The article analyzes the concept of “aesthetic humanism” (AH) presented in the works of V. V. Zenkovsky. Within his original conception, AH is regarded as the fundamental principle of Russian secularism. The article focuses on Zenkovky’s historical-philosophical dialectic, the key to which is the overcoming of AH — a “spiritual malady” of Western origin that infected the Russian intelligentsia. In this context, the article reconstructs the historical development of AH, which can be considered the primary intellectual antagonist in Zenkovsky’s philosophy. It is noted that Zenkovky’s argumentation is not always substantively elaborated (e.g., his interpretation of Schiller). The author demonstrates that the conceptual core of Zenkovsky's critique, which targets the dominance of the aesthetic sphere, is derived from K. Obenauer's book “The Problem of the Aesthetic Man in German Literature” (1933). However, Zenkovsky reinterpreted the schema, shifting its central opposition from “aesthetic versus heroic” (as in Obenauer) to “aesthetic versus religious”. Zenkovsky's fundamental philosophical axiom is underscored: only religion can truly unify all spheres of human life. Significant attention is devoted to the figure of N. V. Gogol, in whose work Zenkovsky identifies a paradigmatic example of overcoming AH and turning towards a religious worldview. In his interpretation, Gogol emerges as a prophet and founder of the Russian religious philosophy tradition, while Zenkovsky positions himself as its continuator and guardian. It is concluded that the critique of AH is not merely a part of historical-philosophical research or an analysis of the contemporary epoch, but rather a pivotal element of Zenkovsky's own philosophical project, which aims at desecularization and the future construction of an Orthodox culture.

The pre-revolutionary experience of Russian ecclesiastical-academic philosophy is fundamental to the contemporary debate between science and religion. Within the walls of Orthodox theological schools, a philosophical position was formed aimed at demonstrating the absence of contradictions between scientific, philosophical, and religious knowledge. Aleksey Ivanovich Vvedensky (1861–1913), a professor of philosophy at the Moscow Theological Academy, was among those whose views represented a strategy for resolving the confrontation between science and religion by constructing a synthetic model of metaphysics. While Kant's philosophy serves as the starting point, Vvedensky also draws on extensive empirical psychology to correct Kant. Therefore, it remains unclear how the Russian philosopher utilized the insights of the Königsberg philosopher, and whether one can speak of an epistemological shift from apriorism to psychologism in the philosophical school of the Moscow Theological Academy. The study shows that Vvedensky's views, like those of his teacher, V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, retain the fundamental tenet of Kantian transcendentalism—the rejection of the unfounded projection of a priori forms of sensibility onto things in themselves. At the same time, Vvedensky departs from the epistemological views of Kudryavtsev-Platonov's modified Kantian apriorism, placing greater emphasis on the role of experience in shaping human perceptions. At the same time, a comparison of the philosophical positions of Vvedensky and F.E. Benecke reveals that the Russian philosopher's ideas cannot be classified as psychologistic. According to Vvedensky, the apodictic nature of human cognition is founded on an a priori component, including understanding and its categories. As a result, the conclusion is drawn that Vvedensky, by correcting Kant's transcendental aesthetics in light of new data from empirical psychology, does not thereby make an epistemological turn from apriorism to psychologism, but relies on a thesis close to the neo-Kantian position about the key role of thinking in cognition.

