Russian Theology Research Articles

К вопросу об онтологическом единстве человеческой природы

The article analyses theological teaching about human nature expressed in the book “Took the Form of a Servant. To the Matter of Distortions of the Orthodox Understanding of Incarnation in Catholic and Orthodox Theological Thought of the end of XIX – beginning of XXI c.” published in 2020. The authors of the book question the ideas on Incarnation put forward by a number of XX c. theologians, combined under a concept of “incarnation theology”. They believe that teaching about ontological unity of human nature leads to a misinterpretation of Incarnation as the union of Christ with all humanity and implies a doctrine of apocatastasis, the salvation of everyone.The article puts the views of the authors of the book in the context of XX c. Russian theology. It argues that Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitskiy) adopted the idea of unity of humankind in the image of Divine Tri-unity from XIX c. “lay theology” and based his “moral theory of Atonement” on it. While not agreeing with the “moral theory”, a number of subsequent theologians, including St. Hilarion (Troitsky), Fr. George Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky, further developed his ideas of the unity of human nature. His teaching on human nature was criticised by St. Seraphim (Sobolev) and Archbishop Theophan (Bystrov). The article analyses their arguments, including, on one hand, the clear distinction between Divine and human natures, and on the other, especially for Archbishop Theophan, questioning the very unity of human nature.The article points out that the arguments in the book continue the arguments of Archbishop Theophan. It analyses the triple definition of human nature put forward by the authors of the book, partly based on the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and neoplatonics on universals. Whereas the article rejects some parts of this definition as poorly compatible with the Orthodox doctrine, the definition of human nature as composition common to all humans is acceptable; however, the authors’ objection against ontological unity of human nature means that they only mean unity as sameness and come close to John Philoponus’ doctrine of “partial substances”. The article demonstrates that misinterpretation of the notions of nature and hypostasis underlies the book authors’ criticism of St. Hilarion (Troitsky) and Vladimir Lossky on the issue of common nature.

Nikolay Lisovoy: “I am a Conservative!” (Review of Nikolay Lisovoy’s Work in the Soviet Period)

This article delves into the works of Nikolay Nikolayevich Lisovoy (1946–2019) during the initial 45 years of his life, which coincided with the Soviet era. It was during this period that the main concepts of his creativity were formulated: the Orthodox Empire and its relation to the Church, the history of Russian theology, the history of the Russian Church and its saints, Russian conservative journalism from the late 19th to the early 20th century, and the Russian spiritual and political presence in the East. Nikolay Lisovoy’s youth was marked by the peak of his poetic creativity, and he primarily considered himself a poet. To the contemporary reader, Nikolay Lisovoy is largely known for his writings on the Holy Land and his activities in the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society (IPPO). However, during the considered period of his creative output, these themes were not yet at the forefront of his attention, thus his main contributions to the development of Russian conservative thought remain practically unknown. Based on Nikolay Lisovoy’s personal archive and his early publications, the author analyzes his works written during the Soviet era, delves into the origins of his creativity, and identifies individuals who significantly influenced his formation. Of particular interest is the examination of Nikolay Lisovoy’s works at the intersection of disciplines: physics, philosophy and theology, semiotics and linguistics, history and canon law, historiosophy and political science. Nikolay Lisovoy’s creative output is explored using materials from his personal archive within the context of the epoch, taking into account individuals who had a particular influence on him, including his mother Olga Talantseva, Fyodor Sukhov, Vasily Shulgin, Archimandrite Innokenty (Prosvirnin), Tatyana Glushkova and others.This publication, commemorating the 5th anniversary of Nikolay Lisovoy’s passing, aims to initiate a comprehensive study of Nikolay Lisovoy’s spiritual and scientific legacy from the first 30 years of his creative path, which unfolded during the Soviet period, and and introduce it to the scientific society. By 1991, Nikolay Lisovoy laid the foundations of concepts that are extremely relevant to conservative thought today. The most important of them is the idea that Russia was and remains an Orthodox Empire, destined to resist the entropy threatening humanity and originating from the West. Above all, he considered himself a conservative.The author of the article has been a disciple of Nikolay Lisovoy since 2003, actively promoting his works. After being ordained as a priest in 2013, he regularly performed confession, communion, and administered the last sacraments for the scholar and his spouse.

