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

The author analyses how the idea of the papal primacy was formed and developed, papal primacy meaning the particular way in which the place of the bishop of Rome was conceived within the Universal Church. The period in question began with the second century and the emergence of a tradition regarding Peter’s martyrdom in Rome and continued through the papacy of Leo I (440–461). It was Leo who summed up the idea of an exclusive ministry of the Roman pontiff within the Church. The author reviews early testimonies (stretching from the second to the fourth century) which note the presence of Peter in Rome, and view him first as a Roman martyr, later as the founder of the Roman episcopal see, and finally as Rome’s first bishop. The idea of the position of Peter in the Church of Rome may be viewed as gradually evolving. The author demonstrates how a rather unreliable ancient tradition connecting the death of Peter with Rome evolved during the fourth and fifth centuries into the idea of Peter as the prince of the apostles (princeps apostolorum), who transmitted his authority or power over the Universal Church to his supposed successors, the bishops of Rome, — an idea which was fully developed by Leo I. The author also wishes to describe the way the Church of Rome was conceived during the first centuries of its existence and underlines the limits of its powers and its susciperent ampliorem, per quos ad unam Petri sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret, et nihil usquam a suo capite dissideret. Qui ergo scit se quibusdam esse praepositum, non moleste ferat aliquem sibi esse praelatum; sed obedientiam quam exigit, etiam ipse dependat…» (Leonis epistula XIV // PL. T. 54. Col. 676). canonical jurisdiction. It is clear that the concept of the Roman papacy’s universal ministry affording it the possibility to extend its universal jurisdiction over the entire Church within the Roman Empire are based on principles of ecclesiastical administration diametrically opposed to those, which were commonly defended by the rest of the Imperial Church and were founded on the decisions of ecumenical and local Church Councils.

Church of Rome, Papacy, St. Peter, Eusebius of Caesarea, Tertullian, Jerome, canons, Ecumenical Councils, Pope Innocent I, Pope Leo I.

1. Ameling W. 2011 “Petrus in Rom. Zur Genese frühchristlicher Erinnerung” in: Heid S. (ed.) Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2011, pp. 468–491.
2. Anastos M. 1957 “The Transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 732–733” in: «Silloge Bizantina» in onore di Silvio Giuseppe Mercati, Rome, 1957, pp. 15–31.
3. Caspar E. (ed.) Das Register Gregors VII, Berlin, 1920.
4. Demacopoulos G. E. The Invention of Peter. Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity, Philadelphia, 2013.
5. Dinkler E. 1959 “Die Petrus-Rom-Frage” in: Theologische Rundschau, 1959, vol. 25, pp. 189–230, 289–335.
6. Durã V. N. 2006 “The «Petrine Primacy»: The Role of the Bishop of Rome according to the Canonical Legislation of the Ecumenical Councils of the First Millennium, an Ecclesiological-Canonical Evaluation” in: Kasper W. (ed.) The Petrine ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in dialogue, New York, 2006, pp. 159–187
7. Haller J. Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart, 1950.
8. Heid S. 2011 “Die Anfänge der Verehrung der apostolischen Gräber in Rom” in: Heid S. (ed.) Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2011, pp. 283–308.
9. Kötter J.-M. 2012 “Autonomie der illyrischen Kirche? Die Sixtus-Briefe der Collectio Thessalonicensis und der Streit um das kirchliche Illyricum” in: Millennium, vol. 9, pp. 163–185.
10. Lanzoni F. Le diocesi d’Italia dalle origini al principio del secolo VII (an. 604). Faenza, 1927, vol. 2.
11. Mielsch H. 2011 “Die Umgebung des Petrusgrabes im 2. Jahrhundert” in: Heid S. (ed.) Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2011, pp. 383–404.
12. Mirbt C. Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums und des römischen Katholizismus, Tübingen, 19113.
13. Riesner R. 2011 “Apostelgeschichte, Pastoralbriefe, 1. Clemens-Brief und die Martyrien der Apostel in Rom” in: Heid S. (ed.) Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2011, pp. 153–179.
14. Schmitt T. 2011 “Die Christenverfolgung unter Nero” in: Heid S. (ed.) Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2011, pp. 517–537.
15. Weber W. 2011 “Die Suche nach dem Patrusgrab. Zu den archäologischen Untersuchungen im Bereich der Confessio von St. Peter” in: Heid S. (ed.) Petrus und Paulus in Rom. Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2011, pp. 67–113;
16. Zwierlein O. Petrus in Rom: Die literarischen Zeugnisse, Berlin, 2009.
17. Leporskij P. I. Istorija Fessalonikskogo jekzarhata do vremeni prisoedinenija k Konstantinopol'skomu patriarhatu (History of Exarchate of Thessalonica before Its Addition to Patriarchate of Constantinople), Saint-Petersbourg, 1901.

