This paper was prepared in 1967 as the Seventh Annual Bibliographical Lecture at the Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va. It was published in mimeographed form in 1969 and is reprinted here in a revised form by permission of the Union Theological Seminary.
No comprehensive study has as yet been devoted to the post-patristic period in the history of Eastern Orthodox theology. A general consensus seems to exist, however, about the meaning of its development, which was shaped and determined by two major factors: the extinction of the old centers and therefore of the old tradition of theological learning, and as a consequence the long "western captivity" of the Orthodox theological mind. The fall of Byzantium inaugurated a deep theological crisis which, in a way, has not been fully resolved and overcome even today, and which itself constitutes a permanent theme within Orthodox theology. Even if the cultural "darkness" of the Turkish period ought not to be exaggerated, it is impossible to deny that profound changes took place in theology and determined its destiny ever since. The absence of higher theological schools forced Orthodox students to seek their theological training in the West. Educated in Roman Catholic and Protestant universities, these theologians "consciously or unconsciously adopted theological categories, terminology and forms of argument foreign to the tradition of their own Church; Orthodox religious thinking underwent what a contemporary Russian theologian, Father George Florovsky, has appropriately termed a pseudomorphosis."1 And although these western-trained theologians remained, with a few exceptions, faithful to Orthodoxy, a radical change in the very ethos and style of theology took place; and a theological tradition and, later, theological schools appeared which were alienated from the traditional forms of Orthodox piety and spirituality. The entire history of modern Orthodox theology can be described, therefore, as a long attempt to overcome this "alienation," to recover its independence from western patterns and to return to its own initial sources.
It is against this general background that one has to understand the complexity and the peculiarities of the Russian theological development. Russia entered the Byzantine politico-religious "commonwealth" at the end of the tenth century, and the Russian church remained formally dependent on Constantinople till the midst of the fifteenth century. This formative period has been described as "Russian Byzantinism": Kievan Russia, for all its cultural and religious achievements, did not go beyond a mere assimilation of the Byzantine heritage in the Slavonic, Cyrillo-Methodian translation. If some historians detect already at this early stage certain specifically Russian emphases and spiritual orientations,2 the latter belong to the general area of piety rather than that of theological reflection. The normal development of this Russian Byzantinism was interrupted, however, by the Mongolian conquest of the thirteenth century; and there began then a progressive alienation -- political, ecclesiastical and spiritual -- of Russia from Byzantium. The transfer of both the political and the ecclesiastical centers from Kiev to Moscow, the growth of national unity around this new center, the fall of Constantinople, all contributed to isolate the Russian church from the Orthodox East and to develop a new sense of self-sufficiency which often took the form of a messianic claim that Moscow -- the Third Rome -- is the last "focus" and center of Orthodoxy. And yet, the absence of any stable tradition on theological learning (Muscovite Russia had no organized theological schools till the eighties of the seventeenth century), the heavy emphasis laid therefore on "externals," as a liturgical piety deprived of theological reflection, and a growing dependence of the church on the state made Russia open and vulnerable to new western influences. The Muscovite period (fifteenth-seventeenth centuries) is thus characterized, on the one hand, by a constant effort to achieve the final form of a specifically "Russian Orthodoxy" and, on the other hand, by an equally constant influx of western ideas and thought forms with which the Russian church could not cope on intellectual and theological grounds.
It is, therefore, an ironic fact that the establishment of theological education on solid and permanent foundations was the work of Tsar Peter the Great, whose administrative and ecclesiastical reforms marked at the beginning of the eighteenth century a radical "westernization" of the whole Russian life. By decreeing the opening of church schools in all dioceses and by formulating their first curriculum, Peter laid the principles of a system of theological education which, with some modifications and transformations, lasted till the Communist Revolution of 1917. The system included three levels: graduate (theological academy), undergraduate (seminary), and elementary (spiritual school). At the end of the nineteenth century there existed in Russia four theological academies, (Kiev, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Kazan), fifty-eight seminaries, and one hundred fifty-eight elementary ecclesiastical schools.
The new theological school was no exception within the deeply "westernized" culture of the new Russian society. In fact, it was created and staffed almost exclusively by the imported "alumni" of the Theological Academy of Kiev which, established at the beginning of the sixteenth century when Kiev and southwestern Russia were under Polish control, soon became the main center of a Latin and Scholastic "transposition" of Orthodox theology, the very expression of the latter's "western captivity." This Kievan influence determined the path of Russian "academic" theology. Not only did Latin remain for more than a century its language, it remained itself for a long time a "western" theology (G. Florovsky), reflecting nearly every stage of the western-Catholic and Protestant-theological development and existing as a theological "superstructure" deeply alienated from the living experience and continuity of the Church.
Paradoxical as it sounds however, it is this very "westernization" of the Russian theological mind that forced it into a new search for its Orthodox identity and brought about a genuine revival of Orthodox theology, the first since the breakdown of the Byzantine tradition. The intellectual discipline and method acquired in the school, a creative participation in the great spiritual adventure of western culture, a new sense of history -- all this, little by little, liberated the Orthodox theologians from a mere dependence on the West and helped them in their attempt to reconstruct a genuinely Orthodox theological perspective. A new interest in Church history and Church Fathers (a virtually complete translation of their writings was achieved in theological academies), in liturgy and in spirituality, led progressively to a dogmatic revival. By the end of the nineteenth century, Russian academic theology stood on its own feet, both in terms of quality (Harnack learned Russian in order to read a monograph on Theodoret of Cyr) and inner independence. At the same time, and under the impact of the same creative encounter with the West, a remarkable revival of religious interests was taking place outside the narrow framework of professional theology, challenging the latter with new insights and a fresh approach to its own problems. It is deeply significant, indeed, that man like A. S. Khomiakov -- the spiritual father and the chief inspirer of Russian "religious philosophy" -- "was . . . to exercise an enormous influence on the ways of Russian theology" (G. Florovsky). And, finally, the Imperial period in the history of the Russian church witnessed a remarkable revival of monasticism, which since the Kievan age always focused and inspired the most living and spiritual forces of Russia.
Thus, at the end of this long development, there took place in Russia in the final decades of this century a "religious renaissance" whose history and significance is only beginning to be studied.3 Russian theology was entering a promising period of creativity.