The Concept of “Pseudomorphosis” in the Book by G. V. Florovsky “Ways of Russian Theology”

The concept of pseudomorphosis is used by G. V. Florovsky as such a borrowing, which is of an instrumental-technological and formal-scholastic nature and, therefore, does not meet the deep interests of the Church of Christian peoples and the creative development of theological thought. He emphasizes the positive, stimulating significance of theology in the history of Russian not only of Patristics, which is usually paid attention to, but also of Western theological thought, especially since the sixteenth century, which is often overlooked. From the point of view of G. V. Florovsky, theological pseudomorphoses are overcome on the basis of multilateral historical ties: Patristics and the ‘comprehending growth’ of theological thought, theology and church life, theology and secular philosophy, theology and culture of the people, Orthodox theology and the theological thought of other Christian confessions. According to G. V. Florovsky, the ‘Catholic’ synthesis of the Church means that universal, communal force, which manifests itself in theological thought on the historical basis. The transformation of external borrowed forms into pseudomorphoses is explained by G. V. Florovsky with specific historical reasons: the lag of Orthodox thought from Western religious and philosophical thought, the political interests of the warring countries, the separation of the clergy from the needs of laic believers, their historical experience and culture. The Russian theologian considers as pseudomorphic those theological borrowings that formally and dogmatically, and not organically and synthetically, enter the autochthonous cultural-historical context. It is here that the source of uncreative imitation and scholastic tendencies in Russian theology manifest themselves. G. V. Florovsky shows, that borrowings alien to the interests and needs of the believers turn into clericalism and political servility of Church hierarchs. This statement by G.V. Florovsky is relevant till nowadays; it is combined with another, equally relevant conclusion by him: a dialogue with Western theology has a positive, stimulating value for Russian Orthodoxy as well.

The concept of creativity in Georges Florovsky’s thought

AbstractThis article discusses the meanings of “creativity”—tvorchestvo—as we encounter it in Georges Florovsky’s thought, first and foremost in his magnum opus Ways of Russian Theology (1937). Tvorchestvo had by this time become a key concept in Russian pre-revolutionary and later émigré thought. It is associated above all with Nikolai Berdyaev’s philosophy, but it also plays an important role in Sergei Bulgakov’s philosophy of economy. In both cases, it stands for the human response to divine creation. Moreover, and somewhat less famously, it was also an epistemological concept in the religious idealism of Vladimir Solovyov as well as in Russian neo-Kantianism (Fyodor Stepun), where it stood for the active, synthetic faculty of our minds. Florovsky, meanwhile, used it as a description of how we should relate to the patristic heritage, but also to history more generally: Our attitude should be “creative,” active, as well as both backward- and forward-looking. This “return to the Fathers” was a central component of Florovsky’s neopatristic program, but, interestingly, in order to conceptualize this return, Florovsky took over a concept from traditions that his own approach otherwise firmly criticized. By analyzing Florovsky’s use of tvorchestvo, this article addresses the broader question as to the differences and parallels between the neopatristic movement and the legacy of the Russian Renaissance (Silver Age).

The poetics of the author's situativeness in the story "The Sisters of the Cross" by A.M. Remizov

The article is devoted to the consideration of the poetics of the author's situativeness in the story "The Sisters of the Cross" by A. M. Remizov. Methods (historical and literary, structural, semantic) and methodological basis of the research are the works of Russian and Western scientists in the field of philology (M. M. Bakhtin, B. O. Korman, Y. M. Lotman), Russian theology (N. O. Lossky, P. A. Florensky, L. I. Shestov) and remizology (I. A. Ilyin, Greta Slobin, A.M. Gracheva, E. V. Tyryshkina, etc.). The result of the work is that the situations in the story "The Sisters of the Cross" were highlighted, their classification and a detailed analysis of the poetics of the author's situativeness by A.M. Remizov were made. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that the poetics of the author's situativeness is analyzed in detail within the framework of a global problem in the work of A.M. Remizov — the author's duality. All this allows us to conclude that the author's situativeness of A.M. Remizov is the author's individual view of the world order and man, it is a reflection of all the extra—textual factors that influenced the writer in different periods of his life and found artistic embodiment on the pages of the writer's works. The practical scope of the results of the work is seen in the possibility of using this material for deep understanding and studying such courses as "Literature of the Russian abroad", university historical and literary courses, during independent research work of students, when writing term papers and diploma projects.