The exhumation and reburial of the remains of Peter III in 1796 was accompanied by the laying of the great emperor crown on the coffin by Paul I. This action was perceived by contemporaries as a posthumous coronation of the emperor, who was not crowned during his life. This opinion is certainly an exaggeration, we can consider this case just as the belated rendering of the emperor funeral honors to the remains. However, such secondary interpretation could be perceived by Paul I as well. The idea of a posthumous coronation has some correspondence in the non-canonical ritual practices of the “baptism” of the dead, which took place in Christendom during the Middle Ages and much later. The most famous example of such ritual is the so-called “baptism of the bones” of two brothers of St. Prince Vladimir, Yaropolk and Oleg, in 1044. This event is mentioned in “The Book of Degrees of the Royal Genealogy”, where it is accompanied by the detailed commentary, which is either positive or neutral. Such posthumous “baptism” can be compared to the perception of Peter III’s reburial as a posthumous coronation as far as some medieval writings compare a baptism to a coronation with the reference on 1 Peter 2:9. The posthumous fate of Inês de Castro, the beloved of the son of King Alfonso IV of Portugal, could be perceived in the late 18th century as the basis for such perception of the reburial of Peter III. Inês de Castro was killed in the mid-14th century and her fate became the subject of numerous literary works. In Russia information about the exhumation of Inês de Castro’s body and its coronation was included in the notes to the prosaic retelling of Camões’s poem “The Lusiads”, which was published in 1788. Paul I’s concentration on the past, which was manifested in the reburial of Peter III, reflects his conviction in possibility of the symbolic reversal of time through the power of an absolute monarch as far as the emperor funeral honors were addressed not only to the emperor, who had already been buried, but also to the emperor, who had abdicated the throne.

The article examines the concept of the «Church of the Elect» (Ecclesia electorum) in the theology of St. Gregory the Great. It provides a general overview of the saint's use of the term «electi» in relation to members of the Church and highlights the main theses of the Double Word on the question of free will and predestination. An analysis of the term «electi» leads to the conclusion that, according to St. Gregory (as well as St. Augustine), the entire history of humanity, beginning with the Old Testament, is presented as a confrontation between the «elect» and the «reprobi, reprobati» (the rejected). Some of the «reprobati» formally remain in the Church for a time, but in an eschatological perspective they will be cast out of it. The author notes the inconsistency of some of the saint's judgments (regarding the initial rejection of the «unchosen» and the possibility of their repentance) and concludes that the main focus of St. Gregory's statements about the Church was pastoral and didactic. Therefore, the saint sought, above all, to emphasize the inadmissibility of exaltation due to belonging to the «Church of the Elect», as well as on the necessity of church prayer for all living and deceased Christians of the «rue faith» (without seeking to definitively resolve all the theological difficulties of the doctrine of salvation, but leaving some questions unanswered).

This article reconstructs the biography and academic and social activities of Archpriest Alexander Mikhailovich Ivantsov-Platonov, one of the most signifi cant representatives of the Russian Church history in the second half of the 19th century. Despite Ivantsov-Platonov’s signifi cant infl uence on the development of university teaching in church history and theological thought, his biography has not been a topic of a comprehensive study. Based on a wide range of sources, including archival records, obituaries, memoirs of contemporaries, journalism, and scientifi c works, the article traces the main stages of his life. Special attention is paid to the intellectual evolution of the scholar, his relations with the Slavophiles, his role in the rapprochement of church and secular science, and his methodological diff erences with representatives of theological- academic historiography. The article highlights the signifi cance of Ivantsov- Platonov as an educator, promoter of church history, and author of fundamental studies on the history of early Christianity. The article argues that Ivantsov-Platonov was a “last Platonist”, a thinker who sought to synthesise faith and scientifi c knowledge and had a signifi cant impact on the intellectual culture of pre-revolutionary Russia.

The article examines the attitude of the holy Fr. John of Kronstadt (I. I. Sergiev) to the largest monarchist organization of the Russian Empire, the Union of the Russian People. Based on the testimonies of contemporaries, the texts of sermons and diaries of John of Kronstadt, materials from the pre-revolutionary periodical press and the achievements of modern historiography, the publication reconstructs and analyzes the political views of the orthodox priest and the degree of his involvement in the activities of this right-wing union. New sources are introduced into scientific circulation, including a previously unknown text of a speech by Fr. John of Kronstadt at a rally of the Union of the Russian People, as well as facts testifying to the closeness of the priest's political views with the main programmatic provisions of the right-wing monarchist parties. Particular attention is paid to the public speeches of Fr. John of Kronstadt, concerning his attitude to the tsarist power, the autocratic monarchy, the revolution and its leaders, his understanding of the situation in which Russia found itself, as well as his relationship with the leader of the Union of the Russian People, A. I. Dubrovin. Based on various sources, it is proven that Fr. John of Kronstadt was not only a formal member of the Union of the Russian People, but was a conscious and convinced supporter of the monarchist movement that came out in defense of Orthodoxy, autocracy and the Russian nationality during the 1905 revolution. Sharing the main programmatic guidelines of the union, the Kronstadt pastor supported it spiritually and materially, approving of its struggle against revolutionary unrest, socialism and liberalism. In key issues of political life, Fr. John of Kronstadt and A. I. Dubrovin completely agreed in 1905-1907, which led to the pastor's blessing of the union. At the same time, Fr. John of Kronstadt did not delve into the affairs of the union in detail, did not participate in its management, had nothing to do with its violent actions and manifestations of populism and radicalism, was far from interfering in the internal strife and struggle of the leaders of the Union of the Russian People.