The Revolution of 1917 meant a tragic -- but, thank God, not a total -- interruption of that process. While in Russia itself a long and violent persecution began which made all theological work virtually impossible,4 a significant number of those who took a leading part in the pre-revolutionary "renaissance" went into exile and were thus given two or three decades of freedom for creative work. The center of theological work shifted then from Russia to the Russian diaspora. Some theologians of both traditions -- the "academic" and the "free" -- were invited to teach at the Orthodox theological faculties of Belgrade, Sofia, Bucharest, and Warsaw. In 1925 a center of higher theological learning was established in Paris, which became the "capital" of the Russian emigration. There, for more than forty years, a brilliant group of scholars, coming from very different backgrounds, succeeded in maintaining in spite of difficult material conditions a very high level of theological work and a remarkable productivity.5 After World War II, a group of St. Sergius professors joined the faculty of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York (founded in 1937); and St. Sergius eventually published twelve volumes of Pravoslavnaya Mysl (Orthodox Thought). Another important theological and philosophical periodical, Put (The Way), was edited in Paris by N. A. Berdyaev and B. P. Vysheslavtzeff (sixty-one issues, 1925-40). Since 1953, St. Vladimir's faculty has published its own St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly (in English). Not only was the theological work made impossible in Russia thus continued in exile, but a new generation of theologians was trained, capable of taking over the tradition of their teachers. Since 1944, as a result of a certain "thaw" in church-state relations, a number of theological schools have been reopened in the USSR and first attempts have been made to resume theological research and even publication of scholarly works.6 This revival, however, was seriously handicapped, if not entirely interrupted, by a new wave of persecutions which started in 1959; and conditions, once more, seem to be extremely precarious.7
For several reasons Biblical studies represent the weakest area in modern Russian theology. Before the Russian Revolution, free discussion of problems arising from a critical and historical approach to the Bible was heavily censored, if not completely forbidden, in official academic theology. Gifted biblical scholars were not lacking, to be sure; and, as A. V. Kartashov points out: "Qualitatively . . . the scholarly production of Russian theological schools in the biblical field was on the level of world scholarship. Our scholars, however, volensnolens kept a discreet silence about the critical revolution that was taking place in the West."8 After 1917 all research became impossible in the USSR, and unfortunately very few of the theologians who left their country were specialists in biblical disciplines. This, however, is not the only explanation of the deficiency in specifically scriptural areas. On a deeper level, one can say that Orthodox theology has never felt "at home" in modern biblical scholarship and has not accepted as its own the biblical problem as formulated within the western theological development. Unchallenged by the Reformation with its emphasis on Sola Scriptura, Orthodox theology implicitly rather than explicitly rejects the isolation of Scripture in a closed and self-sufficient field of study, yet firmly maintains the scriptural roots and "dimensions" of every theological discipline: dogma, ecciesiology, moral theology.9 This of course does not mean that a revival and a deepening of biblical scholarship is impossible or undesirable in the future; but one can predict that such a revival will consist, first of all, of a deep reassessment and reevaluation -- within Orthodox theological categories -- of the very presuppositions of western biblicism. An attempt in that direction was made by A. V. Kartashov, professor of Old Testament at St. Sergius (d. 1960) in his essay, The Old Testament Biblical Criticism (Paris: 1947, in Russian)10 in which he tried to found the critical approach to the biblical text on the doctrinal consequences of the Chalcedonian dogma of the two natures in Christ. One must add that the essay encountered profound opposition on the part of several Orthodox theologians yet provoked no significant debate. Besides this lonely attempt to revise Orthodox biblical theology, there appeared here and there some interesting, yet marginal, studies in special questions. N. N. Glubokovsky, a veteran of St. Petersburg Theological Academy, who in exile taught at the University of Sofia, Bulgaria (d. 1937), published a monograph on St. Luke and another on the relationship between the Gospel and the Apostolic Constitutions.11 C. Besobrasov, professor of New Testament at St. Sergius (d. 1965), a convinced adept of "form-criticism," applied its principles in his French monograph on "The Johannine Pentecost" and his other essays.12 A. Kniazev, who succeeded Professor Kartashov in the chair of Old Testament at St. Sergius, made some interesting inquiries into the biblical roots of Mariology.13 Russian theology, it is clear, still awaits a real "revamping" of its "Biblical Department."
More significant were the developments in the field of dogmatic theology, and it is here that one can clearly discern the two main trends or orientations whose correlation and mutual opposition constitute the main theme of modern Russian theology. It would be improper to term one trend "conservative" and the other "liberal," although both terms are sometimes used by both sides. Representatives of both trends are indeed united in their criticism of the "western captivity" of Russian theology, in their desire to root theology again in the traditional sources: the Fathers, the liturgy, the living spiritual experience of the Church. But within this unity, a sharp divergence is expressed in two basic attitudes. For one group, the critique of the theological past includes, although on a level different from that of western theology, the patristic period itself. Orthodox theology must keep its patristic foundation, but it must also go "beyond" the Fathers if it is to respond to a new situation created by centuries of philosophical development. And in this new synthesis or reconstruction, the western philosophical tradition (source and mother of the Russian "religious philosophy" of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) rather than the Hellenic, must supply theology with its conceptual framework. An attempt is thus made to "transpose" theology into a new "key," and this transposition is considered as the specific task and vocation of Russian theology. This attitude is opposed by another in which the main emphasis is laid on the "return to the Fathers." The tragedy of Orthodox theological development is viewed here precisely as a drifting away of the theological mind from the very spirit and method of the Fathers, and no reconstruction or new synthesis are thought possible outside a creative recovery of that spirit. "The style of the Patristic age cannot be abandoned. This is the only solution for contemporary theology. There is no one modern idiom which can unite the Church."14 Hence the emphasis on the permanent and eternal value of the Hellenic categories for Orthodox theological thought. "Russian theological thought," writes G. Florovsky, one of the major spokesmen of this attitude, "must go through a strict school of Christian Hellenism . . . Hellenism in the Church was made eternal, was integrated into its very texture as an eternal category of Christian existence."15 The divergence thus concerns the basic question of theological orientation itself, of the very spirit and task of modern Russian theology. One must add, however, that neither of these two trends was organized into a disciplined "school" and that a great variety of emphases existed within each one of them.
The most typical and "complete" representative of the first trend was Sergius Bulgakov, professor of Dogmatics at St. Sergius (d. 1944). Son of a priest, he shared in the "wanderings" of Russian intelligentsia and returned to the church via Marxism and idealism. He spent his whole life building a theological system centered on the concept of Divine Wisdom or Sophia, which was introduced into the Russian religious though by V. Soloviov16 and later developed by P. A. Florensky.17 His monumental work includes books on virtually every major area of systematic theology: Christology,18 pneumatology,19 ecciesiology and eschatology,20 Mariology,21 angels,22 icons,23 sacraments.24 It met, however, with a violent opposition and formal denunciations as heretical, and was condemned in certain parts of the Russian Church. The controversy is certainly not closed, and only future and more dispassionate studies can show how much of Fr. Bulgakov's system will remain an integral part of Orthodox theological development. With the exception of L. Zander, Bulgakov left behind him no organized disciples. Other representatives of the same basic trend (although not necessarily "sophiological") worked mainly in other theological fields. One must mention, however, the names of V. Zenkovsky,26 B. Vysheslavtzev,27 and N. Berdyaev,28 who shared in the same general theological orientation, even if they sharply disagreed on concrete issues.
