Discussion of the collective monograph "Science of Religion", "Scientific atheism", "Religious Studies": actual problems of scientific study of religion in Russia in the XX-early XXI centuries"

Marianna Shakhnovich

The Ethos of the History of Science: a Reconstruction of Religious Studies in Soviet Russia

Marianna Shakhnovich - Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Studies, Saint-Petersburg State University. mmarsh@mail.ru

The paper provides a review and reflections on the book "The Science of Religion, Scientific Atheism, Religious Studies: Issues of the Scientific Study of Religion in Russia in the Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Century" (Ed. by K.M.Antonov, Moscow, 2014). The author of the review critically examines the volume in terms of the basic principles of the study of the history of science. In the author's opinion, the lack of archival materials as the basic source of research, as well as an absence of carefully presented bibliography of the history of religious studies in the twentieth century Russia, did not allow the contributors to give professional answers to the questions they put in the volume.

Keywords: science of religion, scientific atheism, "repressed science", historiography of the study of religion in the USSR.

Shakhnovich M. Ethos of the History of Science: on the Reconstruction of Russian Religious Studies of the Soviet period.Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad]. 2015. N 1 (33). pp. 185-197.

Shakhnovich, M. (2015) "The Ethos of the History of Science: a Reconstruction of Religious Studies in Soviet Russia". Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 33 (1): 185 - 197.

page 185
Over the past twenty-five years, many profound and informative works have appeared on the intellectual history of science in Russia during the Soviet period, exploring the influence of ideology on the development of natural science and the humanities, telling about the tragic fate of scientists and how scientific research developed under the conditions of ideological dictates and censored press. The works of F. F. Perchenko and his colleagues, books by V. N. Soifer, V. M. Alpatov, P. A. Druzhinin, articles by A. M. Reshetov and others have already become a textbook. 1

The methodology of writing a work on intellectual history differs little from any historical research: it usually begins with compiling a bibliography of the question, writing a historiographic review and identifying a range of sources.The deeper the insight into historical material, the better the work is. This principle was succinctly formulated by P. A. Druzhinin in his fundamental work "Ideology and Philology", devoted to the dramatic events of the history of the humanities in the 1940s. He wrote: "The desire to present a correct and well-reasoned picture of what was happening made it necessary for us to direct maximum efforts to form a representative source base." 2 The sources used by P. A. Druzhinin and other historians of science are extremely diverse: they include circular letters and personal correspondence, resolutions, articles, books, reports, memoirs, both published and stored in archives and first introduced by the authors into circulation. It is precisely serious and painstaking work with sources that allows researchers, according to Druzhinin, "not only to time events" that took place in science, "but also to try to identify their prerequisites, as well as to try to identify their place in the general background of national history." 3
1. Alpatov V. M. Istoriya odnogo mifa: Marr i marrizm [The history of one Myth: Marr and marrism]. Moscow: Nauka, 1991; Ashninf.D., Alpatov V. M. Delo slavistov. 30-ies. Moscow: Nasledie, 1994; Reshetova. M. Repressed ethnography: people and destinies / / Kunstkamera: ethnographic notebooks. St. Petersburg: Vol. 5-6., 1994; Tragic destinies: repressed scientists of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Comp. by I. G. Aref'eva, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1995; SoiferV N. Vlast i nauka [Power and Science]. 4th ed. reprint. Moscow: Chero, 2002; Druzhinin P. A. Ideologiya i filologiya [Ideology and Philology], vol. 1-2. Moscow: UFO, 2012.

