|
HISTORY, SOPHIA AND THE RUSSIAN NATION |
||
|
II. Theology of History in Solov'ev In the Preface to his Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii [The History and Future of Theocracy, 1886], Solov'ev wrote on his ambition 'to justify the faith of our fathers, by elevating it to a new level of consciousness; to show how this ancient faith, once liberated from the eyes of local isolation and national pride, coincides with the eternal and universal truth.' [1] With this bold statement he announced his project of relating faith to both tradition and to modern society by redefining their mutual relationships within a systematic Christian worldview. [2] This issue had already been addressed in the first centuries of Christianity, with the attempts to fuse Christian teachings and Platonic philosophy, from the apostle Paul up to neo-Platonic metaphysics, and had become the core of Western medieval philosophy as a whole. However, it was a rarity in the Russian context, in which 19th century thinkers tended to emphasise only one of two terms, namely faith in the case of dogmatic Orthodox theology, and reason in that of authors influenced by Western Enlightenment. While bridging this gap seemed neither possible nor desirable to others, Solov'ev's ambition was precisely that -- to combine faith and reason in a new synthesis. Against the defenders of exclusively dogmatic thought, respectively rational thought, Solov'ev emphasised both the historicity and the absolute truth of the Christian church and its dogma. With this position, he created maximum tension between both claims, which he sought to preserve in their totality. These views were developed within a theological framework of history. This chapter describes the problem of history from the theological perspective, within which Solov'ev combined faith with reason. His central category was 'the humanity of God', by means of which he sought to conceptualise the link between God and man through its historical development, leading to the eventual Kingdom of God. The main purpose of this chapter is to show the centrality of the category of the humanity of God in Solov'ev's theological views on history. The latter are scattered in various texts throughout his work as a whole, most importantly and comprehensively in Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve [Lectures on the Humanity of God, 1878-1881], Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika [The Great Controversy and Christian Politics, 1883], his biblical theology of history Istorija i buduscnost teokratii [The History and Future of Theocracy, 1887] followed by a church theology of history in La Russie et l'Eglise universelle [Russia and the Universal Church, 1889], and finally the eschatological text Tri razgovora with its apocalyptic story 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste' [Three Conversations, A Short Story about the Antichrist, 1899-1900]. With the category of the humanity of God, Solov'ev sought to convey the view of Christianity in both its historical development and its absolute truth. This came down to reinvigorating the Orthodox worldview with an eschatology for which he found elements in the Eastern Church fathers and the Russian religious thinkers. However, his efforts to integrate his views into a theology of history that was acceptable from the Orthodox perspective were prone to the position of an intellectualistic, abstract conception of God, at the expense of faith. He also encountered the limitations of theology of history, with its inadequate conception of process, and its negligence of nature and matter in the process of salvation. There were also limitations inherent to philosophy of history, as we shall see in the next chapter. To overcome these, he introduced a third conception of history, namely sophiology of history. Through this register, he aimed to form a bridge between the exclusive claims of faith vs. reason, and of transcendence vs. immanence. In order to address the issues that relate history to the humanity of God, the chapter is structured as follows. First (1) I reconstruct Solov'ev's theological register of history by focusing on (a) its definition, (b) framework, (ci) periodisation, (cii) conception of time, (di) criteria and (dii) method, and finally (e) on the main actors in the register. Secondly (2)I analyse the sources of inspiration at the basis of his theology of history, namely (a) the Eastern Church fathers (i) Origen of Alexandria, (ii) Maximus Confessor, and (b) the 19th century Russian religious thinkers, namely (i) the theoreticians of Slavophilism, (ii) Fedor Tjutcev and (iii) Fedor Dostoevskij. 1. The Register of Theology of History in Solov'ev In order to counter an exclusively rational or dogmatic approach to history, Solov'ev sought to develop a Christian theology of history that conveyed a two-fold message: history is the history of Christianity, and Christianity is historical. With the first claim, he opposed a secular or atheist view of history by indicating that true development is only possible through Christianity. This development was shown by the revelations of the Bible and the events that shaped church history. His second claim was more controversial for his Orthodox contemporaries. In his eyes, Christianity needed history in order to become what it was potentially. [3] This also meant that the traditional conception of Christianity had to be 'freed' from its limitations, and be adapted to cure the ills of the modern world. [4] Solov'ev set himself the task of combining an attachment to the Christian tradition and a commitment to the society of his time. For this purpose, he brought to the fore a core category, the humanity of God [Bogocelovecestvo], on the basis of which he built his theology of history. [5] This category contained the two dimensions of divine transcendence and human freedom that the philosopher sought to combine. He turned it into a structuring principle by posing it as the true goal of history, and in this way equated theology of history with the history of the humanity of God. History as it was revealed in the Bible announced the realisation of the humanity of God:
On the one hand, the component of Bogocelovecestvo 'bogo-' [of God] refers to the central role reserved to God in history. Indeed, in conformity with the traditional Christian idea of Providence ruling over the destiny of the world, Solov'ev recognized that the historical process is the means by which 'God's will is realised in the world.' [7] On the other hand, the component 'celovecestvo' [humanity], implies a participation of all human beings in this process: 'Particularly since the real and historical reunion of the divine and the human in Christ, humanity itself must take a positive part in its destinies.' [8] The goal of history consists in 'the reunification of humanity and the world with the absolute, integral principle', or, put in moral terms, a complete reconciliation with God. [9] This implies overcoming inner division, the most radical of which Solov'ev saw in the great schism between the Christian churches since 1054. From this perspective, it was crucial for Solov'ev that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches reunite. On the basis of the category of Bogocelovecestvo, Solov'ev built a theology of history as a history of the humanity of God. In this respect, he opened up classical Orthodox theology, which lacked elaborations in the domain of theology of history and eschatology, to a new field. [10] In Ctenija in particular, he articulated Bogocelovecestvo 'in such a way that it measured up to the demands of modern critical thought as well as to the existential situation of Orthodoxy in the modern world.' [11] This implied historicizing Christianity by a critical assessment of its developments:
History displays the work of God and humanity in their joint process towards unification. This pervading teleological perspective determined the framework and content of Solov'ev's views on history. The space-time framework of the theological register of history is entirely informed by Christianity. Other religions, primarily Hinduism and Judaism, only played a preparatory role in the coming of Jesus Christ. [13] The other significant religion that appeared later, Islam, has only an educating task in the still pagan areas, until Christianity assumes it. [14] That Christianity is the pivot of history is obvious from Solov'ev's statements on history's direction, goal, and driving force: 'Christianity gives to humanity not only the ideal of absolute perfection, but also the path to the realisation of this ideal, and thus is in its essence progressive.' [15] The essence of Christianity is the 'rebirth of humanity and the world in the spirit of Christ, the transformation of the worldly kingdom into the Kingdom of God.' [16] Not surprisingly, Solov'ev considered only Christianity as allowing perfect unification of God and humanity, partly because, contrary to what he thought of other religions, in Christianity this transformation involves the action not only of God, but also of man. [17] Solov'ev traced a linear development with its origin in God [Bog] to the eschatological horizon of the humanity of God [Bogocelovecestvo] through the God-Human Jesus Christ [Bogocelovek): 'The mystery of the humanity of God, which revealed itself in Christ -- the individual unification of the perfect Divinity with the perfect humanity [ ... ] is the knot [uzel] of world history.' [18] With this terminology, Solov'ev proposed a new articulation between immanence and transcendence that maintained the traditional distinction in the Christian worldview between the immanent human world and the transcendent world of God. [19].) Still in line with the tradition, he showed that a connection was possible between the two realms, primarily through positing religion in the etymological sense [re-ligio]: 'religion is the reunification of humanity and the world with the absolute, integral principle.' [20] In this sense, history is the religious process par excellence. Solov'ev's theology of history not only includes an analysis of past developments in the intellectual field of theosophy, but in fact extends to a total eschatological conception of the ideal life in God, which he calls integral life. Slightly more problematic is the question, with respect to which Solov'ev was elliptic and sometimes even ambiguous, namely whether the goal of history is the result of a transcendent intervention or the outcome of immanent human activity. If he defended the latter position, he could be reproached of chiliasm or Joachimism. [21] His emphasis on the human participation in salvation tended to overshadow his conviction that humanity cannot reach this goal through its own means, but can only prepare the conditions. [22] Solov'ev's belief that the Kingdom of God is situated at the very end of history, and is the result of divine interpretation, was contrary to Joachim's thesis. [23] c) Periodisation and conception of time History is constituted by a connection between God and man that has intensified throughout the course of history. On the line that Solov'ev drew from God through the God-human down to the humanity of God, the God-human functions as the middle point of history: he 'first appeared in the middle of history.' [24] This determines two main phases, the first preceding the life of the God-human Jesus Christ, the other following it. Solov'ev's intention was to show continuity between these phases by means of the category of the humanity of God. In order to demonstrate 'that the idea of the humanity of God is the logical outcome of religious evolution', he turned to history and philosophy of religion. [25] With this evolutionist perspective, he presented an alternative to the biblical narrative of the Old Testament. [26] Instead of drawing from the motives such as original sin, the construction of the tower of Babel and the subsequent formation of peoples, he examined the period up to Abraham from the modern anthropological perspective of history and philosophy of religion, which he blended with his religious convictions. The idea of the humanity of God was first prepared in natural religion, and gradually developed in the religious beliefs of the Indians, Greeks, Romans, and the Jews. [27] With God's address to Abraham, a new development started with a 'free interaction between the Creator and creation', in which man started acting freely to execute the