The most representative theologian of the second trend is, without any question, George Florovsky, for many years professor of patrology at St. Sergius (1925-48), then dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary (1948-55), professor at Harvard Divinity School (1955-64), and now at Princeton University. He has had a decisive influence on the younger generation of Orthodox theologians, both Russian and non-Russian, and has also played a leading role in shaping the Orthodox position in the Ecumenical Movement.29 Although his main achievements belong to the fields of patristics, history, and ecumenical thought (see Ecumenical Theology, infra), he has written a few important dogmatical essays on creation,30 redemption,31 the Holy Spirit,32 and theological anthropology.33 Of the same patristic inspiration are the works of Vladimir Lossky, who taught at St. Denis Institute in Paris and at the Sorbonne; his book on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church has become a classic in the West.34 Other essays are being published after his premature death in 1958.35 Serge Verhovskoy, professor of dogmatics, first at St. Sergius (1944-45) and now at St. Vladimir's, shares in the same general orientation, although with a less "historical" and more "systematic" and philosophical inspiration. His published work includes one book and several important theological essays.36
Many factors contributed to make ecclesiology one of the central preoccupations in modern Russian theology: the "rediscovery" of the church in its mystico-sacramental essence by the Russian religious thought of the nineteenth century, and more especially, by A. S. Khomiakov;37 the disappearance of the Orthodox empire whose self-identification with the Church prevented the theologians from having a deeper understanding of the Church's nature; the new and unprecendented phenomenon of an Orthodox diaspora giving an "existential" dimension to such problems as unity, jurisdiction, nationalism; and, finally, the ecumenical encounter with the non-Orthodox West with its new emphasis on the ecclesiological theme. The common tendency of this renewed ecclesiological work was an attempt to go beyond the formal and often too juridical or "institutional" definitions of the Church and to recover the deep sacramental sources of her life and structures. The most radical, consistent, and therefore controversial exponent of such an ecclesiology (which he terms "eucharistic") was Nicholas Afanassiev (d. 1966), professor of canon law and Church history at St. Sergius. In a series of essays and articles he developed the idea of the Church whose "form" is to be found in its eschatological self-fulfillment at the Eucharistic gathering.38 Other significant contributions were made by George Florovsky, especially on the questions of apostolic succession and continuity;39 the authors of a symposium on the problems of primacy;40 and, on a more formal and canonical law, by Alexander Bogolepov.41
In Orthodox theology, the teachings of the Fathers have always been accepted as the main embodiment of tradition, and therefore as a living criterion for theological work. In reality however, the patristic legacy was for a long time, if not completely ignored, at least reduced to a minimum, and what is more important, used within the framework of theological categories and definitions hardly adequate to the spirit of the Fathers themselves. It is then a real "revolution" and not a mere revival that began in Russian around 1840, and its meaning was well formulated in a theological report to the Holy Synod. "Russian theologians," wrote its author, N. Kazantzev, "will win their independence from Latin, German, French and English theologians on the day on which they will be able to read the Fathers in Russian."42 The first chairs of patrology were created in 1841, and since then a steady flow of translations of patristic texts43 and monographs on patristic theology have made Russia one of the leaders in patristic studies. This tradition was kept alive after 1920. The two volumes by George Florovsky on the Eastern Fathers44 and the Byzantine Fathers45 were acclaimed as masterpieces of historical and theological analysis of the "patristic mind." New and important ground was broken by a real rediscovery of Palamite theology -- a Byzantine movement of the fourteenth century whose main theological apologist was St. Gregory Palamas (d. 1359). Although the teaching of Palamas was "canonized" by the Church almost immediately after his death, the "westernized" Orthodox theology of the Turkish period hardly mentioned his name. It is to the merit of Basil Krivoshein,46 and C. Kern,47 that they not only have given first-rate expositions of Palamism, but have also reintegrated it into creative Orthodox thought.48 A significant number of more technical or particular studies were published both abroad and in the USSR.49 Basil Krivocheine's research on Symeon the New Theologian constitutes a significant breakthrough in our knowledge of the great Byzantine mystic.50
The Imperial or Synodal period in the history of the Russian Church (eighteenth-nineteenth centuries) was marked by a deep revival of monasticism. It had an impact far beyond the monasteries and was the source of a renewed interest in the Orthodox spiritual tradition among Russian intelligentsia. A scholarly and detailed history of Russian monasticism and of its renewal in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries is given in the works of Igor Smolitsch51 and Sergius Chetverikov.52 Nicholas Arseniev,53 Nadejda Gorodetzkaya,54 and several others55 have written a number of excellent studies on its impact on Rusian society and culture. As to the spiritual literature itself, its most important representatives are John Shahovskoy (since 1951 Archbishop of San Francisco),56 Alexander Eltchaninoff,57 Peter Ivanov,58 Sophronius Sakharoff and Antony Bloom.59
The study of worship from a theological, as well as a historical and "rubristic" viewpoint, is the result of the Liturgical Movement which so deeply permeated the life of all Christian Churches during the last half-century. And this is also true of the Orthodox Church, in spite of the obvious centrality in it of the liturgical life and the liturgical piety. Before 1917, the Russian theological schools produced several first-rate historical studies of the Byzantine liturgy; but it was only after the Revolution that this historical and archaeological interest led to a deeper theological concern for the meaning of worship and its relation to other theological disciplines. Studies were made of the Eucharist, with one comprehensive work by Cyprian Kern, professor of liturgies at St. Sergius (d. 1960)60 and several interesting essays,61 the daily and the weekly cycles of worship,62 heortology (the study of the feasts)63 and, finally, the general questions pertaining to the very task and method of liturgical theology.64 The work performed in these forty years will no doubt constitute the foundation of all further liturgical study.
The forty-five years under consideration here have witnessed a profound transformation and renovation of hagiology -- the study of the saints and of the traditional types of holiness. For centuries the lives of the saints, popular as they were in church piety (half of Orthodox Liturgical hymnography belongs to the Sanctoral), were virtually excluded from any serious historical and theological investigation. A great change took place mainly under the influence of George Fedotov, a real pioneer of new Russian hagiology. He applied -- in a very original and creative way -- the acquisitions of western hagiology to the study of Russian saints and produced a style which was followed by several other workers in that field. His own published work includes essays and monographs on individual saints, both Russian and western; articles dealing with problems of methodology;66 and two volumes on the history of Russian piety, Kievan and Muscovite,67 which are outstanding contributions to our knowledge of the spiritual dimensions of ancient Russia. Although no formal "school" was created by Fedotov, virtually all valuable work in this field bears the mark of his influence.68 Some interesting articles about Russian saints were published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate.69
Russian theology has always been history-minded; and it is not surprising therefore that even when deprived of the normal conditions of historical research, the Russian theologians and scholars kept asking and answering historical questions. One can say that this historical sense was made even more acute by the great national and spiritual catastrophe of the Revolution. In the field of more conventional ecclesiastical history, the monumental synthetic works of A. Kartashov70 and I. Smolitsch71 will long remain unsurpassed in the depth of their vision and the breadth of their erudition. But the real highlights of the last forty years are the two general surveys of Russian religious and intellectual development by George Florovsky and Vasily Zenkovsky. In his instructive Ways of Russian Theology,72 Florovsky expressed the thesis mentioned above that the major tragedy of the Russian theological development was its deviation from the Byzantine Christian legacy and its western "wanderings." In his History of Russian Philosophy,73 Zenkovsky in a way defended the opposite point of view. Although not limited to religious themes, his thesis presents Russian philosophy as an original chapter in the history of Christian thought. Both books are absolutely indispensable to every student of Russian Orthodoxy. Valuable work was done too by Nicholas Zernov74 who made the first general survey of the "religious renaissance" of the first decades of the twentieth century. Other more special and particular aspects of both the ecclesiastical and intellectual history of Orthodoxy were treated in several books and essays.75
