Lyalikova S., Novoselova E., Sinelºnikov A., Zhavoronkov A. (2021) Skhodstvo i razlichie tsennostnykh orientatsii muzhei i zhen po rezulJtatam odnovremennogo oprosa suprugov [Similarity and difference in the value orientations of husbands and wives based on the results of a simultaneous survey of spouses]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Arkhangelsky A. (2010) “Problemy semºi, tserkovnogo braka i razvoda v istorii rossiiskoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi do Pomestnogo sobora 1917‒1918 godov” [Problems of the family, church marriage and divorce in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church before the Local Council of 1917‒1918”]. Vestnik Sviato-Filaretovskogo instituta, vol. 2, pp. 110‒127 (in Russian).
3. Artamonova A., Mitrofanova E. (2018) “Matrimonialºnoe povedenie rossiian na fone drugikh evropeitsev” [Matrimonial behaviour of Russians in a European context]. Demograficheskoe obozrenie, vol. 5 (1), pp. 106‒137 (in Russian).
4. Bahr H. M., Bahr K. S. (2001) “Families and Self-sacrifi ce: Alternative Models and Meanings for Family Theory”. Social forces, vol. 79 (4), pp. 1231‒1258.
5. Beach S. R. H., Fincham F. D., Hurt T. R., McNair L. M., Stanley S. M. (2008) “Prayer and Marital Intervention: A Conceptual Framework”. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, vol. 27, pp. 641–669.
6. Beck U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London; Newbury Park; New Delhi.
7. Berger B. (2017) The Family in the Modern Age: More than a Lifestyle Choice. Abingdon; New York.
8. Berger P., Kellner H. (1964) “Marriage and the Construction of Reality: An Exercise in the Microsociology of Knowledge”. Diogenes, vol. 12 (46), pp. 1‒24.
9. Call Vaughn R. A., Heaton T. B. (1997) “Religious Influence on Marital Stability”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 36 (3), pp. 382–392.
10. Chelladurai J. M., Kelley H. H., Marks L. D., Dollahite D. C. (2022) “Humility in Family Relationships: Exploring How Humility Influences Relationships in Religious Families”. Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 36 (2), 201–211.
11. Cherlin A. J. (2004) “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage”. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66 (4), pp. 848‒861.
12. Churilova E., Zakharov S. (2022) “Kachestvo semeinykh otnoshenii, namereniia rasstatºsia i ikh realizatsiia u muzhchin i zhenshhin v Rossii” [The quality of family relationships, intentions to divorce and their implementation among men and women in Russia]. Zhenshhina v rossiiskom obshhestve, vol. 3, pp. 131‒142 (in Russian).
13. Churilova E., Zakharov S. (2021) “Tendentsii prekrashcheniia pervykh brachno-partnerskikh soiuzov v Rossii” [Trends in the termination of the fi rst marriages and partnerships in Russia]. Voprosy statistiki, vol. 2 (28), pp. 54‒66 (in Russian).
14. Day R. D., Acock A. (2013) “Marital Well-being and Religiousness as Mediated by Relational Virtue and Equality”. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 75 (1), pp. 164‒177.
15. Do Couto L. (2019) Relational Orientation Styles and Relationship Quality: Sacrifice Motives in Romantic Relationships. Doctoral dissertation, University of Guelph.
16. Dollahite D. C., Marks L. D., Goodman M. A. (2004) “Families and Religious Beliefs, Practices, and Communities”, in M. Coleman, L. Ganong (eds) Handbook of Contemporary Families, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 411‒431.
17. Donati P. (2014) “Which Engagement? The Couple’s Life as a Matter of Relational Refl exivity”. Anthropotes, vol. 30 (1), pp. 217‒250.
18. Donati P. (2019) Relational Theory of Society: Social Life from a Critical Realist Perspective. Moscow (Russian translation).
19. Farrell J. E., Hook J. N., Ramos M., Davis D. E., Tongeren van D. R., Ruiz J. M. (2015) “Humility and Relationship Outcomes in Couples: The Mediating Role of Commitment”. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, vol. 4 (1), pp. 14‒26.