plans of God. [28] The decisive step occurred with the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, by which God announced universal salvation and placed the principles of love and solidarity at the core of human action. [29] With Jesus Christ, the 'all-one divine life' 'appeared as a fact, a historical reality, in the living individuality of a historical person.' [30] In Solov'ev's eyes, it is the factual and historical dimension of God's message that makes up Christianity's distinctive character. [31] Since then, Christianity has had the moral and historical obligation to continue the work of Jesus and to prepare for his second coming. [32] Between these two divine moments, it is possible to distinguish three periods, even though Solov'ev did not explicitly name them, viz. from Jesus Christ until the schism (33-1054), from the schism to his time (1054-1880s), and from his time until the end of history (1880s-?). The philosopher approached the entire phase of history after Jesus Christ from the teleological perspective of the realisation of the humanity of God and through an ecclesiological prism. Two points of concern determine the latter, namely the dogma and the implementation of the idea of the universal church. The dogmas are the issue that Solov'ev addressed most within the church history of the 1st millennium. He regarded them as stages towards the union of the divine and the human. The dogmas were gradually accepted with the victory over Alyanism, Nestorianism, monophysitism, monothelitism, and iconoclasm. [33] As for the issue of Christian church unity, Solov'ev interpreted it by axiologically evaluating the deeds of the Western and the Eastern Churches as contributions or obstacles to the universal church. This led him to the following conclusions. The Catholic Church, on the one hand, had tried to implement social justice and a practical power on earth, by assuming the task of material government and spiritual education, but had succumbed to corruption. [34] The Eastern Church, on the other side, with its solitary asceticism and its mystical contemplation, had remained remote from politics and social issues, and thought only about preserving its purity. [35] In 1054, it decided to separate itself from Rome, provoking the great schism of Christianity. [36] During the second period (1054-1880s), the two churches evolved along separate paths, continuing the developments they had initiated before the schism. [37] While Rome became even more deeply corrupted and only strove to reinforce its earthly power, Byzantium fell to Islam as a result of being torn between 'professed orthodoxy and practised heresy.' [38] Byzantium's successor, Moscow, inherited the ills of both local Orthodoxy and Byzantium, namely remoteness from social affairs, and a higher attachment to the state than to the church. [39] It was primarily from this perspective that Solov'ev criticised the Russian Orthodox Church. In his mind, it reduced its activity to a religious cult, lacked a positive influence on state and society, and was alienated from its divine content and Christian ideal. [40] In the third and last, but far shorter period that was to begin in the 1880s, all efforts would, or at least should, be concentrated on unifying humanity, starting with the Christian community. Solov'ev undoubtedly felt he was living in a period just preceding the end of history and characterised by an alienation of humanity from Christianity. [41] He considered it his mission to bring back his fellow countrymen to the fold of Christianity, and untiringly exhorted them with urgent discourse that suggested that little time remained to realise the Christian task on earth: it was the last moment to choose between the right and the wrong path. As a matter of fact, he saw his time as the last chance to initiate a change towards the reunification of the churches, and, on the political level, towards theocracy. With the years, his eschatological thought turned into an apocalyptic discourse. He envisaged the progressive process as a last initiative before the final catastrophe, the symptoms of which he perceived in his own time. [42] These announced a complete submission of humanity to the Antichrist, who would be unmasked only by a handful of Christians. [43] With God's help, these would eventually triumph over the Antichrist and welcome Jesus Christ's second coming and thousand years' reign on earth. [44] To summarise, Solov'ev approached history in an original way, namely as the evolutionary process of the development of the humanity of God in two great phases, before and after Jesus Christ. With respect to the latter phase, his ecclesiological perspective focused on the issues of dogmas and church reunification. He developed a dualistic (axiological), deterministic (teleological) and catastrophic eschatology that was quite in line with tradition. On the last events presented by John in the Apocalypse, namely the Last Judgement and the subsequent Hell or Paradise, however, Solov'ev was remarkably silent. He did not express himself on the Last Judgement at all, and only once professed the opinion that the church teaching of eternal torment should be abolished. [45] These issues remained an underdeveloped aspect of his eschatological thought. [46] Interestingly, Solov'ev founded his distinction between God, man, and nature notably by ascribing a different time to them. This specification did not take place so explicitly in the other registers. In divine life, there is no distinction between past, present and future, and therefore no time but only eternity. [47] With the following statement, he followed the traditional conception of a transcendent, immutable God: 'in God Himself there can be no process of becoming perfect, but only an eternal and unchangeable fullness of all that is good.' [48] By contrast, in nature, there is a distinction between the three dimensions of time, but this is only deceptive: once something has passed, it disappears forever. In other terms, life is devoured by time. [49] Here, Solov'ev echoed the Augustinian conception of natural time as time that devours and knows no distinction but only deletes the past. As far as the human realm is concerned, Solov'ev considered it to be at an intermediary level, sharing elements with life in God and with natural life. He argued that the church, in the broad sense of the community of Christians, shapes a privileged relationship to time, in which the past, present and future are distinguished, and meaningfully complement each other. The church is aware of the values of the past, preserves them in the present, and projects them in the future goal. The church's past is represented by priesthood, its present by the state, and its future by the ideal of 'all-churchness' or 'all-ecclesiality' [vsecerkovnost']. [50] In this schematic definition of time, Solov'ev played with tripartitions rather than offering a philosophical or theological grounding for his teaching of universal church. However, against the commonly held view of Christianity as being first and foremost the bearer of tradition, he obviously sought to establish a dynamic relationship between the attachment to tradition and the strife for the concrete realisation of its ideal in an imminent future. Solov'ev's theological views of history present a completely polarised view of reality. Fundamentally, history is the struggle created by the interaction of the opposing principles of good and evil, which function as the main criteria. [51] The evil spirit of discord overpowered Adam, was then overpowered by the Son of God 'in order to be driven out of the whole creation at the end of time. This is the essential meaning of the incarnation.' [52] Still, the philosopher cared to distinguish his conception of good and evil from that of the manicheists and insisted that one cannot find 'a man who has finally attained perfect righteousness, and a man who has finally become utterly evil.' [53] In the world, good and evil are found only in mixed forms. This fundamental concern with good and evil was inherited from his father, whose decisive influence Solov'ev recognised in his own attachment to the Christian moral teaching. [54] His philosophical elaborations on ethics in his comprehensive work Opravdanie dobra have been studied extensively. [55] Some scholars have criticised the insufficient treatment of evil in some of his works. [56] On the one hand, it is true that Solov'ev fundamentally believed in the positive value of the world, and in history as the concrete ground on which the good can be realised. His thoroughly optimistic approach in Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve for instance, which prompted him to appeal untiringly to the forces of good, overshadows his conviction that Satan, too, rules the world. [57] In fact his publicistika constantly dealt with the problem of evil. [58] In these texts, in my opinion, evil is omnipresent in the implicit message of "let us choose for the good before evil gets hold of the whole situation". Recognising the evil in this or that phenomenon was never problematic to him. Departing from his conception of the humanity of God, he denounced various types of evil in the course of his career. Firstly, he focused on actions that violate the Christian principles of love and justice (death penalty, persecution of religious and cultural minorities by the state, violence by anarchistic and revolutionary movements). He also denounced political seditionist and independence movements as obstacles to the reconciliation between all human beings, as well as religious currents which literally 'cut' themselves off from the official church, the sects. [59] Evil also took the form of the reactionary attitude of the state, of the church, and of public opinion. Solov'ev then tried to unmask evil in its more pernicious forms, such as Tolstoj's pacifism. In 1888, he confessed he was 'looking at more or less all things sub specie aeternitatis or at least sub specie antichristi venturi.' [60] From this moment onwards, his thought, which so far had been implicitly eschatological, became explicitly apocalyptic. [61] Up to this stage he had focused on phenomena that he interpreted as contrary to the Christian teaching. Now he saw the Antichrist in Nietzscheanism, in Marxism and in Tolstojanism, as they actively fought against God. [62] The final image of Antichrist that Solov'ev offered in 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikriste' portrayed the eventual embodiment of evil as universal well-doer who would be the welcome leader of a unified humanity in history. [63] With respect to his method, Solov'ev was fighting a battle on two fronts simultaneously. On the one hand, in those times that were characterised by the triumph of positivism and the heritage of idealism, he strove to restore the central significance of Christian faith. The central role of faith in knowledge about the world and God was univocal: 'Both the existence of the external world and the existence of the divine principle [...] can be affirmed unconditionally only by faith.' [64] History and faith have a two-fold relationship of mutual dependence. Firstly, history can find support in faith. Solov'ev needed the dimension of faith to establish biblical events and the Word of God as a whole as historical facts. Specific episodes of Christian history, though being acts of faith rather than the product of empirical or rational knowledge, have the status of facts. [65] In the same vein, he regularly quoted from the Bible as the highest historical authority. [66] Secondly, and conversely, faith can find support in history: 'Faith in the Christian God is based on his perfect appearance in the historical experience of humanity.' [67] On the other hand, faith alone is not sufficient to 'justify the faith of our fathers.' It is only in combination with speculative reason that the absolute truth of the Christian religion can be grasped. [68] Against the possible objection that the combination of faith and speculative reason was a modern distortion of the Christian teaching, Solov'ev argued that it was already found in the ecumenical councils. The church fathers had determined Christian truth as a dogma of faith and 'as a thinkable [myslimaja] truth, by ways of speculation and dialectics.' [69] He sought to reinvigorate Orthodox theology, which operated mainly without the instruments of philosophical reflection, with insights of modern thought by means