Gratsianskiy Mikhail

What do today’s Ethiopian Christians think about Arius and what do they think about his theology? Naturally, recent studies concerning this topic are terra incognita to them. Arius continues to represent for them the typical arch-heretic. This author bases his study on his research of the Senkessar (the Ethiopian Synaxarion), the Ethiopian liturgical tradition, a number of other texts, as well as the Ethiopian tradition of sacred art. All this permits him to define the image of Arius in today’s Ethiopian Church. The Ethiopian national epos known as the Kebra Nagast or Glory of the Kings places Arius in the company of Nestorius and Ibo of Edessa. For the Ethiopian church which does not accept the Council of Chalcedon, both of these represent hated dia-physite heretics. By associating Arius with them, he becomes the founder of the dia-physite heresy — a movement which historically occurred only after his time and with which he actually had little or nothing to do. In the Ethiopian Synaxarion, Arius is juxtaposed with such heroes of the Ethiopian faith as Peter, Alexander, and Timothy of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, and the fathers of the Council of Nicaea. Naturally, here just as in the Kebra, Arius is once again portrayed as the arch-heretic, whose teaching represents a pernicious catastrophe for the Orthodox faith. He is compared with Sabellius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and even Mani. He is demonized to the extent that he is actually called a devil. In the Anaphora of the Three Hundred and Eighteen, Arius is not mentioned by name, but the anaphora in question does contain an attack on his heresy. It would seem that the Ethiopian authors make no attempt to even understand the logic which Arius used to define his position. They simply reject it without discussion. The Ethiopian tradition likewise portrays Arius as a new Judas, pointing out similar details in the way both of these figures met their fi nal end. A particular representation of this is found in the way Arius is depicted on the wall of the church of Ura Kidana Mehret, near Lake Tana on the Peninsula of Zege. A similar depiction, this time in words, is found in the Ethiopian Synaxarion.

Arius, Alexander of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria, Arianism, Ethiopia, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Ethiopian Anaphora of the 318 Orthodox Fathers, Ethiopian Synaxarion, I Ecumenical Council.

1. Beylot R. La gloire des rois ou l’Histoire de Salomon et de la reine de Saba, Turnhout, 2008.
2. Biliarsky I. 2008 “The Birth of the Empire by the Divine Wisdom and the Ecumenical Church (Some Observations on the Ethiopian Book of Kebra Nagast)” in: Biliarsky I., Paun R. G. (ed.) The Biblical Models of Power and Law, Frankfurt am Main, 2008, pp. 23–44.
3. Borelli J. Éthiopie méridionale: journal de mon voyage aux pays Amhara, Oromo et Sidama, septembre 1885 à novembre 1888, Paris, 1890.
4. Boularand É. L’hérésie d’Arius et la «foi» de Nicée, Paris, 1972.
5. Caquot A. Р. 1967 “Histoire amharique de Grāñ et des Gallas” in: Annales d’Éthiopie, 1957, vol. 2, pp. 123–143.
6. Caquot A. 1957 “L’homélie en l’honneur de l’archange Raguel (Dersāna Rāguēl)” in: Annales d’Éthiopie, 1957, vol. 2, pp. 91–122.
7. Colin G. La gloire des rois (Kebra Nagast). Épopée nationale de l’Éthiopie, Genève, 2002.
8. Colin G. 1995 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de genbot” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Turnhout, 1995, vol. 47, pp. 257.
9. Colin G. 1907 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de hamlé” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Paris, 1907, vol. 7, pp. 425.
10. Colin G. 1988 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de hédar” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Turnhout, 1988, vol. 44, pp. 395.
11. Colin G. 1986 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de maskaram” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Turnhout, 1986, vol. 43, pp. 501.
12. Colin G. 1995 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de miyazya” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Turnhout, 1995, vol. 46, pp. 559.
13. Colin G. 1988 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de teqemt” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Turnhout, 1988, vol. 44, pp. 19.
14. Colin G. 1993 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de terr” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Turnhout, 1993, vol. 45, pp. 59.
15. Colin G. 1993 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de yakkatit” in: Patrologia orientalis, Paris, 1993, vol. 45, pp. 455.
16. Colin G. 1988 “Le synaxaire éthiopien. État actuel de la question” in: Analecta Bollandiana, 1988, vol. 106, pp. 273–317.
17. Euringer S. 1926 “Die Anaphora der 318 Rechtgläubigen. Äthiopisch und Deutsch” in: Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete, 1926, vol. 4, pp. 125–144, 266–299.
18. Flad J. M. The Falashas (Jews) of Abyssinia, London, 1869.
19. Grébaut S. 1927 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien, mois de tahsas” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Paris, 1927, vol. 40, pp. 706.
20. Grillmeier A. Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), London, 1975².
21. Guidi I., Grébaut S. 1913 “Le Synaxaire éthiopien. Mois de Nahasé” in: Patrologia Orientalis, Paris, 1913, vol. 9, pp. 350–353.
22. Kebra Nagast. Addis Abeba, 1994.
23. Levine D. N. Wax and Gold. Tradition and Innovation in Ethiopian Culture, Chicago (Ill.), 1965.
24. Merten K. Das äthiopisch-Orthodoxe Christentum. Ein Versuch zu verstehen, Berlin, 2012.
25. Pietri Ch. 1995 “L’épanouissement du débat théologique et ses diffi cultés sous Constantin : Arius et le concile de Nicée” in: Mayeur J.-M. et alii (ed.) Histoire du christianisme, Paris, 1995, vol. 2, pp. 249–288.
26. The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, London, 2005.
27. The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelek, London, 1922.