Два поучения в Лазареву субботу: нравственное измерение дружбы по святителям Иустину (Полянскому) и Иннокентию Херсонскому

Introduction. The article is devoted to the concept of friendship in Christian ethics. The author analyses the idea of friendship and its moral aspect in two previously underexamined in Russian theology sermons of Saint Justin (Polyansky) and Saint Innocent of Kherson on Lazarus Saturday. Theoretical analysis. The research allows us to make the following conclusions. According to Saint Justin (Polyansky) and Saint Innocent of Kherson, friendship represents: the friendly love of the Lord Jesus Christ for His friends, the ideal of friendship for every Christian in the terms of one’s relations with neighbours; the friendly love of a human for God (sincerity and openness, service), which is impossible without the assistance of Divine grace, and which is rewarded by achieving the Divine friendship in relation to a human (salvation); friendship between a human and God, which is characterized by mutual sincerity and openness, and mutual service; human friendship, which is characterized by mutual sincerity and openness (confession of sins to each other), mutual service of love, patience with shortcomings, and compassion. Conclusion. According to Saint Justin and Saint Innocent, friendship has a moral dimension; it is a part of Christian morality, and the telos of the Christian moral life.

The tradition of publishing works on science “Usul al-Fiqh” (the Fundamentals of Islamic Law) in Kazan

This paper reviews the works and essays devoted to the fundamentals of Islamic Law (usul al-fiqh) in general, and those published in Kazan in pre-revolutionary times, in particular. Among the works discussed, the overwhelming majority are the works of Hanafi authors. The paper considers the publications of foreign theologians who mainly lived in Central Asia together with the works of domestic theologians of the 18 th -20 th centuries. All works were published in Arabic. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that, firstly, the problems of the foundations of Islamic Law have not been sufficiently studied in modern domestic literature. Until now, in Muslim educational institutions there is no worthy textbook in Russian on usul al-fiqh. Secondly, we believe that our study will be the first review of all the works published in Kazan once devoted to the problems of the foundations of Islamic law. The results of this study can be used for the further revival of Russian theology by editing and publishing the works of Tatar theologians mentioned in this article.

Natural theology in the legacy of St. Innocent (Borisov)

The article is devoted to analyzing St. Innocent Borisov’s natural theology heritage — the teachings on the proofs for the existence of God and on divine attributes, which are presented, respectively, in his fundamental and dogmatic theologies. The analysis is preceded by a brief history of the formation of Russian fundamental theology, within which two main directions of its development have been revealed for the first time: as natural theology at the Moscow Theological Academy and as general theology at the St. Petersburg and Kiev Theological Academies. The problems of localizing the doctrine on divine attributes in the structure of Russian theology are highlighted. In addition to a detailed presentation of the content of the above mentioned St. Innocent’s doctrines, their characteristics are given, the advantages and disadvantages of the scholar’s natural theology are revealed, and the degree of the impact of Western theological systems on his natural theology is determined. On the whole, St. Innocent’s rational theology heritage is characterized as one of the first domestic experiences of independent research work in this area of theological knowledge. It is concluded that St. Innocent Borisov may rightfully be considered one of the founders of the new academic theology of the Synodal period, who laid solid foundations for the further formation and development of identical Russian theology as such.

