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

The author examines some peculiarities of the liturgical dialogues before anaphora and Communion in the ‘Testament of our Lord’. The main peculiarity of the former is the exclamation ‘Sanctifications in the holies’ ( ) which may correspond to cγιασμοL tν τοTς cγίοις of the original Greek text. It is shown that this exclamation, reminding the exclamation ‘Holy things for the holy’ which is an essential element of the Eastern eucharistic liturgies beginning from the 4th century, is an allusion to the trisagion of Isaiah 6:3 (Sanctus). The conjecture is put forward that it was transferred from the dialogue before Communion where the words ‘Holy things for the holy’ are absent. Such a transfer could be possible if the compiler was familiar with the introductory dialogues containing warnings against unworthy participation in the Eucharist, i.e. carr ying the same meaning as the exclamation ‘Holy things for the holy’. It is shown that such warnings could appear in introductory dialogues in the process of anaphoral development in the first three centuries. The compiler of the ‘Testament of our Lord’ added such a warning and reformulated it so that it became an allusion to the Sanctus. The reasons which could induce the compiler to do so are discussed. Possible explanations of why the Sanctus is absent in the anaphora itself are also given. The dialogue before Communi on, except that it does not contain the words ‘Holy things for the holy’ , is remarkable in that it may go back to Didache 10.6 or some other ancient liturgical dialogue resembling that in the Didache 10.6.

ancient church order, Testament of our Lord, Testamentum Domini, Eucharist, liturgical dialogue, anaphora, Sanctus.

1. Bouyer L. Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer, London, 1968.
2. Bradshaw P. F., Johnson M. E., Phillips L. E. The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, Minneapolis (MN), 2002.
3. Bradshaw P. F. Eucharistic Origins, Eugene (OR), 2012.
4. Bradshaw P. F., Johnson M. E. The Eucharistic Liturgies: Their Evolution and Interpretation, London, 2012.
5. Cuming G. J. 1975 “Service-Endings in the Epistles”, in New Testament Studies, 1975, vol. 22, pp. 110–113.
6. Giraudo C. La struttura letteraria della preghiera eucaristica, Roma, 1989.
7. Hänggi A., Pahl I. Prex Eucharistica, Freiburg, 1998.
8. Lietzmann H. Messe und Herrenmahl: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Liturgie, Berlin, 1955.
9. Ligier L. 1981 “L’anaphore de la Tradition apostolique dans le Testamentum Domini”, in Spinks B. D. (ed.) The Sacrifice of Praise, Roma, 1981, pp. 91–106.
10. Macomber W. F. 1975–1976 “An Anaphora Prayer Composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia”, in Parole de l’Orient, 1975–1976, vol. 6–7, pp. 341–347.
11. Mateos J. La célébration de la Parole dans la liturgie bizantine: Étude historique, Roma, 1971.
12. Mazza E. The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer, Collegeville (MN), 1995.
13. Payne Smith R. Thesaurus Syriacus, Oxford, 1901, vol. 2.
14. Robinson J. A. 1953 “Traces of a Liturgical Sequence in 1 Cor. 16 20–24”, in Journal of Theological Studies, 1953, vol. 4, pp. 38–41.
15. Spinks B. The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer, Cambridge, 1991.
16. Taft R. F. The Precommunion Rites, Roma, 2000.
17. Troupeau G. 2007 “Une version arabe de l’anaphore du «Testamentum Domini»”, in Chartouni C. (ed.) Christianisme oriental: Kérygme et histoire: Mélanges offerts au père Michel Hayek, Paris, 2007, pp. 247–256.
18. White G. 2002 “The Imagery of Angelic Praise and Heavenly Topography in the Testament of Our Lord”, in Ecclesia Orans, 2002, vol. 19, pp. 315–332.
19. Winkler G. Das Sanctus. Über den Ursprung und die Anfänge des Sanctus und sein Fortwirken, Rom, 2002.
20. Winkler G. 2009 “Über das christliche Erbe Henochs und einige Probleme des Testamentum Domini“, in Oriens Christianus, 2009, vol. 93, pp. 201–247.
21. Voronov L., prot. 1971 “Liturgija po «Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi» (1, 23)” (Liturgy according to “Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi” (1, 23)), in Bogoslovskie trudy, 1971, vol. 6, pp. 207–219.
22. Zheltov M., diak., Tkachenko A. A. et al. 2008 “Evharistija” (Eucharist), in Pravoslavnaja jenciklopedija, Moscow, 2008, vol. 17, pp. 533–615.
23. Tkachenko A. A. 2008 “Zavet [Zaveshhanie] Gospoda nashego Iisusa Hrista” (Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ), in Pravoslavnaja jenciklopedija, Moscow, 2008, vol. 19, pp. 457–461.

Varfolomeev Maksim

The present article shows the history of the discovery and publishing the manuscript contained the only fully survived dogmatic writing of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Also, the article provides the short description of the homilies’ contents and denotes the significance of the discovered text for patrology and liturgical studies. Although the Greek text of the Catechetical Homilies is missed, the work is preserved in the Syriac translation and is available thanks to publication of Alphonse Mingana in 1932 and 1933. The full text of the Catechetical Homilies allows us to put the quotations which were the basis for Theodore’s condemnation on the Fifth Ecumenical Council in their original context and to clarify their meaning, making them sound more acceptable. The homilies help us rightly understand the vague and ambiguous places in other Theodore’s writings and have more complete idea of his christology. The author of the Catechetical Homilies rejects the doctrine of the “Two Sons” and affirms the unity of Christ’s Person. He teaches of imperishability of “the perfect union” of two natures, so the existence of Christ as “mere man” is seemed to be impossible. Moreover, the text of the Catechetical Homilies gives us the rich evidence of Theodore’s sacramental theology that was not much treated before Mingana’s discovery. The Catechetical Homilies is, in addition, a source for the history of Liturgy, because they contain a detailed description of the Sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist.

Patrology, Catechism, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homilies, Symbol of Faith, Lord’s Prayer, Sacrament of Baptism, Sacrament of Eucharist, Christology, The Fifth Ecumenical Council.