If the official or academic theology of the nineteenth century was of necessity limited in its possibilities to apply theory to the existing social and political situation, such a research for a living and "applied" Orthodoxy was, from the beginning, one of the main spring of the more free "religious philosophy." The Slavophiles led by Khomiakov, Vladimir Soloviev, and the little known yet very original thinker Nicholas Fedoroff (to list but a few) were all deeply concerned not only for istina (intelligible and theoretical truth), but also for pravda (the other Russian word for truth with connotations of justice and, more generally, living and applied truth).76 Before the Revolution, many Orthodox thinkers who returned to the Church from Marxism and the traditions of the revolutionary intelligentsia kept the radical zeal of their former world view.77 This tradition and concern, deepened and made even more acute by the experience of revolution, was preserved in the Russian theological thought of 1920-65. It expressed itself, in the first place, in a new interest in problems of ethics and moral theology. The most significant contributions here were made by N. A. Berdyaev78 and B. P. Vysheslavtzeff.79 For the first time in the history of Russian theology, woman, marriage, and family became objects of systematic study.80 But undoubtedly the main emphasis was laid on the general area of social ethics. Nearly every theologian made his contribution here, and although the range of approaches and opinions was very wide, this deep concern for the "churching of life" (votzerkovlenie zhizni -- one of the most popular expressions of later Russian religious thought) will probably remain as an important pioneering chapter in a field in which the Orthodox East had earlier failed to express its mind.81 Finally, the problems of culture, especially art in its relation to the Church, were also given a new and sometimes extremely original treatment.82
It is not surprising, of course, that the ecumenical issue occupies an important place in Russian theology of the last half-century. These were the years of the great, and, in many ways unexpected, encounter of the Orthodox Church with the Christian West within the framework of the Ecumenical Movement. The history of that encounter, first of its "pre-ecumenical" stage, and then of its development in the Faith and Order, Life and Work, and World Council of Churches aspects has been written by G. Florovsky83 and N. Zernov.84 Even the most general analysis of all books, pamphlets, and articles published by Russian Orthodox theologians since 1920 would require a separate essay. What must be emphasized here however, is that parallel to the theological polarization mentioned above modern Russian theology adopted two different approaches to the very phenomenon of the Ecumenical Movement and to the nature of the Orthodox participation in it. On the one hand, we find theologians who acknowledge the Ecumenical Movement as, in a way, an ontologically new phenomenon in Christian history requiring a deep rethinking and re-evaluation of Orthodox ecclesiology as shaped during the "non-ecumenical" era. Representative names here are those of Sergius Bulgakov,85 Leo Zander,86 Nicholas Zernov,87 and Paul Evdokimov.88 This tendency is opposed by those who, without denying the need for ecumenical dialogue and defending the necessity of Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement, reject the very possibility of any ecciesiological revision or adjustment and who view the Ecumenical Movement mainly as a possibility of an Orthodox witness to the West. This tendency finds its most articulate expression in the writings of Florovsky.89 For a long time ecumenical work was limited almost exclusively to the Russian theologians of the diaspora. The attitude of the church in the USSR was openly negative;90 but, ever since the massive entrance of the Churches from behind the Iron Curtain into the World Council of Churches in New Delhi in 1961 and new contacts with the Vatican, this attitude has undergone a radical change -- and the ecumenical developments are followed and analyzed rather sympathetically.91 The situation nevertheless remains in many ways confused; and the official membership of Orthodox churches in ecumenical councils and agencies is far from reflecting an Orthodox consensus on the ecumenical issue.92 The Second Vatican Council has so far provoked only fragmentary and cautious comments and a few suggestions, whose impact on theological thinking it is too early to attempt to evaluate.93
At the end of this brief and, in many ways incomplete, survey, the following remarks must be made:
1. I had to omit the whole philosophical development of the last years. But Russian philosophy, especially in its "religious-philosophical" trend is deeply connected with theological issues, and a sharp western distinction between philosophy and theology in somewhat inadequate when applied to the Russian intellectual tradition. On the other hand, to list here only the most important philosophical writings of such leading Christian philosophers as S. L. Frank,94 N. O. Lossky,95 N. A. Berdyaev,96 and V. V. Zenkovsky97 would have "dissolved" the more specifically theological emphasis in this article.
2. The present article, by revealing the scarcity of theological publications in the USSR, may give the impression that theological and spiritual interests are lacking among Russians living under Communism. Exactly the opposite, however, seems to be true.98 Recent evidence seems to indicate a real "thirst and hunger" for living theology. Books of Orthodox (and non-Orthodox) theologians living in the West are secretly circulating, sometimes in mimeographed form. There exist private circles of study and discussion outside the theological schools, sometimes accused of compromising with Soviet "officialdom." The level and quality of that theological revival is best evidenced, however, in the Open Letter sent a few years ago by two young Russian priests to the Patriarch in which they challenged the hierarchy to a greater independence from the state.99 While the pressure from the atheist government increases and the situation of the Church is truly tragic,100 a generation of younger Orthodox becomes more and more restive -- and vocal -- and represents a tremendous hope for the future of Orthodox theology.
3. During the years after World War II, a new phenomenon seems to have taken place: the "coming of age" of the Orthodox diaspora in the West, and more particularly in America. Although still divided along national "jurisdictional" lines (maintained mainly by the "mother-Churches" whose lack of understanding of the American situation and consequently of the true needs of Orthodoxy here is simply astonishing),101 the American-born children of Orthodox immigrants tend to overcome the narrow nationalistic boundaries, especially in the field of Orthodox religious education102 and theology.103 If, in the earlier part of this century, Orthodox books in English, French, and German were aimed primarily at a non-Orthodox "ecumenical" audience, today a certain amount of Orthodox theological literature is written for the Orthodox themselves. Some very significant theological contributions were made by authors who came to the Orthodox faith from other confessional backgrounds and whose thought transcends such categories as "Russian," and "Greek."104 Orthodox theologians of various national traditions who used to meet each other almost exclusively at ecumenical conferences seek to find new ways of cooperation.105 Several theological schools of the diaspora are "pan-Orthodox" in their very structure. All this may imply a promise of a new and fruitful chapter in the history of Orthodox theology, which in the past suffered first of all from a lack of internal communication and cooperation.
But, whatever the future needs and possibilities, there can be no doubt that in the last forty years Russian theology has shown, in spite of all tragedies and difficulties, a great vitality and creativity. Its importance for the ecumenical encounter with the Christian West can hardly be exaggerated. And if it is too early to asses its promise for the future developments of the Orthodox Church, a significant chapter has been added to the history of Orthodox thought in general and of Russian culture in particular.
St. Vladimir?s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1972, pp. 172-194
1Timothy Ware, Eustratios Argenti, A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 7f.
2Cf G. P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, Vol. I. Kievan Christianity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946).
3Cf. N. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century (New York: 1963).
4On the situation of the Russian church after 1917, see N. Struve, Christians in contemporary Russia (London: Harvill Press, 1967), and William C. Fletcher, A Study in Survival (N. Y.: 1965). Also Religion in USSR, publ. by the Institute for the Study of the USSR (Munich: 1960).
5On St. Sergius Institute, its history and significance, see D. A. Lowrie, St. Sergius in Paris (N. Y.: 1952), and for a complete bibliography of its publications, List of the Writings of Professors of the Russian Theological Institute in Paris, Vol. I (1925-1932), Vol. II (1932-1936), Vol. III (1936-1947), Vol. IV (after 1947), edited by L. A. Zander.