The doctrine of the Image of God by Аrchbishop Feofan (Prokopovich) and Amand Polyansky: The comparative analysis

The article is devoted to the analysis of the doctrine of the image of God by Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich) and the reformed theologian Amand Polyansky. The main engine of church reform, Archbishop Feofan, was repeatedly accused of Protestantism, while others considered his position Orthodox and believed that he used the works of Protestant authors to build his position. The anthropocentrism of the New time has posed new questions to theology that require answers and an appropriate reaction and development of the anthropological provisions of the Christian doctrine. In this era, there is a surge of appeals to the teachings of St Augustine, on which both Protestant and Catholic authors relied. At the same time, the assessment of the Synodal period largely began to be based on the concept of the Western influence of Russian theology. There is no doubt that there was an influence of Western theology on the Russian tradition, but it seems premature and unreasonable to unequivocally negative assessment of this period, which is little studied in the scientific literature. An assessment of this period becomes possible when referring to its origins. Using the example of a narrow section of the anthropology of Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich), the doctrine of the image of God, it is proposed to compare his theological positions with the provisions of Amand Polyansky, the proximity to which has been repeatedly noted by researchers both modern and prerevolutionary researchers.

“It would be a good idea to carry out a research project called ‘Theologians’ ships’…”

A conversation with a historian of Russian theology of the Modern era touches upon the continuity of some key ideas that are characteristic of the Diaspora Theology of the 20th century in relation to the ideas whose origins are found in Russian spiritual and academic theology of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Contrary to the well-established opinion that Russian post-revolutionary emigration theology was a new, breakthrough phase in theological development, the author shows that such concepts as Trinitarian ecclesiology, personalism, theosis, kenotic theology (characteristic of this theology) in fact arise and form among Russian authors from the end of 1880-s until the turning point in 1917. The following specific questions are also raised during the conversation: the emergence of the Russian theological school, contemporary anthropology in its connection with the anthropology of St. Augustine; receptions of the Areopagite Corpus in pre-revolutionary Russia; the influence of Western theology, in particular French mysticism of the 17th century, as well as the influence of the latest philosophy and psychology for that time on representatives of the Russian spiritual and academic tradition. The author connects the peculiarities of Russian pre-revolutionary theology with the fact that among the Orthodox Churches, it is the Russian Church that is the first to find itself in the situation of the new time with its secularization, non-religious humanism and specific philosophical language. The status of Russian lay theologians (first of all, professors of theological schools, who belonged together with the teachers-priests to the same spiritual-academic corporation) is also discussed. The conversation can be considered as a multifaceted look at the history of Russian Orthodox theology in recent centuries, where there are still gaps identified by the author.

Dogmatic aspects of the Christologies of Kant and St Innocent (Borisov)

In his momentous writing Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason, Kant attempted to conduct a complete rational-idealistic interpretation of traditional dogmatic Christology. The Son of God was represented by Kant as an idea of the good principle mystically existing in the human soul, and the Incarnation of the Son of God as a descent of the good principle into evil human nature. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ, according to Kant’s representation, should be merely a simple man (an example for human beings) who realised the good principle in his life, becoming a model for us to copy and a proof that we also can realise this principle – having Christ as an example, though on our own, independently, i.e. without having any special ontological relation with Him, and without any other external factors having impact on us. St Innocent (Borisov) was the first thinker in the whole tradition of Russian theology who seriously dealt with the theological opinions of Kant, especially with his rational Christology. St Innocent did not neglect the meaning of Kant’s Christological views, but attempted, firstly, to incorporate their positive roots into traditional Christology and, secondly, to respond to Kant’s “challenge”, i.e. his notion that the doctrine of Christ’s native holiness is not compatible with the view of Him as an example and ideal. The Russian theologian stated that Christ is the Ideal and God Himself. To respond to Kant, he formulated the conception of the gradual manifestation of divinity in Christ.