1. Gavriljuk P., diak. Istorija katehizacii v drevnej cerkvi (History of Catechization in Ancient Church), Moscow, 2001.
2. Seleznev N. N. Hristologija Assirijskoj Cerkvi Vostoka (Christology of Assyrian Church of East), Moscow, 2002.
3. Jang F. M. Ot Nikei do Halkidona. Vvedenie v grecheskuju patristicheskuju literaturu i ee istoricheskij kontekst (From Nicaea to Chalcedon. Introduction in Greek Patristic Literature and Its Historical Context), Moscow, 2013.
4. Abramowski L. 1957 “Reste von Theodorets Apologie fur Diodore und Theodore bei Facundus“, in Studia Patristica, Berlin, 1957, vol. 1, pp. 61–69.
5. Abramowski L. 1961 “Zur Theologie Theodors von Mopsuestia“, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Stuttgart, 1961, vol. 72, pp. 263–293.
6. Amann É. 1946 “Théodore de Mopsueste”, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Paris, 1946, vol. 15/1, col. 235–279.
7. Bruns P. 1994 “Einleitung“, in Theodor von Mopsuestia. Katechetische Homilien, Freiburg, 1994, pp. 1–75.
8. Clemens L. 2004 “Did Theodore of Mopsuestia quote an ancient ordo?”, in Studia Liturgica, 2004, vol. 34, pp. 191–204.
9. Daniélou J. La cathéchèse aux premiers siècles, Fayard, 1968.
10. Devreesse R. Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste, Città del Vaticano, 1948.
11. De Vries W. 1941 “Der ‘Nestorianismus’ Theodor von Mopsuestia in seiner Sakramentenlehre“, in OCP, Roma, 1941, vol. 7, pp. 91–148.
12. Ferguson E. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries, Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge, 2009.
13. Greer R. A. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Exegete and Theologian, London, 1961.
14. Jugie M. 1935 “Le «Liber ad baptizandos» de Théodore de Mopsueste”, in Échos d’Orient, Paris, 1935, vol. 38, pp. 257–271.
15. Kelly J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds, London, 1972.
16. Lera J. M. 1991 “Théodore de Mopsueste”, in Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique, Paris, 1991, vol. 15, col. 386–400.
17. Lietzmann H. Die Liturgie des Theodor von Mopsuestia, Berlin, 1933.
18. McKenzie J.L. 1949 “A New Study of Theodore of Mopsuestia”, in Texts and Studies, Cambridge, 1949, vol. 10, pp. 394–408.
19. McKenzie J.L. 1958 “Annotation on the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia”, in Theological Studies, Baltimore, 1958, vol. 15, pp. 345–373.
20. McLeod Fr. 2002 “The Christological Ramification of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Understanding of Baptism and the Eucharist”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, Baltimore (Maryland), 2002, vol. 10, pp. 37–75.
21. Mingana A. 1932 “Prefatory Note”, in Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Niceen Creed, Cambridge, 1932, pp. 1–18.
22. Mingana A. 1933 “Prefatory Note”, in Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Niceen Creed, Cambridge, 1933, pp. IX–XXV.
23. Norris R. A. Manhood and Christ: A Study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oxford, 1963.
24. Oñatibia I. 1954 “La vida christiana, tipo de las realidades celestes. Un concepto basico de la teologia de Teodore de Mopsuestia”, in Scriptorium Victoriense, 1954, vol. 1, pp. 100–133.
25. Piédanel A., Doutreleau L. 1990 “Introduction”, in Jean Chrysostome. Trois Catéchèses baptismales, Paris, 1990, pp. 13–106.
26. Reine F. J. The Eucharistic Doctrine and Liturgy of the Mystagogical Catecheses of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Washington, 1942.
27. Riley H. M. Christian initiation: a comparative study of the interpretation of the baptismal liturgy in the mystagogical writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Amborse of Milan, Washington (DC), 1974.
28. Saxer V. Les rite de l’initiation chrétienne du IIe au IVe siècle. Esquisse historique et signification d’après leur principaux témoins, Spoleto, 1988.
29. Sullivan Fr. 1959 “Further Note on Theodore of Mopsuestia: A Replay to Fr. McKeinzie”, in Theological Studies, Baltimore, 1959, vol. 20, pp. 264–279.
30. Sullivan Fr. 1951 “Some Reactions to Devreesse’s New Study on Theodore of Mopsuestia”, in Theological Studies, Baltimore, 1951, vol. 12, pp. 179–207.
31. Sullivan Fr. The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Rome, 1956.
32. Tonneau R., Devreesse R. 1949 “Introdution”, in Les Homelies Catéchétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste. Reproduction phototypique du Ms. Mingana Syr. 561. Studi e Testi, no. 145, Città del Vaticano, 1949, pp. XV–XXXIX.

Puchkova Sof'ia

Russian religious thought was created as a result of two great traditions: the Eastern (Byzantine) and the Western. It may be claimed that there is no one philosophical school or movement which did not have leave any trace on the shape of Russian philosophy. There is a number of studies which analyze the influence of Western philosophical culture (German, French, English, etc.). Beside, one should remember that the original Russian religious thought also inspired many Western philosophers. On the other hand, since the 20th century we can observe the renewal of the Eastern Christian style of philosophizing typical for the creativity of the Fathers of the Church and developed in the shape of Neo-patristic synthesis. Inevitably one should pose a number of questions: is there any contradiction between West and East in Russian philosophical thought? Was Russian philosophy in the “captive” of Western rationalism, as Fr George Florovsky claimed, proclaiming the return to Greek patristics? How up to date is Western thought for Russian philosophy and Russian religious philosophy for Western world? In my paper I will consider two possible directions of dialogue of Western and Eastern traditions in the modern world: (1) the perspective of development of Neopatristics in Russian and abroad, and (2) the elaboration of some aspects of Russian religious thought which was born on the cross of Western and Eastern cultures (sophiology and all-unity) in philosophico-theological thought of the 20th century on the example of American mystic, Thomas Merton.

sophiology, Neo-patristics, S. Bulgakov, G. Florovsky, reception of Russian philosophy.

