Sergii Bulgakov

In Dostoevsky’s 1869 novel, The Idiot, two characters mention an intriguing theory, which they both attribute to the eponymous spiritual hero, the Prince: the idea that “beauty will save the world.”  Since then, a long line of writers and thinkers have picked up on this grand and inspiring motto.  After all, who wouldn’t want to believe that beauty will save the world?  Yet few people have tried to work out exactly what that might entail.

One of the most important figures to have taken up this challenge is Sergeii Bulgakov—philosopher, economist, politician, theologian, and priest.  Bulgakov quotes this phrase in at least four different works spanning the major phases of his mature intellectual career: Philosophy of Economy (1912), The Unfading Light (1917), the essay “Beauty and Art” (1934), and The Comforter (1936).  For Bulgakov, this declaration represents the crystallization of an all-encompassing vision for society, a cosmic process of material and metaphysical redemption analogous to individual salvation.  Through it, Bulgakov underlines the continuity between political aims and theological means, with beauty as the pivot. 

In this paper, I consider the role of the aesthetic principle of beauty in Bulgakov’s political theology.  I focus on two dogmatic works of the 1930s: a treatise, The Comforter, and an essay, “Religion and Art,” drawing on a sermon from the same period, entitled “Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology” to clarify key points in his political theology.  I discuss how Bulgakov’s aesthetic notion of Christian humanism enables him to petition for the transfiguration of society and reform of its unjust structures while steering a political theological course between Marxist positivism and Christian apathy.  Furthermore, I argue that the beauty at the core of his conceptual framework enables him to hold together history and eschatology, human freedom and divine sovereignty, in a theologically coherent theandric whole that nevertheless resists collapse into essentially atheistic “progress” or a pantheistic cosmology.  I conclude by posing a question about the possible role of beauty as a functional substitute for Sophia for theologians adapting Bulgakov’s brand of Christian humanism.

Geopolitical change at the start of the 20th century wrought significant change to the study of theology. After the Russian Revolution, exiled intellectuals found their way to the West and connected with like-minded scholars. One of these was Sergius Bulgakov, whose life was particularly complex: beginning as a Marxist and later returning to Orthodox Christianity, he became one of the most prominent, and contentious, theologians of the Russian diaspora. He forged ecumenical connections, including with the Fellowship of St Alban and St. Sergius. Traditionally, scholars have categorised him with the so-called “Russian School”, largely due to his sophiology. But scholars have come to question the accuracy of this categorisation. For example, Andrew Louth has proposed that Bulgakov be regarded as a theologian of the eucharist. Consideration of period documents confirms Bulgakov’s eucharistic consciousness, especially with ecumenism, corroborating Louth’s hypothesis. More research is justified into an important direction in the study of Russian diaspora theology.

Sergei N. Bulgakov’s sophiology is often regarded as a concept submerging human beings in a divine cosmos, where personal dignity makes no difference. I will argue that quite the opposite is true. Bulgakov’s vision meets all three conditions of a modern concept of Human Rights: Firstly, a person must be accepted in his or her autonomy and liberty. Secondly, a person must be accepted as a different, yet equivalent person. Thirdly, all human beings must be regarded as belonging to the same nature of humanity. These issues bridge the gap between Bulgakov’s philosophy of economy and his theological sophiology.

In this paper I shall argue that Bulgakov’s thought, and especially his sophiology, is a justification of human history. I will do so by providing an outline of Bulgakov’s critique of Marxism, and especially by examining his extensive examination of historical research on early Christianity in his papers collected in his book “Two Cities” (1911), before exploring the role of historical consciousness in his eschatological interpretation of the world’s creation and summarising his later views on the concept of developing doctrine.

The paper has been published in Russian (see below): Оправдание истории у Сергея Булгакова // Страницы 20, 2 (2016), 211–224 (Перевод с английского Дмитрий Рындин)

University of Fribourg – September 2–4, 2021

Sergii Bulgakov is one of the preeminent theologians of the 20th century. The international conference on the occasion of his 150th birthday (16th/28th July 1871 – 13th July 1944) aims to promote the reception of his work in Eastern and Western academic life.
The conference wants to explore Bulgakov’s contribution to meeting the challenges of the modern world and to build bridges between East and West. Tthe speakers are asked to correlate Bulgakov’s thought with current theological and philosophical, political, social and economical issues.