Pérès Jacques-Noël

The author studies the problem of the working of God in history, a subject which was constitutive of the German Protestant theologian’s Wolfhart Pannenberg (*1928) theology of history. This article examines the philosophical, dogmatic, and ecumenical aspects of the problem. Philosophical aspects include the idea of God as both transcendent and imminent in the world, the eternal history of God in Himself, and the dependence of God on the history of the world. The contributions of Hegel, Kierkegaard, and the theologian Karl Barth are taken into account. The dogmatic aspect involves the doctrines concerning divine revelation and the Trinity. Pannenberg’s theory of the union between the historical revelation of the triune God and the inner (imminent) divine life of the Trinity is discussed. His idea of the historical-soteriological activity of the persons of the Blessed Trinity and the way in which the divine persons inter-relate in the unity of the Trinity is analyzed, especially in the way this is revealed in the action of the divine economy or history of salvation, the central events of which are the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The author does not forget to mention the way Pannenberg explains the perichoresic rapport existing between the divine persons of the Trinity. The author continues with a survey of the later works of Pannenberg, in which the German theologian develops his ideas concerning the eschatological perspectives of the divine economy as related to the revelation of the world to come already anticipated in the Kingdom of God and in the being of the Trinity. The ecumenical aspects of Pannenberg’s theology include the way he sets forth the problem of the relationship between the imminent and economic doctrine of the Trinity, a question which has become a subject of inter-Christian dialogue. The author fi nally reflects on the arguments of western theologians who have identified the working of the imminent and economic Trinity, as well as those contemporary Orthodox theologians (John Meyendorff and Athanasios Vletsis) who have likewise commented on the problem.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, contemporary German Protestantism, the historicity of God, imminent and economic doctrines of the Trinity, pantheism

1. Bart K. Kirchliche Dogmatik, Zürich, 1976, vol. IV/1.
2. Barth K. Die christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf. Die Lehre vom Worte Gottes, München, 1927.
3. Jenson J. W. The Triune Identity, Philadelphia, 1982.
4. Jüngel E. 1972 “Vom Tod des lebendigen Gottes (1968)” in: Idem. Unterwegs zur Sache. Theologische Bemerkungen, München, 1972, pp. 105–125.
5. Jüngel. Gott als Geheimnis der Welt, Tübingen, 1977.
6. Kasper W. Der Gott Jesu Christi, Mainz, 1982.
7. Macquarrie J. 1995 “Panenteismus” in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin, 1995, vol. 25, pp. 611–615.
8. Moltmann J. Der gekreuzigte Gott, München, 1972.
9. Moltmann J. “Festvortrag für Wolfhart Pannenberg” in: Wege zu einer trinitarischen Eschatologie. Ansprachen anlässilich des Festaktes zur Feier des 75. Geburtstages von W. Pannenberg, München, 2004.
10. Moltmann J. 1975 “Gedanken zur «trinitarischen Geschichte Gottes»” in: Evangelische Theologie. 1975, vol. 35, pp. 208–223.
11. Moltmann J. Trinität und Reich Gottes, München, 1980.
12. Pannenberg W. Grundfragen Systematischer Theologie, Göttingen, 1980. vol. 2.
13. Pannenberg W. 1988 “Die Welt als Geschichte Gottes und die Einheit des göttlichen Wesens” in: Systematische Theologie, Göttingen, 1988, vol. 1.
14. Pfeil H. 1980 “Die Frage nach der Veränderlichkeit und Geschichtlichkeit Gottes” in: Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift, 1980, vol. 1, pp. 243–255.
15. Rahner K. 1960 “Bemerkungen zum dogmatischen Traktat «De Trinitate»” in: Schriften zur Theologie, Einsiedeln, 1960, vol. 4, pp. 103–133.
16. Schleiermacher F. Der christliche Glaube, nach den Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt, Berlin, 19607, vol. 2.
17. Vletsis A. 2009 “Die immanente Trinität ist die «doxologische Trinität»” in: Una Sancta, 2009, vol. 1, pp. 8–28
18. Wendebourg D. Geist oder Energie. Zur Frage der innergöttlichen Verankerung des christlichen Lebens in der byzantischen Theologie, München, 1980.
20. Gegel' G. V. F. Filosofija religii (Philosophy of Religion), Moscow, 1977, vol. 2.
21. Zajcev V. Uchenie V. Losskogo o teozise (Lossky’s Teaching on Theism). Moscow, 2007.
23. Lavrent'ev A. V. 2012 “Istorizm i istoriko-kriticheskij metod v teologii V. Pannenberga” in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2012, vol. 3 (41), pp. 7–18.
24. Mejendorf I., protopr. 2013 “Svjataja Troica v palamitskom bogoslovii” (Holy Trinity in Palamites’ Theology) in: Pashal'naja tajna: stat'i po bogosloviju, Moscow, 2013, pp. 605–620.
25. Mejndorf I., protopr. 2013 “Po povodu «Edinstva Triedinogo Boga» Jurgena Mol'tmana” (Concerning J. Moltmann’ “The Unity of Triune God”) in: Pashal'naja tajna: stat'i po bogosloviju, Moscow, 2013, pp. 738–744
26. Obolevich T. Ot imjaslavija k jestetike. Koncepcija simvola Alekseja Loseva (From Imiaslavie to Esthetics. Conception of Symbol by A. Losev), Moscow, 2014.
27. Gestrih K., Ukolov K. I. (eds.) Sravnitel'noe bogoslovie: nemeckij protestantizm XX v. Teksty s kommentarijami (Comparative Theology: German Protestantism in XX Cent.: Texts and Commentaries), Moscow, 2009.
28. Ukolov K. I. 2011 “Bogoslovskaja antropologija Vol'fharta Pannenberga” (W. Pannenberg’s Theological Anthropology) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2011, vol. 2 (34), pp. 34–46.
29. Chepurin K. V. 2012 “Antropologija, hristologija i jeshatologija Gegelja: sovremennyj vzgljad” (Hegel’s Anthropology, Christology and Eschatology: Modern View) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2012, vol. 2 (40), pp. 95–110.