6A. Schmemann, "The Revival of Theological Studies in the USSR" in Religion in the USSR (Munich: 1960), pp. 29-43. For the decade 1960-70 good surveys and bibliographies are to be found in Ir?nikon, the Benedictine review published in Chevetogne, Belgium, in ISTINA, published by the Dominican "Centre d'Etudes Istina" in Paris, France, the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.
7See N. Struve, "Five Years of Religious Persecution in Russia," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, VIII, 4 (1964), p. 221.
8A. V. Kartashov, Vethozavetnaya Bibleiskaya Kritika (Old Testament Biblical Criticism), (Paris: YMCA Press, 1947), p. 10.
9See related chapters by G. Florovsky, "The Lost Scriptural Mind" and "Revelation and Interpretation" in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. I (Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1972).
10A. V. Kartashov. op. cit.
11N. N. Glubokovsky, Sv. Apostol Luka (St. Luke the Apostle), (Sofia: 1932), and Evangelja i Apostol'skiya Postanovlenya (The Gospel and the Apostolic Constitutions) (Sofia: 1935).
12Besobrasov, La Pentec?te Johannique (Jo. XX, 19-23), (Valence-sur-Rh?ne: 1939); "Prinzipi Pravoslavnago izuchenia sv. Pisaniya" (Principles for Orthodox Study of the Holy Scripture), Put, 13, 1928, pp. 3-18; "Evangelisti kak istoriki" (Evangelists as Historians), Pravoslavnaya Mysl (Orthodox Thought), 1, 1928; "Tserkovnoye Predanie: Novozavetnaya nauka" (Church Tradition and New Testament Scholarship), Jivoye Predanie (Living Tradition), (Paris: 1936), pp. 153-170. For complete Bibliography, see List of Writings, Vol. I-IV.
13A. Kniazev, "O bogodokhnovennosti sv. Pisania" (On the Inspiration of Holy Scripture), Pravoslavnaya Mysl, 8, 1951, pp. 113-128; see bibliography in List of Writings, IV, pp. 97sq.
14G. Florovsky, quoted in discussion following "The lesson of history on the controversy concerning the nature of Christ," by Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, X, 2 (1964-65), p. 132.
15G. Florovsky, Puti Russkogo Bogosloviya (Ways of Russian Theology),
(Paris: 1937), p. 509.
16On the unique place of V. Soloviov in Russian philosophy, see V.
Zenkovsky, History of Russian Philosophy, Vol. II (New York: 1953).
17On P. Florensky, see Zenkovsky, op. cit., Vol. II.
18Agnetz Bozhii (The Lamb of God), (Paris: 1933).
19Uteshitel (The Comforter), (Paris: 1936).
20Nevesta Agntza (The Lamb's Bride), (Paris: 1945).
21Kupina Neopalimaya (The Burning Bush), (Paris: 1927).
22Lestviza Iakovlia (Jacob's Ladder), (Paris: 1929), and Drug Zhenikha (The Friend of the Bridegroom) on St. John the Baptist (Paris: 1929).
23Ikona i ikonopochitanie (The Icon and Its Veneration), (Paris: 1931).
24"Evkharisticheskij Dogmat" (The Eucharistic Dogma), Put, 20-21, 1930.
For a complete bibliography of Bulgakov's writings see L. A. Zander, Bog i Mir (God and the Word. Philosophy and Theology of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov), 2 Vol. (Paris: 1948). For an introduction to Sophiology in English, see S. Bulgakov, The Wisdom of God -- A Brief Summary of Sophiology (New York: 1937).
25On Zander, see information under Ecumenical Theology, infra.
26V. V. Zenkovsky, professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at St. Sergius (d. 1963) wrote mainly in the field of Philosophy. See, however, his more theological essays: "Ob obraze Bozhiem v cheloveke" (On the image of God in Man), Prav. MysI, 2, 1930; "Problema Kosmosa v Christianstve" (The Problem of Cosmos in Christianity), Zhivoye Predanie (The Living Tradition), (Paris: 1936); Das Bild von Menschen in der Ostkirche (Stuttgart: 1951).
27B. P. Vysheslavtzeff, professor of Moral Theology at St. Sergius (d. 1954), former professor of Moscow University. From the theological point of view the following are important: Etika Preobrazhennogo Erosa (Ethics of the Sublimated Eros), (Paris: 1931); "Das Ebenbild Gottes im Wesen des Menschen" in Kirche, Staat und Mensch (Geneva: 1937); "Mif Pervorodnogo Greha" (The Myth of Original Sin), Put, 34, 1932. See information under Christian Social Ethics, infra.
28Berdyaev, the best known Russian thinker in the West always protested against his identification with official Orthodox theology. His philosophy, however, is closely related to the main themes of Russian theological thought. See B. Zenkovsky, History of Russian Philosophy, Vol. II.
29On the place of Fr. Florovsky in modern Russian theology, see G. H. Williams: "G. V. Florovsky: His American Career," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, XI, 1 (1965), pp. 7-107; also Y. N. Lelouvier, Perspectives Russes Sur L'Eglise. Un Th?ologien Contemporain: Georges Florovsky (Paris: Editions Du Centurion, 1968).
30"Tvar i Tvarnost" (Creature and Creatureliness), Prav. Mysl, 1, 1928.
31"O smerti krestnoi" (On the Death on the Cross), Prav. Mysl, 2, 1930; "The Lamb of God," Scottish Journal of Theology, IV, 1951, pp. 13-28.
32"The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation," The Christian East, XIII, 2 (1932). See also "Bogoslovskye Otryvki" (Theological Fragments), Put, 31, 1931.
33"The Resurrection of Life," Bulletin of the Harvard University Divinity School, XLIX, 8 (1952), pp. 5-26.
34The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London: 1957).
35The Vision of God (London: 1963). See also his monumental doctoral thesis: Th?ologie n?gative et Connaissance de Dieu ches Ma?tre Eckhart (Paris, 1960). On Lossky, see "Memorial Vladimir Lossky," Le Messager du Patriarche Russe en Europe Occidentale, 30-31 (1959).
36Bog i Chelovek (God and Man), (N. Y.: 1953); see also "Procession of the Holy Spirit According to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Holy Trinity," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Fall, 1953, pp. 12-26; "Some Theological Reflections on Chalcedon," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Winter, 1958, pp. 2-12.
37See P. Stanislas Jaki, Les tendances nouvelles de I'ecclesiologie (Rome: 1957); R. Slenczka, Ostkirche und Okumene (Die Einheit der Kirche als dogmatische Problem en der neuern ostkirchlichen Theologie), (Gottingen: 1962). Also, A. Gratieux, A. S. Khomiakov et le mouvement slavophile, 2 Vols., (Paris: 1939).
38The most important works of Afanassiev are: "Kanony i Kanonicheskoye soznanie" (Canons and the Canonical Mind), Put, 1933; "Dve idei vselenskoi tzerkvi" (Two Ideas of the Church Universal), Put, 45, 1934; "Neizmennoe i vremennoye v tzerkovnykh kanonakh" (The Unchanging and the Temporal in Ecclesiastical Canons), Zhivoye Predanie, (The Living Tradition), (Paris: 1936); Trapeza Gospodnya (The Lord's Table), (Paris: 1952); Sluzhenie Mirian v Tzerkvi (The Ministry of the Laity in the Church), (Paris: 1955), Tserkov Sv. Duha (The Church of the Holy Spirit), (Paris: 1972).