of rational speculation. As a matter of fact, traditional theology lacked 'rational criticism' and 'empirical realisation of theological truth.' [70] He criticised traditional Orthodox theology for having evacuated rational and empirical reflection, thus becoming 'abstract dogmatism.' [71] In order to liberate theology and turn it into free theosophy, rational thought and the data of experimental science should be included in order to foster 'a new and more dynamic relationship between religious and secular pursuits.' [72] In other terms, Solov'ev needed the dimension of speculative reason to establish the historicity of the dogmas and the church, and that of empirical reason to ground a social commitment of the church in this world. From the genealogy produced by the line 'God -- God-human -- the humanity of God', it becomes clear that the Christian God is the creator and ruler of human destiny. That the Christian God is 'the God of history' comes to the fore continuously in Solov'ev's work. [73] Solov'ev nevertheless warned against the temptation to anthropomorphise God's participation in history. The fact that man acts with a sense of purpose does not mean that God does the same. God does take part in history, but we do not know how. This did not however stop Solov'ev from making categorical statements about the way history should evolve towards its obvious goal. [74] The historical incarnation of God in the individual Jesus Christ or the perfect theophany, was incontestable. Solov'ev offered a treatment of Jesus Christ along traditional theological lines, namely through a doctrine of Trinity, a Christology, and an ecclesiology, which he, nevertheless, approached with great intellectual freedom. [75] As far as the specifics of the historical dimension of Jesus Christ are concerned, Solov'ev treated them as follows. Basing himself on his concept of Bogocelovecestvo, Solov'ev defended the thesis of Jesus Christ's divine and human natures, and in this respect was consistent with the 5-7th councils. [76] Jesus Christ as human being received the possibility of attaining divine glory and performing the kenotic act, and so anticipated the salvation of the whole of humanity. [77] He achieved a double feat of salvation, being a feat of the spirit through the three temptations, and a feat of the flesh, namely crucifixion. Solov'ev followed the Eastern tradition by describing the Passion as the becoming of a true spiritual body. [78] However, even from the perspective of the Eastern tradition, Solov'ev's treatment of the Passion displays a striking lack of interest in the properly human 'incarnated' side culminating in Jesus' suffering on the cross. For Solov'ev, Jesus Christ, although -- or precisely because of -- being the organising principle of the scheme of Bogocelovecestvo, remains an abstract figure. [79] For the sake of coherence within this historical scheme, Solov'ev might have devoted attention to his historical reality in flesh and blood, which he did not. As for the role in history of the Holy Spirit, the last component of the Trinity, Solov'ev did not expand on it. In conformity with Christian tradition, he regarded the Holy Spirit as the 'living force' that communicates with the believer through the activity of the church. [80] The application of the trinitarian division to history in an era of the Father, an era of the Son, and an era of the Holy Spirit, was not original either and was quite common in the nineteenth century. [81] Divine action, if indispensable, is not sufficient to realise the good. Human participation is needed, primarily through the church, but also through individuals. As far as the church is concerned, Solov'ev posited it to be more than an agent, and in his work made it the main actor in the realisation of the humanity of God. The church, for him, represented the collective designation for the social embodiment of Christian life as a whole, and more specifically, its institutional body. [82] The institutional church is the 'one shaping form' of the global church as Body of Christ and the intermediary between God and humanity in the direct sense of being 'the form of Humanity of God', which 'holds itself by a inner union of divine and human elements.' [83] From his earliest years onwards, Solov'ev nurtured the ideal of a universal church that was already realising itself through the path of hierarchical succession, the truth of confessed faith, and the authenticity of sacramental life. [84] This applied to the Orthodox Church, and with the years Solov'ev came to include the Catholic Church in the realisation of this ideal. As God's representative on earth, the church's task is to organise social life according to God's will, and the other two forces, state and society, must be subservient to it. [85] The goal is that of vsecerkovnost' or universal brotherhood, and thus the extension of the Christian church to humanity as a whole. In this way Solov'ev explicitly positioned himself against the disavowal of the church by Tolstoj, the Old Believers and various sects that were flourishing in his time. In Western Christianity he was primarily aiming his criticism at Protestantism. [86] He justified the fundamental significance of the church by underscoring the vertical relationship between God and the church: the church had been defined theocratically, namely by Jesus Christ. [87] Solov'ev's challenge, however, was not limited to emphasising the sanctity of the institutional church, but aimed at understanding the church in its historicity. Within the Orthodox Church, an unhistorical approach prevailed, as a result of which the dogmas and liturgy were commonly considered an unchanged and unchangeable tradition which the Christian church had received in one go from God through Jesus Christ and the seven ecumenical councils. [88] Against this view, Solov'ev argued that the church had been and still was subject to development. [89] This point sustained his exhortation that the Russian Orthodox Church should adapt itself to modern life, fulfil its social duties and contribute to social progress, and not limit itself to monastic life. [90] How then was the universal church to be realised? Solov'ev struggled with this question during his entire life. His views on the Catholic Church underwent a radical change, from a typically Slavophile criticism of its formal character and its attachment to earthly power (papism), to a positive valuation from 1888 onwards and even a fundamental role in the universal church. [91] In the 1880s, he started to defend the view of a reunion of the (Russian) Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as a first step towards achieving the universal church. [92] He felt that the latter needed a spiritual centre and had to be founded on the hierarchy and succession established by Jesus Christ. [93] He declared, using terms that probably made more than one Orthodox believer tremble with indignation, the apostolic chair of Rome to be 'the miraculous icon of universal Christianity.' [94] The dream of seeing the churches reunite prompted Solov'ev to examine their main dogmatic points of dissent. [95] He examined in particular the much debated issues of the filioque and papal infallibility. [96] More generally, from the conservative Orthodox point of view, the most significant obstacle for the reunification of the churches was that the Catholic Church unacceptably introduced modifications to the dogmas. But the Orthodox saw themselves as the depository of the latter, which they had received in their true form from Jesus Christ and the apostles. Solov'ev aimed to demonstrate that factual development of dogmas had already taken place before the schism. [97] Hereby he showed that the Orthodox Church, too, lived according to dogmas that had evolved before receiving their established form. [98] This was one more motivation for demonstrating the historicity of the church. For many years, Solov'ev believed in a change of attitude within the Russian Orthodox Church, so that it could contribute to the establishment of a Christian society. [99] As for theocracy, he continued to believe that it could be realised until no later than 1896, whereas he never wavered from the belief regarding the coming of the church reunification. [100] Significantly, he believed that this event would be preceded by the publication of his own work. [101] However, an interesting shift occurred. In the 1880s, he considered church reunion to be a first step, a condition for universal reconciliation, whereas in 1900, in 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste', church reunion clearly happens in extremis at the very end of history, just before the second coming of Christ. [102] Solov'ev not only addressed churchmen and theologians in his considerations on church history, theological debates and vision of church reunion. More significantly, perhaps, his target was the church at large, namely the Christian community, in Russia to begin with. Strikingly, apart from exhorting them to act in conformity with the Christian principles of love, solidarity and justice, he gave no practical instructions on how to organise Christian society. He rather focused on the individual choice that everyone should make in favour of these principles. This point is examined in the following subsection. iii) Religious leaders and common individuals Solov'ev pointed to eminent individuals who acted in history and contributed to the ideal of the humanity of God, and emphasised the vertical relationship between these people and God by recurrently mentioning their being 'elected.' These were firstly the Old Testament figures of Abraham and Isaac, who were elected by God to enter into a bond with Him and asked to get rid of their human bonds. God also chose some privileged people who became the prophets of the Old Testament. [103] Jesus subsequently chose the apostles to continue his work on earth. [104] Later, the church fathers were central actors in establishing the canon. [105] Solov'ev also greatly esteemed a number of popes, Leo the Great in particular, as he had taken the initiative of the 4th ecumenical council in 451 in Chalcedon, which condemned monophysitism, and died as a martyr. As far as Russian figures are concerned, Solov'ev only dealt with Saint Vladimir, the baptiser of Russia. [106]
In addition to these famous figures, and more importantly perhaps, Solov'ev held that every individual could and had to contribute in his or her own way to the Christian cause. Ludolf Muller has correctly labelled this emphasis on the subjective choice of engaging in Christian life and the historical aspect of this decision Solov'ev's Entscheidungseschatologie. [107] Christians' personal attitude is indeed the condition for universal salvation through prayer, almsgivings, and fasting. [108] In a period when Solov'ev had become pessimistic about the power of his fellow believers in his country, his call also went beyond the Christians. He declared that the spirit of Christ acts even through non-believers, who had made central contributions to history. [209] Provokingly, Solov'ev referred to the apostles Thomas (the sceptic) and Judas (the betrayer) as examples for the true and nominal believers of his day. [110] In this way, Solov'ev sought to awaken the Christian believers among his fellowmen from their lethargy so that they would engage in the construction of a Christian society. To summarise, Solov'ev developed a Christian theology of history, which he structured through the category of the humanity of God. From the first human intellectual productions until the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, which signified the end of history, an increasing unification of God and humanity was taking place. This was a fact to which every Christian individual and institution should contribute. Solov'ev's future-oriented discourse testifies to his perception of his own time as a moment of crisis, in which the choice had to be made between the right path towards the good, and the wrong path towards evil, a choice all the more difficult since evil was assuming increasingly disguised forms. He ascribed the role of main actors of this universal task to the divine Trinity, the church and the individual. His project of reinvigorating Christianity involved an intellectual task too, namely that of combining faith and speculative reason, against the predominance of the former in conservative Orthodoxy and of the latter in Western rationalism.