К истокам «спора о Софии»: Е. Н. Трубецкой как критик софиологии

The recent growth in research interest in sophology forces us to revisit the criticisms of this teaching that were voiced during the so-called "Paris controversy". The failure of the critique of Father Sergius Bulgakov's sophology by the latter is becoming more and more evident. The criticism of Bulgakov's theology by theologians is becoming increasingly obvious. In particular, the sources of the doctrine were incorrectly identified, and the accusations of heresy made on behalf of some hierarchs of the Russian Church made it impossible to continue the polemic. It now seems that sophology was the moment of a crisis of philosophy in Russian theology. In order to make the critique of sophology more substantive, a revision of the accusations that have been made against Bulgakov's teaching is necessary. The article proposes a return to the first stage of the critique of sophology, which has not been continued due to historical circumstances. As early as 1918 E.N. Trubetskoy wrote that Bulgakov's main mistake was the Gnostic understanding of Sofia. According to Trubetskoy, introducing the qualities of subjectivity and psychologism into Sofia leads to a similarity with the demiurge from Plato's dialogue "Timaeus". The analysis of Trubetskoy's criticism shows that the real reason for this accusation was his rejection of the version of the solution to the transcendental problem of religion which Bulgakov proposed in 'The Everlasting Light'. Here Bulgakov, based on his Philosophy of Economy, develops the concept of Sofia in connection with the concept of the transcendental subject in Kant's philosophy and points out the fundamental connection of the above problematics with Kant's third critique. From Trubetskoy's point of view, a Christian resolution of the "problem of Sofia" is possible only by identifying Sofia with Plato's world of divine ideas. By the Christian doctrine of Wisdom he understands his own interpretation of Platonic idealism. An analysis of Trubetskoy's sophiological ideas leads to the conclusion that they incorporate both the views and intuitions of V.S. Soloviev and many of Bulgakov's ideas and are not original.

Экклесиологическая концепция Э. Мерша и ее восприятие богословами русской диаспоры

In 1933 the Catholic scholar Emile Mersch published his work “The Mystical Body of Christ” (Le Corps mystique du Christ), in which the concept of the “mystical body” was traced from early Christian times to the beginning of the 20th century. Having paid tribute to Eastern fathers, Mersch believed that this concept reaches its final synthesis in the works of the “French school” authors in the 17th century, where the concept of personal mystical unity with Christ, dating back to the Rhine mystics, is combined with the idea of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Hilary of Pictavia of the “natural” unity of the Church in the Eucharist. Mersch considered this synthesis to be a complete expression of St. Augustine’s teachings of the Church as the “total Christ” (the whole Christ) - totus Christus. Some authors of the diaspora paid their attention to the Mersch’s monography. M. Lot-Borodina wrote a review to this work. Fr. Sergey Bulgakov used this work as a source of the references to blessed Augustine. But it was Fr. Georges Florovsky who treated this work most thoughtfully. In the description of his response to the Mersch’s work, we need to remember that initially Fr. Georges based on the position, which was formed in Russian theology by representatives of “new theology” at the beginning of the 20th century, first of all – the position of metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky). This position was characterized by the constitution of the unity of the Church on the moral rather than Eucharistic level. The moral level was regarded, because of the personalistic concept of the mutual transparency of persons, as a natural unity. The article traces the gradual evolution of Fr. Georges’s views from the above concept, through an attempt to combine the teaching of totus Christus with the teaching of metropolitan Anthony, to the unambiguously expressed Christological emphasis in ecclesiology. As a result, Florovsky's late ecclesiology reveals a certain closeness to the ecclesiology of the French school, and hence to Mersch’s general conceptual conclusions.

«В Церкви должно воскреснуть пророчество»: фигура пророка в русской мысли рубежа XIX–XX вв.

The article focuses on the development of ideas about the prophet in Russia in the late 19th – the early 20th century. In the European discourse the understanding of the prophet as the bearer of the personal principle in religion most fully described by M. Weber. Since in Russian religious philosophy the conceptualization of the prophetic function appears in the works of V. Solovyov, the first part of the article is devoted to the analysis of the idea of a prophet in the theocratic concept of this thinker. Specific features of the system proposed by the Russian philosopher are characterized, where the prophet was considered as a link of the “triad” along with the priesthood and the kingdom. The constant characteristics of the prophet as the third principle of power in the Solovyov system are formulated. The second part of the article is devoted to the reception of Solovyov’s ideas in Russian theology and religious philosophy of the beginning of the 20th century. The discussions about the hierarchy and the intellectuals as carriers of the prophetic principle that arose at the Religious-Philosophical Meetings, and the positions on this issue of V. Ternavtsev and D. Merezhkovsky are characterized. The development of the idea of a prophet in the context of the discussion of the problem of power in the Church in the academic theology of M. Tareev, V. Troitsky, P. Florensky is traced. The interpretation of the Soloviev triad by S. Bulgakov and A. Kartashev, as well as criticism of the views of the latter by Merezhkovsky’s circle, is analyzed. It is noted that the participants in the discussions considered the prophetic principle as integrated into the church community or opposed to the church hierarchy. In conclusion, the development of the discourse about the prophet in the Russian tradition of the designated period is summed up, parallels with the search for Western explorers are noted. The article concludes that the common problem for Russian and European thinkers of the early 20th century is the distinction between priestly and prophetic principles in the religious community.

