“The Russian Religious Mind” by George Fedotov in mirrors of the reviews

The article examines reviews of the latest book written by the famous Russian historian-expat George P. Fe-dotov. They are considered as a means of communication in the academic community of research novelties. Along with the analysis of their content, the author reveals their sociomorphic role, which they performed through the statement of the principles for evaluating the results of the work done by the historian. To reach this goal, the author of the article identifies the main elements of the reviews, each of which gave one or another characteristic of the mandatory compo-nent of the historical study of the past. Such elements were, first, characteristic of novelty of the subject of study, secondly, confirmed the adequacy of the chosen method, thirdly, gave an assessment of completeness of the original basis of research, as well as knowledge of the scientific research literature on the topic. Сritical remarks and the style of writing were also defined. The first five elements assumed compliance with the positivist canons of historical research. They acted as norms accepted in the academic community and approved by reviews. The key among them was criticism, which is a system-forming element. The use of these elements limited the reviewers in the perception of the germs of a new research concept of G.P. Fedotov, which was based on the principles of understanding (verstehen). Unexpectedly, a lot of attention was paid to the style of writing because the book was written in a non-native language for its author – English. Most of the reviews were positive in content, although they contained rare criticisms implicitly determined by the national, political or research characteristics of individual reviewers. The only negative in essence, but quite be-nevolent in form, was the review of the Catholic Jesuit, who expressed a different vision of the research subject and the possibilities of its study, conditioned by his faith. The critic questioned not the professional skills of the Russian his-torian, but his religious identity and his ability to provide Orthodox implied readers with an adequate basis for their cultural-historical identification. Thus, he demonstrated the limits of the cumulative idea of the development of historical knowledge as scientific one, which was characteristic of positivism, since he completely denied the research approach of G.P. Fedotov, and therefore allowed a gap in the development of knowledge about the past, i.e. its discreteness. As a result, the author of the article recognizes the conventional character of truth in historical knowledge as an expres-sion of intersubjectivity and defines the principle of objectivity, still asserted by some historians, as a simulacrum.