2. Druzhinin P. A. Edict. soch. T. 1. P. 9.

3. Ibid.

page 186
In 2014, the publishing house of St. Tikhon's Orthodox University published the book "Science of Religion", "Scientific Atheism", "Religious Studies"4. Unfortunately, K. M. Antonov, one of the authors of this collection of articles and its executive editor, pointing out the need to develop an "effective analytical methodology"5 for studying religious studies of the Soviet period and suggesting using the methodological principles proposed by T. Merton, M. Weber, K.-O. Apel and M. Foucault, did not set the task of developing an "effective analytical methodology" for this purpose. by themselves and their co-authors, the task is to create a broad source base. He himself admitted that the work "left out a huge layer of archival materials, the study of which in connection with this topic, of course, is necessary"6. Antonov is interested in the "ethos of Russian science of religion", but the question remains open as to how this interest relates to the "ethos" of the history of science, the value of which is, according to Druzhinin, "the desire to present a correct and reasoned picture of what happened". Maybe this project had other tasks?

It is a pity that the authors of the book did not seek to get more familiar with the available literature, not to mention to work at least in the Moscow archives, where the funds of the NEB, MSU and RAS are located. In this case, many of the issues that remained unresolved for them could be clarified. For example, the question of "perception and (non -) understanding" of Durkheim's theory of religion in Soviet religious studies. R. O. Safronov tries to answer the question of why the legacy of the French sociologist "was not very popular with Soviet researchers"7. The author mentions Yu. A. Hoffman, Yu. A. Levada, D. M. Ugrinovich and other researchers of the 1960s-1980s and notes that only in Levada's works "the reception of Durkheim's ideas was carried out". Unfortunately, he does not mention the names of A. A. Bogdanov or N. I. Bukharin, who were prominent proponents and popularizers of Durgheim's theory of religion

4. It should be noted that although this book is subtitled "Actual problems of the Scientific study of Religion in Russia in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries", it is entirely devoted to the Soviet period, with the exception of a few pages that deal with the pre-revolutionary teaching of religious studies.

5. "Science of Religion", "Scientific atheism", "Religious studies": actual problems of scientific study of religion in Russia of the XX-beginning of the XXI century / Comp., preface, general ed. by K. M. Antonov. Moscow: PSTGU Publishing House, 2014. p. 16.

6. Ibid., p. 59.

7. Ibid., p. 137.

page 187
generally. Apparently, he does not know this, otherwise he would not have wondered why F. E. Telezhnikov's article could have appeared in 1929, in which Durkheim's ideas were presented objectively, as he writes - "at a high scientific level"8, and then they start talking about Durkheim with "ideological cliches".

Here is a sample of the statement of one of the party publicists on this topic, dating back to 1928 and obtained from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Bogdanov's book is the most widely used textbook in Russia and puts a certain imprint on the minds of young people... And it is with these views of Bogdanov on religion, which are widespread on a global scale, that Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin agreed in his book, where he immortalized Bogdanov, because he says that the question of religion was explained by Bogdanov and I join him. " 9 S. A. Tokarev in 1929 expressed very positive views about Durkheim: "If earlier the idea of the essence of religion prevailed in science, which was best expressed in his time by Tylor, who said that religion is faith in spiritual beings, faith in supernatural beings, etc., now more and more the understanding of religion that was best formulated by Durkheim, the understanding of religion, is beginning to be established. It boils down to the fact that religion is nothing more than the mental allocation of a certain class of objects to a special sacred world, an understanding that coincides with Reinak's definition of "taboo "" 10. Even then, the "fascination with Durkheim" was "declared dangerous"11 because it was associated with the empirio-critic Bogdanov, and after Bukharin's arrest, it became impossible in general.

Let's turn to another story. In 1929, a discussion about the origin of religion took place at the Communist Academy in Moscow for several months. In particular, there was a discussion about the works of V. Schmidt, to which one of the articles of K. M. Antonov in the book under consideration is devoted. K. M. Antonov begins by describing the reception of Schmidt's ideas in the theological and ethnological literature of the early XX century, and then praising L. Ya. Sternberg and P. F. Preobrazhensky "for their objective analysis", immediately

8. "Science of Religion", "Scientific atheism", "Religious studies": actual problems of scientific study of religion in Russia of the XX-early XXI centuries p. 140.