A portrait of the teacher for the West in the interior of the Synodal era: Dissertation by I. V. Popov on Blessed Augustine

Early 20th century Russian academic theology showed considerable interest in St. Augustine’s theology. Among a significant number of works on the latter, one that stands out in terms of its scale and being well-founded, the doctoral thesis “The personality and legacy of St. Augustine” (1916) by I. V. Popov, a professor of the Moscow theological academy. Although the first volume of the Popov’s work is the only one that remains, it is of substantial interest because it witnesses the continuous intellectual evolution of its author, who made a sharp turn from the Eastern patristics towards the Western patristics in his studying the topic of “deification.” However, today there is no unanimous agreement among scholars on the presence of “deification” concepts in the Western theology, and Popov himself does not use the term “deification” in his doctoral thesis. Nevertheless, Popov’s conclusion that “ontologism,” being understood as the possibility of a direct communication with God in this life, was characteristic of St. Augustine represents in some sense the next stage of Popov’s search for an organic integration of the moral and mystical contents of Christian life. Containing an implicit but relevant for the early twentieth century critique of Harnack’s rationalism, Popov’s work had as well an impact on the mid-twentieth century Russian thought, having been in demand in the diaspora. It should be especially noted that, despite its unconditional significance both for the history of Russian patristics and of Russian theology in the twentieth century Popov’s “Augustine” has not attracted special attention of researchers so far.

Reflection of the juridical and moral worldviews in modern Catholic and Orthodox translations of the New Testament

The article analyzes the objectivity of the antithesis West-East, formulated in the Russian theology of the 19th century, in particular, in the dissertation of Archimandrite Sergius (Stragorodsky) “Orthodox Teaching on Salvation”, 1895. The analysis is based on a comparative research of modern official translations of the Gospel of Luke in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Well-recognized critics of Archimandrite Sergius agree that the opposition of the West and Russia through the prism of juridical and moral worldviews is “not so unambiguous” and therefore could not be a reliable basis for the “Orthodox doctrine of salvation”. It is argued that the thesis about the difference between the two worldviews had an artificial origin, since it was dictated by the desire of the early Slavophiles and their followers to create in Russia its own theological system, totally different from the Western one. The importance of the topic is due to its direct relation to the dogma of salvation, which is the main goal of the Christian doctrine.

В. Н. Татищев: Пролегомены исследовательской программы модернизации России XVIII века (институционально-эволюционный подход)