The conference is organised by the Sergii Bulgakov Research Centre at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) in cooperation with the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University (New York, USA), and the Volos Academy for Theological Studies (Greece).

Under the patronage of Rowan Williams,
Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge (2013–2020), Archbishop of Canterbury (2002–2012)

Economics has been denigrated to a merely technical discipline lacking any metaphysical dignity; it has become mere money-grubbing. But on the contrary, it has been the key to the secularization of all the otherwise admirable features of liberalism, and is the key to reconnecting the spiritual and temporal realms.

In this paper I will explore three different visions of ecumenism found in three Orthodox thinkers of the last century, Nikolai Berdyaev, Fr Sergius Bulgakov and Vladimir Lossky. With the exception of Bulgakov, they are not the most frequently cited figures in relation to the ecumenical movement, and yet they all were deeply engaged in conversations and cooperation with Christians from other churches, and tried to spell out what these relationships meant for them and in what sense they made visible both already existing and desired unity. As they all are related to the controversial figure of Vladimir Solovyov, I will first briefly turn to him. Then I turn to Berdyaev's discovery of creative and free Orthodoxy, which should be instrumental in overcoming the divided life of the Christian world, followed by Bulgakov's sophianic and pastoral concepts of unity, and finally to Lossky's mystical-eschatological reading of the Christian sources and his devotion to various saints which did not follow divisions into confessional camps. In the conclusion I will ask what of these ecumenical visions could be fruitfully revived to provide inspiration in our search for unity, and strengthen our focus on what is experientially real.

By analogy to Kant’s question ‘how is knowledge possible?’, Sergei Bulgakov was driven by the following questions: how are history, economy, art, and religion possible? Bulgakov explored the ‘truths’ of modern thought—human dignity (humanism), human dependence on the material world (materialism), social equality (socialism), and striving for a better future (idealism)—that became the cornerstones of his religious worldview. In Vladimir Soloviev’s footsteps, Bulgakov developed a ‘synthetic philosophy’ that would reconcile faith and reason, metaphysics and science, and motivate Christians to engage in politics in order to build just societies. With a focus on the interplay of social and economic teach­ings with religious movements, his early works contribute to ‘post-secular’ reflections on the crucial role of religion in societies. The paradigm of the ‘return of the prodigal son’ motivated both Bulgakov’s personal and intellectual development: in his view, the radical departure from God in the age of modernity is an important, if not necessary step on humanity’s way back to its Father’s house, and faith is a double-sided God–human act of human religious thirst and God’s response. Thus, Bulgakov’s early works dwell on culture and history as God–human synergy within the framework of the concept of Sophia. The latter is Bulgakov’s answer to the question as to how God’s revelation, divine-human cre­ ativity, and the world’s salvation are possible.

The article is a personal theological reflection on ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue by one of the commission of drafters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 2020 social teaching text For the Life of the World: Toward an Orthodox Social Ethos (=FLOW). The text argues that FLOW, despite being innovative for Orthodoxy, needs its boundaries expanded theologically. The section on Christian ecumenism is still quite conservative in character. It acknowledges that the Orthodox Church is committed to ecumenism but it does not explicitly acknowledge the ecclesiality of non-Orthodox churches. The author puts forward a form of qualified ecclesiological exclusivism that affirms that non-Orthodox churches are tacitly Orthodox containing “a grain of Orthodoxy” (Sergii Bulgakov). Strangely, FLOW’s section on inter-religious dialogue is much more radical than its section on ecumenism. The author builds theologically on FLOW’s positive affirmation of other religions as containing “seeds of the Word”, in particular, Islam containing ‘beauty and spiritual truths’ and Judaism as being Orthodoxy’s “elder brother.” The essay ends by sketching a Trinitarian theology of other religions drawing on ideas from Maximus the Confessor, Bulgakov, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Raimundo Panikkar amongst others.