9. ARAN. Inventory 350, case 2, N 260. l. 4

10. ARAN. Inventory 350, case 2, N 388. L. 39.

11. Ibid., l. 47.

page 188
The author mentions V. K. Nikolsky and his book "An Essay on Primitive Humanity", but he, unfortunately, apparently does not know that V. K. Nikolsky was on a business trip to Europe in 1926, where he spent quite a long time studying modern literature on early forms of religion in libraries. In the same year, he published in the journal "Antireligiosnik" a large article devoted to various theories of the origin of religion, where he paid considerable attention to the theory of pramonotheism, and in 1929 he made a large report on the same topic at the Comacademy. This report was followed by a discussion, the participants of which noted with satisfaction that the "complete hegemony of the clerical direction", which supports the ideas of V. Schmidt, is also coming to an end in Western science. Of course, this expressive statement, typical of the rhetoric of the 1930s, does not differ in its critical pathos from the expression used in the 1950s and quoted by Antonov that the theory of pramonotheism "has theological ears sticking out too clearly". But the author of the article will have to agree that Schmidt, indeed, was, as they wrote in those years, "a cassock-wearing scientist." However, in modern academic discourse, this expression is unlikely to be used to emphasize that the creator of the theory of pramonotheism was a Catholic priest.

The study of rhetoric is very useful for understanding the era, the study of ideological cliches and polemical discourse allows you to understand the public mood and intellectual atmosphere, but only if the researcher does not break away from the historical context. S. A. Savitsky, who carefully studied the intellectual history of the 1920s-1930s, writes in one of his studies that during that period a person unwittingly, he himself submitted to the existing socio-political reality, otherwise he found himself outside of modernity. Savitsky cites a characteristic entry from the diary of L. Ya. Ginzburg, dating back to 1928: "At present, it is wrong to divide our literary historians into those who use sociological methods and those who do not. We should be divided into those whose sociological methods are immediately rewarded (with places, money, praise) and those whose sociological methods are not rewarded. " 12 Dnev-

12.Cit. by: Savitsky S. A. Private man. Lydia Ginzburg in the late 1920s-early 1930s. St. Petersburg: European University Press, 2013, p. 30.

page 189
nick L. Ya. Ginzburg shows how an intellectual who did not share all the values of the Soviet system tried to find a place in society without compromising his principles. The same applies to scientists who have studied religion. Some of them were atheists who recognized the principle of freedom of conscience, which they considered not only as religious tolerance, but also as the right to be an unbeliever. Others were, as we now know, religious people, but both of them perceived "scientific atheism "as an ideology imposed from above, a new" spiritual bond", they were aware that this was the result of political and cultural changes taking place after the revolution. Let us not forget that this generation of scientists, unlike many of our contemporaries, perfectly remembered that in pre-revolutionary Russia there was spiritual censorship and that such sciences as ethnography, folklore studies, and the study of religion were under constant surveillance, looking everywhere for "undermining the foundations" of the Orthodox autocratic ideology. Even in the book we are considering P. N. Kostylev in his article "Religious Studies at Moscow University in the first half of the XX century"13 cites the negative attitude of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy to the history of religion: "Why a comparative history of religions that can seduce? What is the history of religions when it comes to saving or destroying the soul for eternal life?"14

K. M. Antonov laments that the" positive reception "of Schmidt's ideas was planned only before 1917, and now only "Orthodox authors" are interested in Schmidt, and even then because his theory gives them "apologetic argumentation", while modern researchers "tend to dismiss" Schmidt's ideas and thus "deprive themselves of the opportunity to think again about the meaning and competence of scientific knowledge, its relationship with philosophical and theological thinking" 15. Here, it seems to us, the author lets slip about the "super-task" of the published collective work - to prove that a" competent " science of religion can only be applied to the following subjects:

13. In this article, in the section "Institutionalization of Religious Studies outside Moscow University", there is absolutely no material or any references to works about the Imperial St. Petersburg University of the capital.

14. "Science of religion", "Scientific atheism", "Religious Studies". p. 83.