Lavrent'ev Andrei

This article is centered on presenting Florensky’s thought regarding the close relationship between dogma and religious experience. The author begins by briefl y examining the idea of religion as a particular sense of consciousness (Schleiermacher) in the realm of knowledge and thought (John Newman). Hans-Georg Gadamer’s theory of religious feeling and religious experience is also discussed. Western authors who wrote about the rapport between religious experience and religious tradition include William James and Rudolf Otto; Russians include Bulgakov, Berdyaev, Frank, Il’in, and Tareev. Florensky’s ideas on the subject are presented on the basis of his early works and of his Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The author remarks that Florensky understands religious dogma primarily as a means given to man which makes it possible for him to overcome rational reality and rise to higher levels of perception. The possibility of surmounting mundane reality is realized through religious experience in which dogma assumes the role of an anchor or point of orientation as well as a point of resistance. The objectivity of religious experience, according to Florensky is guaranteed by its participation in that same truth which reveals itself to man, which gives man the means to recognize itself as the objective and absolute truth, and which establishes man’s religious experience in a formulated dogmatic doctrine.

Pavel Florensky, religious experience, religious perception, religious tradition, Christian dogma, senses, knowledge, reason.

1. Antonov K. M. 2011 “Russkaja religioznaja filosofija i fenomenologija religii: tochki soprikosnovenija” (Russian Religious Philosophy and Phenomenology of Religion:Common Grounds) in: Religiovedcheskie issledovanija, 2011, vol. 5/6, pp. 7–21.
2. Antonov K. M. Filosofija religii v russkoj metafizike XIX — nachala XX veka (Philosophy of Religion in the Russian Metaphysics XIX – Beginning of the XX Centuries), Moscow, 2009.
3. Berdjaev N. Novoe religioznoe soznanie i obshhestvennost' (New Religious Consciousness and Community), Saint-Petersbourg, 1907.
4. Bulgakov S. N. Svet Nevechernij (Unfading Light), Moscow, 1994.
5. Butru Je. Vil'jam Dzhems i religioznyj opyt (W. James and Religious Expirience), Moscow, 1908
6. Gadamer H.-G. Istina i metod: Osnovy filosofskoj germenevtiki (Truth and Method: Grounds Philosophical Hermeneutics), Moscow, 1988.
7. Dzhems V. Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta (The Varieties of Religious Experience), Moscow, 1910.
8. Il'in I. A. Aksiomy religioznogo opyta: issledovanie (Axioms of Religious Experience), Moscow, 2006.
9. Koreneva N. A. 2012 “Ponjatie religioznogo opyta v filosofii o. Pavla Florenskogo” (Concept of the Religious Experience in P. Florensky’s Philosophy) in: Tochki, 2012, vol. 1–4 (11), pp. 120–121.
10. N'jumen Dzh. G. Ideja Universiteta (The Idea of a University), Minsk, 2006.
11. Otto R. Svjashhennoe (The Holy), Saint-Petersbourg, 2008.
12. P. A. Florenskij: Pro et contra. Antologija (P. Florensky: Pro et Contra. Antology). Saint-Petersbourg, 2001.
13. Pavel Florenskij i simvolisty (P. Florensky and Symbolists), Moscow, 2004.
14. Pavljuchenkov N. N. 2011 “Psihologija religii v trudah svjashhennika Pavla Florenskogo” (Psychology of Religion in Priest P. Florensky’s Writings) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2011, vol. 5 (37), pp. 99–112.
15. Pavljuchenkov N. N. Religiozno-filosofskoe nasledie svjashhennika Pavla Florenskogo. Antropologicheskij aspect (Priest P. Florensky’s Religious-Philosophical Heritage), Moscow, 2012. S. 111–141.
16. “Perepiska 1902–1903 mezhdu A. V. El'chaninovym i P.A . Florenskim (Pis'ma. Prodolzhenie)” (Correspondence 1902–1903 between A. Elchaninov and P. Florensky (Letters. Continuation)) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2010, vol. 4 (32), pp. 91–115
17. Pylaev M. A. Kategorija «svjashhennoe» v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii XX veka (Category of the “Holy” in XX c. Phenomenology of Religion, Theology and Philosophy), Moscow, 2001.
18. Strahov P. S. Pragmatizm v nauke i religii (Po povodu knigi Dzhemsa «Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta») (Pragmatism in Science and Religion (Cencerning W. James Book “The Varieties of Religious Experience”)), Sergiev Posad, 1910;
19. Tareev M. M. 1917 “Novoe bogoslovie” (New Theology) in: Bogoslovskij vestnik, 1917, vol. 9-10, pp. 212.