"Divine judgement is not only on individual persons, but also on the social and political system, all kinds of despotism, both state and economic. This is characteristic of [. . .] the revolutionary spirit of Revelation [which] takes on a somewhat political character — vengeance for all kinds of violence done by man to man, [not only] related to persecution of religion and its adherents, but to all who have died from any form of bourgeois-political terror.” (Bulgakov, ca. 1943) In this context, any regime that does not seek social justice but preserves privileges for a few by oppressing many is “bourgeois-political.”

"There is only one way to save Russia: to put it on the path of truth and law, to correct the moral dislocation, to improve the sources of life, to turn it into a legal state, to make the kingdom of evil into a kingdom of truth. [. . .] To give force to the law and eliminate arbitrariness, to secure freedom and put it in a legally defined framework, and to give it lasting guarantees—this is the job that belongs above all to popular representation. [. . .] For this purpose, [the State Duma] must ensure and strengthen by law the rights of man and citizen, as natural and inalienable rights." (Bulgakov, 1906)

The history of ecumenism with Christians in the Middle East does not receive as much attention as with other groups; however, it has proven to be no less fruitful. Such is the story of the encounter between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Coming out of centuries of isolation, the encounter of the Eastern Orthodox with the Copts of Egypt was a deeply moving one. The Eastern Orthodox being at the peak of their theological revival in the Russian diaspora (known as the Russian Religious Renaissance), their experience of modern ecumenism dates back to their encounter with Anglicans at the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. Critical to this was Sergius Bulgakov’s notion of “spiritual communion” – communion as close to actual eucharistic communion as can be despite its absence. Ecumenical encounter between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox from the 1960s onwards might be regarded as another example of spiritual communion. Eucharistic communion is not yet restored, however, the congruency of heart and in mind that manifested then and continues to exist constitutes evidence of this. This recognition of spiritual communion gives hope to the prospect that the reality of eucharistic communion between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox can be restored. Progress in ecumenism might be facilitated by closer collaboration in recognition of a common direction; this in turn, might engender the trust that makes further ecumenical progress a reality.

Sergij Bulgakov war ein ausgewiesener Kenner der deutschen Kultur, Philosophie und Theologie und hat sich früh um die Rezeption seines Werks im deutschsprachigen Raum bemüht. Besonders im Rahmen der ökumenischen Bewegung der 1930er Jahre versuchte er zwischen protestantischer und orthodoxer Theologie zu vermitteln. Seine "Sophiologie" entwickelte er u.a. als konstruktiven Ausweg aus der einseitigen Weltbejahung der "liberalen Theologie" wie auch aus der ebenso einseitigen Weltverneinung der "dialektischen Theologie". Die Sophia-Lehre basiert auf dem Dogma von Chalcedon über das Gottmenschentum, das rechte Verhältnis zwischen der göttlichen und der menschlichen Natur, zwischen Gott und seiner Schöpfung bestimmt.

Sergij Bulgakov was a connoisseur of German culture, philosophy and theology and made early efforts to ensure the reception of his work in the German-speaking world. Especially within the ecumenical movement of the 1930s he tried to mediate between Protestant and Orthodox theology. He developed his “Sophiology” among other things as a constructive way out of the one-sided world affirmation of “liberal theology” as well as out of the equally one-sided world negation of “dialectical theology”. The doctrine of Sophia is based on the dogma of Chalcedon about God-humanity, which defines the right relation between the divine and the human nature, hence between God and his creation.

