On Contemporary Research in Sophiology (Book review: S.N. Bulgakov: Pro et Contra: An Anthology (Vol. 2). Saint Petersburg: Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities, 2024).

The article analyzes the contents of the second volume of the anthology S.N. Bulgakov: Pro et Contra, which presents both the philosopher’s original texts and scholarly investigations of his works during his emigration period (1923–1944). The article examines contributions from various authors, their perspectives, and methodological approaches to S.N. Bulgakov’s philosophical and theological legacy. The central focus of analysis is sophiology and its relationship to Christian philosophy and Orthodox theology. While some scholars attempt to propose novel approaches to understanding sophiology, others prefer to examine it within the broader historical and philosophical context of Bulgakov’s epoch. The authors investigate Bulgakov’s heritage through various contextual frameworks: political (A.P. Kozyrev), tensions between different theological schools in emigration (D.A. Krylov, S.S. Horujy), personology (A.F. Upravitelev), theology of personhood (Bishop Methodius (Zinkovsky), Bishop Kirill (Zinkovsky)), philosophy of history (P.B. Mikhailov), and others. According to the article’s author, a critical issue in sophiological research concerns the relationship between philosophy and theology in Bulgakov’s works. The synthesis of philosophical and theological concepts resulted in several contradictions that have received divergent assessments from researchers. S.S. Horujy considered sophiology an interesting intellectual experiment that, nevertheless, lacks contemporary relevance. Hieromonk Tikhon (Vasiliev) argues that Bulgakov’s limitations stem from his amalgamation of philosophy and theology in constructing a “philosophy of Trinitarian being” and his assertion that “dogma possesses philosophical meaning.” Overall, this new volume of the anthology S.N. Bulgakov: Pro et Contra provides valuable insight into the current state of scholarship regarding the thinker’s philosophical and theological worldview and demonstrates the diversity of research perspectives on sophiology.

1. Evlampiev I.I. (Comp.) (2003) S.N. Bulgakov: Pro et Contra: An Anthology (Vol. 1). Saint Petersburg: Russian Christian Humanitarian Insitute (in Russian).

2. Bishop Mephodius (Zenkovsky), Bishop Cyril (Zenkovsky), Reznichenko, A.I., & Hieromonk Tikhon (Vasiliev) (Comps. & Annots.) (2024) S.N. Bulgakov: Pro et Contra: An Anthology (Vol. 2). Saint Petersburg: Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities (in Russian).

3. Zenkovsky V.V. (2008) Overcoming of Platonism and the Problem of Sophistry of the World. In: Zenkovsky V.V. Collected Works (Vol. 1, pp. 394–419). Moscow: Russkiy put’ (in Russian).

4. Polovinkin S.M. (2020) Russian Personalism. Moscow: Sinaksis (in Russian).

5. Horujy S.S. (2003) Imiaslavie and the Culture of Silver Age: Phenomenon of Moscow school of Christian Neoplatonism. In: Vasilyeva M.A. & Kozyrev A.P. (Comp.) S.N. Bulgakov: Religious Philosophical Way (pp. 191–207). Moscow: Russkiy put’ (in Russian).