1. Antonov K. M. 2013 “Filosofija religii S. N. Bulgakova i problematika koncepcii neopatristicheskogo sinteza V. N. Losskogo” (Religion Philosophy of S. N. Bulgakov and Problematics of Concept of Neo-Patristic Synthesis of V. N. Losskij), in Antonov K. M., Vaganova N. A. (eds.) Sofiologija i neopatristicheskij sintez. Bogoslovskie itogi filosofskogo razvitija, Moscow, 2013, pp. 95–114.
2. Berd R. 2003 “Bogoslovie o. Sergija Bulgakova: eres' ili ereseologija” (Theology of f. Sergij Bulgakov: Heresy or Heresiology), in Kozyrev A. P. (ed.) S. N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-filosofskij put'. Mezhdunarodnaja nauchnaja konferencija, posvjashhennaja 130-letiju so dnja rozhdenija, Moscow, 2003, pp. 61–78.
3. Boneckaja N. 2006 “Sofiolog-monah” (Sophiologist-Monk), in Stranicy, 2006, vol. 3, pp. 443–458.
4. Vaganova N. A. Sofiologija protoiereja Sergija Bulgakova (Sophiology of Archpriest Sergij Bulgakov), Moscow, 2010.
5. Vasina M. V. 2010 “Sofija i Filiokve (kratkij jekskurs v trinitarnuju mysl' o. Sergija Bulgakova)”, in Porus V. (ed.) Sofiologija, Moscow, 2010, pp. 137–150.
6. Verlanov D. 2016 “Filosofija S. N. Bulgakova v rossijskoj, ukrainskoj i grecheskoj istoriografii” (Philosophy of S. N. Bulgakov in Russian, Ukrainian and Greek Historiography), in Aljaev G. E et al. (eds.) Іstorіja fіlosofії u vіtchiznjanіj duhovnіj kul'turі, Poltava, 2016, pp. 191–196.
7. Gavriljuk P. 2010 “O polemicheskom ispol'zovanii kategorii «Zapad» v pravoslavnom bogoslovii na primere neopatristicheskogo sinteza prot. Georgija Florovskogo” (About Polemic Use of Category “West” in Orthodox Theology on Example of Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Archpriest Georgij Florovskij), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2010, vol. 29, pp. 61–78.
8. Kejzik L. 2004 “Sofiologija Sergeja Bulgakova. Vozniknovenie, razvitie, upadok” (Sophiology of Sergej Bulgakov. Origin, Development, Decline), in Rydzewski W., Ochotnicka A. (eds.) Między reformą a rewolucją. Rosyjska myśl fi lozofi czna, polityczna i społeczna na przełomie XIX i XX wieku, Kraków, 2004, pp. 161–176.
9. Klimov A. E. 2003 “G. V. Florovskij i S. N. Bulgakov. Istorija vzaimootnoshenij v svete sporov o sofiologii” (G. V. Florovskij and S. N. Bulgakov. History of Interrelatoins in Light of Sophiology Disputes), in Kozyrev A. P. (ed.) S. N. Bulgakov: Religiozno-filosofskij put'. Mezhdunarodnaja nauchnaja konferencija, posvjashhennaja 130-letiju so dnja rozhdenija, Moscow, 2003, pp. 86–114.
10. Koda P. Sergej Bulgakov, Moscow, 2015.
11. Krylov D. A. 2007 “Propedevtika spora o Sofii” (Propaedeutic of Sophia Dispute), in Vestnik Russkoj Hristianskoj gumanitarnoj akademii, 2007, vol. 8/1, pp. 158–180.
12. Losskij N. Uchenie o. Sergija Bulgakova o vseedinstve i Bozhestvennoj Sofii (Teaching of f. Sergij Bulgakov about All-Unity and Divine Sophia), South Canaan, PA, 1960.
13. Macejna A. Agnec Bozhij (Agnus Dei), Saint-Petersburg, 2002.
14. Mejendorf I. Pravoslavnoe bogoslovie segodnja (Orthodox Theology Today) in http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Mejendorf/pashalnaja-tajna-stati-po-bogosloviyu/45.
15. Nobl I., Bauerova K., Nobl T., Parushev P. Puti pravoslavnogo bogoslovija na Zapad (Ways of Orthodox Theology to the West), Moscow, 2016.
16. Obolevich T. 2010 “Problema Sofii v tvorchestve A. F. Loseva” (Sophia Problem in Works of A. F. Losev), in Porus V. (ed.) Sofiologija, Moscow, 2010, pp. 30-40.
17. Rossum J. van. 2006 “Palamizm i sofiologija” (Palamism and Sophiology), Hristianskaja mysl', 2006, vol. 3, pp. 62–66.
18. Sizonenko D. 2015 “Bor'ba za istinu i recepcija nasledija Bulgakova v Rossii” (Struggle for Truth and Reception of Bulgakov’s Heritage in Russia), in Vestnik RHD, 2015, vol. 203, pp. 37–44.
19. Tribushnyj D. O. 2015 “Sofija pod spudom. Sofijnye jelementy v nasledii «al'ternativnogo» pravoslavija»” (Sophia under a Bashel. Sophia Elements in Heritage of “Alternative Orthodoxy”), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2015, vol. 3, pp. 39–51.
20. Tutunov S. 2000 “Puti parizhskogo bogoslovija. Svjato-Sergievskij bogoslovskij institut v pervoj polovine XX veka” (Ways of Paris Theology. St Sergius Theological Institute in First Half of XX Century), in Vstrecha, 2000, vol. 3, pp. 57–63.
21. French M. Lik Premudrosti. Dilemma filosofii i perspektiva sofiologii (Image of Wisdon. Philosophical Dilemma and Sophilogy Perspective), Saint-Petersburg, 2015.
22. Cygankov A., Obolevich T. 2015 “Bulgakov v Shvejcarii: sovremennye issledovanija filosofii Sergeja Bulgakova v Friburge” (Bulgakov in Swiss: Modern Studies of Sergej Bulgakov’s Philosophy in Fribourg), in Vestnik Rossijskoj hristianskoj gumanitarnoj akademii, 2015, vol. 4, pp. 315–332.
23. Shaposhnikov L. E. Personalisticheskie centry russkoj religioznoj filosofii XIX–XX vv. (Personalist Centres of Russian Religious Philosophy of XIX–XX Cent.), Nizhnij Novgorod, 2015.
24. Shaposhnikov L. E., Fedorov A. A. Istorija russkoj religioznoj filosofii (History of Russian Religious Philosophy), Moscow, 2006.
25. Shipflinger T. Sofija — Marija. Celostnyj obraz tvorenija (Sophia-Maria. Whole Image of Creation), Moscow, 1997.
26. Eneeva N. T. Spor o sofiologii v russkom zarubezh'e 1920–1930 gg. (Sophiology Dispute in Russian Emigration of 1920–1930s), Moscow, 2001.
27. Jancen V. 2012 “Perepiska D. I. Chizhevskogo i G. V. Florovskogo (1926–1932, 1948–1972) kak istochnik po istorii russkoj mysli” (Correspondence of D. I. Chizhevskij and G. V. Florovskij (1926–1932, 1948–1972) as Source for History of Russian Thought), in Kolerov M. A., Plotnikov N. S. (eds.) Issledovanija po istorii russkoj mysli. Ezhegodnik 2008–2009, Moscow, 2012, pp. 464–904.
28. Allchin A. M. 2003 “Our Lives, a Powerful Pentecost. Merton’s Meeting with Russian Christianity”, in Dieker B., Montaldo J. (eds.) Merton and Hesychasm. The Prayer of the Heart: the Eastern Church, Louisville, 2003, pp. 121–140.