20. Tareev M. M. Hristos (Christ), Moscow, 1908.
21. Trubeckoj S. N. Sochinenija (Writings), Moscow, 1994.
22. Florenskij P. A. . T. 1 (1). Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny (Writings. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth), Moscow, 1990.
23. Florenskij P. A. 2001 “Voprosy religioznogo samopoznanija” (Problems of Religious Self-Knowledge) in: Hristianstvo i kul'tura, Moscow, 2001, pp. 421–438.
24. Florenskij P., svjashh. Detjam moim. Vospominanija proshlyh dnej (For My Children. Memoir of Past Days). M., 1992.
25. Florenskij P. svjashh. Sochinenija. Filosofija kul'ta (Opyt pravoslavnoj antropodicei) (Writings. Philosophy of Cult. (Essay on Orthodox Antropodicea)), Moscow, 2004.
26. Frank S. L. 1911 “Lichnost' i mirovozzrenie Shlejermahera” (Schleiermacher’Figure and Worldview) in: Russkaja mysl', 1911, vol. 9, pp. 1–28
27. Frank S. L. 1915 “Religioznaja filosofija G. Kogena” (H. Cohen’s Religious Philosophy) in: Russkaja mysl', 1915, vol. 12, pp. 29–31.
28. Frank S. L. Zhivoe znanie (Live Knowledge), Berlin, 1923.
29. Frank S. Real'nost' i chelovek (Reality and Human), Saint-Petersbourg, 1997.
30. Frank S. Sochinenija (Writings), Moscow, 1990.
31. Homjakov A. S. Sochinenija bogoslovskie (Theological Writings), Saint-Petersbourg, 1995.
32. Shaposhnikov V. A. 2012 “Matematika i religija v universitetskoj perepiske Pavla Florenskogo (1900–1904)” (Mathematics and Religion in P. Florensky’s Univeristy Correspondence) in: Filosofija, bogoslovie i nauka kak opyt cel'nogo znanija, Moscow, 2012, рр. 150–173.
33. Shlejermaher F. Rechi o religii. Monologi (On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers), Saint-Petersbourg, 1994.
34. Shmeman A. prot. Dnevniki (Diaries), Moscow, 2005.

Pavliuchenkov Nikolai

Lev Shestov’s early period in which he developed his religious views is the subject of this article. Shestov was a well-known Russian thinker. The author sheds some light on the furtive character of his thought as well as attempts to reconstruct the sources of his religious consciousness. He was formed at the border between two religious worlds — that of Judaism and that of Christianity. Traces of Jewish free-thinking typical of the end of the nineteenth century color his Weltanschauung together with the infl uence of Nietzsche and the Bible, the last as it was interpreted by the western tradition. Shestov understands God in a way akin to that of anthropomorphic psychology, an understanding which develops the concept of the deity into a form of radical apophatic ignorance or the complete absence of the ability to know God. The author points out that Shestov’s God is not the God of life and religious experience but rather a product of a kind of radicalized rationality. This notwithstanding, the original theological perceptions of Shestov were generated by his search for an authentic philosophical life. The author concentrates her attention on two main tendencies in Shestov’s understanding of life — a holistic tendency and a personalistic tendency. From a reading of Shestov’s first book (Shakespeare and his critic Brandes published in 1898) it becomes clear that the personalistic tendency won out. The concept of rebellion takes first place in Shestov’s thought as well as that of the great and ultimate battle. As a result Shestov’s thought becomes dominated by anthopology rather than theology and the concept of God gives way to that of man as the rebel. Shestov’s thought, particularly in his works dating from the second half of the twentieth century, falls under the influence of Nietzsche and the man from the underground of Dostoevsky. His God becomes the God of Manichaeism, on the far side of neither good nor evil, and his thought finally degenerates to the point of expressing an almost unadulterated form of Satanism. During the second half of the twentieth century, the concept of rootlessness becomes central in his ideology and is related to his idea of divine arbitrariness. Shestov’s particular understanding of faith evolves in tandem with the Nietzschean concepts of the death of God and the superman. Shestov’s faith becomes a faith without object and his God becomes an unknown God. Shestov’s anthropology and his theology evolve as parallel processes during the twentieth century and fi nally bring about this two-edged result. At the same time, both these factors are realized in Shestov’s concept of the superman.