Eastern Christian theology, and especially the patristic literature, provided Solov'ev with the framework for his theological conception of history. He particularly admired two authors, Origen of Alexandria and Maximus Confessor, and drew from their elaborations in the fields of Christology and eschatology when developing his theory of the humanity of God. I base my analysis primarily on Solov'ev's entries written for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia. It is unclear which criteria Solov'ev applied in choosing and writing about a particular church father. In any case, neither sanctity, nor heresy was used as a criterium. [111] It should be noted that the Russian philosopher hardly dealt with the most significant Western church father, Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Apart from theological reasons, which are examined below, another reason relates to the time at which Solov'ev collaborated with the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia. He wrote from 1891 to 1900 and covered the Russian letters V to S. The entries under the letter A had already been published, and those after S were not yet written, otherwise there is a great chance that Solov'ev would have written entries on Augustine, Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas, to name only a few central figures in Christian thought. Solov'ev found inspiration in the founding father of the patristic tradition, Origen (175-254), who lived one century before the first ecumenical council. Origen was the most controversial and simultaneously the most influential author in the development of early Christian eschatology as an integral component of Christian theological reflection. [112] Although he was condemned as a heretic three centuries after his death at the fifth ecumenical council, and thus formally is not a church father, he 'is foundational to the Greek East in a way analogous to the role Augustine of Hippo plays in the West.' [113] In his eschatological thought he emphasised the continuity between present Christian life and its eschatological goal, and regarded creation as a whole as a free growth towards God. Bearing this point in mind, Solov'ev's attraction to his thought can be easily understood. To date, no study has been conducted on the precise influence of Origen on Solov'ev, and such a study is indeed rendered difficult as Solov'ev hardly ever mentioned Origen's name. Even the work by A. Nikol'skij entitled Russkij Origen XIX veka Vl. S. Solov'ev [Nineteenth-Century Origen Vl. S. Solov'ev] does not broach the issue. [114] Two significant exceptions provide some insight into Solov'ev's views on the Alexandrian theologian, namely the comprehensive entry 'Origen' which Solov'ev wrote for the encyclopaedia, and an unpublished entry, entitled 'Bolotov', on the work of his contemporary, theologian V.V. Bolotov, on Origen. [115] In both texts, Solov'ev showed a profound knowledge of Origen and the scholarly literature on this figure, who he considered to be 'one of the most independent and richly talented minds in the entire history of the church.' [116] The two texts contrast between a highly positive appreciation of Origen in 'Bolotov' and a foremost critical assessment in 'Origen'. [117] Two historical aspects of Origen's thought interested Solov'ev, namely the figure of Jesus Christ, and salvation. With respect to these two issues, Solov'ev showed himself both supportive and critical of Origen. On the one hand, Solov'ev praised the acknowledgment by Origen of 'the real unification of the Divine Person (Bozestvennoe Lico] with the perfect human being, without the distinctive properties of either nature' being eliminated. [118] In other terms, he approved of the definition of Jesus Christ as divine and human, which was, he said, in conformity with the dogma. Whether Origen's Christology genuinely served as a source of inspiration for him, or was merely an echo of Solov'ev's own preoccupations with Bogocelovecestvo, remains unsolved. In support of the hypothesis of inspiration, we could mention Solov'ev's literal translation into Russian of the term first coined by Origen, the substantive God-human [theanthropos] to refer to Jesus Christ. [119] But Solov'ev did not explicitly use the term in this entry, perhaps in order to show distance from the heretic. Yet he also voiced criticism of the way in which Origen had dealt with Jesus Christ. The ancient theologian had placed too much emphasis on the abstract meaning of the resurrection of Jesus. In this sense, he had misunderstood the true meaning of Christianity, which precisely aimed at making God's gesture as concrete and lively as possible, that is, accessible not so much to bright minds as actually 'only to those people who stood at a low level of spiritual development.' [120] Solov'ev hereby sought to demonstrate the convincing force of God's incarnation in flesh and blood for the people who lived at that time, as well as for the following generations. [121] Solov'ev also had a two-fold attitude with respect to Origen's view of salvation. [122] On the one hand, he found a confirmation of his own intuition of a total, universal reunification in God in Origen's formula of salvation as the restoration of all things [he apokatastasis ton panton]. His translation of the Greek term apokatastasis by 'reunification' [vossoedinenie] and 'reintegration' [voostanovlenie] suggests that he tended to identify his own ideal of salvation with Origen's concept of restoration. [123] However, with this translation Solov'ev operated a shift of emphasis, which rather points to the factor of unity, whereas Origen's apokatastasis refers to a return to the primordially established order. [124] On the other hand, he was critical of Origen's conception of salvation. He objected that salvation included not only free rational beings, as Origen had affirmed, but also the human body and the entire natural world. In his eyes, Origen professed a dualism between the material and the spiritual, which he had inherited from Hellenism, and which contradicted the true Christian message of reconciliation between the two spheres. [124] At this point, Solov'ev's interpretation of Origen's theory raises two important questions. Firstly, the necessary salvation of all free rational beings, professed by Origen, also applied to the devil. [126] Solov'ev hastily refuted this thesis from a dogmatic perspective, arguing that this teaching was not in conformity with the biblical and apostolic teaching. He also showed that it was inconsistent with Origen's own emphasis on the freedom of will; [127] the reproach of determinism in this view appears between the lines. However, the criticism that Solov'ev addressed to the coercive application of apokatastasis to humanity as a whole could just as well apply to his own view of salvation. The other problem that Solov'ev overlooked was that if, following Origen, all beings are eventually restored in God, the ideas of a Last Judgement and of a Hell become irrelevant. [128] Considering Solov'ev did not deal with the issues of a Last Judgement and of Hell, we have to conclude that they did not have priority. [129] To summarise, although Solov'ev was well informed regarding Origen scholarship, he criticised him unfairly on several points. Probably basing himself on well-known quotations and on the traditional interpretation, rather than on extensive textual analysis, he reduced the thought of this founding father to some points that Origen's detractors also used, especially the view of a universal and incorruptible [netlennoe] salvation. Nevertheless, Solov'ev found two key elements in Origen that served his theory of the humanity of God, namely a definition of Jesus Christ as the God-human, and an optimistic and total conception of salvation in terms of restoration in God. These two points received further elaboration in the thought of Maximus Confessor. Maximus Confessor (580-662) was the last great creative theologian of Greek patristic literature. As in the other fields of his speculative theology, he also sought to integrate the biblical and church tradition in his eschatology into a broad, comprehensive and coherent vision of the working of God in history. [130] While the decisive influence of Maximus Confessor on the Russian philosopher has been acknowledged, I focus on the properly historical aspects of this influence. [131] In Maximus' Christology, Solov'ev found the structural element for his theology of history, namely the synthesis of God and man in Jesus Christ: Maximus Confessor 'edifie[s] the whole reality of the natural and supranatural world on the Chalcedonian dogma, i.e. on the synthesis of God and man in Christ.' [132] Solov'ev had a high esteem for the master, who was 'after Origen the strongest philosophical mind in the Christian East.' [133] In his short entry 'Maksim Ispovednik' written for the Brokgauz-Efron, rather than expanding on Maximus himself, Solov'ev focused on the central significance of his struggle against the heresy of monothelitism, which was condemned at the sixth ecumenical council at Constantinople in 680. Monothelitism denied the existence within Jesus Christ of a divine and a human will [thelesis], and hereby contested 'the essence itself of Christianity as a divine-human religion.' [134] Against the success of monothelitism, Maximus had succeeded in establishing that two wills were active in Jesus Christ, and that therefore human will was dependent on God but not passive. What was at stake for Maximus was the preservation of human freedom: this point is central, and appears elsewhere in Solov'ev's theological considerations on monothelitism. [135] The Russian philosopher also acknowledged Maximus' fundamental role in the history of Christian thought as the mediator between 'the Greek-Christian theosophy and the medieval philosophy of the West.' [136] However, the shortness of the entry is striking, as is Solov'ev's laconism on the term divine-human. Maximus had raised it as the cornerstone of his worldview, and was in this respect Solov'ev's predecessor. It remains unclear why the Russian thinker, even though he mentioned the term in the entry, did not make explicit that it was Maximus himself who had introduced it. Solov'ev also found support in Maximus' thought for another point that he wanted to make clear, especially to those conservative thinkers who were hostile to Catholicism in his day, namely a positive valuation of Roman papacy. On several occasions, he emphasised the fact that, together with Theodore of Studion and John of Damascus, Maximus had acknowledged the authority of Rome. [137] The Russian philosopher