29. Allchin A. M. 2003 “The Prayer of the Heart and Natural Contemplation. A Foreword to Thomas Merton’s Lecture Note on St. Maximus”, in Dieker B., Montaldo J. (eds.) Merton and Hesychasm. The Prayer of the Heart: the Eastern Church, Louisville, 2003, pp. 419–429.
30. Arjakovsky A. 2009 “Commentary”, in Pabst A., Schneider Ch. (eds.) Encounter Between Eastern Orthodoxy and Radical Orthodoxy: Transfiguring the World Through the Word, Burlington, VT, 2009, pp. 86–90.
31. Arjakovsky A. Qu’est-ce que l’orthodoxie?, Paris, 2013.
32. Arjakovsky A. 2005 “The Sophiology of Father Sergius Bulgakov and Contemporary Western Theology”, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 2005, vol. 49/1–2, pp. 219–236.
33. Bamberger J. E. “Thomas Merton and the Christian East”, in Merton and Hesychasm. The Prayer of the Heart: the Eastern Church, pp. 147–152.
34. Copleston F. C. Russian Religious Philosophy: Selected Aspects, Notre Dame, 1988.
35. Danzas J. “Russian Sophiology (I)”, in Blackfriars, vol. 18/211, pp. 763–765, 771–773; “Russian Sophiology (II)”, in Blackfriars, vol. 18/212, pp. 842–848.
36. Dunn D. J. 2012 “Radical Sophiology: Fr. Sergej Bulgakov and John Milbank on Augustine”, in Studies in Eastern European Thought, 2012, vol. 64, pp. 227–249.
37. Pabst A., Schneider Ch. (eds.) Encounter Between Eastern Orthodoxy and Radical Orthodoxy: Transfiguring the World Through the Word, Burlington, VT, 2009.
38. Gallaher B. 2006 “Graced Creatureliness: Ontological Tension in the Uncreated/Created Distinction in the Sophiologies of Solov’ev, Bulgakov and Milbank”, in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 2006, vol. 47/1–2, pp. 163–190.
39. Gavrilyuk P. 2013 “Florovsky’s Neopatristic Synthesis and the Future Ways of Orthodox Theology”, in Demacopoulos G., Papanikolaou A. (eds.) Orthodox Constructions of the West, New York, 2013, pp. 102–124.
40. Groberg K. «Sweet Yielding Consent of Sophia»: The Wisdom Visions of Merton via Solov’ev and Bulgakov, in http://www.oocities.org/sbulgakovsociety/kgroberg_bulgakov_merton.doc.
41. Kessel J. H. J. van. 2012 “Bulgakov’s Sophiology: Towards an Orthodox Economic Theological Engagement with the Modern World”, in Studies in Eastern European Thought, 2012, vol. 64, pp. 251–267.
42. Kiejzik L. Sergiusz Bułgakow i filozofowie Srebrnego Wieku. Rozważania o przyjaźni (Sergij Bulgakov and Philosophy of the Silver Age. Thoughts about Friendship), Warsaw, 2015.
43. Lemna K. 2011 “Louis Bouyer’s Sophiology: A Balthasarian Retrieval”, in The Heythrop Journal, 2011, vol. 52, pp. 628–642.
44. McCaslin S. “Merton and «Hagia Sophia» (Holy Wisdom)”, in Merton and Hesychasm. The Prayer of the Heart: the Eastern Church, pp. 235–254.
45. Meehan B. 1996 “Wisdom/Sophia, Russian Identity, and Western Feminist Theology”, in Cross Currents, 1996, vol. 46/2, pp. 149–168.
46. Meyendorff J. 1987 “Wisdom-Sophia: Contrasting Approaches to a Complex Theme”, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1987, vol. 41, pp. 391–401.
47. Milbank J. “Sophiology and Theurgy: The New Theological Horizon”, in Encounter Between Eastern Orthodoxy and Radical Orthodoxy: Transfiguring the World Through the Word, pp. 45–85.
48. Moss W. G. Wisdom from Russia: The Perspectives of Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton, in http://www.wisdompage.com/introwis07.html.
49. Obolevitch T. Filozofia rosyjskiego renesansu patrystycznego: o. Gieorgij Fłorowski, Włodzimierz Łosski i inni (Philosophy of Russian Patristic Renaissance: f. George Florowski, Vladimir Lossky and Others), Krakow, 2014.
50. Obolevitch T. Tradycja wschodniochrześcijańska w twórczości Thomasa Mertona (Eastern Christian Tradition in Works of Thomas Merton) (in Print).
51. Papanikolaou A. 2007 “Orthodoxy, Postmodernity, and Ecumenism: The Difference That Divine Human Communion Makes”, in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 2007, vol. 42/4, pp. 527–546.
52. Corrado-Kazanski F. (ed.) Pavel Florenski et l’Europe, Bordeaux, 2013.
53. Payne D. P., Marsh Ch. 2009 “Sergei Bulgakov’s “Sophic” Economy: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Christian Economics”, in Faith & Economics, 2009, vol. 53, pp. 35–51.
54. Plekon M. 2013 “«The Immense Mercy of God Was upon Me»: Thomas Merton’s Reading of the Russian Émigré Thinkers”, in The Merton Annual, 2013, vol. 26, pp. 97–106.
55. Pramuk Ch. 2006 “Hagia Sophia: The Unknown and Unseen Christ of Thomas Merton”, in Cistercian Studies Quarterly, 2006, vol. 41/2, pp. 167–192.
56. Riches A. 2016 “Eleusa: Secularism, Post-Secularism, and Russian Sophiology”, in Mrówczyński-Van Allen A., Obolevitch T., Rojek P. (eds.) Beyond Modernity. Russian Religious Philosophy and Post-Secularism, Eugene, OR, 2016 (in Print).
57. Obolevitch T., Homa T., Bremer J. (eds.) Russian Thought in Europe: Reception, Polemics and Development, Krakow, 2013.
58. Sergeev M. 2000 “Divine Wisdom and the Trinity: A 20th Century Controversy in Orthodox Theology”, in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 2000, vol. 45/1–4, pp. 573–582.
59. Shaw L. 1996 “John Meyendorff and the Heritage of the Russian Theological Tradition”, in Nassif B. (ed.) New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1996, pp. 10–42.
60. Sisto W. 2015 “The Russian Sophiological Synthesis: Sergius Bulgakov and the Dialectic of Faith and Science on Death and Evolution”, in Obolevitch T., Rojek P. (eds.) Faith and Reason in Russian Thought, Krakоw, 2015. P. 173–182.
61. Tataryn M. 2013 “Building an Orthodox Eco-Theology: Bulgakov’s Sophiology”, in Sobornost’, 2013, vol. 35/1–2, pp. 52–63.
62. Valery P. Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Orthodox Theology in a New Key, Edinburgh, 2000.