1. Berdjaev N. A. 1929 “Drevo zhizni i drevo poznanija” (The Tree of the Life and the Tree of the Knowledge) in: Put', 1929, vol. 18, pp. 88–106.
2. Bulgakov S. N. Sochinenija v dvuh tomah (Writings on Two Volumes), Moscow, 1993.
3. Gercyk E. Vospominanija (Memoirs) Moscow, 1996.
4. Nicshe F. Sochinenija v dvuh tomah (Writings on Two Volumes), Moscow, 1990.
5. Shestov L. Shekspir i ego kritik Brandes (Shakespeare and His Critic G. Brandes), Saint-Petersbourg, 1898.
6. Shestov L. Kirgegard i jekzistencial'naja filosofija (S. Kierkegaard and Existential Philosophy), Paris, 1939.
7. Shestov L. Sola fide — Tol'ko veroju (Sola Fide — by Faith Alone), Paris, 1966.
8. Shestov L. 1990 “Dobro v uchenii gr. Tolstogo i F. Nitshe” (Good in Teachungs of L. Tolstoy and F. Nitzsche) in: Voprosy filosofii, 1990, vol. 7, pp. 59–127.
9. Shestov L. Sochinenija v 2-h tomah (Writings on Two Volumes), Moscow, 1993.
10. Shestov L. Apofeoz bespochvennosti (Apotheosis of Groundlessness), Moscow, 2004.
11. Shestov L. Velikie kanuny (Great Vigils). Moscow, 2007.
12. Shestov L. Dostoevskij i Nicshe (Dostoevsky and Nitzsche), Moscow, 2007

Bonetskaia Natal'ia

The author studies the phenomenon of loneliness as it is explored in the spiritual literature of the seventeenth century, particularly in the correspondence of the noted French theologian Antoine Arnaud, an adept of the convent of Port-Royal. According to Arnaud, the world is poison, and he who dwells within it is assailed constantly by manifold temptations. A truly authentic and pious life involves a retreat from the world, which does not necessarily imply a religious vocation but at least the refusal to be guided by the laws of this world since the world is a slave to the desires of the fl esh and man is corrupted by his own concupiscence, a result of original sin. Arnaud writes not only of the necessity to renounce the world but also the need to deny one’s own nature and its sinful tendencies. The world becomes a battlefield on behalf of truth and the Christian must save truth from being off ended. For Arnaud, life in reclusion from the world remains an ideal, but he is also sympathetic to a more secular life-style. He draws the analogy between the life of a nun and that of a pious married lay-woman. This demonstrates that he does not exclude the possibility of salvation even for those who virtuously live their lives in the world. He becomes still less rigid during the 1680’s, when, in one of his letters, he embarks on a veritable apology for contemporary social structures and the use of luxuries which he sees as a sign and even evidence of the will of God. Such inconsistencies in the thought of Arnaud may be explained by the fact that the author’s primary source is a series of letters which still need to be examined in full and each of which represents a particular and precise moment in the thought of Arnaud, which necessarily varied throughout his literary life.

Port-Royal, theology, early modern period, life in reclusion, religious anthropology, Counter-Reformation, correspondence, Post-Tridentine Roman Catholicism, quotidian piety

1. Adam A. Histoire de la littérature française au XVIIe siècle, Paris, 1997.
2. Arnauld A. Œuvres de Messire Antoine Arnauld, Paris; Lausanne, 1775, vol. 1.
3. Cognet L. 1965 “Le mépris du monde à Port-Royal et dans le jansénisme” in: Revue d’ascétique et de mystique, 1965, vol. 41, pp. 387–402.
4. Lesaulnier J., McKena A. (eds.) Dictionnaire de Port-Royal. Paris, 2004.
5. Bluche F. (ed.) Dictionnaire du Grand Siècle, Paris, 1990.
6. Furetière A. (ed.) La Haye Dictionnaire universel, Rotterdam, 1690.
7. Donetzkoff D. 2002 “Sacerdoce et solitude selon Saint-Cyran” in: Chroniques de Port-Royal, 2002, vol. 51, pp. 85–119.
8. François de Sales. Œuvres, Paris, 1969.
9. Fumaroli M. L'âge de l'éloquence. Rhétorique et res litteraria de la Renaissance au seuil de l'époque moderne, Paris, 1994.
10. Levy A. French Moralists: the Theory of the Passions 1585 to 1649, Oxford, 1964.
11. Martin H.-J. Livre, pouvoirs et société à Paris au XVIIe siècle, Genève, 1999.
12. Nicole P. Essais de morale. Paris, 1999.
13. Orcibal J. La spiritualité de Saint-Cyran avec ses écrits de piété inédits, Paris, 1962.
14. Pillorget R., Pillorget S. France baroque. France classique, Paris, 1995.
15. Delaveau M., Sordet Y. (eds.) Un succès de librairie européen l’Imitatio Christi (1470–1850), Paris, 2012.