The notion of eucharistic ecclesiology is one of the most definitive ideas in modern ecclesiology. Adapted by theologians such as Henri de Lubac, it was coined by Nicholas Afanasiev in his essay The Lord’s Supper to explain the notion of “concelebration”: the president presiding over the eucharist together with the entire eucharistic assembly.  Afanasiev identified eucharistic ecclesiology in the life of early Christianity, and it is proper to regard John Zizioulas as building on it. However, there is evidence to suggest that the conceptual basis of eucharistic ecclesiology – the eucharist being the focus, or nexus, of unity of the Church – predates Afanasiev. Reading Sergius Bulgakov reveals this to be the case, one example being his approach to ecumenism and the other being the source of unity in ecclesial hierarchy. Afanasiev’s place in the development of eucharistic ecclesiology must therefore be reconsidered: he coined a term and identified with the early Church an idea that was present to the theologians of the Russian diaspora.

The main concern of both Berdjaev’s and Bulgakov’s philosophical strivings consists in developing a concept of the person as the foundation of human dignity and creativity within a Christian worldview. Once attracted by Marxism with its emphasis on human dignity and social justice, they started to struggle against Marxism’s atheist materialism because of its lack of a concept of person. However, the same concern will lead both thinkers down very different paths with different consequences. This paper argues that, even though Berdjaev has become famous as a philosopher of the person and a herald of creative ethics, Bulgakov developed a more solid Christian justification of the same claims. Both systems are presented by means of comparing some crucial notions within their concepts of personality—potentiality, trinity and autonomy.

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether or not love rooted in the Trinity is a sufficient ground for maintaining a threefold affirmation of the ontological distinction between creator/creature and the immanence of God to creation, the goodness of creation as its own distinct being, and the freedom of God in creating it. To do so, I recover the theologies of Colin Gunton and Sergius Bulgakov who both ground the work of creation in God's free Trinitarian act of love. I offer a comparative analysis of the two approaches. Currently working on a postscript to rework this draft for publication.

В статье анализируется постановка проблемы личности в философском и богословском творчестве прот. Сергия Булгакова в контексте проблематики богословского персонализма XX века. В первой части статьи в качестве основного текста, в котором персоналистическая установка мыслителя предстает с наибольшей ясностью, рассматриваются опубликованные
в конце 1920-х гг. «Главы о Троичности». В связи с этим рассмотрением возникают вопросы об истоках персонализма Булгакова и его соотношении с теми элементами его мысли, которые дают повод для упреков в имперсонализме (прежде всего, софиологией). В поисках ответов на эти вопросы
автор последовательно анализирует тексты дореволюционного периода творчества Булгакова: «От марксизма к идеализму» (1903), «Два града» (1911), «Философия хозяйства» (1912), «Свет Невечерний» (1917). Проведенный анализ позволяет выявить те тенденции в мышлении Нового времени, которые обусловили становление персонализма, как стиля философского
и богословского мышления, вскрыть ряд внутренних проблем персоналистического богословия.

"Have we done works of love? No, but we flooded Russia with blood, illuminated it with the glow of fire, filled it with the horrors of civil strife. We have turned the whole of Russia into an execution ground, where we crucify Christ again and again, we shoot, and finally, we crush “foreigners” for the glory of God, and even church authorities impose a seal of silence on the lips of pastors who condemn the ongoing murders."
This article was published in the first issue of the newspaper “Narod” (“People”), published in Kiev in April 1906. The translated text is offered here with commentary by Regula Zwahlen. Translation from Russian provided by Public Orthodoxy.
https://publicorthodoxy.org/2022/04/25/sergii-bulgakov-easter-thoughts/
Русский оригинал:
https://www.unifr.ch/sergij-bulgakov/de/assets/public/files/Dokumentation/Text_RU/Bulgakov_Narod1906_russian.pdf

YES OR NO — SERGII BULGAKOV’S SOPHIOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF PROTESTANT “DIALECTICAL THEOLOGY” OF THE 1930ies.
Abstract: In the 1930s, the “dialectical theologians” Karl Barth and Emil Brunner engaged in a debate about the question of “general revelation” in creation. Barth said “no” to “natural theology” and defended the Church’s freedom from all things worldly. Some Orthodox emigrants (e. g. Berdiaev, Zenkovskii, Frank, Bulgakov) were fascinated by Barth’s theology but, like Brunner, rejected his “non-acceptance of the world” and his “devaluation of culture, history, social life”. In this context, Bulgakov developed a “Christian asceticism in relation to the world out of love for it,” from which neither escape from the world nor compromise follows: Bulgakov presented his sophiology as a deepening of the understanding of the Chalcedonian dogma of Divine-humanity as the very key to a new apprehension of the world in God and the basis of Christian unity.

