In Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis, some characters are referred to by their names, others by substitute names or descriptively, others only by function, office or kinship etc. The article explores names in their social aspect: what they say or can say us about their bearers, and the presumed perception of names by the anonymous Narrator, who generally gives the events a symbolic meaning, and imbues the common names with a providential sound. Special attention is paid to the name “Perpetua”. The name is put in connection with the Carthaginian family of high-ranking statesmen Perpetui, who at the turn of the 2nd – 3nd centuries, who were close to Septimius Severus, the emperor of African origin. It is hypothesised that “Perpetua” is a gamonym, a cognomen received from her husband, whose reticence keeps us guessing as to its causes. The hypothesis of Perpetua’s divorce from her husband is clarified, if one takes into accout his position as a member of family close to the emperor, which is incompatible with matrimony with a Christian woman. The author assumes that in “Passio” the reader is dealing with a documentary book consisting of texts by five authors. When analysing whom and how and which of the five names or leaves characters unnamed, the author of the article reveals both the peculiarities of the name choice in the individual parts (for example, in the Prologue and Epilogue only the hypostases of the Trinity are mentioned, while the Editor-Compiler gives only the names of the martyrs). And the common “strategy” of naming persons involved in the poles of the sacred: the pole of profanity (the devil, the Egyptian, the judge-consul Hilarian, the pagan deities Saturn and Ceres) and the pole of abomination (the Holy Spirit, the Lord, Jesus Christ, God, and their substitute names: Lanista, Pomponius, as well as martyrs and clerics both in mortal life and in the other world, the souls of the martyrs (late younger brother Dinocrates, whom Perpetua begged from hell). The others are described by function. With the exception of the martyrs Perpetua and Saturus, the authors of the rest of the Passio remain nameless according to this strategy. But the catechumen Rusticus, who was directly in the arena during the bestiality and who supported Perpetua, falls out of all groups. This reinforces the earlier published idea that Rusticus is the author of the description, who introduced his name by “smuggling” sphragis.
The paper discusses whether there was a polemic about martyrdom between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity. The author suggests that we can see the story of Rabbi Akiva and Papos ben Yehuda in the Babylonian Talmud as part of a controversy between Jews and Christians about the question of whose martyrdom is bigger and could be used as proof of the truth of their doctrine. In this light, the dialogue in prison between Rabbi Akiva and Papos about the reason for their arrest could be read as testimony to existing competition between rabbinic Jews and Christians. According to the text, Rabbi Akiva, who is certain that the Jews must remain steadfast in Torah and the Torah will bring them life, will be martyred for Torah; while Papos, who is associated in the late Babylonian tradition with Christianity, on his own confession in the narrative, will die only for superstitio. The author claims that here we can see a reflection of competition for martyrdom between Jews and Christians of as late as the third or maybe even fourth centuries.
The article is devoted to the analysis of the text of Chapter 11 of the “Epistle to the Philippians” by Polycarp of Smyrna, which mentions a presbyter Valens’ certain sin, which was connected with avarice. This passage is considered in the context of the history of Christianity in Philippi (the local community was founded by the Apostle Paul), and the general development of the Christian movement in the first two centuries. This “sin” is not a waste of community funds or a refusal to support the poor and widows, but a renouncing from Christianity, which was caused by fear of possible problems and a desire to preserve established social and economic ties with the pagan environment. Such behavior of wealthy Christians is reported by Herma’s “Shepherd” and other sources, but if Herma called for a complete renunciation of wealth, Polycarp was more restrained and said about the need to overcome the love of money. Valens’ act did not lead to a final break with the community, Polycarp calls for forgiveness, which indicates that Valens did not blaspheme Christ or betray Christians to the Roman authorities. The author of the “Epistle” instructed the Philippians to abstain from avarice, idolatry and all
evil.
This article dwells on the representation of the image of Cardinal Charles of Lorraine in a Protestant polemical literature. The pamphlet by François Hotman “Tiger of France” (1560) is taken as an example. The pamphlet directed against the “tyranny” of the cardinal. The author accuses Charles of Lorraine not only of massive atrocities and abuses, but also of striving to usurp the throne, using the position of the church hierarchy and proximity to Rome. These accusations are getting spread, remaining as a “black legend” of the House of Guise until the end of the 16th century. It is not surprising that copies of the “Tiger of France” were destroyed by government officials, and even the very fact of storing the text could be grounds for arrest in the 60s of the 16th century. This pamphlet is considered in the context of the controversy about the legitimacy of power as such, it’s religious aspect, as well as the legitimacy of a number of royal laws against the Huguenots.