20. Fincham F. D. (2019) “Forgiveness in Marriage”, in Handbook of Forgiveness, Abingdon; New York, pp. 142‒152.
21. Fincham F. D., May R. W. (2017) “Prayer and Forgiveness: Beyond Relationship Quality and Extension to Marriage”. Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 31 (6), pp. 734‒741.
22. Fincham F. D., Paleari F. G., Regalia C. (2002) “Forgiveness in Marriage: The Role of Relationship Quality, Attributions, and Empathy”. Personal relationships, vol. 9 (1), pp. 27‒37.
23. Friz G. L. (2019) “Russian Orthodoxy and the Crisis of Family Relations: Divorce during the Years of Revolution and Qar, 1917–1921”, in “Deadly Piety”. The Russian Church and the Fall of the Empire, St. Petersburg, pp. 316‒350 (Russian translation).
24. Gassin A. E. (2003) “Pravoslavie i problema proshcheniia” [Orthodoxy and the problem of mercy]. Konsul’tativnaia psikhologiia i psikhoterapiia, vol. 3 (11), pp. 166‒186 (in Russian).
25. Giddens A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge.
26. Goddard W. H., Olson J. R., Galovan A. M., Schramm D. G., Marshall, J. P. (2016) “Qualities of Character that Predict Marital Well-being”. Family Relations, vol. 65 (3), pp. 424‒438.
27. Horne R. M., Impett E. A., Johnson M. D. (2020) “Exclude Me, Enjoy Us? Unmitigated Communion and Relationship Satisfaction Across 7 years”. Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 34 (6), pp. 653‒663.
28. Jeffries V. (2014) “Morality of Virtue and Marriage Solidarity (translated from English)”, in Sotsial’naia solidarnost’ i al’truizm: sotsiologicheskaia traditsiia i sovremennye mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniia [Social solidarity and altruism: sociological tradition and modern interdisciplinary research], Moscow, pp. 109–147 (Russian translation).
29. Johnson M. D., Horne R. M., Neyer F. J. (2019) “The Development of Willingness to Sacrifi ce and Unmitigated Communion in Intimate Partnerships”. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 81 (1), pp. 264‒279.
30. Kaa D. J. van de. (1987) “Europe’s Second Demographic Transition”. Population Bulletin, vol. 42 (1), pp.1‒59.
31. Kaslow F. W., Hammerschmidt H. (1993) “Long Term “Good” Marriages: The Seemingly Essential Ingredients”. Journal of Couples Therapy, vol. 3 (2‒3), pp. 15‒38.
32. Kelley H. H., Marks L. D., Dollahite D. C. (2020) “Uniting and Dividing Influences of Religion in Marriage among Highly Religious Couples”. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, vol. 2 (12), pp. 167‒177.
33. Kelley H. H., Marks L. D., Dollahite D. C. (2022) “Uniting and Dividing Influences of Religion on Parent–child Relationships in Highly Religious Families”. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, vol.1 (14), pp. 128–139.
34. Mahoney A. (2010) “Religion in Families, 1999–2009: A Relational Spirituality Framework”. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 72, pp. 805‒827.
35. Marks L. (2005) “Religion and Bio-Psycho-Social Health: A Review and Conceptual Model”. Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 44, pp. 173–186.
36. McCullough M. E., Worthington Jr. E. L., Rachal K. C. (1997) “Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 73 (2), pp. 321–336.
37. McLaughlin A. T., Shodiya-Zeumault S., McElroy-Heltzel S., Davis D. E., McLaughlin-Sheasby A., Hook J. N. (2019) “Test of the Social Buff ering Hypothesis in the Context of Religious Disagreements”. Journal of Psychology and Theology, vol. 47 (2), pp. 100‒111.
38. McNulty J. K. (2008) “Forgiveness in Marriage: Putting the Benefi ts into Context”. Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 22, pp. 171–175.
39. Orathinkal J. A., Vansteenwegen A. (2007) “Religiosity and Forgiveness among First-married and Remarried Adults”. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, vol. 10, pp. 379–394.
40. Pavlyutkin I. (2020) “Dinamika religioznosti molodezhi v Rossii” [Dynamics of young people’s religiosity in Russia]. Nauchnyi rezulJtat. Sotsiologiia i upravlenie, vol. 3, pp. 153‒183 (in Russian).