wanted to prove, contrary to the commonly accepted view in Orthodox circles, that the authoritative ecumenical councils had not condemned Roman papacy. [138] He even provided historical evidence of early close collaboration between the churches before the schism by showing that each time Byzantine emperors had interfered in religious matters and threatened the freedom of the church, its representatives, namely Maximus, John Chrysostom, Saint Flavian, Saint Theodore of Studion, and patriarch Saint Ignatius had turned to the pope for protection and support. [139] These two points on which Solov'ev drew from Maximus, namely the existence of true free human will in Jesus Christ and the recognition of papal authority, are intimately linked. As a matter of fact, the Roman papacy is the representative of the divine-human principle of Jesus Christ in the church. This is the crux of his theology of history, and a central reason why he took distance from the Slavophiles. Since Origen and Maximus, however, much time had passed and Solov'ev levelled criticism at those who still stuck exclusively to the church fathers. In his eyes, Russian theology was leaning upon formulations made in the 7-8th centuries, as if since the last great teachers of the East, Maximus Confessor and John of Damascus, the human mind had not raised new questions, and as if modern European philosophy and science had nothing to offer to contemporary theologians. [140] With this statement he was targeting two flaws. Firstly, there was no autonomous and comprehensive discipline of theology in his country. [141] Solov'ev held German scholarly biblical criticism in high esteem and vividly encouraged Russian theologians to follow this method. [142] Secondly, and just as importantly, he sought to counter Eastern Christian tradition with an activist reading of the Christian message. Solov'ev saw the enemy of this conception in the medieval Orthodox monasticism -- this was also characteristic of patristic literature, which considered the highest goal and destiny of man to be union with God in monasticism. In this sense, the question of the influence of the patristic concept of theosis, or deification, on Solov'ev remains controversial. On the one hand, Gustavson affirms that theosis is the cornerstone of Solov'ev's theory of salvation. [143] On the other hand, Valliere argues that rather than on theosis, Solov'ev based himself on Jesus' renunciation of divine nature or kenosis. [144] This question can only be effectively solved within the framework of a theological investigation of both concepts in Maximus and Solov'ev, which goes beyond the objective of this study. Incontestably, however, Solov'ev expanded the notion of theosis in order to embrace all human beings, and not only the monastic orders, as the early church fathers had claimed. [145] Indeed, in his eyes, salvation could only be accomplished together with humanity as a whole. One final comment is needed with respect to Solov'ev's quasi-silence on the most influential Western church father, Augustine of Hippo. [146] Undoubtedly, the Russian philosopher knew Augustine's work: his contributions to the encyclopaedia attest to his thorough knowledge of Western as well as Eastern theology. However, he did not hold Augustine in great esteem, as his comments show. In this respect, he was in line with mainstream Orthodox and Slavophile mistrust with respect to Western theology, although his motives had to do with specifically theological matters. In fact, Solov'ev criticised Augustine's conception of predestination for not leaving any space for God's action and prevision [predvidenie]. [147] Besides, he rejected the Augustinian model of the two Realms on the basis of an inaccurate reduction of it to the Realm of the Christians vs. the Realm of the pagans, and concluded that this model reinforced the separation between the (Christian) church and the (pagan) state, thereby denying any positive religious content of the state. [148] Solov'ev also explained that the theologian's views entailed a potential misunderstanding, namely that only the will of God was determinant, not that of man, which suggested that sin was almost completely irredeemable. For the conception of history, this implied a submission to God's will and the suppression of rational human will, consequently a quietism, and predestination of evil. These conclusions, which the Pelagian followers of Augustine had drawn, were contrary to Solov'ev's emphasis on the participation of man in history, God's commitment to the world, and the decisive role of human freedom. [149] In other terms, it proposed a scheme of history exclusively dominated by the figure of God. This conception, together with Augustine's emphasis on original sin, predestination, and grace, conveyed a darker worldview that reduced human freedom and was alien to Eastern Christianity, and to Solov'ev. [150] Nevertheless, he shared the entire theological framework of thinking about history with the African theologian, and, among others, an all-embracing philosophy of biblical history, and the parallel between the days of creation and the periodisation of history. The Augustinian model, in particular that of the two Realms, bore similarities with the history of the humanity of God professed by the Russian thinker by its framework, dualism between good and evil, conception of time, and actors. Solov'ev, however, cast the traditional theological view of history into a modern mould. In addition to the Greek church fathers, Solov'ev further found inspiration in his own national culture, namely mid-19th century Russian religious thought. Among the authors who inspired Solov'ev, I primarily focus on the founding fathers of Slavophilism, Aleksej Khomjakov (1804-1860), who was the leading theologian of Slavophilism, and Ivan Kireevskij, its major philosopher (1806-1856), and further Fedor Tjutcev (1803-1873) and Fedor Dostoevskij (1821-1881). ii) The theoreticians of Slavophilism Solov'ev's theological framework of history and Russia's role in it bore a clear Slavophile stamp. Humanity is torn in a primarily religious conflict between the Eastern and Western civilisation, or between Byzantium and Rome. The Slavophiles' identification of Orthodoxy as the only bearer of true Christianity and their related rejection of Catholicism profoundly influenced Solov'ev's early views, from 1877 up to 1881. In this respect, Solov'ev assumed the conception of the Orthodox Church as developed by Khomjakov, as an organism of truth and love which is described as symphony or conciliarity [sobornost'] [151] Only Orthodoxy had succeeded in preserving both freedom and unity, while Catholicism had sacrificed the former, and Protestantism the latter. [152] Such a glorification of Orthodoxy led Ivan Aksakov (1823-1886) and Jurij Samarin (1819- 1876) to emphasise the historical destiny of the Orthodox Russian nation. [153] Solov'ev's original contribution was to properly messianise their conception of holy Orthodox Russia. [154] That Dostoevskij placed the first milestone for such a turn is demonstrated below. Instead of ascribing the task of preserving Christianity to Russia, which found support in a past-oriented conception of Russia, Solov'ev advocated the mission of a future regeneration of humanity. In this respect, the transformation he performed was radical: he moulded their idea in an eschatological perspective of a final incarnation of divinity in the world, which was absent in their considerations. This different perspective may explain why Solov'ev did not pick up typically nostalgic views on an ideal earlier Russia, such as the idea of the peasant commune. Interestingly, he also came to redefine his messianism by stripping it of its initial nationalistic touch and by bringing to the fore the ethical notions of obligation and serving instead of privilege. [155] Russia's historical task did not stop at realising Christian society, but should also entail a philosophy capable of overcoming the schism between (Eastern) faith and (Western) reason. Solov'ev's reflections on this issue reveal the influence of Kireevskij's philosophical programme. [156] Contrary to what the West claimed, it was not reason but faith that embodied supreme rationality and that should lie at the basis of the most consistent system, 'integral knowledge' [cel'noe znanie ]. [157] Solov'ev also assumed Khomjakov's broad definition of faith, which should function as the foundation of all cognition. [158] For this purpose, patristic thought proved insufficient, Solov'ev argued, and needed to be enriched with the experience of reason. He proposed to adapt the results of Western science to the Christian faith, which still lived in Eastern Orthodoxy and elaborated on the concept of integral knowledge or 'living knowledge [zivoznanie).' [159] This aspect of Solov'ev's thought, which in fact belongs to his epistemology, is worth mentioning here because he regarded this synthesis in messianic terms, as the task that Russia had to accomplish. [160] However, Solov'ev changed his historical views and distanced himself from the Slavophiles. The most important impulse for this move was his fascination, since the beginning of the 1880s, with Catholicism, which led him to the idea of church reunion, against the anti-Catholicism of Slavophiles such as editor Ivan Aksakov, in whose journal Solov'ev published at that time. [161] Solov'ev made a distinction between Catholicism and papism, and made his divergence from the Slavophiles explicit in a fervent letter to Ivan Aksakov:
The criticism of the Slavophiles that was most significant for Solov'ev's theology of history was expressed in articles collected in the second book of Nacional'nij vopros (1888-1891). But his attempt to take explicit distance from his earlier masters prompted him to voice a criticism which was far too harsh to be fair, and rather resembled a trial. [163] His central point was the Slavophiles' treatment of Western and Russian church history. Focusing on Khomjakov's interpretation of Western Christianity, he condemned his tendency to generalise the negative aspects of historical phenomena, to reduce them to one principle (unity at the expense of freedom achieved by Catholicism, and freedom at the expense of unity achieved by Protestantism), and to oppose it to Eastern Christianity (the only Christian confession that had preserved 'synthesis of unity and freedom in love'). [164] According to Solov'ev, not only Catholicism, but also the Orthodox Church was based on authority. In addition, Khomjakov was not consistent with Russian church history, which he did not handle in the same concrete way, as a result of which he glorified Orthodoxy as an ideal already achieved. [165] The Slavophiles 'confused their ideals with the facts of history.' [166] In this context, Solov'ev positively valued the changes brought to Orthodoxy by patriarch Nikon and by Peter the Great. Finally, the Slavophile teaching of the church did not even have the privilege of being new, since its sources lay in German theology and French traditionalism, as he added provokingly. [167] He concluded that Khomjakov had perhaps professed an ideal Christianity, but had given it a twist by affirming that it was to be found in Greco-Russian Orthodoxy. [168] The new representatives of the Slavophile thought preached a nationalist 'russification of the state' rather than the universalist aspects of Christianity. [169] Against these views, Solov'ev introduced the idea of a universal Russian Christian empire, for the conception of which he found support in the views of the diplomat and poet Tjutcev. The latter's view of Russia as world monarchy and his positive valuation of Rome particularly attracted the philosopher. [170] Against the Slavophiles, he shared with Tjutcev the valuation of the state as a positive force in history, and the conviction of the primacy of Rome as the only pillar of Christianity. But his scheme was a reversal of Tjutcev's conception. Because the Eastern Church had caused the schism, it was up to the Eastern Church to return to universal church, and not to Rome, as Tjutcev affirmed. Solov'ev was remote from Tjutcev's imperialistic view of Russia as universal monarchy, involving the conquest of European (German, Italian) territories. More fundamentally, he could not agree with Tiutcev's rejection of religious progress, as a result of which he saw the future empire as an end in itself, and not, as Solov'ev emphasised, as the best instrument of religious progress that ultimately led to the Kingdom of God. Walicki has rightly concluded that 'Solov'ev transformed Tjutcev's ideas, as well as the Slavophile retrospective idea, in the spirit of religious messianism, stressing the need for a progressive evolution of Christianity, and thus posing a threat to all sorts of institutionalised Orthodoxy.' [171] The relationship and mutual inspiration between Fedor Dostoevskij and So\ov'ev has been extensively analysed. [172] Solov'ev had a personal bond with Dostoevskij. [173] Both thinkers were vividly concerned with the issues of the implementation of a Christian society on earth, the moral question of the realisation of good, its justification as well as the justification of evil. Both formulated the tension between God-man and man-God. Focussing on Dostoevskij's possible influence on Solov'ev's theology of history, I discuss four aspects: messianism, theocracy, the humanity of God, and apocalypticism. Against a general tendency in scholarship and against Solov'ev's own affirmations at his commemorative speeches of Dostoevskij, I hold that it is only with regard to the first and the third issue that one can perhaps speak of a direct influence of the novelist on the philosopher. The messianism that Dostoevksij voiced in his 'Rec' o Puskine' [Address on Puskin, 1880] contained inspiring elements for Solov'ev. Dostoevskij sketched an image of future Russia as the reconciler of 'all European controversies' by its 'all-human and all-unifying Russian soul', and more globally, the hope that Russia would 'utter the ultimate word of great, universal harmony, of the fraternal accord of all nations abiding by the law of Christ's Gospel.' [174] The notion of the universal mission of the Russian nation had already been expressed in Dostoevskij's novel Besy [The Possessed], published in 1872-1873. [175] Had Solov'ev found his source of inspiration there when he wrote on the reconciling power of Russia? [176] The motive of a future universalisation of Christianity through reconciliation between the nations could not but fit into Solov'ev's view. He explicitly acknowledged Dostoevskij's ability to 'approach this ideal [... ] to a greater extent than the old Slavophiles', to formulate it in 'a completely true, though a most general form', and 'more emphatically than all the Slavophiles.' [177] In connection with the issue of messianism, the question arises as to Dostoevskij's influence on Solov'ev's conception of free theocracy, which he also developed in the late 1870s. In his eyes, Dostoevskij's last novel Brat ja Karamazovy [The Brothers Karamazov] addressed a topic about which he was dreaming himself, namely 'the Church as the positive social ideal.' [178] Although evidence can be found of the kinship between the two thinkers, notably on the basis of Brat ja Karamazovy, Stremooukhoff's argument that Solov'ev developed his conception of theocracy independently from the Russian novelist is convincing. [179] Besides, it seems that Dostoevskij did not believe in the penetration of the church into governmental affairs. [180] Concerning the notion of the humanity of God [Bogoceloveeestvo], which Solov'ev explicitly connected with Dostoevskij's life and work in his commemorative speeches, the novelist perhaps only played a role by the vivid example of his life and work. Solov'ev was deeply fascinated by the victory of the good in which the novelist believed, even after experiencing the darkest evil of life. [181] Dostoevskij had the genius to describe in lively terms the inverted example of the God-human, i.e. man-God [celovekobog]. Solov'ev confronted these two types in his criticism of Nietzsche and in his description of Antichrist. [182] More generally, he interpreted Dostoevskij's spiritual life in his own terms. The novelist had believed in the God-human and in the humanity of God, or in other words, in Jesus Christ and in the church. [183] Finally, the issue of the influence of Dostoevskij's apocalyptic thought on that of Solov'ev has to be broached. The topics of apocalypse and Antichrist were not unique to the two thinkers. In the ending 19th century, they were part of the worldview of such famous thinkers as Nikolaj Fedorov (1829-1903), Konstantin Leont' ev (1831-1891), and Vasilij Rozanov (1856-1919). [184] But Dostoevskij's 'Legenda o velikom Inkvizitore' [Legend of the Great Inquisitor] had a tremendous effect on his contemporaries, who saw in it a key to interpreting their epoch in universal and eschatological terms. The striking parallels and differences between specifically Dostoevskij's 'Legenda' and Solov'ev's 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste' have been extensively analysed. [185] These two stories 'can be considered the culmination of Dostoevskij's and Solov'ev's immersion into the metaphysical confrontation between the God-human, Christ, and the man-god, the Antichrist.' [186] The most obvious parallels are that both the Great Inquisitor and the Antichrist, animated by a hate of Jesus Christ whom they regard as their only competitor, are the charismatic champions of a structured utopia, and remove freedom from their subjects while guaranteeing material welfare. [187] However, three significant differences come to the fore between the two stories. [188] Solov'ev did not place his story in medieval times, but in an imminent future. Even though the Great Inquisitor projects a vivid picture of the future of humanity, Solov'ev described the Antichrist's action as a more immediate and apocalyptic warning and threat for his readers. Secondly, his Eurasianist Antichrist appears more as the product of historical developments. He has a global range of power resulting from the global political and strategic situation, after a world war and the Mongol domination over the planet as a whole, whereas Dostoevskij's Great Inquisitor in principle operates in Spain only, or at least in Christian Europe. Thirdly, Solov'ev made of his Antichrist a total ruler. His power was not limited to the religious domain, as that of the Great Inquisitor, but extended to the political, economic, social, and even intellectual domains. [189] This shift in emphasis reveals Solov'ev's ambition to embed his apocalyptic story in his own time. In addition, by linking Nietzscheanism with the Antichrist, Solov'ev adapted Dostoevskij's exclusive attack on Roman Catholicism and radical socialism to the intellectual challenges of fin de siecle Russia. In sum, Solov'ev found inspiration in Origen and Maximus for their conception of Jesus Christ as the God-human, and especially in Maximus' view of the union of two independent wills, the divine and the human will. From Origen, he also borrowed the notion of restoration of all things at the end of history. Solov'ev's theology of history was further deeply embedded in the Russian context. The regenerating mission of Orthodox Russia in the destiny of humanity as a whole formed the core of Solov'ev's early preoccupation with the implementation of the good on earth. From the Slavophiles, he borrowed a religious perspective on Russia and its role in universal history, torn between Eastern and Western Christianity. Tjutcev gave him the instruments to defend a Christian universalism with the revived concept of universal monarchy, and Dostoevskij paved the way for his messianic discourse on Russia's obligation with respect to the world and activated the twofold terms 'humanity of God' and 'God-human' in Russian literature. With respect to all these thinkers, Solov'ev did not limit himself to borrowing, but engaged in a critical discussion with the aim of formulating a theology of history appropriate to his time. To what extent did Solov'ev succeed in introducing a new conception of history, if compared to the underdeveloped Orthodox theology of history? He proposed a theology of history that emphasised the relevance of the Christian dogmas, of religious development and of implementing Christian principles in concrete situations in the modern world. In particular, he offered a successful combination of transcendence and historicity in his treatment of the church. Its task should go beyond the traditional duty of preserving tradition: activism is needed, a commitment to the immanent world, which Solov'ev justified by virtue of its affiliation to God. His introduction of speculative thought allowed him to bring into Orthodox theology elements of renewal, such as a historical discussion of the development of dogmas and the different confessions. However, there were several flaws in his treatment. It was neither fully epistemologically backed nor exhaustively worked out. Rather than devoting his whole life to the study of church history, Solov'ev seems to have assimilated its core aspects, and then to have investigated history not in order to do