Nun Tereza (Obolevich T.)

Статья подготовлена в рамках реализации гранта «Наука, философия и политика в русской религиозной мысли», признанного Национальным центром науки Республики Польша UMO–2014/15/B/HS1/0162

Usually religion is placed at the center of Emile Durkheim’ theory as it performs the function of solidarity production and maintenance within a community. However, this way of perception of durkheimian conception gets useless regarding present reality because today religion hardly remains the common element of the social life for individuals living together. In «Elementary forms of religious life...» (1912). Durkheim quite superficially touches upon the topic of solidarity in contemporary society, but the reader has every reason to believe that durkheimian theory implies the upgrade of the fundamental bases and solidarity mechanisms. This article proposes to rebuild durkheimian social theory in order to demonstrate the continuity between religion and morality, as Durkheim supposes. Key to successful shift in emphasis from religion to morality is a return to the very key category of «sacred». Sacred is viewed as an integral part of the religious system which is true, but not comprehensive. The interpretation of «sacred» via «religious» overshadows an important fact, that the first one is a generator for the latter. This weighty remark allows us to take the next step and say that just as for religious system of representations, sacred becomes the basis of morality. Here and now the author undertakes an attempt to release the category of «sacred» from a strict religious interpretation, traces the line of functional continuity between religion and morality and reveals a new perspective on the mechanisms of solidarity in contemporary society.

Durkheim, solidarity, sacred, morality, religion, moral community.

