The representations of "Latin captivity" in the Russian history of philosophy

Sizov Sergei Evgenievich ORCID: 0000-0002-2262-723X Senior Educator, the department of General Humanities, Kuzbass Orthodox Theological Seminar 650003, Russia, Kemerovskaya oblast', g. Kemerovo, prospekt Shakhterov, 23 sseezov@mail.ru

            The history of science shows that research does not take place in a "sterile environment", but in a certain cultural and social context, which also has a significant role for them. Moreover, even in a purely scientific space, one can find various methodological perspectives, the existence of which determines the approach to work, and therefore affects the results. Often, the use of such methodological perspectives increases the efficiency of scientific work and promises a lot of new data that inevitably arise when working with correctly posed questions. As an example, we can cite the successes of V.Y. Propp in the analysis of fairy tales using a kind of structuralist approach. At the same time, various methodological approaches bring with them not only benefits, but also certain "blind spots" that are inherited by scientific work.

            One of such approaches is the concept of "Latin captivity" – a special historical and philosophical perspective that assumes a simple content as a starting premise: the Russian theological school experienced in its formation the stage of captivity by scholasticism, from which it was freed by the effort of Russian religious philosophy.

            The generally recognized exponent of the concept is Archpriest George Florovsky, author of the classic monumental work on the history of Russian religious philosophy and theology "The Ways of Russian Theology" ^[1]. Although the expression Latin captivity does not occur in the book itself ("Babylonian captivity" ^{[1, p.122]} or "pseudomorphosis" follows instead), the narrative itself is a description of the perspective under study, which is supported by a huge amount of historical, philosophical and theological material. Another "pillar" of the theory is the priest Vasily Zenkovsky, the author of another universally recognized work "The History of Russian Philosophy" ^[2]. However, the commonality of their ideas indicates that this view was not the original author's discovery of any of the writers, but it seemed to be generally accepted to a certain extent, which actually goes back to the legacy of the older Slavophiles, which by the time of the XX century was almost unconditionally shared among the church intelligentsia.

The first to express the concept of "Latin captivity" is the Slavophile Yuri Samarin. It seems that the ideas that he embodied on the pages of his master's thesis "Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Prokopovich" ^[3] have long been discussed at meetings of Slavophiles, where A.S. Khomyakov was the main ideologist. Nevertheless, it is Samarin who holds the historical primacy in the scientific articulation of this historical and philosophical concept. According to the ideas of this senior Slavophile, his contemporary academic theology (that is, the theology of Orthodox theological schools of the first half of the XIX century) is directly dependent on Western rationalism. Samarin could not say his thought about the alienness of Orthodox theology directly in the conditions of censorship of that time, nevertheless, his approach is obvious from the narrative itself – if two church first hierarchs and the most authoritative theologians (bishops Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Prokopovich) find in their theological systems a direct dependence on the Western school, then all Orthodox theology should be in the same position. The figures of Yavorsky and Prokopovich illustrate in the Samarin model, respectively, two schools – Roman Catholic and Protestant, which go back to the same beginning, rationalism, which was traditionally perceived with hostility in the Slavophile environment: "the stream of rationalism, let in by the Roman schism into the Church itself, raised new theological questions in the West, which the Orthodox East did not know, and, in its further striving, having split into two channels, it finally gave rise to two opposing doctrines - Latinism and Protestantism" ^{[4, p. VII]}.

If in the dissertation itself the author does not yet state the "captivity" as an accomplished fact, but only as threatening the whole theology, then in the preface to the works of A.S. Khomyakov he directly declares the absence of a true Orthodox theological school, which has been replaced by anti-Latin and anti-Protestant schools: "involuntarily and unconsciously, without anticipating the consequences, it (Orthodox theological school – approx. the author) moved away from the solid continent of the Church and went to that shaky, pitted, dug-up ground, to which Western theologians lured her. Having entered there, she was exposed to crossfire and was almost forced to grab ready-made weapons for her defense against attacks directed at her from two opposite sides, which had long been adapted to the case by Western faiths for their domestic, internecine war. And with each step, becoming more and more entangled in Latin Protestant antinomies, the Orthodox school finally split itself. Two schools were formed in it, an exclusively anti-Latin school and an exclusively anti-Protestant school; the Orthodox school seemed to have disappeared," all this led to the fact that "Western rationalism seeped into the Orthodox school and cooled down in it in the form of a scientific framework for the dogmas of faith, in the form of proofs, interpretations and conclusions" ^{[4, p. XI]}.

