This article deals with the literary and publishing activity of Dmitry Sverchkov, a member of the Executive Committee of the Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies, 1905. It is connected with his memory of the creation, activity and termination of the Soviet. Based on archival documents and the published works, it is shown that during the period after the revolutionary events of 1917, Sverchkov sought to keep the memory of the Soviet in works of prose and in cinema. The plots of his script "October Revolution 1905 and the first St. Peterburg's Soviet of Workers' Deputies" (1924) and his play "But Are Not Defeated!" (1931) are analyzed. The most important point is that the writer shows the people as participants of the revolutionary events in 1905. The article is also based on shorthand reports of Sverckov's speeches at The Vseroskomdram's Plenums. and Статья посвящена литературной и публицистической деятельности Дмитрия Сверчкова, члена исполнительного комитета Петербургского Совета рабочих депутатов 1905 г. Эта деятельность связана с его памятью о создании, деятельности и поражении Совета. На основе архивных документов и опубликованных работ показывается, что в течение периода, последовавшего за революционными событиями 1917 г., Сверчков стремился сохранить память о Совете посредством прозаических произведений и в кинематографе. Анализируются сюжеты его киносценария "Октябрьская революция 1905 года и первый Санкт-Петербургский Совет рабочих депутатов" (1924 г.) и его пьеса "Но не побеждены!" (1931 г.). Наиболее важным в данном случае представляется то, что писатель показывает народ как участника революционных событий 1905 г. Кроме того, статья написана с привлечением стенографических отчётов речей Д. Ф. Сверчкова на Пленуме Всероскомдрама.
The author comments on Leonardo Ambasciano's book An Unnatural History of Religions: Academia, Post-truth and the Quest for Scientific Knowledge (2019) and develops the line of its argument that a fideistic, sui generis, confessional History of Religions tradition continues due to the tacit support from scholars, institutions and organisations. Gnosticism is presented as a case study, showing how it exemplifies core critiques of HoR, and is supported by the same scholars and institutions, particularly the IAHR. The author then considers the recent British Academy report into Theology and Religious Studies in the UK to argue that the HoR tradition in contemporary Religious Studies is not a "problem to be solved", but rather something at the very basis of the discipline. The argument is therefore made that there cannot be a truly scientific academic study of religion while RS exists.