1. Anderson B. Voobrazhaemye soobshhestva: Razmyshlenija ob istokah i rasprostranenii nacionalizma (Imaginated Communities: Thoughts about Origins and Spread of Nationalism), Moscow, 2001.
2. Ban'kovskaja S. P. Teoreticheskaja sociologija (Theoretical Sociology), Moscow, 2002.
3. Burd'e P. Sociologija social'nogo prostranstva (Sociology of Social Space), Saint-Petersburg, 2007.
4. Kurakin D. Ju. 2010 “«Sil'naja programma» v kul'tursociologii: istoriko-sociologicheskie, teoreticheskie i metodologicheskie kommentarii. Posleslovie redaktora vypuska” (“Strong Program in Culture Sociology: Historical-Sociological, Theoretical and Methodological Commentaries. Afterword of Issues’ Editor”), in Sociologicheskoe obozrenie, 2010, vol. 9/2, pp. 155–178.
5. Kurakin D. 2011 “Uskol'zajushhee sakral'noe: problema ambivalentnosti sakral'nogo i ee znachenie dlja «sil'noj programmy» kul'tursociologii” (Slipped Away Sacred: Problem of Ambivalence of Sacred and Its Meaning for the “Strong Program” of Cultural Studies), in Sociologicheskoe obozrenie, 2011, vol. 10/3, pp. 41–70.
6. Makljujen G. M. Ponimanie media: vneshnie rasshirenija cheloveka (Understanding of Media: External Widenings of Human), Moscow, 2003.
7. Smit U. “Lekcija 1. Vvedenie: predmet i metod issledovanija” (Lecture 1. Introduction: Subject and Method of Study), in Lekcii o Robertson religii semitov, in http://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Relig/klass/07.php (Date: 16.06.2016).
8. Roulz Je. 2005 “Djurkgejmovskaja traktovka praktiki: al'ternativa konkretnyh praktik i predstavlenij kak osnovanij razuma” (Durkheim’s Interpretation of Practice: Alternative of Concrete Practices and Presentations as Grounds of Reason), in Sociologicheskoe obozrenie, 2005, vol. 4/1, pp. 3–30.
9. Frjezer Dzh. Dzh. Zolotaja vetv' (Golden Branch), Moscow, 1980.
10. Bellah R. N. 1959 “Durkheim and History”, in American Sociological Review, 1959, vol. 24/4, pp. 447–461.
11. Bellah R. N. 1967 “Civil Religion in America”, in Dædalus, 1967, vol. 96/1, pp. 1–21.
12. Casanova J. Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago, 2011.
13. Cheal D. 1992 “Ritual: Communication in Action”, in Sociological Analysis, 1992, vol. 53/4, pp. 363–374.
14. Douglas M. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London; New York, 2001.
15. Pickering W. S. F. (ed.) Durkheim and Representations, Routledge, 2000, pp. 11–23.
16. Fields K. E. 1996 “Durkheim and the Idea of Soul”, in Theory and Society, 1996, vol. 25/2, pp. 193–203.
17. Glock Ch. Y., Stark R. American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment, Berkeley, 1968.
18. Jones R. A. 1981 “Robertson Smith, Durkheim, and Sacrifice: An historical context for The Elementary Forms of Religious Life”, in Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1981, vol. 17, pp. 184–205.
19. Jones R. A. 1986 “Durkheim, Frazer, and Smith: The Role of Analogies and Exemplars in the Development of Durkheim’s Sociology of Religion”, in American Journal of Sociology, 1986, vol. 92/31, pp. 596–627.
20. Lukes S. Émile Durkheim: His Life and Works, Middlesex, 1973.
21. Myerhoff B., Moore S. F. Secular Ritual, Assen, 1977.
22. Pickering W. S. F. Durkheim and Representations, London, 2000.
23. Pickering W. S. F. Durkheim’s Sociology of Religion, Cambridge, 2009.
24. Rawls A. W. 1989 “Interaction Order or Interaction Ritual: Comment on Collins”, in Social Interaction, 1989, vol. 12/1, pp. 103–109.
25. Rawls A. W. Epistemology and Practice. Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Cambridge, 2004.
26. Rawls A. 2009 “Two Conceptions of Social Order”, in Journal of Classical Sociology, 2009, vol. 9/4, pp. 500–520.
27. Robertson Smith W. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Second and Third Series), Sheffield, 1995.
28. Olaveson T. 2001 “Collective Effervescence and Communitas: Processual Models of Ritual and Society in Emile Durkheim and Victor Turner”, in Dialectical Anthropology, 2001, vol. 26/2, pp. 89–124.
29. Stedman-Jones S. Durkheim Reconsidered, Cambridge, 2001.
30. Stedman-Jones S. 2003 “Représentations”, in Durkheimian Studies, 2003, vol. 9, pp. 14–19.
31. Stedman-Jones S. 2006 “Action and the Question of the Categories: A Critique of Rawls”, in Durkheimian Studies, 2006, vol. 12, pp. 37–67.
32. Stedman-Jones S. 2012 “Forms of thought and forms of society: Durkheim and the question of the categories”, in L’Année sociologique, 2012, vol. 62/2, pp. 387–407.
33. Weiss R. 2012 “From Ideas to Ideals: Effervescence as the Key to Understanding Morality”, in Durkheimian Studies, 2012, vol. 18, pp. 81–97.

Batanova Polina

Исследование осуществлено в рамках гранта РГНФ No16-23-41006 «Религия и модели социальной и экономической организации Избирательное сродство религии и хозяйства на примере христианских конфессий в Швейцарии и России»

The given article is aimed to defi ne the heuristic value of the evolutionary models of religious representations and religious practices elaborated in the cognitive science of religion (CSR) and evolutionary psychology of religion. In the following analysis two such models are taken into consideration, which interpret religion in terms of adaptation and by-project, or spandrel, respectively. According to the first one typical of evolutionary psychology, religion has a useful adaptive function, including its major contribution to the formation of prosocial behavior. The second model, which is characteristic of CSR, treats religion as an incidental and biologically useless or even maladaptive product of a set of cognitive systems designed to perform other cognitive functions. It is shown that both models have theoretical and methodological flaws and might share some of these pitfalls. Adaptationist interpretations suffer from cultural universalism and tend to «biologize» religion and to reduce it to its behavioral side. The spandrelist approach is currently unable to show any ontogenetic relationship between diff erent cognitive modules and their presumable religious by-products and fails to explain historical and cross-cultural persistence of costly religious by-products in spite of their evolutionary uselessness or maladaptiveness. Finally, both models treat religion as a one-dimensional variable, are prone to unjustified generalizations, and don’t take into account absence of causal relationship between the contemporary functional repertoire of religious phenomena and their original evolutionary value.

religion, evolution, adaptation, by-product, cognitive science of religion, evolutionary psychology of religion, prosociality, costly signaling theory, epidemiology of representations, intuitive ontology.