15. Ibid., p. 166.

page 190
it is connected with theology. The author constantly calls for "objectivity", "academism", "impartiality", "neutrality" and "non-partisanship", but he himself expresses a completely "partisan" point of view when he points out the"ecclesiastical significance" of the work done by the author's team. This seems to be a definite trend, the essence of which, in our opinion, is to prove that for almost seventy years of the twentieth century there was no science of religion in Russia, and after 1917 everything related to religious studies was related only to anti-religious propaganda and political conjuncture.

In recent years, several works have appeared that attempt to prove that Russian religious studies is "like a mirage" - it does not have a complete image, is dispersed and quickly disappears. The meaning and significance of such statements should, in our opinion, be considered in the general context of the ongoing clericalization of cultural and social life and the changing attitude towards scientific knowledge as a value. Antonov even writes that "the question may be raised about the connection between the development of religious studies and the practice of persecution for faith in the USSR." 17 He characterizes the science of religion of the Soviet era as "an extreme science reflecting the deformation of moral norms peculiar to Soviet society" 18.

Of course, the study of religion in the USSR can be considered "extreme", but only in the sense that scientists fell under the same millstones of Stalinist terror as the clergy. In recent decades, the tragedy of Russian "repressed ethnography", "repressed linguistics", and "twilight of linguistics" has become a state of glasnost, but the equally tragic history of the development of religious studies is still unknown, although the archives contain a lot of interesting evidence. For example, R. O. Safronov, in the book we are considering on pages 120-121, quite rightly contrasts the point of view of F. M. Putintsev on sectarianism with the approach of V. D. Bonch-Bruevich. But he puts Putintsev, Klibanov, Materin, and Bonch-Bruevich on the same level, classifying them all as scientists-researchers of sectarianism, while F. M. Putintsev was a "whistleblower" not only of "sectarians", but also of IS-

16. "Science of religion", "Scientific atheism", "Religious Studies". p. 78.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

page 191
investigators of religious movements. Let's refer again to the archive data.

In 1928, F. M. Putintsev stated the following: "When asked by Comrade. Bonch-Bruevich, as you look at sectarians, Bonch-Bruevich says that, despite all the shortcomings, I believe that sectarians are the best part of the Russian people. A more populist formulation of the question cannot be imagined. What does it mean? Are there poor people? There is. Do you have a fist? There is. So why is it that now, when the kulaks are at the head (meaning at the head of sectarianism - M. Sh.), when we ask Bonch-Bruevich to speak out against the sectarians, he cannot?.. After all, Bonch-Bruevich was once charged by the party to protect sectarians from priests and gendarmes, and he defended them perfectly. And when sectarians try to use these materials, including against us, while sectarians play a huge role against us, since there are kulaks there, we do not find support in his person."19 Putintsevs "backers" brought even more serious charges against Bonch-Bruevich: "We cannot say that sectarians are not our enemies. No, they are our enemies, most definitely our enemies. The "sectarian democrat", as the bearer of democratic (i.e., bourgeois) values , is an enemy of the socialist proletarian revolution. Bonch-Bruyevich was in trouble - his profession left its mark on him, and he became a kind of sectarian and transferred his former attitude to sectarianism to a different, radically different environment. " 20
There was no ideological unity within the so-called "Soviet religious studies", and therefore it is impossible to "smear all the authors who wrote about religion in Soviet times with one paint", and moreover to call everyone "scientists" or"researchers". One can find numerous documentary evidence that there were constant contradictions between those who were engaged exclusively in agitprop and those who wanted to conduct scientific research.21 For example, one of the propagandists in 1928 declares: "We should... to raise the question of the need for such ethnographic research in our country, in which ethnographers are involved at the same time... they would also serve the tasks of antirelia-

19. ARAN. Inventory 350, case 2, N 336. l. 39.

20. Ibid., l. 97_98.

21. See, for example: Shakhnovich M. M., Chumakova T. V. Museum of the History of Religion of the USSR Academy of Sciences and Russian Religious Studies (1932-1961). SPb.: Nauka, 2014.p. 33_34.