In the history of Russian Orthodoxy in the second half of the 19th century, a significant transformation can be observed, which allows us to talk about the emergence of a fundamentally new situation, which can be defined as “modern,” that is, characteristic of the contemporary situation in the religious sphere. We are talking about the situation of “free religious choice.” Understood not as an opportunity to publicly express disagreement with official church teaching, but as a subjective opportunity to “disagree,” this situation nevertheless becomes a challenge to church theology and attracts the attention of key authors of the era and, in particular, Theophan the Recluse. The analysis of his key works allows us to assert that the starting point of his moral and theological reasoning, which even during his lifetime was highly appreciated by church intellectuals and popular among the reading public, was the initial uncertainty of the subject in relation to the dominant religion in the Russian Empire. The subject of his constructions faces the need not just to follow church doctrine, but to consciously and freely recognize himself as a Christian, either as a result of an appropriate upbringing or at the moment of “gracious excitement” – religious conversion. As a result of this recognition, a “spiritual life” begins, which consists not only in following the institution of the Church, but above all in the individual experience of rejecting the ordinary and perceiving the “spiritual.” In this situation, notions of the normative relationship between the Christian and the religious instructor undergo a significant transformation: the possibility of free religious choice implies a parity relationship in this interaction. This in turn transforms the normative view of the mentor himself (the priest in the context of the Russian Empire), bringing to the forefront not his ability to lead and mentor, but his ability to build trusting relationships and to lead by personal example to free self-determination as a Christian.
This article is devoted to the phenomenon of “mladostarchestvo” (lit. young elderhood) in the Russian Orthodox Church. This problem got especially severe from the 1980s till the beginning of the 2000s, when a large-scale campaign against “young elders” was organized. The article reconstructs the main stages of this campaign, defines the most important features attributed to “mladostarchestvo” and restores the context of the 1990s, which demonstrates the active development process of the Orthodox book publishing industry. The author shows that although the condemnation of “mladostarchestvo” followed at the official level only in the late 1990s, its very content was not new, in contrast to the term. An analysis of Orthodox literature published in huge numbers during this period demonstrates an enormous interest in elderhood. This contributed to the fact that the “elder – servant” relationship was projected onto the relationship of a neophyte and an inexperienced priest. At the same time, another radical movement was emerging which rejected all “elderhood” and spiritual guidance in the modern world. Noting the ambiguity of the concept of “mladostarchestvo,” the author suggests that it was used not so much to condemn a certain group of spiritual fathers, but to try to regulate the activity of priests in general in a context of great interest in elderhood and demand for pastoral guidance, but over time it became possible to speak of “mladostarchestvo” as a convenient element in criticizing pastorship, spiritual fatherhood, and even clergy as such.
The research literature on esoterism since the middle of the 20th century has developed into an independent historiographical stream with various approaches to the study of this diverse phenomenon. There are no works in Russian that would present generalizing characteristics of these approaches and reveal the features of the concepts of individual authors who have made a significant contribution to the development of the problems associated with esoterism as a subject of scientific research. The article focuses on P. G. Nosachev’s historical approach to the analysis of foreign literature, and also evaluates his typology of approaches to the study of esoterism. Contrary to the widespread “discursive” approach to the study of “religion”, the article emphasizes the need for historians of religion to take into account the achievements of the psychology of religion. The article points out the eschatological character of some key conceptions of esotericism (M. Eliade, A. Fevre, V. Hanegraaff). P. G. Nosachev’s historical approach is recognized as the most adequate way of discussing the methodological diversity of esotericism studies. P. G. Nosachev’s research can be recognized as a significant contribution to the development of Russian religious studies of esoterism and grants its readers with a full-scale map of different approaches to its study.
Social reality of the “Game of Thrones” is considered in this article not as a model or a kind of reconstruction of Middle Ages reality. On the contrary we argue that “Game of Thrones” as well as original “Song of Ice and Fire” should be studied through the prism of social and cultural trens of the 20th – beginning of 21st centuries. Special attention is paid to the issue of secularity and its crisis occurred on the different levels of transmedia storytelling of the “Game of Thrones”.