1. Markov A. V. 2009 “Religija: poleznaja adaptacija, pobochnyj produkt jevoljucii ili «virus mozga»?”, in Istoricheskaja psihologija i sociologija istorii, 2009, vol. 2/1, pp. 45–56.
2. Mihel'son O. 2013 “Podhody k izucheniju religii v sovremennoj jevoljucionnoj psihologii”, in Gosudarstvo, religija i Cerkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2013, vol. 3/31, pp. 63–76.
3. Alcorta C. S., Sosis R. 2005 “Ritual, Emotion, and Sacred Symbols: The Evolution of Religion as an Adaptive Complex”, in Human Nature, 2005, vol. 16/4, pp. 323–359.
4. Atran S. In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Oxford, 2002.
5. Banerjee K., Haque O. S., Spelke E. S. 2013 “Melting Lizards and Crying Mailboxes: Children’s Preferential Recall of Minimally Counterintuitive Concepts”, in Cognitive Science, 2013, vol. 37/7, pp. 1251–1289.
6. Barrett J. L. 2011 “Cognitive Science of Religion: Looking Back, Looking Forward”, in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2011, vol. 50/2, pp. 229–239.
7. Barrett J. L. 2000 “Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion’, in Trends in Cognitive Science, 2000, vol. 4/1, pp. 29–34.
8. Barrett J. L. 2004 “The Naturalness of Religious Concepts: An Emerging Cognitive Science of Religion’, in Antes P., Geertz A. W., Warne R. R. (eds.) New Approaches to the Study of Religion, vol. 2: Textual, Comparative, Sociological, and Cognitive Approaches, Berlin, 2004, pp. 401–408.
9. Barrett J. L. 2008 “Why Santa Claus is Not a God”, in Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2008, vol. 8, pp. 149–161.
10. Barrett J. L. Why Would Anyone Believe in God?, Lanham, 2004.
11. Barrett J. L., Nyhof M. A. 2001 “Spreading Non-natural Concepts: The Role of Intuitive Conceptual Structures in Memory and Transmission of Cultural Materials”, in Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2001, vol. 1/1, pp. 69–100.
12. Bartlett F.C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Cambridge, 1995.
13. Boyer P. 1994 “Cognitive Constraints on Cultural Representations: Natural Ontologies and Religious Ideas”, in Hirschfeld L. A., Gelman S. A. (eds.) Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 391–411.
14. Boyer P. The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion, Berkeley, 1994.
15. Boyer P. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, New York, 2001.
16. Boyer P. 1996 “What Makes Anthropomorphism Natural: Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Representations”, in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1996, vol. 2/1, pp. 83–97.
17. Boyer P., Bergstrom B. 2008 “Evolutionary Perspective on Religion”, in Annual Review of Anthropology, 2008, vol. 37, pp. 111–130.
18. Boyer P., Ramble C. 2001 “Cognitive Templates for Religious Concepts: Cross-Cultural Evidence for Recall of Counter-Intuitive Representations”, in Cognitive Science, 2001, vol. 25, pp. 535–564.
19. Bulbulia J. 2004 “The Cognitive and Evolutionary Psychology of Religion”, in Biology and Philosophy, 2004, vol. 19, pp. 655–686.
20. Bulbulia J., Shaver J., Greaves L., Sosis R., Sibley C. G. 2015 “Religion and Parental Cooperation: An Empirical Test of Slone’s Sexual Signaling Model”, in Slone D. J., Van Slyke J. A. (eds.) The Attraction of Religion: A New Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, London, 2015, pp. 11–27.
21. Chiao J. Y., Immordino-Yang M. H. 2013 “Modularity and the Cultural Mind: Contributions of Cultural Neuroscience to Cognitive Theory”, in Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2013, vol. 8/1, pp. 56–61.
22. d’Aquili E. G., Newberg A. B. The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience, Minneapolis, 1999.
23. Ferretti F., Adornetti I. 2014 “Biology, Culture and Coevolution: Religion and Language as Case Studies”, in Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2014, vol. 14, pp. 305–330.
24. Fodor J. The Modularity of Mind, Cambridge, 1983.
25. Galen L. W. 2014 “Beyond “Prosocial””, in Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 2014, vol. 2/1, pp. 17–22.
26. Gervais W. M., Henrich J. 2010 “The Zeus Problem: Why Representational Content Biases Cannot Explain Faith in Gods”, in Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2010, vol. 10, pp. 383–389.
27. Gould S. J., Lewontin R. C. 1979 “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1979, vol. 205/1161, pp. 581–598.
28. Gould S. J., Vrba E. S. 1982 “Exaptation — a Missing Term in the Science of Form”, in Paleobiology, 1982, vol. 8/1, pp. 4–15.
29. Guthrie S. E. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion, New York, 1993.
30. Haidt J. The Righteous Mind: Why People are Divided by Politics and Religion, New York, 2012.
31. Hirschfeld L. A., Gelman S. A. “Toward a Topography of Mind: An Introduction to Domain Specificity”, in Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, pp. 3–35.
32. Hunn E. 1976 “Toward a Perceptual Model of Folk Biological Classification”, in American Ethnologist, 1976, vol. 3/3, pp. 508–524.
33. Irons W. 2001 “Religion as Hard-to-Fake Sign of Commitment”, in Nesse R. M. (ed.) Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment, New York, 2001, pp. 292–309.
34. Keil F. C. Semantic and Conceptual Development: An Ontological Perspective, Cambridge, 1979.
35. Lawson E. T. 2001 “Psychological Perspectives on Agency”, in Andresen J. (ed.) Religion in Mind: Cognitive Perspectives on Religious Belief, Ritual, and Experience, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 141–172.
36. Mahoney A. “The Evolutionary Psychology of Theology”, in The Attraction of Religion: A New Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, pp. 189–210.
37. Martin L. H., Wiebe D. 2014 “Pro- and Assortative-Sociality in the Formation and Maintenance of Religious Groups”, in Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 2014, vol. 2/1, pp. 5–16.
38. Martinez M., Lienard P. “The Dividents of Discounting Pain: Self-Inflicted Pain as a Reputational Commodity”, in The Attraction of Religion: A New Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, pp. 133–158.
39. McCauley R. N. Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not, Oxford, 2011.
40. McKay R., Whitehouse H. 2015 “Religion and Morality”, in Psychological Bulletin, 2015, vol. 141/2, pp. 447–473.
41. Norenzayan A. Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict, Princeton, 2013.
42. Norenzayan A., Atran S., Faulkner J., Schaller M. 2006 “Memory and Mystery: The Cultural Selection of Minimally Counterintuitive Narratives”, in Cognitive Science, 2006, vol. 30, pp. 531–553.
43. Norenzayan A., Shariff A. F. 2008 “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality”, in Science, 2008, vol. 322/5898, p. 58–62.
44. Palmer C. T., Begley R. O. “Costly Signaling Theory, Sexual Selection, and the Influence of Ancestors on Religious Behavior”, in The Attraction of Religion: A New Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, pp. 93–109.
45. Persinger M. A. Neuropsychological Basis of God Beliefs, New York, 1987.
46. Porubanova-Norquist M., Shaw D. J., Xygalatas D. 2013 “Minimal-Counterintuitiveness Revisited: Effects of Cultural and Ontological Violations on Concept Memorability”, in Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 2013, vol. 1/2, pp. 181–192.
47. Powell R., Clarke S. 2012 “Religion as an Evolutionary Byproduct: A Critique of the Standard Model”, in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2012, vol. 63/3, pp. 457–486.
48. Prinz J. J. 2006 “Is the Mind Really Modular?”, in Stainton R. J. (ed.) Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, Malden, Oxford, 2006, pp. 22–36.
49. Schloss J. 2009 “Introduction: Evolutionary Theories of Religion. Science Unfettered or Naturalism Run Wild?”, in Schloss J., Murray M. J. (eds.) The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion, Oxford, 2009, pp. 1–25.
50. Sela Y., Shackelford T. K., Liddle J. R. “When Religion Makes It Worse: Religiously Motivated Violence as a Sexual Selection Weapon”, in The Attraction of Religion: A New Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, pp. 111–131.
51. Slone D. J. Theological Incorrectness: Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn’t, Oxford, 2004.
52. Slone D. J., Van Slyke J. A. “Introduction: Connecting Religion, Sex, and Evolution”, in The Attraction of Religion: A New Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, pp. 1–9.
53. Sosis R., Alcorta C. 2003 “Signaling, Solidarity, and the Sacred: The Evolution of Religious Behavior”, in Evolutionary Anthropology, 2003, vol. 12, pp. 264–274.
54. Sperber D. Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach, Oxford, 1996.
55. Upal M. A., Gonce L. O., Tweney R. D., Slone D. J. 2007 “Contextualizing Counterintuitiveness: How Context Affects Comprehension and Memorability of Counterintuitive Concepts”, in Cognitive Science, 2007, vol. 31, pp. 415–439.
56. Weeden J. “Losing My Religion: An Analysis of the Decline in Religious Attendance from Childhood to Adulthood”, in The Attraction of Religion: A New Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, pp. 73–91.
57. Zahavi A., Zahavi A. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle, Oxford, 1997.