According to Samarin, the liberator of Orthodox theology from the rational principle was A.S. Khomyakov himself, who was posthumously named the "father of the Church", as can be seen from the preface.

Subsequently, this model becomes more and more generally accepted, which leads to a reassessment of Khomyakov's legacy in the church environment, from criticism and rejection at first to complete capitulation to Slavophile theology, which is expressed, for example, in a huge dissertation by V.Z. Zavitnevich ^[5], entirely dedicated to the first Slavophile, for which he also received the Metropolitan Makarii church award. (Bulgakov).

However, among Slavophiles, this model presupposes its own goals, in particular, it reflects the traditional critical attitude to rationalism for "Orthodox Slovenes", as well as the emphasis on the uniqueness of Orthodox theology, its fundamental otherness to such "damaged" schools of thought as Catholicism and Protestantism. The statement of the "captivity" of theology sets one simple task – the need for its "liberation". Along with the perception of the "captivity" model, the task of liberation clearly comes.

However, if domestic religious philosophers and academic theologians represented a certain unity in the issue of "captivity" by the beginning of the XX century, then various strategies were proposed in the issue of "liberation". For the Slavophiles, liberation was conceived as following the "spirit" of Orthodoxy, which, obviously, was to some extent expressed in the works of the Slavophiles themselves. But a more definite fixation of this spirit not only contradicted the anti-rationalist intention, but was not developed by the Slavophiles themselves because of the huge number of topics that did not give time for a detailed study of such particulars.

For the theological school, the study of genuine Orthodoxy, as for the Slavophiles, went into spiritual experience, but in addition there were other, more tangible criteria. Thus, many representatives of the so-called moral soteriology (a special theological tradition in which the meaning of the life of Jesus Christ was presented as moralizing first of all, and therefore the salvation of a person must be correlated with his morality) pointed to the need for moral life as the main criterion of true spirituality, at the same time perceiving as additional criteria scientific data, for example, on the history of the church, and patristic heritage. On the other hand, representatives of the Russian diaspora, who subsequently actively engaged in scientific work at the St. Sergius of Radonezh Institute founded in Paris, had a decisive influence on the formation of ideas about true Orthodoxy. Thus, Archpriest George Florovsky developed the concept of neo-patristic synthesis, which consisted in the creative search for true Orthodoxy in the legacy of the holy fathers: "We are given to live in an era of theological awakening, which is already affecting everywhere in the divided Christian world. With all the more attention, we now have to revise and recall all the lessons and precepts of the past, sometimes cruel, sometimes inspiring. But true awakening begins only when both in the past and in the present, not only answers are heard, but also questions. And the inexhaustible power of the paternal tradition in theology is determined most of all by the fact that for the Holy Fathers theology was a matter of life, a spiritual feat, a confession of faith, a creative solution to life's tasks. Those ancient books have been revived forever by this creative spirit. And only through a return to the fathers can that healthy theological sensitivity be restored in our church society, without which the desired Orthodox revival will not come. Among the church services in our time, theological confessionalism is of particular importance as the churching of thought and will, as a living entry into the mind of truth. Vos exemplaria graeca nocturna versate manu, diurna. In the fatherly interpretation, Orthodoxy is rediscovered as a conquering force, as a force that regenerates and confirms life, and not only as a safe haven for tired and disappointed souls – not only as an end, but as a beginning, the beginning of a feat and creativity, a "new creature"" ^{[1, p.11]}. Florovsky's ideas are generally accepted in Orthodox theology even now.

Although the neo–patristic synthesis presupposes greater complexity and elaboration, unlike the ideas of the Slavophiles, it inherits the same drawback - insufficient articulation of what should be sought under the "spirit of Orthodoxy" and how the "creative method" works. In fact, in Florovsky's concept, creative spiritual effort is understood as such a process of co-creation of a person to God, where in no way it is impossible to determine where the divine is and where the human is, and accordingly it is impossible to verify the true and inner from the external and alluvial. The concept of active co-creation thus does not provide any criteria and a clear methodology in terms of how exactly one should study the spiritual creations of the holy fathers, how to determine true spiritual creativity, etc.