page 192
the religious movement. This has not always been the case in our country... This summer I had to go on an expedition to the Crimea to see one of our ethnographers, whom I wanted to contact for assistance in collecting materials. When he found out that an anti-religious person was coming, he said that he had finished his work. " 22
In order to show the exceptional ideological commitment of "Soviet religious studies", the book cites the works of party ideologists of various levels, often extremely limited and poorly competent, as well as those works that were never perceived by the Soviet academic community as serious scientific research works, even if their authors had academic degrees and high positions. This is about the same as describing Soviet literature by quoting only the works of Georgy Markov, Anatoly Safronov, Stanislav Kunyaev, or Felix Kuznetsov. Thus, the works of A. F. Okulov, I. I. Brazhnik, N. P. Krasnikov, V. F. Zybkovets, N. S. Gordienko and a number of other authors mentioned in the book could be considered at best as popular scientific works. At the same time, a huge body of research existed and is widely known, which is not considered in the book at all. 23
It is impossible not to mention some names and some numbers. In the period from 1930 to 1980, over 800 books and articles were published in the USSR devoted to only one early form of religion, and extensive materials were collected and interpreted on religious beliefs and rituals of the peoples of Russia that were previously unknown. The contribution of Russian religious studies to the study of shamanism and ritual practices is especially valuable. Works that explore the problems of primitive thinking and mythology have become widely known: These are the works of V. Y. Propp, A. M. Zolotarev, A. F. Anisimov, E. M. Meletinsky, I. M. Steblin-Kamensky, M. I. Shakhnovich, I. M. Diakonov and others. In Russian historiography, there is a tradition of studying the semantics of myth dating back to the 1920s and 1930s, based on the principles of semiotics and structural linguistics. The works of V. V. Ivanov, V. N. Toporov, and B. A. Uspensky are known all over the world. Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences

22. ARAN. Inventory 350, case 2, N 388. l. 33.

23. See, for example, the historiographical review: Shakhnovich, M. (1993)" The Study of Religion in the Soviet Union", Numen 40: 67-81.

page 193
in 1950-1960 he published a twenty-volume work " Peoples of the World. Ethnographic essays " under the general editorship of S. P. Tolstov, which contains and summarizes a huge ethnographic material, including about the religions of the peoples of the world. The history of the religions of the Ancient East, antiquity, biblical studies, Buddhology, Islamic studies, the history of Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy - in all these areas of the science of religion, much has been done. At the same time, of course, these works were subjected to ideological editing precisely by those whom the authors of the collection in question consider not "ideological workers" assigned to look after scientists, but researchers whose works can be considered as scientific 24. Again, archival documents show how this was done: letters, reviews, memoirs, which should be made public.

Unfortunately, the bibliography and historiography of the issue under consideration is of almost no interest to all authors of this book25, as well as expanding the range of sources, although the book has a special section called "Historical and bibliographic research". A. V. Koltsov's article " History and theory of the science of Religion. The annotated Index of Russian-language literature", indeed, "does not claim to be exhaustive" 26. It is a very random and haphazard selection, in which dissertations, bibliographic indexes, scientific monographs, textbooks, and individual articles sorted by year of publication are piled together, and the choice of these dates is strange and not explained in any way: 1923, then 1929 - 1933, 1936, 1938, 1940; after 1959, 1964 immediately follows, etc. The principle of selecting works is unclear: for example, it remains unclear why there are three works under the heading 1964: an article about Bonch-Bruevich from the Yearbook

24. See, for example, how editors changed the titles of works, how texts were corrected, and how quotations from Marxist classics were inserted: On Folklore Studies, ethnography, and the History of Religion (letters to M. I. Shakhnovich). 2011. N 3. pp. 176-179. footnotes 25, 30; Shakhnovich M. M., Chumakova T. V. Museum of the History of Religion of the USSR Academy of Sciences and Russian Religious Studies (1932-1961). SPb.: Nauka, 2014 pp. 333-334, 338-340.