research, but rather to find a verification of his own intuitions. In this respect, history for him consisted rather of a field of revelation than of investigation. Perhaps because of his teleological and deterministic scheme of humanity of God that pervades history, there seems to be no total freedom for man to orient the historical process towards another end. Another weakness concerns his ecclesiology. The view that the universal church must eventually come down to humanity tends to ignore the "distinctiveness of the church as a sacramental community.' [190] The excessive use of speculation has also been the target of criticism by theologians. [191] They have rightly reproached him for ascribing insufficient significance to faith, and for being abstract in his considerations on Christology. [192] Solov'ev's conception of the Trinity was indeed so speculative that it was no longer a mystery in his constructions and thus left little room for faith. Besides, he neglected the person and the historical figure of Jesus Christ, so that his Christology as a whole is problematic and abstract. [193] As a result, the realm of the divine is not approached as mystery in Solov'ev's thought. The use of speculative reason diminishes, as it were, the competence domain of faith to a minimum, that is, to the truth of the Scripture and the dogmas. Except in the eyes of h is followers Sergej Bulgakov (1871-1944), Nikolaj Berdjaev (1874-1948), Pavel Florenskij (1882-1937), and perhaps Semen Frank (1877- 1950), Solov'ev seems to have failed to provide a convincing, and primarily Orthodox theology of history. Beside the fact that his theology of history was not acceptable from an Orthodox standpoint, it had for Solov'ev himself an intrinsic limitation too. It was too tight a framework for the ideas that he was most attached to, namely the positive emphasis on the immanent process and the related view of humanity as main actor, as well as the spiritualization and salvation of matter and nature. Neither of them could find had a place within the idea of the humanity of God. In order to give a central place to the notion of process, he developed a philosophy of history as a complement to theology of history. In his philosophy of history, he positively emphasised the human world in its immanent development. But the problem remained of solving the limitations of both registers and the tension between transcendence and historicity or between theology of history and philosophy of history. He therefore developed his sophiology of history, in which creation as a whole, including nature, is included in the process towards salvation. Despite these tensions and limitations, however, theology of history was a pillar in his view of history. It allowed him to confirm the divine origin of the church and of the moral principles he believed in. As I will show in my case studies, it also played a central role in his interventions on critical questions of his time. _______________ Notes: 1. Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii (SS. 4, pp. 243-641: p. 243). 2. Solov'ev was not the only thinker to address this issue. Retrospectively, one can point to a 'Russian school' of theology that existed from approximately 1870 to 1940 and was represented by Nikolaj Bukharev, Vladimir Solov'ev and Sergej Bulgakov (Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theology. Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Orthodox Theology in a New Key (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) [abbreviated Valliere 2000a], pp. 1-4). Solov'ev was not acquainted with Bukharev's work but arguably explored this path under the influence of his professor Pamfil Jurkevic (1827-1874), who was "an important link between Orthodox theology and modern philosophy in Russia' (Ibid., p. 111). The Neopatristic school, with Georges Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky as its most famous promoters, emerged in reaction to the Russian school. Against the domination of the present-day debate by the Neopatristic position, Valliere demonstrates the actual relevance of the Russian school's theological thought (Ibid., pp. 373-403). 3. 'O poddelkakh' (S. 1989 2. pp. 305-322: p. 309). 4. This led him to conduct fierce polemics with Russian theologians, professors at religious academics and churchmen, such as father Antonij (Khrapovickij, 1863-1936), Aleksandr Ivancov-Platonov (1835- 1894). Konstantin Istomin (pseudonym Stojanov, 1848-1914) and Nikolaj Zaozerskij (1851-1919). 5. The term was not new: it had been coined by Origen. The translation of Bogocelovecestvo by 'humanity of God' has been convincingly proposed by Paul Valliere 2000a (pp. 11-15). This term is consistent with what Valliere sees as Solov'ev's main objective, as well as that of Bukharev and Bulgakov, that is, to use the term as 'the vehicle for a principled and profound Orthodox Christian humanism' (Ibid., p. 12). Accordingly, the noun bogocelovek is translated by 'the God-human' (ex. p. 11. 154). and the adjective bogoceloveceskij by 'divine-human' (ex. p. 153). Humanity of God is a direct translation from the Greek theandria, theanthropia. Although the term occurs in patristic sources, mostly or Origenist or monophysite tendencies, no theological system was founded on one of these two terms in patristic literature. Theologies of the humanity of God are therefore modern constructs (Ibid., pp. 11-15). 6. Dogmaticeskoe razvite cerkvi v svjazi s voprosom o soedineniem cerkvej (SS. 11, pp. 1-67: p.21). 7. Opravdanie dobra, S. 1988 L pp. 47-548: p. 259; transl.: The Justification of the Good, transl. Natalie Duddington (New York: Macmillan. 1918), p. 172. 8. La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, in E. 1978, pp. 126-297: p. 206. 9. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, S. 19892, pp. 5-170: p. 14 (English transl.: Lectures on Divine Humanity, Peter Zouboff (transl.). Boris Jakim (ed.) (Hudson, New York: Lindisfarne press, 1995), p. 10): 'Tri reci v pamjati Dostoevskogo', S. 1988 2, pp. 290-323. 'Tretja rec", p. 315. 10. Valliere 2000a, p. 387. 11. Ibid., p. 144. 12. 'Iz. filosofii istorii'. SS. 6. pp. 340-359: p. 343. 13. This does not mean that Solov'ev was disinterested in these religions: on the contrary. On Hinduism, see the entries for the encyclopaedia 'Indijskaja filosofija' (SS 10, pp. 336- 39). 'Vedanta' (SS. 10. pp. 294-297), 'Dzajmini' (on the Indian philosopher Djaimini, perhaps from Solov'ev's hand (Deutsche Gesamtausgabe der Werke von Wladimir Solowjew, Wladimir Szylkarski, Wilhelm Lettenbauer and Ludolf Muller (transl. and eds.), 8 vols. (Freiburg & Munchen: Erich Wewel Verlag, 1953-1980) [abbreviated DGA]. vol. 6, p. 642). On Judaism, see case study III 'The Jewish Question'. 14. In the present world, the Islamic world was the first force, Solov'ev claimed in 1877 ('Tri sili, PSS I, pp. 199-208: p. 201). Later, he believed that Muslims would be ultimately brought back into the fold of the Christian community. On Islam, see primarily Solov'ev's long essay 'Magomet ego zizn' i ucenie' (1896) (SS 7. pp. 203-281). 15. 'O poddelkakh', pp. 313-314. 16. 'O pricinakh upadka srednevekovogo mirosozercanij', S. 1989 2, pp. 344-355: p. 344 [italics mine]. 17. La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 132, 'O pricinakh upadka srednevekovogo mirosozercanija', p. 345. 18. Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, S. 1989 I. pp. 59-167: p. 86. 19. Dukhovnye osnovy zizni, SS. 3, pp. 301-416: p. 301. Similarly, he maintained the hierarchical superiority of the spiritual over the material. 20. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 14, transl. p. 10 [italics mine]. 21. Cf. for instance: 'This ideal of the spiritual kingdom of God must be realised by free efforts of humanity' (Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, p. 615). The issue of Solov'ev's Joachimism has been raised by commentators of Solov'ev's work including Stremooukhoff 1974, von Balthasar 1962, Miiller 1947. Assen Ignatow, 'Solowjow und Berdjaew als Geschichtsphilosophen: Ideen und aktueller Einfluss', Berichte des Bundesinstituts fur ostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien 3 (1997), pp. 3-31), Patrick de Laubier ("Aspects de l'Eschatologie chez Vladimir Soloviev et St. Bonaventure', in: F.-X. de Guibert (ed.). Oecumenisme et Eschatologie selon Soloviev (Paris: F.-X. de Guibert, 1994) pp. 142-156), and in de Lubac 1981, pp. 416-416. Their conclusions diverge. Three factors of ambiguity can be found, and contested, which strongly suggests that Solov'ev was not a Joachimite thinker. First, Solov'ev did not explicitly reject Joachim of Fiore's own theses. He only mentioned his name as related to the 'false' teaching of a third revelation ("Otkrovenie', SS. 12, p. (13), and, more neutrally, as the precursor to the tripartitions of history ('Iz filosofii istorii', p. 324). But the Russian philosopher also held that the Kingdom of God could not be conceived of separately from the church, contrary to Joachim, who professed that the church instituted by Christ would be overcome (de Lubac, p. 414). As von Balthasar points out, for Solov'ev the church is not the achieved kingdom, but only the kingdom in becoming (von Balthasar 1962. p. 693). What makes it more difficult than von Balthasar suggests, is that Solov'ev did not point to the future steps of this process of becoming, but only to the final result, free theocracy. Second, like Joachim, some passages such as the one quoted above suggest that Solov'ev believed a Kingdom of God on earth would be realised on earth. This incited Ignatow to claim that Solov'ev's conception of the Kingdom of God on earth paved the way for communism (Ignatow 1997. p. 4). However. Solov'ev was in fact referring to a kingdom of God after the end of history, not within its boundaries. Third, Solov'ev did speak of the 'Religion of the Holy Spirit', which he professed, which is exactly the terminology Joachim used (letter to Rozanov. 28.11.1892, in Pis'ma 3, p. 44). He did however emphasise that his religion of the Holy Spirit embraced all other religions. In doing so he repeated a thought he had written in a draft at the beginning of his career [see chapter IV 'Solov'ev's Sophiology of History"]. On the basis of these considerations, we may conclude that Solov'ev was not Joachimite. 22. For instance Opravdanie dobra, pp. 263, 279. 23. 'When it [the supreme ideal principle] is realised, [...] then also it will be the end of history and of the whole world process' ('O pricinakh upadka srednevekovogo mirosozercanija', p. 343). 