Freedom and Necessity in Modern Trinitarian Theology examines the tension between God and the world through a constructive reading of the Trinitarian theologies and Christologies of Sergii Bulgakov (1871-1944), Karl Barth (1886-1968), and Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988). It focuses on what is called 'the problematic of divine freedom and necessity' and the response of the writers. 'Problematic' refers to God being simultaneously radically free and utterly bound to creation. God did not need to create and redeem the world in Christ. It is a contingent free gift. Yet, on the other side of a dialectic, he also has eternally determined himself to be God as Jesus Christ. He must create and redeem the world to be God as he has so determined. In this way the world is given a certain 'free necessity' by him because if there were no world then there would be no Christ. A spectrum of different concepts of freedom and necessity and a theological ideal of a balance between the same are outlined and then used to illumine the writers and to articulate a constructive response to the problematic. Brandon Gallaher shows that the classical Christian understanding of God having a non-necessary relationship to the world and divine freedom being a sheer assertion of God's will must be completely rethought. Gallaher proposes a Trinitarian, Christocentric, and cruciform vision of divine freedom. God is free as eternally self-giving, self-emptying and self-receiving love. The work concludes with a contemporary theology of divine freedom founded on divine election.

Sergius Bulgakov continues to be a contentious figure in the modern revival of Orthodox theology. His reputation continues to be damaged by the consequences of the Sophia Affair, which means that the entirety of Bulgakov's theology is yet to be fully appraised. The present article considers the development of Bulgakov's ecclesiology, emerging out of his Christology, over the course of his life. While not unrelated to his sophiology, it is not contingent on it. The paper follows the development of Bulgakov's ecclesiology, beginning with his philosophical writings, into his major contributions to the émigré journal

In the early twentieth century, Sergii Bulgakov was a fierce opponent of Orthodox autocracy and developed concepts of Christian social(ist) politics. His later political thought included a "mystical vision of tsarist power" as well as reflections on how to fill the theocratic ideal with new content in the secular context of popular government. In the 1920s, Bulgakov transferred "the charisma of sacred power" to "the royal priesthood of the laity" and, despite some reservations, advocated a democratic state. In order to avoid the latter's pitfalls, he especially emphasized the necessity of the rule of law and the important role of the Church in preventing the self-deification of human beings and institutions-including the Church itself. Hence, he held that the Church must renounce state power in order to empower its members to advance the realization of God's Kingdom on Earth.

Werke, Band 5 (in deutscher Übersetzung). Herausgegeben von Barbara Hallensleben und 
Regula  M. Zwahlen. Aus dem Russischen übersetzt von Katharina A. Breckner und Regula M. Zwahlen, redaktionell überarbeitet und kommentiert von Regula M. Zwahlen unter Mitwirkung von Ksenija Babkova, Barbara Hallensleben, Elke Kirsten (= Epiphania 13). Münster: Aschendorff Verlag 2020
Sergij Bulgakovs (1871–1944) Aufsatzsammlung „Die zwei Städte. Studien zur Natur gesellschaftlicher Ideale“ erschien 1911 in Moskau. Der damalige Professor für Politische Ökonomie ist leidenschaftlich von dem Anliegen geleitet, die prägende Rolle des Christentums bei der Entwicklung der europäischen Wirtschafts- und Soziallehren und den geschichtsmächtigen christlichen Beitrag zur Entfaltung des Prinzips der Menschenwürde und sozialer Gerechtigkeit aufzuweisen. Sein starker Bezug zur wissenschaftlichen Produktion in Deutschland wird im bibliographischen Apparat deutlich.
In „Die zwei Städte“ entwickelt Bulgakov – inspiriert durch Augustinus und dessen Werk De Civitate Dei – Ansätze einer Geschichtstheologie für die Moderne. Er legt einen christlichen Gegenentwurf zum atheistischen „historischen Materialismus“ vor – eine Theologie der Kultur, die Religion und Moderne in konstruktive Verbindung bringt. Bulgakovs Paradigma ist das Gleichnis der verlorenen Söhne: Der humanistische Mensch hatte das Vaterhaus verlassen, um schließlich dorthin zurückzukehren, wo er neben dem freudigen Vater auch auf den neidischen Bruder, den reaktionären Kirchenvertreter, trifft: „Werden die beiden Brüder sich versöhnen und einander verstehen?“ Können sie gemeinsam eine Kultur der künftigen Stadt (Hebr 13,14) schaffen?
Der Band ist ein Meilenstein in Bulgakovs Entwicklung vom Ökonomen zum Theologen und enthält zahlreiche Motive, die später den Stoff seines theologischen Werks ausmachen.