Al'-Faradzh Elizaveta

The author continues his study of the functions of religion. The first section is devoted to a description of the various approaches to a functional analysis of religion suggested by members of the Bielefeld School of Sociology (Franz-Xaver Kaufmann, Hans Küng, Niklas Luhmann), by Thomas O’Dea, as well as by Russian experts: Yablokov, Tokarev, and Kagarov. In this context, the author studies the question regarding the functionality specific to religion, particularly in relation to magic. The author suggests that the post-modern paradigm allows him to define and describe a new and specific function of religion: that of culpabilisation. In order to explain and better define this function (that of sensing or placing guilt), the author turns to a study of the origins of the feelings of guilt and the way guilt is defined by semantics and metaphysics. Guilt feelings are described in the works of some of the foremost experts in the fi eld of twentieth century philosophy and theology: René Girard (anthropologist), Gilles Deleuse and Paul Ricoeur (philosophers), Karl Rahner (theologian) and Julia Kristeva (semiotician), together with concepts drawn from Freud (psycho-analytics) and Pitirim Sorokin (sociology). All these are representative of the post-modern paradigm and worked in the fields of classical or non-classical paradigms. The author concludes that religious culpabilisation precedes the institution of organized religion and the setting apart of a priesthood or professional clergy. Its development is set along the following logical chain of the development of phenomena: Soteriology — Eschatology — Hamartology — Theodicy — Culpabilisation.

Philosophy of Religion, Sociology of Religion, Functions of Religion, Functional Analysis, Guilt, Sin