The article is devoted to the Tashkent period of the life of St. Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky), very significant for his preaching, apologetic activities and episcopal service. His stay in Tashkent occurred during the period of revolutions, civil war and the most severe repression of the Soviet government against the Church (1917–1930s). Arrests, exiles, and gross interference of the authorities in internal church affairs provoked schisms, a complete breakdown of church governance, conflicts between clergy and “inter-party” strife among parishioners.Saint Luke also suffered persecution - four of his criminal cases were fabricated in Tashkent. In addition, at the Tashkent department he experienced very serious spiritual trials. In 1923 - deep disappointment in his first mentor-bishop, a secret episcopal consecration, which caused from different sides both doubts about its canonicity and a barrage of slander. In 1926–1929 – serious conflicts with his associates and church authorities, which led to a chain of unaccepted appointments in 1926–1927, a long stay on staff and a deep mental crisis in 1933.To date, historians who have covered in detail many periods of the life of Saint Luke have not fully explored or completely ignored some aspects of the Tashkent events, which is why in the lives of Saint Luke, compiled on the basis of scientific works, contains incorrect statements that distort the image of the saint. This article proposes new and little-known facts that fill some gaps in the first two parts of the Tashkent period of the biography of Saint Luke: from 1917 to 1923 (from arrival to the first exile) and from 1926 to May 1930 (from return to Tashkent until a new arrest).

The publication is a correspondence between Bishop Alexei (Dekhterev) of Pryashev and Archimandrite Mitrofan (Yaroslavtsev), who served in Morocco at the turn of the 1940s-1950s. The main topics of correspondence were: the situation of Orthodox parishes in North Africa in the context of the confrontation between supporters of the Church Abroad and the church authorities in Moscow; the attitude toward the Orthodox in Morocco; financial and personnel problems; the situation of Moscow-oriented parishes in France; and the attitude toward Russian emigrants on the part of representatives of the Greek episcopate. t should be noted that the correspondence touches on the natural and climatic conditions of living in the Maghreb. Bishop Alexis, who himself had previously served in Egypt, is interested in the state of affairs in the country and the peculiarities of living there. The letters were found by the author in the Archives of the Vilna-Lithuanian Diocese in Vilnius, in a file dedicated to Alexei (Dekhterev). They are not sorted out and not numbered, in some cases it is also difficult to establish the specific date of writing of this or that letter.

The paper is focused on the practice of confession among Taborites and the Prague Hussites in the first third of the 15th century. It was reasoned out that the rejection shown by the Taborite priests towards the established forms of confession and their call to confess sins only to God were determined by their chiliastic mood, i.e. by their confidence that the coming Kingdom of Christ will abolish all human powers (including the right of indulgence possessed by the clergy). Thus, Taborites usually replaced the confession with the spiritual preparation of a believer to take communion. However, Taborites and the Prague Hussites did practice the public confession of a kneeling sinner who was confessing his sin to God, as well as to the political community which thus was being sacralized as an executor of God’s Law. In turn, the Prague Hussites were not united considering the confession: their conservative party recognized only the confession to a priest, while the Prague master Jacob of Stribro actually did share the opinion of the Taborite bishop Nicholas of Pelhrimov, namely that the penitence can be carried out also during the confession to a neighbour (not strictly to a priest), because the efficiency of the penitence depended fully on the spiritual repentance of the sinner and not on the formal realization of the rite.