Sergij Bulgakov: The Apocalypse of John. An Essai in Dogmatic Interpretation. Translated by Mike Whitton, revised by Michael Miller. Edited by Barbara Hallensleben und Regula M. Zwahlen (= Epiphania 12). Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2019.

The Russian Orthodox theologian Fr. Sergii Bulgakov’s final work, The Apocalypse of John, is more than an epilogue to his major systematic trilogy, On God-humanity. Published posthumously in 1948, this commentary on the final book of the New Testament can be considered the conclusion of his work as a whole. Written “in the face of the very apocalypse of life” during the Second World War, Bulgakov’s commentary is not focused on trepidation before final judgement, but reflects deeply on the possibility of hope in the midst of the tragedy of human history, and joy at the prospects of God's final triumph, the transfiguration of creation: it is ‘the divine story of the victory of the Lamb’.
Fr. Sergii Bulgakov (1871-1944), expelled from Russia in 1922, was professor of dogmatic theology and dean at the St Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. In addition to Bulgakov’s commentary, this edition contains photographs of the frescoes by Sister Joanna (Reitlinger; 1898-1988) produced between 1946 and 1948 for the ecumenical chapel of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius in London. They were inspired by and dedicated to her spiritual father, Sergii Bulgakov."

Werke, Band 2 (in deutscher Übersetzung). Herausgegeben von Barbara Hallensleben und 
Regula Zwahlen.
Münster: Aschendorff-Verlag, 2017, VI u. 281 Seiten.
ISBN 978-3-402-12036-1. Aus dem Russischen übersetzt von Elke Kirsten, redaktionell überarbeitet und kommentiert von Regula M. Zwahlen unter Mitwirkung von Ksenija Babkova und Barbara Hallensleben.
In Sergij Bulgakov (1871-1944) begegnen wir einem der bedeutendsten Theologen des 20. Jahrhunderts, weit über die orthodoxe Theologie hinaus. Seine autobiographischen Zeugnisse verorten die übrigen Bände der Werkausgabe im Kontext seiner Lebenszeit und Selbstreflexion. Er selbst suchte stets „das eigentliche religiöse Zentrum in einem Menschen zu bestimmen, seinen echten, brennendsten Herzenswunsch zu finden, [...] gleichbedeutend mit der Erkenntnis seiner intimsten und wichtigsten Anliegen, durch die alles Äußerliche und Abgeleitete verständlich wird“. In Bulgakovs Denken verdichten sich seine Erziehung im Glauben, die ökonomische Ausbildung, politisches Engagement, ein ausgeprägt philosophisches Denken, eine breite Kenntnis der westlichen und östlichen Geistesgeschichte, ästhetische Sensibilität für Kunst und Literatur, eine geistliche, geradezu ‚mystische‘ Erfahrung und ein waches Hören auf die Zeichen der Zeit. Der autobiographische Band gibt u.a. Einblick in seine Familie und Heimat, seine religiöse Krise und Zuwendung zum Marxismus, seine erneute Hinkehr zum Glauben und seine Priesterweihe im Revolutionsjahr 1918, seine Ausweisung, die ihn über Konstantinopel und Prag nach Paris führte, sein ökumenisches Engagement und in seine geistige Biographie im Übergang vom Marxismus zum Idealismus und vom Idealismus zu einem sophiologisch konzipierten "christlichen Materialismus".
Sergij Bulgakovs "Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen" wurden von Lev Zander erstmals 1946 zusammengestellt und herausgegeben. Die Struktur der Ausgabe von 1946 haben wir in der deutschen Ausgabe weitgehend übernommen. Den zweiten Teil mit autobiographischem Charakter haben wir um drei Beiträge ergänzt: den „autobiographischen Brief“ von 1913, einen Bericht von 1912 über die Erlebnisse während der Wahlen in die Staatsduma und Bulgakovs Testament von 1941. Ebenfalls hinzugefügt ist ein Bericht über die „Materialien der Ermittlungsakte“ über die Ausweisung Sergij Bulgakovs aus der Sowjetunion und sein Vortrag „Vom Marxismus zur Sophiologie“ während der Amerika-Reise 1936.
Um die autobiographischen Fragmente in einen größeren Zusammenhang zu stellen, wurden in Teil II dieses Bandes weitere biographisch aufschlussreiche Beiträge aufgenommen: die Ansprache von Metropolit Evlogij (Georgievskij) bei der Totenmesse für Vater Sergij im Juli 1944, Ausführungen zum „Philosophen“-Porträt (1917) von Michail V. Nesterov, die Übersetzung relevanter biographischer Abschnitte aus dem Artikel „Bulgakov“ in der „Orthodoxen Enzyklopädie“ von Anna Rezničenko, gefolgt von einem tabellarischen Lebenslauf.