The concept of "captivity" (and "liberation") is currently mainstream in research on the national history of philosophy, as well as in the church environment. If in the scientific space its "canonicity" is expressed by the authoritative works of Florovsky and Zenkovsky, then in the theological environment one can see how it is shared by other authoritative church speakers, for example, Mitr. Hilarion (Alfeev) and Prof. A.I. Osipov. Using this model, modern textbooks of dogmatics are also built, for example, Dogmatic Theology, prot. Oleg Davydenkov, who directly proceeds in his soteriology from the assessment of the traditional theory of redemption as having arisen under Latin influence ^[6]. On the other hand, recently a critical view of the Samarin-Florovsky model has become more noticeable.

K.M. Antonov in the article "I, thank God, am not a theologian ...": the Formation of Russian religious philosophy and the origins of the concept of Western captivity of Orthodox theology"^[7] describes the history of the concept of Latin captivity and is one of the first to point out its continuity with Florovsky in relation to Samarin. The author traces the origins of the idea of Latin captivity to cultural reasons and the intellectual context of Slavophilism.

On the other hand, in the field of Orthodox theology, it is noticeable how a whole camp of authors who are critical of the key models of the concept of captivity unfolds, not only in terms of captivity itself as a fait accompli, but also in relation to liberation, which appears to be a new captivity and an even greater departure from the patristic tradition. An expressive work here is the article by A. Buzdalov "Captivity by scholasticism and liberation by sophistry, or once again about the "legal" theory of redemption"^[8].

In many ways, the critical view of Florovsky's ideas is facilitated by the fact that his methodology provides a massive basis for theological ideas about legal redemption as allegedly alien to Orthodoxy, which has long been the cause of active controversy in modern theology. The most notable research here is the work of K. Shahbazyan "Zrak raba priim... On the question of the distortions of the Orthodox Understanding of the Incarnation in Catholic and Orthodox theological thought of the late XIX – early XXI centuries." ^[9]. The book analyzes the latest soteriology in the context of confessional theology, as well as, in part, the influence of Russian religious thought. The author presents an extensive criticism of the theological constructions of Vladimir Lossky, who is still the most prominent Orthodox theologian and at the same time also shares ideas about the captivity of Orthodox theology. 

Nevertheless, the Latin captivity model cannot simply be erased from the history of philosophy, since it has long served as a necessary context for research and established a simple vector for describing the growth and mutation of theological and philosophical discourse in Russia. In the space of this model, not only significant historical and philosophical studies were written, but also entire theological concepts. Therefore, it is necessary to develop another perspective that would also provide its own foundation for research.

One of the most notable authors among those who research theological-philosophical interactions in Russian history is Prot. Pavel Khondzinsky, who devoted a significant part of his works to the question of Laic theology, i.e. the theology of the laity. Mainly it is the book ""The Church is not an academy": Russian extra-academic theology of the XIX century" ^[10], in which an extensive and in-depth study of the theological and philosophical work of laic theology is carried out. Such works contribute to the awareness of the profound influence that Russian religious philosophy has had on Orthodox theology, and it seems that it is in this vein, that is, in the perspective of philosophical influence on Orthodox theology, that the Russian history of philosophy should develop further.

The idea that secular philosophy has influenced Orthodox theology offers a vast field for the study of these philosophical influences and at the same time does not impose such simple concepts as "captivity and liberation", since "influence" is a much more complex process. What does this mean for research? That now scientific work is conducted not as a search for evidence of the influence of scholasticism on Orthodox theology and its subsequent liberation, but as a complex process involving both confessional influence on Orthodox theology from the West (including Latin and Protestant), and the influence of Russian religious philosophy, where the latter is not a return to pure Orthodoxy, but a living and a growing fusion of the ideas of Orthodox theology, modern confessional theology, German Romanticism and idealism, mysticism and, finally, the author's concepts.  

Although the concept of "Latin captivity" is generally accepted at the moment, it is not difficult to assume that other competing concepts can take its place, the greater complexity of which is not only a minus, but also a plus, since it includes greater adaptability to scientific knowledge, as well as a lesser degree of reductionism. For example, the idea of the heterogeneity of Slavophil theological and philosophical concepts is more consistent with historical and biographical information, does not divide theology and philosophy into "black and white", pays due attention to all historical and philosophical processes and is more stable with respect to various scientific data. 

Thus, although the simplicity of the concept is one of its advantages, it is impossible to put this simplicity above adaptability to scientific data, and the certain reductionism that the Samarin-Florovsky model brings with it seems to be another weakness. Nevertheless, it is obvious that in the near future both perspectives will continue to exist, and the controversy between their representatives is expected to be fruitful in scientific terms.