39See especially, "The Catholicity of the Church," The Church of God, An Anglo-Russian Symposium (London: 1934); "The Limits of the Church," Church Quarterly Review, 97, 1933; "The Sacrament of Pentecost" (A Russian View on Apostolic Succession), The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1934; "The Ethos of the Orthodox Church," Orthodoxy, A Faith and Order Dialogue, Faith and Order Papers, No. 30 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1960); "The Church: Her Nature and Task," The Universal Church in God's Design, Vol. I (London: 1948), pp. 42-58; "Le Corps du Christ Vivant: une interpr?tation orthodoxe de I'Eglise," La Sainte Eglise Universelle (Neuch?tel-Paris: 1948), pp. 9-57; "Scripture and Tradition," Dialog, II, 1963, pp. 288-293; "The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, IX (1963), pp. 181-200. See also Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Collected Works of George Florovsky, Vol. I (Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1972).
40The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church with essays by John Meyendorff ("St. Peter in Byzantine Theology"), Alexander Schmemann ("The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology"), N. Afanassiev ("The Church Which Presides in Love"), and N. Koulomzine ("Peter's Place in the Early Church"), (London: 1963).
41Toward An American Orthodox Church: The Establishment of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church, (New York: 1963). Ecclesiological articles provoked by jurisdictional and canonical controversies within the Russian diaspora are very numerous and are scattered in various diocesan publications. They would require a special study. General questions are also treated in "Perspectives Ecclesiologiques" by V. Lossky and O. Clement, Contacts, Revue Fran?aise de l'Orthodoxie, 42, 1963; A. Schmemann: "Theology and Eucharist," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, V, 4 (1961); "Towards a Theology of Councils," ibid. VI, 4. (1962); and in the important collection of essays by J. Meyendorff, Orthodoxy and Catholicity (New York: 1966).
42Quoted in Cyprian Kern, Les Traductions Russes des Textes Patristiques (Chevetogne: Guide Bibliographique. Editions de Chevetogne, 1957), p. 11.
43C. Kern, op. cit., gives a complete history and a full list of patristic translations in Russia.
44Vostochnye Otzy IV-go Veka (The Eastern Fathers of the IVth Century), (Paris: 1931).
45Vizantiiskye Otzy V-VIII Veka. (The Byzantine Fathers of the V-VIII Centuries), (Paris: 1933). See also "Patristics and Theology," in Proc?s-verbaux du Premier Congr?s de Th?ologie Orthodoxe ? Ath?nes (Athens: 1939), pp. 238-242; "Origen, Eusebius and the Iconoclastic Controversy," Church History, XIX, 2 (1950), pp. 77-96; "Patristic Theology of the Church," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, II, 1 (1956), pp. 121-123.
46"The Ascetic and Theological Teaching of Gregory Palamas," The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 4, 1938.
47Antropologia Sv. Grigoria Palamy (Paris: 1950).
48For the more recent developments in the study of Palamas, see Gr?goire Palamas, D?fense des Saints H?sychastes, Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par J. Meyendorff, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 30-31 (1959); J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas (London: 1964), and St. Gr?goire Palamas et la Mystique Orthodoxe (Paris: 1959).
49The most important are: L. P. Karsavin, Sv. Otzy i Uchiteli Tzerkvi (The Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church), (Paris: 1925); Myrra Lot-Borodine, Un Ma?tre de la Spiritualit? Byzantine au XIV-e si?cle: Nicolas Cabasilas (Paris: 1958); "La Mystagogie de St. Maxime Ia Confesseur," Irenikon (1936), pp. 466sq; V. Lossky: "Darkness and Light in the Knowledge of God," Eastern Churches Quarterly, VIII (1950), pp. 460-471, "Le probleme de la vision 'face ? face' et la tradition patristique de Byzance," Studia Patristica, II (Berlin: 1957), "La notion des Analogies chez Denys," Archives Doctrinales du Moyen Age (1930); V. D. Sarychev, "Sviatootecheskoye uchenie o Bogopoznanii" (The Patristic Teaching about the Knowledge of God), Bogoslovskie Trudy (Theological Works), ed. Moscow Patriarchate, 3 (Moscow: 1964).
50See particularly Sources chr?tiennes, 96 (1963), where further bibliography is found. Archbishop Basil Krivocheine frequently writes on various topics of theology in the Messager of the Russian Patriarchal Exarchate in France.
51Igor Smolitsch: Leben und Lehre der Starzen (Vienna: 1936); Das alt Russische M?nchtum (Wurzburg: 1940); Russisches M?nchtum (Wurzburg: 1953).
52Sergius Chetverikov: Optina Pustyn (The Monastery of Optino), (Paris: 1926); Paissy Velichkovsky (Petseri, Estonia: 1938).
53Nicholas Arseniev: Zhazhda Podlinnago Bytiia (Thirst for the True Reality), (Berlin: 1922); Mysticism and Eastern Church (London: 1927); Iz zhizni dukha (Glimpses of Spiritual Life), (Warsaw: 1935); Preobrazhenie Mira i Zhizni (Transfiguration of the World and Life), (New York: 1959); Revelation of Life Eternal, (New York: 1963); Russian Piety (London: 1965). A complete bibliography of Prof. Arseniev's writings was published by St. Vladimir's Seminary in 1965.
54Nadejda Gorodetzkaya: The Humiliated Christ in Russian Literature (London: 1938); St. Tikhon Zadonsky, Inspirer of Dostoyevsky (London: 1951).
55See for example, the studies of M. Kurdyumov: V. Rosanov (Paris: 1929), (in Russian), and Serdtze Smiatennoye (The Troubled Heart) on Chekhov, (Paris: 1934); L. Zander, Dostoyevsky (London: 1948); P. Evdokimov, Gogol et Dostoyevsky (Paris: 1961).
56His numerous writings are now being collected. Two volumes have appeared: I. Listya Dreva (The Leaves of the Tree), (San Francisco: 1964); II. Kniga Svidetelstv (The Book of Testimonies), (San Francisco: 1965).
57The Diary and notes of Fr. Alexander Eltchaninov (died in Paris in 1934): Zapisi (Notes), (Paris: 1935), English tr., The Diary of a Russian Priest (London: 1967).
58P. Ivanov, Smirenie vo Christe (Humility in Christ), (Paris: 1925).
59Archimandrite Sofrony, The Undistorted Image, Staretz Silouan (London: 1958). See also Alexander Semenoff Tian Shansky, Otetz loann Kronstadskij (Fr. John of Cronstadt), (N. Y.: 1955). Archbishop Antony Bloom: Living Prayer (Springfield, Ill.: Templegate, 1966); Meditations (Denville, N. J.: Dimension Books, 1971); God and Man (London: Danton, Longman and Todd, 1971).
60Cyprian Kern, Evkharistija (Eucharist), (Paris: 1947).
61B. Sove, "Evkharistija v drevnei Tserkvi i sovremennaya praktika" (The Eucharist in the Early Church and Modern Practice), Living Tradition, (Paris: 1936), pp. 171-195; N. Arseniev, Tainstvo Evkharistii, (The Sacrament of Eucharist), (Paris: n.d.).