1. Frazer J. G. The Golden Bough. A Study in comparative religion, New York, 1894, Vol. 1–2.
2. Luhmann N. Die Religion der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main, 2002.
3. Luhmann N. Funktion der Religion. Frankfurt am Main, 1996.
4. O’Dea T. The Sociology of Religion, New York, 1966.
5. Versnel H. S. 1991 “Some Reflections on the Relationship Magic-Religion” in: Numen, 1991, Vol. 38, pp. 177–197.
6. Bodrijjar Zh. Obshhestvo potreblenija. Ego mify i struktury (Consumer Society. Its Myths and Structure), Moscow, 2006.
7. Bodrijjar Zh. Simvolicheskij obmen i smert' (Symbolic Exchange and Death), Moscow, 2011.
8. Bodrijjar Zh. Sistema veshhej (System of Things), Moscow, 1999.
9. Veber M. 1994 “Sociologija religii (tipy religioznyh soobshhestv)” (Sociology of Religion (Types of Religious Communities)) in: Veber M. Izbrannoe. Obraz obshhestva, Moscow, 1994, pp. 112–122.
10. Gabinskij G. A. Teologija i chudo. Kritika bogoslovskih koncepcij (Theology and Miracle. Critics of Theological Conceptions), Moscow, 1978.
11. Davydov I. P. “Otvety na voprosy o kannibalizme (nevostrebovannoe interv'ju)” (Answers on Cannibalism Questions) in: Skvorcov A. A., Kostylev P. N. (ed.) Aspekty. Sb. statej po filosofskim problemam istorii i sovremennosti, M., 2012, vol. 7, pp. 266–280.
12. Davydov I. P. 2013 “Sravnitel'no-funkcional'nyj analiz mifa i rituala kak sostavljajushhih chastej mifo-ritual'nogo kompleksa” (Camparative-Functional Analysis of the Myths and the Ritual as Parts of Myth-Ritual Coplex) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija. 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2013, vol. 1 (45). S. 39–56.
13. Davydov I. P. 2011 “Funkcional'nyj analiz religii” (Functional Analysis of the Religion) in: Religiovedenie, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 61–69;
14. Davydov I. P. 2002 “Osnovnye instituty drevneiudejskogo deliktnogo prava (na materiale Tanaha)” (Basic Institutes of Old-Judaic Laws of Torts (on Material of Tanach)) in: Religiovedenie, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 46–60;
15. Davydov I. P. 2002 “Osnovnye instituty rannemusul'manskogo deliktnogo prava” (Basic Institutes of Old-Muslim Laws of Torts) in: Religiovedenie, 2002, vol. 4, pp. 72–92;
16. Deljoz Zh. Logika smysla (Logic od Sense), Moscow, 2011.
17. Drevneindijskaja filosofija. Nachal'nyj period (Old-Indian Philosophy. First Period), Moscow, 1972.
18. D'jakov A. V. Filosofija poststrukturalizma vo Francii (Philosophy of Post-structuralism in France), Moscow, 2008.
19. Eres'ko M. N. Jazyk religii: smysl i simvol (Opyt ontosemanticheskogo analiza) (Language of the Religion: Sense and Symbol (Experience of Onto-semantic Analysis)), Tyumen, 2007.
20. Zhirar R. Nasilie i svjashhennoe (Violence and Holy), Moscow, 2000.
21. Kagarov E. G. Kul't fetishej, rastenij i zhivotnyh v Drevnej Grecii (Cult of Fetish, Plants and Animals in Antic Greece), Moscow, 20122.
22. Kagarov E. G. Perezhitki pervobytnogo kommunizma v obshhestvennom stroe drevnih grekov i germancev (Remain of Primitive Communism in Society of Antic Greeks and Old Germans), Moscow, 2012.
23. Koncept greha v slavjanskoj i evrejskoj kul'turnoj tradicii (Concept of the Sin in Slavic and Jewish Cultural Tradition), Moscow, 2000.
24. Koncept chuda v slavjanskoj i evrejskoj kul'turnoj tradicii (Concept of the Miracle in Slavic and Jewish Cultural Tradition), Moscow, 2001.
25. Kristeva Ju. Sily uzhasa: jesse ob otvrashhenii (Power of Horror: An Essay on Disgust), Saint-Petersbourg, 2003.
26. Liotar Zh.-F. Sostojanie postmoderna (Condition of Post-Modern),Saint-Petersbourg, 1998.
27. Mal'cev G. V. Mest' i vozmezdie v drevnem prave (Revenge and Retribution in Old Law), Moscow, 2012.
28. Martynov A. S. Konfucianstvo. «Lun' juj» (Confucianism), Saint-Petersbourg,, 2001, vol. 2.
29. Mechkovskaja N. B. Jazyk i religija: Posobie dlja studentov gumantiarnyh vuzov (Language and Religion: Manual for Humanist Students), Moscow, 1998.
30. Raner K. Osnovanie very. Vvedenie v hristianskoe bogoslovie (Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity), Moscow, 2006.
31. “Rannij buddizm” (Early Buddhism) in: Antologija mirovoj filosofii, Moscow, 1969, vol. 1/ 1.
32. Elizarenkova T. Ja. (ed.) Rigveda (Rig-Veda), Moscow, 1999, vol. 3.
33. Rikjor P. Germenevtika i psihoanaliz. Religija i vera (Hermeneutics and Psychoanalysis. Religion and Faith), Moscow, 1996.
34. Rutkevich E. D. 1994 “Piter Ljudvig Berger” (P. L. Berger) in: Sovremennaja amerikanskaja sociologija, Moscow, 1994, vol. 6, pp. 195–226.
35. Rjedkliff-Braun A. R. Struktura i funkcija v primitivnom obshhestve. Ocherki i lekcii (Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Essays and Lectures), Moscow, 2001.
36. Serdjukov Ju. M. Demifologizacija magii (Demythologization of Magic), Ussuriysk, 2003;
37. Smirnov M. Ju. Sociologija religii: Slovar' (Sociology of Religion: Dictionary), Saint-Petersbourg, 2011.
38. Sorokin P. Prestuplenie i kara, podvig i nagrada. Sociologicheskij jetjud ob osnovnyh formah obshhestvennogo povedenija i morali (Crime and Penalty, Feet and Prize. Sociological Essay on Basic Forms of Social Behavior and Moral). Saint-Petersbourg, 1999.
39. Tokarev S. A. Izbrannoe: Teoreticheskie i istoriograficheskie stat'i po jetnografii i religijam narodov mira (Selected Works: Theoretical and Historical Articles on Ethnography and Religions of World People), Moscow, 1999;
40. Tokarev S. A. Rannie formy religii (Early Forms of Religion), Moscow, 1990.
41. Torburg M. R. “Postmodernizm o religii” (Post-Modernism on Religion) in: Krasnikov A. N., Zabijako A. P., Jelbakjan E. S. (ed.) Religiovedenie. Jenciklopedicheskij slovar', Moscow, 2006, pp. 779–780.
42. Torburg M. R. Problemy religii v postmodernistskoj filosofii (Problems of the Religion in Post-Modern Philosophy), Moscow, 2002.
43. Frejd Z. Totem i tabu. Psihologija pervobytnoj kul'tury i religii (Totem and Taboo. Psychology of the Primitive Culture abd Religion), Saint-Petersbourg, 1997.
44. Frjezer Dzh. Dzh. Zolotaja vetv': Issledovanie magii i religii (The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion), Moscow, 1983.
45. Fuko M. Nenormal'nye: Kurs lekcij, prochitannyh v Kollezh de Frans v 1974–75 uchebnom godu (Abnormals: Lectures Read in Collège de France in 1974/1975), Saint-Petersbourg, 2004.
46. Shahnovich M. M. Paradoksy teologii Jepikura (Paradoxes of Epicure’s Theology), Saint-Petersbourg, 2000.
47. Shahnovich M. M. Sad Jepikura: Filosofija religii Jepikura i jepikurejskaja tradicija v istorii evropejskoj kul'tury (Epicure’s Garden: Philosophy of Epicure’s Religion and Epicurean Tradition in the History of European Culture), Saint-Petersbourg, 2002.
48. Shternberg L. Ja. Pervobytnaja religija v svete jetnografii: Issledovanija, stat'i, lekcii (Primitive Religion in the Light of Ethnography: Studies, Articles, Lectures), Moscow, 2012.

Davydov Ivan