25. With the exception of very detailed historiographical articles by T. A. Folieva devoted to narrow issues (analysis of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and issues of religious education in Soviet historiography).

26. "Science of religion", "Scientific atheism", "Religious Studies". p. 221.

page 194
WORLD, and without specifying the author of the article; an annotated index of literature and an article by N. Pechko about D. Anichkov's dissertation.

E. V. Vorontsova, in her article "Religious Studies in Russia (2000-2013)", laments that very little educational and scientific literature on religious studies is published in Russia. But this is not the case. Suffice it to say that the author of the review did not mention any publications about religion published by Slavyanskiye Literatury publishers over the years, "Gesharim", "Indrik", "Dmitry Bulanin", "Alethea", publishing house "UFO", publishing houses of the European University, the Russian Christian Humanitarian University, the Biblical and Theological Institute of St. Andrew the Apostle, etc. The author of this" bibliographic "publication writes:" The history of religions is deliberately excluded from the review: this topic requires a separate painstaking study, since modern publications devoted to the history of religions often go beyond the boundaries of religious studies proper and are created by historians, theologians, anthropologists and philologists."27.

Here, it seems to us, there is another very characteristic tendency for the book under consideration - to separate the science of religion into a special ghetto, to separate it from those sciences with which it is connected both historically and in essence, namely, from history, philology and anthropology; to turn it into a kind of study "methodological problems" of a philosophical nature (where the sociology and psychology of religion, understood in a special way, fit perfectly).

Unfortunately, all the good thoughts of almost all the authors of the book about the creation of "new strategies in the study of Russian religious studies" did not give the result that a reader who is experienced in the history of science in the era of the cultural revolution and developed socialism in the USSR might expect. It is necessary to publish new archival sources and materials in order to highlight this very difficult period of the relationship between science and government. 28
27. "Science of religion", "Scientific atheism", "Religious Studies". p. 201.

28. See also: Vasilyeva O. Y. "I am against the opposition of Soviet and Russian science of religion..." / / State, religion and Church in Russia and abroad. 2014. N3. P. 294_301; Yablokov I. N. Self-identification of religious studies in modern Russia. To the discussion in Russian literature [http://religious-life. ru / 2014/lo/yablokov-samoidentifikatsiya-religiovedeniya-v-sovremennoy-rossii-k-diskussii-v-otechestvennoy-literature/, accessed from 15.01.2015].

page 195
Bibliography/References

Archive materials

Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Literature

Alpatov V. M. Istoriya odnogo mifa: Marr i marrizm [The history of one Myth: Marr and marrism].

Ashnin F. D., Alpatov V. M. Delo slavistov [The case of Slavists]. 30-ies. Moscow: Heritage Publ., 1994.

"I am against the opposition of Soviet and Russian science of religion..." / / Gosudarstvo, religiya i tserkva v Rossii I za rubezhom [State, Religion and Church in Russia and abroad]. 2014. N 3. pp. 294-301.

Druzhinin P. A. Ideologiya i filologiya [Ideology and Philology]. Vol. 1-2. Moscow: UFO, 2012.

"Science of Religion", "Scientific atheism", "Religious Studies": actual problems of scientific study of religion in Russia of the XX-beginning of the XXI century / Comp., preface, general ed. by K. M. Antonov. Moscow: PSTGU Publishing House, 2014.

O fol'kloristike, etnografii i istorii religii (pisma k M. I. Shakhnovich) [On Folklore studies, ethnography and the History of religion (letters to M. I. Shakhnovich)].

Reshetov A.M. Repressed ethnography: people and destinies / / Kunstkamera: ethnographic notebooks. St. Petersburg: Nauka Publ. Issues 5-6., 1994.

Savitsky S. A. Private man. Lydia Ginzburg in the Late 1920s-Early 1930s, St. Petersburg: European University Publishing House, 2013.