62Cyprian Kern, Kriny Molitvennye (The Lilies of Prayer -- Essays on the Daily Cycle), (Belgrade: 1928); V. N. Ilyine, Vsenoschnoye Bdenye (The All-Night Vigil Service).
63V. N. Ilyine, Zapechatannyi Grob (The Sealed Tomb -- Explanation of Holy Week and Easter); A. Schmemann, Sacraments and Orthodoxy (New York: 1965). See a series of interesting liturgical articles in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (in Russian): Bishop Isidore, "The Nativity of the Virgin," 5, 1947; D. Bogolubov, "Epiphany," 1, 1952; "Purification," 2, 1953; V. Nikonov, "Lent," 2, 1953; A. Yastrebov, "Transfiguration," 8, 1953; S. Savinsky, "Easter," 4, 1953; N. Popov, "The Presentation of the Virgin to the Temple," 11, 1953. On a more popular level are the essays by Valentina Zander: La F?te de I'Epiphanie (Troyes: 1947); La Pentec?te (Troyes: 1948); La F?te de No?l (Troyes: 1949).
64V. N. Ilyine, "Osnovnye Problemy Simvolizma Kresta Gospodnya," Prav. Mysl, 1, 1928; Th. Spassky, "Sv. Predanie v bogosluzhevnykh Knigax" (The Holy Tradition), Bogoslovskaya Mysl (Theological Thought), (Paris: 1942); Russkoye Liturgicheskoye Tvorchestvo (Russian Liturgical Writing), (Paris: 1951); A. Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, (London: 1966); A. Kniazev: "La Lecture de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament dans le Rite Byzantin," La Pri?re des Heures, Lex Orandi 35 (Paris: 1963), "La Place de Marie dans la pi?t? orthodoxe," Mariologie et Ecumenisme, Bulletin de la Soci?t? Fran?aise d'Etudes Mariales (Paris: 1962), "La Theotokos dans les offices byzantins du temps pascal," Ir?nikon, 1, 1961; Mariologie Biblique et liturgie byzantine (Chevetogne: 1955); P. L'Huillier, "Th?ologie de l'Epicl?se," Verbum Caro, 56, 1960.
65Sviatoi Philip Metropolit Moskovskii (St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow), (Paris: 1928); "Sv. Genovefa i Simeon Stolpnik" (St. Genevieva and Symeon the Stylite), Put, 8, 1927; "Sv. Martin Turskij -- podvizhnik askezy" (St. Martin of Tours -- hero of asceticism), Prav. Mysl, 1, 1928; "Zhitie i terpenie sv. Avraamiya Smolenskogo" (Life and Patience of St. Abraham of Smolensk), Prav. MysI, 2, 1930; Sviatye Drevnei Rusi (The Saints of Ancient Russia), (Paris: 1921).
66"Tragedia drevne-russkoy sviatosti" (The Tragedy of Ancient Russian Holiness), Put, 27, 1931; Stikhi Dukhovnye (Spiritual Verses), (Paris: 1935); "Mat Zemlya" (Mother Earth: on the Religious Cosmology of the Russian People), Put, 46, 1935, (in German, Orient und Occident, 3, 1936).
67The Russian Religious Mind, Vol. I, Kievan Christianity (Cambridge, Mass.: 1946); Vol. II, The Middle Ages (Cambridge: 1966). See also A Treasury of Russian Spirituality (New York: 1950).
68The most important works are: V. N. Ilyine, Sv. Serafim Sarovskij (St. Seraphim of Sarov), (Paris: 1925); N. A. Klepinin, Sv. Kniaz Aleksandr Nevskij (St. Prince Alexander Nevsky), (Paris: 1927); N. M. Zernov, St. Sergius, Builder of Russia (London: 1939).
69See for example G. Zvenigorodsky, "Russian Saints," 11, 1953; V. Ganetzky, "St. Demetrius of Rostov," 6, 1953; N. Volniansky, "St. Seraphim," 8, 1953.
70A. Kartashov, Otcherki po istorii Russkoi Tserkvi (Lectures in the History of the Russian Church), 2 Vol. (Paris: 1959), and Vselenskie Sobory (The Ecumenical Councils), (Paris: 1963).
71lgor Smolitsch, Geschichte der Russischen Kirche 1700-1917, Vol. I (Leiden: 1964).
72G. V. Florovsky, Puti Russkogo Bogoslovija (Ways of Russian Theology), (Paris: 1938).
73V. V. Zenkovsky, History of Russian Philosophy, English trans. by Kline, 2 Vol. (N. Y.: 1953).
74N. M. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century, (N. Y.: 1963); see also: Moscow the Third Rome (London: 1937); The Russians and Their Church (London: 1945).
75On Russian missions, see G. Florovsky, "Russian Missions: A Historical Sketch," The Church Overseas, 6, 1933; S. N. Bolshakov, The Foreign Missions of the Russian Orthodox Church (London: 1943). General historical introductions to Orthodoxy: A. Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy (New York: 1963); J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, Its Past and Its Role in the World Today (New York: 1962). On the Church in Soviet Russia: N. S. Timashev, Religion in Soviet Russia, 1917-1942 (New York: 1942); A. A. Bogolepov, Tserkov pod vlast'iu kommunizma (The Church under Communism), (Munich: Institute for the Study of the USSR, 1958); I. M. Andreev, Kratkii obzor istorii russkoi tserkvi ot revolutsii do nashikh dnei (Short Survey of the History of the Russian Church from the Revolution until the Present Time), (Jordanville, N. Y.: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1952); N. A. Struve, Les Chr?tiens en USSR (Paris: 1963).
76On Khomiakov, in this respect, see P. K. Christoff, An Introduction to Nineteenth Century Russian Slavophilism, Vol. I, A. S. Xomjakov (S. Gravenhage: 1961). On Soloviev, see K. V. Mochulsky, Vladimir Soloviev (Paris: 1936). On Fedoroff, see A. Schmemann, Ultimate Questions, An Anthology of Russian Religious Thought (New York: 1964), pp. 173sq.
77See N. Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance, pp. 111 sq.
78His most important books in this field are The Destiny of Man (London: 1937) and Freedom and the Spirit (London: 1935). See O. F. Clarke, Introduction to Berdyaev (London: 1950), and Zenkovsky, History, Vol. II.
79B. P. Vysheslavtzeff, Etika preobrazhennogo Erosa (Ethics of the Sublimated Eros), (Paris: 1931).
80See S. V. Troitsky, Filosofia christianskogo braka, (The Philosophy of Christian Marriage), (Paris: 1933); P. Evdokimov: Le Mariage, Sacrement de I'Amour (Lyon: 1944); La Femme et le Salut du Monde (Tournai-Paris: 1958); Sacrement de l'Amour (Paris: 1962).
81Only a few works -- the most important ones -- can be mentioned here: N. A. Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism (London: 1937); N. V. Spektorskii, Khristianstvo i Kultura (Christianity and Culture), (Prague: 1925); S. L. Frank, Dukhovnye Osnovy Obschtestva (The Spiritual Foundations of Society), (Paris: 1930); N. N. Alexyev, Religia, Pravo i Nravstvennost (Religion, Law and Morality), (Paris: 1930); V. V. Zenkovsky, Nasha Epokha (Our Era), (Paris: 1955); I. A. Ilyin, Osnova Christianskoy Kultury (The Foundation of Christian Culture), (Geneva: 1937); F. A. Stepun, The Russian Soul and Revolution (London: 1936); G. P. Fedotov, Khristianin v Revolutzii (The Christian in Revolution), (Paris: 1957); S. S. Verhovskoy, ed. Pravoslavije v Zhizni (Orthodoxy in Life), (New York: 1953).
82See V. Weidle, The Dilemma of Arts (London: 1948); N. K. Meatner, Musa i Moda (The Muse and the Fashion), (Paris: 1935).
83G. Florovsky, "Orthodox Ecumenicism in the 19th Century," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, IV, 3-4 (1956). This is the expanded form of the chapter in A History of The Ecumenical Movement, ed. by R. Rouse and S. C. Neill (London-New York: 1954), pp. 169-215.
84N. Zernov, "The Eastern Churches and the Ecumenical Movement in the 20th Century," A History of the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 667sq.
85S. Bulgakov: "By Jacob's Well" (On the Actual Unity of the Divided Church in Faith, Prayer and Sacraments), Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 22, 1933; "Ways to Church Reunion," Sobornost, 2, 1935; "Spiritual Intercommunion," Sobornost, 4, 1935.
86L. Zander: Vision and Action (London: 1952); "Let us in unity praise the All-Holy Spirit," Student World, 2, 1937, pp. 157-168; "What is Unity," Student World, 2, 1939, pp. 153-164; "Mouvement Ecum?nique," Ir?nikon, 6, 1937, pp. 1-53.
87N. Zernov, The Reintegration of the Church (London: 1952); Orthodox Encounter (The Christian East and the Ecumenical Movement), (London: 1961).
88P. N. Evdokimov, "Notes preliminaires pour une th?ologie oecum?nique," Foi et Vie, 6, (Paris: 1947), pp. 541-570, and L'Orthodoxie (Neuch?tel-Paris: 1959), pp. 334sq.
89Florovsky: "Une Vue sur l'Assembl?e d'Amsterdam," Ir?nikon, XXII, 1 (1949); "The Orthodox Church and the WCC," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, II, 4 (1954); "The Challenge of Disunity," ibid., III, 1-2 (1955), pp. 31-36; "Obedience and Witness," The Sufficiency of God: Essays in Honor of W. A. Visser 't Hooft, ed. R. C. Mackie and Charles C. West (London: 1963); "Confessional Loyalty in the Ecumenical Movement," Student World, 43, 1; "The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement," Theology Today, VII, 1 (1950); see also Florovsky's review of Zander's Vision and Action in St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, I, 2 (1953), pp. 28-34.
90See Deyania Soveshchaniya Glav i Predstaviteley Avtokefalnykh Pravoslavnych Tserkvey 8-18 iyulia 1948 goda (Acts of the Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, July 8-18, 1948), Vol. I-lI (Moscow: 1948); also J. Meyendorff, ed., Les Relations Ext?rieures du Patriarchat de Moscou (1945-51), Notes et Etudes Documentaires, No. 1, 624 (Paris).
91See for example, The Russian Orthodox Church, Organization, Situation, Activity (Moscow: 1958), and the numerous reports on Ecumenical conferences and contacts in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, especially since New Delhi, 1961.
92See A. Schmemann, "Moment of Truth for Orthodoxy," Unity in Mid-Career, An Ecumenical Critique, ed., K. R. Bridston and W. D. Wagoner (New York: 1963), pp. 47-56, and "'Unity,' 'Division,' 'Reunion' in the Light of Orthodox Ecclesiology," Theologia, XXII, 2 (Athens: 1951), pp. 242-245.
93See G. Florovsky in Vers l'Unit? Chr?tienne, 12, 1959, pp. 33-36; J. Meyendorff's chapter on Vatican II in his Orthodoxy and Catholicity (New York: 1966); N. Afanassiev, "Una Sancta," Ir?nikon, 4, 1963, pp. 436-475.
94For V. V. Zenkovsky (History of Russian Philosophy, Vol. II), Frank is "the greatest achievement, the highest point in the development of Russian philosophy." For biography, complete bibliography, and general evaluation, see S. L. Frank 1877-1950, ed., V. Zenkovsky (especially Florovsky's essay on "The Religious Metaphysics of S. L. Frank"), (Munich: 1954).
95On N. O. Lossky, see V. Zenkovsky, History, Vol. II.
96Berdyaev is well known and admired in the West. See the biography and bibliography in D. A. Lowrie, Rebellious Prophet, A Life of Nicholas Berdyaev (New York: 1960). Russians are usually more critical: see Zenkovsky, History, and Florovsky, Puty (Ways).
97V. Zenkovsky gave a systematic presentation of his philosophy in Osnovy Khristianskoy Filosofii (Foundations of Christian Philosophy) Vol. I (The Christian Doctrine of Knowledge), (Frankfurt/Main: 1960), and Vol. II (The Christian Cosmology), (Paris: 1964). On the religious inspiration and themes in Russian philosophy, see also B. P. Vyscheslavtzev, Vremennoye I Vechnoye v Russkoi Filosofii (The Passing and the Eternal in Russian Philosophy), (New York: 1955).
98The vitality of even "official" theology can be seen from the six volumes of Bogoslovskye Trudy (Theological Works) published by the Moscow Patriarchate: Vol. I (1959), Vol. II (1961), Vol. III (1964), Vol. IV (1968), Vol. V (1970), Vol. VI (1971).
99See the English translation of this letter in St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, X, 1-2 (1966), pp. 67ff.
100See Nikita Struve, Christians in the USSR; see also Situation des Chr?tiens en Union Sovi?tique, II, Documents, published by Comit? d' Information sur Ia situation des Chr?tiens en Union Sovi?tique and distributed by Esprit (Paris: 1965); Studies on the Soviet Union, Institute for the Study of the USSR, Munich, New Series, V, 4 (1966).
101On Orthodoxy in America, see a special issue of St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, "The Orthodox Church in America, Past and Future," V, 1-2 (1961), and also my articles on the problems of Orthodoxy in America: "The Canonical Problem," ibid., VIII, 2 (1964), "The Liturgical Problem," ibid., VIII, 4 (1964), "The Spiritual Problem," ibid., IX, 4 (1965).
102A remarkable example of this growing unity is the work of the Orthodox Christian Education Commission whose manuals and materials cover virtually the whole range of religious education.
103The two theological periodicals published in America, St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly (since 1952) (renamed St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly in 1969), and The Greek Orthodox Theological Review (since 1954), have never limited themselves to the works of Orthodox theologians of any particular national group.
104Among them, Timothy Ware (Eustratios Angenti, and The Orthodox Church [Baltimore: 1963]), and Olivier Cl?ment (Transfigurer le Temps [Neuch?tel-Paris: 1959]).
105Thus, in September, 1966 the first conference of Orthodox theologians in America was held and resulted in the founding of the Orthodox Theological Society of America -- see my article, "Task of Orthodox Theology in America Today," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, X, 3 (1966). The second such conference took place at St. Vladimir's Seminary in September, 1972. The papers read and discussed at the first conference were published in The Greek Theological Review, XVII, 1 (Spring, 1972). The materials pertaining to the second conference will be published in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, XVII (1973).