Werke, Band 3. Herausgegeben von Barbara Hallensleben und 
Regula Zwahlen. Münster: Aschendorff-Verlag 2017, 150 Seiten, 
ISBN 978-3-402-12038-5
Wenige Autoren erfordern – nach Quantität, Qualität und Wirkungsgeschichte ihres Werkes – eine Bibliographie, die ein eigenes Buch darstellt. Der russische Denker Sergij Bulgakov (1871-1944) gehört zu diesem Kreis. Die Bibliographie (mit deutscher Übersetzung der russischen Titel in kyrillischer Schrift) erscheint gleichzeitig mit seinen autobiographischen Texten (Band 2) und nach seiner Habilitationsschrift „Philosophie der Wirtschaft“ (Band 1) als Band 3 der Werkausgabe, erarbeitet an der „Forschungsstelle Sergij Bulgakov“ der Universität Fribourg Schweiz.
Enthalten sind: die zu Lebzeiten Bulgakovs veröffentlichten Werke, posthume Publikationen, Neuauflagen, von ihm verfasste Rezensionen, Vorworte und Übersetzungen, publizierte Briefe und Briefwechsel, Vorlesungen und Seminarprotokolle sowie Nekrologe. Ein Verzeichnis der Archive gibt Aufschluss über den Zugang zu publiziertem und noch unpubliziertem Material, das der Erforschung harrt. Die Übersetzungen sind nach Sprachen geordnet. Hinzugefügt wurde eine Liste der Zeitschriften, in denen Bulgakovs Publikationen erschienen, sowie ein Verzeichnis ausgewählter Sekundärliteratur. Ein tabellarischer Lebenslauf ermöglicht die Kontextualisierung der Publikationen auf Bulgakovs Lebensweg.
Das von uns erstellte Register der Personen und Orte lässt Bulgakovs Beiträge über bestimmte Persönlichkeiten (Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach, Thomas Carlyle, Max Weber, Pablo Picasso u.a.) leicht auffinden. Zeitgenössische Debatten können durch Hinweise auf Rezensionen und Repliken zu Bulgakovs Werken nachverfolgt werden.
Die Bibliographie möchte die Aufmerksamkeit für Bulgakov als herausragenden Denker des 20. Jahrhunderts wecken und die Orientierung in seinem immensen Werk erleichtern.