41. Pavlyutkin I. (2021) “Kak voznikaet obshchnostº v brake: logika vzaimnosti v narrativakh zhen iz mnogodetnykh semei” [How the sense of community arises in marriage: the logic of mutuality in the narratives of women from large families]. Ekonomicheskaia sotsiologiia, vol. 4 (22), pp. 11‒34 (in Russian).
42. Perry S. A. (2015) “Match Made in Heaven? Religion-Based Marriage Decisions, Marital Quality, and the Moderating Effects of Spouse’s Religious Commitment”. Social Indicators Research, vol. 123 (1), pp. 203–225.
43. Peterson C., Seligman M. E. P. (2004) Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Washington, DC; New York.
44. Rean A. (2017) “Semºia v strukture tsennostei molodezhi” [Family in the structure of values of young people]. Rossiiskii psihologicheskii zhurnal, vol. 14, pp. 62‒76 (in Russian).
45. Shorter E. (1975) The Making of the Modern Family. New York.
46. Sinelºnikov A. (2010) “Semia i brak na evropeiskom fone” [Family and marriage against the European background]. Monitoring obshhestvennogo mneniia: ekonomicheskie i sotsialJnye peremeny, vol. 98, pp. 52‒75 (in Russian).
47. Tongeren van D. R., Hook J. N., Ramos M. J., Edwards M., Worthington Jr. E. L., Davis D., Osae-Larbi J. A. (2019) “The Complementarity of Humility Hypothesis: Individual, Relational, and Physiological Eff ects of Mutually Humble Partners”. The Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 14 (2), pp. 178‒187.
48. Vaaler M. L., Ellison C. G., Powers D. A. (2009) “Religious Infl uences on the Risk of Marital Dissolution”. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 71, pp. 917‒934.
49. Van Lange P. A., Rusbult C. E., Drigotas S. M., Arriaga X. B., Witcher B. S., Cox C. L. (1997) “Willingness to Sacrifice in Close Relationships”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 72 (6), pp. 1373‒1395.
50. Wang F., Edwards K. J., Hill P. C. (2017) “Humility as a Relational Virtue: Establishing Trust, Empowering Repair, and Building Marital Well-being”. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, vol. 36 (2), pp. 168‒179.
51. Wilcox W. B., Dew J. (2016) “The Social and Cultural Predictors of Generosity in Marriage: Gender Egalitarianism, Religiosity, and Familism”. Journal of Family Issues, vol. 37 (1), pp. 97‒118.
52. Worthington Jr. E. L., Brown E., McConnell J. M. (2018) “Forgiveness in Committed Couples: Its Synergy with Humility, Justice, and Reconciliation”. Religions, vol. 10 (1), available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/1/13 (accessed 11.04.2023).
53. Zabaev I. (2018) “Operatsionalizatsiia “smireniia” v psikhologii” [Operationalisation of the concept of humility in psychology]. St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious studies, vol. 76, pp. 107‒129 (in Russian).
54. Zabaev I. (2022) “Smirenie i vzaimnostº: religiovedcheskii analiz etosa sovremennogo russkogo pravoslaviia” [Humility and mutuality: an analysis of ethos of contemporary Russian orthodoxy]. St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious studies, vol. 102, pp. 87‒116 (in Russian).
55. Zaidi B., Morgan S. P. (2017) “The Second Demographic Transition Theory: A Review and Appraisal”. Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 43, pp. 473‒492.
56. Zakharov S. (2008) “Russian Federation: From the First to Second Demographic Transition”. Demographic Research, vol. 19, pp. 907‒972.
57. Zakharov S., Artamonova A., Mitrofanova E. (2017) “Brachnost i razvodimost” [Marriage and divorce], in S. Zakharov (ed.) Naselenie Rossii 2015: 23 ezhegodnyi demografi cheskii doklad [Population of Russia 2015: 23rd annual demographic report], Moscow, pt. 2, pp. 60‒111 (in Russian).

Pavlyutkin Ivan

*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.

Goleva Mariia

The project was supported by the Russian Science Foundation in a form of a grant (project № 18-78-10089, https://rscf.ru/en/project/18-78-10089/). The grant was given to Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox University.