Recent years have been very fruitful for the study of Russian religious philosophy. In 2020, The Oxford Handbook of Russian Religious Philosophy was published, followed a year later by The Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought. Disregarding the fact that they are devoted to a common topic, they set somewhat different goals and start from different premises. Additionally, the separate chapters are written by different authors and their research approaches resonate strongly in both volumes. The structure of The Oxford Handbook of Russian Religious Philosophy is rather classical: the book provides a historical context and then presents the views of individual thinkers of the nineteenth century, the religious-philosophical renaissance of the twentieth century, art in Russian religious thought, as well as Russian religious thought abroad and in Soviet Russia. The layout of this book is diachronic, thoughtfully designed to show the development of Russian thought—precisely religious, not secular. Meanwhile, The Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought is more synthetic, thematic in nature—the separate chapters are self-contained presentations of a wide range of issues in Russian history of philosophy, metaphysics, anthropology, aesthetics, social and political philosophy, literature, art, etc. Therefore, The Oxford Handbook and The Palgrave Handbook should be regarded as complementary to each other.

I am not going to review and analyze the entire contents of The Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought. My goal is much more modest. I simply would like to focus on just two chapters contained in the book, which I distinguished because of their proximity to my academic interests.

The first chapter is titled “Russian Religious Philosophy: The Nature of the Phenomenon, Its Path, and Its Afterlife” by Sergey S. Horujy. I congratulate the editors for including Horujy’s text, which is one of the last to be published in English—and came out after his death. It now has all the more value. Horujy’s reflections on Russian philosophical thought have always sparked the interest of scholars, starting with his pioneering work in the field (on Florensky and others). The book includes Horujy’s mature text, which, like almost all of his works, is somewhat provocative but very interesting, offering a “parallel” reading of Russian religious philosophy. The phenomenon of the emergence, development, and peculiarities of religious-philosophical thought in Russia has been the subject of numerous studies. Horujy tries anew to unravel this riddle, which will be defined with a certain irony using Russian folk tales: “go I do not know where and bring I do not know what.” Horujy’s contribution consists in an attempt to capture the peculiarities of Russian philosophy in an epistemological key, referring to the notion of all-unity. However, what is particularly interesting is the very fact of Horujy’s turning to the subject of Russian religious philosophy, which in his recent works has been considered in the context of a neo-Patristic synthesis, and thus critically rather than analytically. This chapter—and thus the entire book—is evidence, as it were, of Horujy’s return to conceptual analysis of Silver Age thought, although the author does not hide his sympathies and hopes for synergistic anthropology. He does so, so to speak, on a new level: not so much from the position of the history of philosophy, though. After making a critical reflection in relation to the thought of Vl. Solovyov and other thinkers, he tells us, “I shall not dwell on all of these shortcomings of Russian religious philosophy” (p. 61). Instead, Horujy focuses on modulating the development of thought in Russia from philosophy to theology and back again. This is a truly valuable, comprehensible lesson, as it were, and Horujy’s testament is perpetuated in the book.

Another issue on which I would like to focus my attention is the chapter devoted to Alexei Losev, especially since this year we are celebrating the centennial anniversary of Aza Alibekovna Takho-Godi, his faithful life companion and, just as the theme of the conference (in Moscow in late October 2022) dedicated to her memory was defined, “witness of the epoch.” There are still relatively few (compared to other Russian thinkers) works on Losev in English-language literature. In this regard, The Palgrave Handbook is an important contribution to the literature and research on Losev. Also, as with Horujy, this chapter deals with contemporary Russian philosophy of the late twentieth—the beginning of the twenty-first centuries.

Other strands of contemporary thought should also be highlighted—chapters dedicated to Russian Marxism (by Marina Bykova); Evald Ilyenkov (by David Bakhurst) and the “Men of the Sixties” (by Abdusalam Guseynov); late Soviet philosophy (by Vladislav Lektorsky); post-Soviet philosophy (by Boris Pruzhinin and Tatiana Shchedrina); philosophy in literature (especially a chapter on Mikhail Sholokhov, Andrei Platonov, and Varlam Shalamov by Sergei Nikolsky); and philosophy from a linguistical perspective (“Yuri Lotman and the Moscow-Tartu School of Semiotics” by Natalia Avtonomova). This is a kind of compendium of Russian thought of the twentieth century, a nonexhaustive but nevertheless synthetic overview of some of the currents and debates. While the “classical” schools (all-unity and neo-Patristics) are well present in the literature, it is mainly articles that delineate the subject of contemporary approaches. Here, they are gathered under one cover.

The current situation further demonstrates the importance of such books, as they provide a better understanding of the historical and philosophical background, as well as recent intellectual trends, all the while from a diversity of perspectives. It is important that scholars from various countries took part in the project. The international nature of the book is another asset, as it shows the importance and relevance of the research area. Russian philosophy is not understood here narrowly, but in a broad cultural, historical, and social context.

Of course, the question arises: What next? We used to distinguish between the terms “Russian philosophy” and “philosophy in Russia.” Can we talk about original Russian philosophy today? Additionally, what is the state of philosophy in Russia nowadays? It also gives rise to the reflection that already since the pandemic, the distribution of literature (including philosophical literature) from the West to Russia (and vice versa) has become very difficult. Of course, the (relatively free, with the stipulation of copyright law) online way remains. In these circumstances, will and how will the reception of The Palgrave Handbook in Russia and other Eastern European countries take place? Is it possible to provide some copies to Russian libraries, at least the main ones?

Concluding, I should say that the book necessarily has to be a selection—some subjects, such as detailed presentation of the philosophy of Semyon Frank or Lev Karsavin, are missing, but nevertheless The Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought is a valuable contribution to a rapidly developing literature on Russian thought.