Contradictions in Anthroponyms in Russian Homiletics of the Transition Period

This article examines the place and role of anthroponyms in Russian spiritual literature between the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The author studies anthroponymicons from different authors, providing classifications of anthroponyms and the number and character of anthroponyms in their works. The formation and peculiarities of the use of anthroponymic proper names in Russian spiritual literature reveals two main tendencies. The first (southwestern) is connected with writers whose works are close to those of Stefan Yavorsky and Dimitry of Rostov. The other (northern) is reflected in works by Feofan Prokopovich, Platon Levshin, and their followers. According to the author, the first tradition is characterised by the extensive use of anthroponyms in texts, a hidden meaning of anthroponyms, the scarce use of simple naming, the absence of charactonyms, and an extensive use of antonomasia and symbolism. It is also characterised by an extensive use of detached anthroponyms to express the authors’ attitude to people, events, and objects. The other tradition is characterised by a considerably smaller number of anthroponyms (from 7 instances in Feofan’s works to 21 in those by Platon). Additionally, the authors do not use the implied meaning of anthroponyms in their texts; their texts contain charactonyms and rarely use antonomasia and symbolism. They mostly use anthroponyms as markers of quality and as parts of idioms. The southwestern tradition is connected with a sacral and mystical understanding of human names originating from the Catholic Hermetic literature of the Renaissance. The northern tradition, on the contrary, is closely connected with Lutheranism, where a human name is treated as purely rational. Therefore, this approach does not imply any mystery when interpreting anthroponyms and or suggest piety when anthroponyms are used to name people, objects, and processes.