Soifer V. N. Vlast ' i nauka [Power and Science]. 4th ed. reprint. Moscow: Chero Publ., 2002. Tragic fates: Repressed scientists of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Collection of articles.Aref'eva I. G. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1995.

Shakhnovich M. M., Chumakova T. V. Museum of the History of Religion of the USSR Academy of Sciences and Russian Religious Studies (1932-1961). SPb.: Nauka, 2014.

Yablokov I. N. Self-identification of religious studies in modern Russia. К дискуссии в отечественной литературе // http://religious-life.ru/2014/lo/yablokov-samoidentifikatsiya-religiovedeniya-v-sovremennoy- rossii-k-diskussii-v-otechestvennoy-literature/Accessed January 15, 2015

Archive Materials

Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk [Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences].

Literature

Alpatov, Vladimir (1991). Istoria odnogo mifa [History of One Myth: Marr and Marrism]. Moskva: Nauka.

Antonov, Konstantin (ed.) (2014) "Nauka о religii", "nauchnyi ateism", "Religiovedenie": aktual'nye problem nauchnogo izuchenia religii v Rossii XX - nachala XXI vekov ["The science of religion", "scientific atheism", "religious studies": actual problems of scientific study of religion in Russia in the twentieth and early twenty-first century]. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Pravoslavnogo Universiteta.

Aref'eva, Irina (ed.) (1995) Tragicheskie sud'by: repressirovannye uchenye Akademii Nauk SSSR. Sbornik statei [The Tragic Fate: the Repressed Scholars of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR]. Moskva: Nauka.

page 196
Ashnin, Fedor, Alpatov, Vladimir (1994) Delo slauistou. 30-e [Case of Slavists. 1930's]. Moscow.

Druzhinin, Pavel (2012) Ideologia Ifililogia [Ideology and philology]. T. 1 - 2. Moskva: NLO.

Reshetov, Alexander (1994) "Repressirovannaya etnografia: ludi i sud'by" [Repressed Ethnography: People and their Fate], Kunskamera: Etnograficheskie tetradi 5 - 6. Saint-Petersburg.

Savitzkii, Stanislav (2013) Chastniy chelovek. L. Ya. Ginzburg v kontse 1920 - 1930-h godov [Private person. Lidia Ginzburg in late 1920-s - early 1930s]. St. Petersburg: European University Publ.

Shakhnovich, Marianna (1993) "The Study of Religion in the Soviet Union", Numen 40: 67 - 81.

Shakhnovich, Marianna (2011) "O fol'kloristike, etnografii i istorii religii (pis'ma к M. I. Shakhnovichu). Publikatsiya i kommentarii" [On the Study of Folklore, Ethnography and History of Religion. Letters to Mikhail Shakhnovich. Publication and commentary], Religiovedenie 3:171 - 180.

Shakhnovich, Marianna and Chumakova, Tatiana (2014) Muzei istorii religii Akademii Nauk SSSR i rossiiskoe religiovedenie (1932 - 1961) [Museum of the History of Religion of Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Religious Studies in Russia (1932 - 1961)]. St. Petersburg: Nauka.

Soifer, Vladimir (2002). Vlast' i Nauka [Power and science]. 4th ed. Revised, and add. Moskva: CheRo.

Vasilyeva, Olga (2014) "Ya protiv protivopostavlenia sovetskoi i rossiiskoi nauki о religi..." ["I am against the opposition of the Soviet and Russian science of religion..."], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 3: 294 - 301.

Yablokov, Igor (2015) "Samoidentifikatsia religiovedenia v sovremennoi Rossii. К diskussii v otechestvennoi literature" [Self-identification of Religious Studies in Modern Russia. On Debates in the Russian Literature], Religous Life [http://religious-life. ru/2014/10/yablokov-samoidentifikatsiya-religiovedeniya-v-sovremennoy-rossii-k-diskussii-v -otechestvennoy-literature/, accessed on January 15, 2015].

page 197

Permanent link to this publication: