The figure of Viktor Ivanovich Nesmelov, a Kazan based theologian, is of a special importance among the variety of Russian theological movements. His anthropological views take stem from an intention to reconcile a traditional view for the Christian Orthodox theology — a biblical narrative of the creation of man, as well as the patristic anthropological teaching with psychological, philosophical data and the data of natural sciences contemporary with Nesmelov’s active years. That intention was gradually unfolding into an original theological and philosophical teaching, which was based on the category of person. However, in spite of the authenticity of the author’s anthropological ideas, some views of another philosophical movement show themselves in particular moments of V. I. Nesmelov’s teaching. By the time of V. I. Nesmelov’s active years that movement had already been grounded in Russian thought and had formed, albeit somewhat incoherent, a very traceable intellectual tradition. It was the ideas of Neo-Leibnizianism movement representatives. The latter had Leibniz’s Monadology as their ideological source, although, ideological diversity, in general, was their peculiarity. Another characteristic of that movement was the personalistic emphasis in their ideas, which in some cases was of a key role. Some researchers note that Neo-Leibnizianists in most cases tended to disassociate themselves from the abovementioned tradition. This to some extent unites the former with V. I. Nesmelov, taking both him and Neo-Leibnizianists from the frames of a fixed intellectual tradition into a field of diversity and originality of their teachings. In this article an effort is taken to express the personalistic teaching of V. I. Nesmelov as well as to compare his ideas with the views of some representatives of Neo-Leibnizianism. The ideological vagueness of the latter movement gives some space to undertake such comparison, which is localized, in this case, in the particular moments of V. I. Nesmelov’s teaching. An effort is taken as well to define the author’s ideas, taking into account his personal methodological emphasis.