Introduction. V. N. Tatishchev, one of the founders of the Russian history studies, was notable for his broad views on the evolution of society and economic order. His economic views were not widely discussed during his lifetime and were not much in demand afterwards. Familiarity with his major works is hampered by the fact that they were almost never published in the form of notes, letters, and manuscripts. The ambiguity of his approaches, conclusions, recommendations and, accordingly, their evaluation was noted by many researchers who took diametrically opposed views. Deep erudition, reliance on Western European philosophy and Russian theology allowed the enlightener to create the conceptual milestones of the future institutional program. Theoretical analysis. Modernization of society should be based on constant changes in existing legislative and economic practices, ideological perceptions, and cultural patterns. This approach allows us to identify the most effective institutions (formal and informal rules), taking into account national specifics. Methodologically, the relationship between changes in public administration and social ethos “vertically and horizontally” is established; the importance of societal economic culture as a factor of sustainable development is emphasized. Empirical analysis. Considered chronologically consecutive works on purely economic topics and legal foundations of power are supported by a significant array of letters to Peter I, the Academy of Sciences, the Berg Collegium, and public figures of the first half of the 18th century. According to the thinker, economic policy, both at micro and macro levels, should be based on regulations, organizational adaptation and rational borrowing. The qualitative description of the structure of social relations of absolutist Russia, in the form of “physiology of society”, which resonates with the modern concepts in economic sociology and new institutional economic theory, is highlighted. Results. V. N. Tatishchev can reasonably be considered the conceptual forerunner of the modern theory of institutionalism. As an enlightener, in the spirit of eighteenth-century social thought, he created an introduction to the importance of permanent changes in Russian economic and social structures. The imperative of state construction of the economy at the macro level is supported by attention to micro-changes in the form of regular economic practices, combining elements of originality and creative borrowing of foreign innovations. Evolutionary approach of the thinker echoes the formation and development of economic views of the XIX and XX centuries, especially in the prerequisites of the theory of history periodization and the transition from one political order to another on the basis of changes in institutions (formal and informal rules).

Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev): A Researcher and Commentator of Priest Pavel Florensky’s Legacy

The article examines the life and research activities of Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). Hegumen Andronik was a member of the Liturgical Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church and served as the abbot of the Valaam Monastery of Savior Transfiguration, participated in the publication of the Priest’s Handbook, Orthodox Encyclopedia, and other projects. Hegumen Andronik authored many liturgical texts and articles dedicated to Russian Saints (Venerable Sergius of Radonezh, Venerable Paphnutius of Borovsk, Venerable Ambrose of Optina, etc.). However, his most significant contribution was made to the study of Russian philosophy. The main work of Hegumen Andronik was analysis and preparation for publication of materials from Pavel Florensky’s archives. The article describes important points in the biography of Hegumen Andronik and the difficulties he overcame in his major activities. Hegumen Andronik did not only “re-discover” Florensky for Russian philosophy and theology but also proposed and substantiated the position according to which the works of the priest can be adequately understood. He substantiated that Florensky’s legacy is a part of the corpus of Christian philosophy, Christian science, and Christian art. In the opinion of Hegumen Andronik, this unique heritage can provide material for the development of theology, but in itself it is not theology. It becomes obvious that Florensky’s works are also of interest in other areas of human knowledge, since methodologically they go back to the ideas of “integral knowledge” and “theurgy,” according to which all areas of knowledge and human activity do not mix or lose their specificity but are synthesized in a common relationship with religion and worship.

A View from the East. The Council of Florence (1438—1439) in Russian Historiography and Theology of the 19th and20th Centuries

Sergius Bulgakov considered the Council of Florence as the theological and spiritual foundation for the real, though invisible, unity of the Churches of East and West. He was following in the footsteps of Vladimir Solovyev, who deemed the Council of Florence one of the historical preconditions for the reunion of the Churches. After a survey of Old Russian sources on the Council of Florence and a short discussion of codicological studies on them, the article offers a reconstruction of the events connected to Russian participation in the Council. In the second part, different historical-critical accounts and theological reinterpretations of the Council in Russian theology from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are analyzed.

ВЛИЯНИЕ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО НЕОПЛАТОНИЗМА И ПАЛАМИЗМА НА СТАНОВЛЕНИЕ РУССКОЙ РЕЛИГИОЗНО-ФИЛОСОФСКОЙ АНТРОПОЛОГИИ

The article looks at how translations from the Byzantine Neoplatonists influenced the early Russian theology. In particular, enormous impact of the Corpus Areopagiticum has been discovered. Scholars disagree as to how much Neoplatonism was instrumental in forming the early Russian theological thought. The article distinguishes two varieties of Neoplatonism in Russian Theology School philosophy. The works by F. Golybinsky, Archbishop Innokenty (Borisov), Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) and Father P. Florensky considered the formation of Orthodox theism as a transition from the ontology of Christian Platonism to Christian Neoplatonism. We can also assert that the orientation towards Plato was laid precisely through the Eastern Fathers, and not through the Latin influence.