Malevich Tat'iana

*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.

Текст подготовлен в рамках проекта «Религия, наука, общество: серия лекций и семинаров», осуществляемого Общецерковной аспирантурой и докторантурой РПЦ при поддержке Фонда Джона Темплтон

Interdisciplinary studies have long become an integral part of modern science, but in the field of religious studies and studies in Western esotericism, they are still not sufficiently widespread. In the article, well-known methodology of the study of a cultural product, developed by the Birmingham school of cultural studies is applied to the Western esotericism. The object of study is in the extreme right spectrum of contemporary esotericism. The myth of esoteric (or rather alien) background of the Third Reich was widely popularized after the 1950s through the works of W. Landig, M. Serrano, etc. Since the 1960s, these ideas were spread not only in the circles of adepts of right wing esotericism, but in popular fiction literature also; later this story became a common theme of films and computer industry. Thus, aimed at a narrow circle of adepts, the idea transformed itself and became a part of the mainstream culture. On the example of genesis, target audience, conditions of its development, author demonstrate the complexity of the process of assimilation by popular culture the myths, born in the esoteric milieu.

culture studies, western esotericism, Birmingham school, W. Landig, M. Serrano.

1. Gudrik-Klark N. Okkul'tnye korni nacizma (Occult Roots of Nazism), Moscow, 2004.
2. Jejts F. Dzhordano Bruno i germeticheskaja tradicija (Giordano Bruno and Hermetic Tradition), Moscow, 2000.
3. Kurennoj V. A. 2012 “Issledovatel'skaja i politicheskaja programma kul'turnyh issledovanij” (Research and Political Program of Cultural Studies), in Logos, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 14–79.
4. Sjedzhvik M. Naperekor sovremennomu miru: Tradicionalizm i tajnaja intellektual'naja istorija XX veka (Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and Secret Intellectual History of XX Century), Moscow, 2014.
5. «Otrechennoe znanie» izuchenie marginal'noj religioznosti v XX i nachale XXI veka: Istoriko-analiticheskoe issledovanie (“Forbidden Knowledge”: Study of Marginal Religiosity in XX and Begin of XXI Century: Historical-Analytic Study), Moscow, 2015.
6. Campbell C. 1972 “The Cult, the Cult Milieu and Secularization”, in A Sociological Yearbook on Religion in Britain, 1972, vol. 5, pp. 119–136
7. Du Gay P., Hall S. The Story of the Sony Walkman, London, 1997.
8. Eco U. Serendipities: Language and Lunacy, New York, 1998.
9. Godwin J. Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival, Kempton (Ill.), 1996.
10. Goodrick-Clarke N. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity, New York, 2002.
11. Hall D. Lived Religion in America: Toward a History of Practice, Princeton, 1997.
12. Hanegraaff W. 2006 “Esoterica”, in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, Leiden, 2006, pp. 336–340.
13. Hanegraaff W. Esotericism and the Academy, Cambridge, 2012.
14. Horne P. Sun of the Sleepless, Simerian, 2011.
15. Landig W. Götzen gegen Thule, Hannover, 1971.
16. Manning B. The Vril Codex, Markham Ontario, 2015.
17. Mattern W. UFOs: Unbekanntes Flugobjekt? Letzte Geheimwaffe des Dritten Reiches, Toronto, 1974.
18. Morgan D. The Embodied Eye: Religious Visual Culture and the Social Life of Feeling, Oakland, 2012.
19. Partridge C. The Re-Enchantment of the West, London, 2004, vol. 1; 2005, vol. 2.
20. Rebellen für Thule: Das Erbe von Atlantis, Wien, 1991.
21. Stuckrad K. von. Locations of Knowledge in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Esoteric Discourse and Western Identities, Leiden, 2010.
22. The Scientification of Religion: A Historical Study of Discursive Change, 1800–2000, Berlin, 2014.
23. Tridle H. The Esoteric Codex: Nazism and the Occult, 2015.
24. Wolfszeit um Thule, Wien, 1980.

Nosachev Pavel

*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.