24. Opravdanie dobra, p. 279, transl. p. 193 [italics Solov'ev's]. See also 'Iz filosofii istorii', p. 349. This is the most constant scheme that we can find in Solov'ev's work. However, Solov'ev proposed various alternative periodisations which drew on analogies with the Bible, such as the seven periods analogous to the seven days of creation similar to Augustine (see Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, p. 313 ff.), and from the first to the second Adam (Ibid., pp. 573-579), or the four periods in analogy with those of Daniel (Ibid., p. 251). Another periodisation of Christian history is given in Opravdanie dobra, on the basis of the distinction of the three moral principles of piety, pity, and shame: the first period (0- 1400) is characterized by piety, the second (1400-18?0) by pity; the third has just begun, and is marked by the consciousness of the necessity to integrate pity and shame (or asceticism) in material life (Opravdanie dobra, p. 460). 25. Valliere 2000a, p. 149. On the analogy between Schelling and Solov'ev's philosophy of religion, see Paul Valliere, 'Solov'ev and Schelling's Philosophy of Revelation'. in: Wil van den Bercken. Manon de Courten. Evert van der Zweerde (eds.), Vladimir Solov 'ev: Reconciler and Polemicist. Selected Papers of the International Solov 'ev Conference held in Nijmegen, September 1998 (Leuven: Peters, 2000). pp. 119-130 [abbreviated Valliere 2000b], and my chapter IV 'Solov'ev's Sophiology of History' in the present study. See also Ludolf Muller, 'Schelling und Solovjev', in Solovjev und der Protestantismus, mit einem Anhang: V.S. Solovjev und das Judentum (Friburg: Verlag Herder, 1951). pp. 93- 123. 26. Schwaiger has also pointed out Solov'ev's originality in this respect (Schwaiger 2001, p. 363). 27. Indian Buddhism developed pessimism and asceticism. Hellenism developed idealism or the absolute idea of Divinity (Platonism) and monotheism. Judaism the absolute personhood of God while Alexandrian thought developed the determination of the divine principle as the triune God and thereby posited a synthesis of Hellenism and Judaism (Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, pp. 104-105). 28. Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, pp. 363, 396. True theocracy started with God instructing Abraham to leave his land (Genesis XII. 1-4). The free sacrifice of man is the first condition for theocracy. The reason for this election was that Abraham possessed 'theocratic virtues', namely obedience, faith, and zeal (Ibid., pp. 364-366). 29. 'O pricinakh upadka srednevekovogo mirosozercanija', p. 349. 30. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 77, transl. p. 75. 31. 'In fact, the originality of Christianity does not lie in its general views but in positive facts, not in the speculative content of its idea but in its personal incarnation' (Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 78. transl. p. 76). This emphasis on the historical aspect of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ is paradoxical with Solov'ev's treatment of the figure of Jesus Christ, as we shall see in subsection ei). About the influence of Maximus Confessor on the conception of Christ, see subsection fi). 32. ‘O pricinakh upadka srednevekovogo mirosozercanija', p. 350. 33. Solov'ev devoted particular attention to these heresies in Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, Dogmaticeskoe ravitie cerkvi v svjazi s voprosom o soedineniem cerkvej and the Brokgauz-Efron entries 'Monofiziststvo, monofizity' (SS. 12, pp. 421-424), 'Monofelitstvo' (Ibid., pp. 424-426), 'Nestorij' (SS. 10, pp. 435-436), and 'Nestorjany' (Ibid., p. 435). 34. La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 153. 35. By turning their back on social commitment, the Eastern Church neglected the humanity of God in Jesus Christ, which was a typical Eastern feature (Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, p. 97). In his survey of sects and heresies in the Eastern Church from the 1st century onwards. he pointed out that they shared one common thing, namely the 'negation of the real God-human' (Ibid, pp. 88-96, See also La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 135 ff. for an interpretation of heresies as a negation of the humanity of God). His reconstruction of the history of the Christian church from the 4th to the 11th century emphasises the negative attempts made by the Greek clergy to establish the religious centre of Christianity in Constantinople. By contrast, Roman papacy had played a positive role by strengthening its unity and firmness against heresies. 36. In fact, this 'Byzantine orthodoxy' was only an internalised heresy [heresie rentree] (La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 141). Instead of working towards a synthesis of the divine and human by regenerating social and political life, Byzantium first merged the divine and the human in the sacred majesty of the emperor. This is how Eastern 'cesaro- papism' or 'Byzantinism' was created, which 'mixed up, without unifying them, the temporal and the spiritual powers, and made of the autocrat more than a head of the state, without being able to make of him the true head of the church' (La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 142). As a result, religious society was separated from secular society, relegated to monasteries and left to contemplation (Ibid.). Solov'ev considered that Russia in his time was dominated by the same 'Byzantinist' principles, which suggested that it may face the same destiny (DGA 6. p. 578, n. 41). He voiced this view in the entry 'Vizantizm', that was not published: Solov'ev himself asked the editor to keep it because he wanted to use it as one of several articles (Letter to Arsen'ev 1892. Pis'ma 2, p. 76). The entry was probably too polemical to be included in the encyclopaedia. Instead he published these views with respect to Russian history up to Peter the Great in his article 'Vizantizm i Rossija' (1896) (S. 1989 2, pp. 562-601, examined in chapter III 'Solov'ev's Philosophy of History'). 37. With respect to the Eastern Church after the schism, Solov'ev voiced his opinion only in passing (Ex.: La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, pp. 177-181). On the schism, see Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, pp. 103-117. About the evolution of Solov'ev's views with respect to the Catholic church, see subsection eii). 38. Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, p. 142. 39. In the 15th century, when Byzantium fell to the Muslims, and Russia was freed from the Tatars, the political centre of the Christian East passed from Byzantium to Moscow (Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, p. 125). Orthodoxy was divided in national churches, which were subordinated to their respective states, hereby receding to cesaro- papism inherited from Byzantium (La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 182). Solov'ev's verdict of cesaro-papism also applies to Russia. Solov'ev did not expand on the history properly speaking of the Russian Orthodox church. On the deed of Vladimir, who baptised Rus', see 'St Vladimir et l'Etat chretien', in E. 1978, pp. 105-116. On Muscovian Rus', see 'Vizantizm i Rossija', pp. 569-576. The episode which held his attention most was the Russian schism, which occurred within the Orthodox church between the official church and the Old believers [see case study II 'The Old Believers']. 40. 'O dukhovnoj vlasti v Rossii', S. 1989 1, pp. 43-58: pp. 44-50; La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, pp. 169 ff. 41. Solov'ev expressed his feelings from 1873 onwards (see Pis 'ma 3, p. 88; SS. 1, p. 239; SS. 3, p. 416; SS. 8, 515; SS. 10, 159; referred to in Muller 1947, pp. 78-79). 42. These symptoms are synonymous with an acceleration of progress, which is the central criterion of the philosophical register of history. They are therefore examined in the following chapter 'Solov'ev's Philosophy of History'. 43. Letter to Tavernier, E. 1978. p. 337, and 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste'. 44. Strictly speaking, in 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste', which stops with the description of Jesus Christ's millennium, it is unclear whether for Solov'ev history was achieved with the end of the millennium, or before, for instance with Jesus' coming, in which case he identified the millennium with the much professed Kingdom of God on earth. More importantly, the scenario provided in 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste' was for an important part not the fruit of Solov'ev's own prophetic or imaginary power. Apart from influences from John's Apocalypse and the Eastern fathers, it seems that he drew elements for his story from a Protestant mystery: especially the domination over the entire world by the Antichrist as a triumph of order and benevolence (Nikolaj Kotrelev. 'Eskhalologija u Vladimira Solov'eva: k istorii "Trekh razgovorov"', Materialy 2go Mezdunarodnogo simpoziuma po tvorcestvu Vl. Solov'eva "Eskhatologija Vl. Solov'eva". Moskva 23 24 sentjabrja 1992 g. (Moskva [?]: Izd. zurnala "Kontinent", 1993), pp. 19-29). For a discussion of the relationships of Tri razgovora with respect to the Christian tradition, see Muller 1947, pp, 109-112. The motive of Antichrist's philanthropy is also characteristic of Cyril of Jerusalem and Dostoevskij (see Bernard Marchadier, 'Le visage de l'Antechrist chez Vladimir Soloviev', in: de Guibert 1994, pp. 157-167). 45. La Sophia, PSS 2, pp. 8-161: p. 62; 'Vera, opyt i razum' (1877), quoted in Aleksandr Nosov, 'Rekonstrukcija 12-ogo "Ctenija po filosofii religii" V.S. Solov'eva', Simvol 28 (1992), pp. 245-258: p. 250. 46. Strangely, Wenzler's work devoted to freedom and evil in Solov'ev's work does not address this question (Ludwig Wenzler, Die Freiheit und das Bose nach Vladimir Solov 'ev (Freiburg & Munchen: Verlag Karl Alber, 1978). 47. Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, p, 259, 48. Opravdanie dobra, p. 259, transl. p. 172. 49. Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, p. 259. 50. Ibid., pp. 258-259. 51. See for instance the preface to Tri razgovora o vojne, progresse i konce mirovoj istorii (S. 1988 2, pp. 635-765: p. 640). 52. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 152, transl. p. 155, Jesus Christ 'was born on earth [ ...] for the real salvation of humanity, for the actual deliverance of humanity from the power of the evil force, for the actual revelation of the kingdom of God in humanity' (Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 153, transl. p. 156). 53. Opravdanie dobra, p. 80, transl. p. x. 54. 'Sergej Mikhailovic Solov'ev', SS. 7, pp. 354-373: p. 356. For a comprehensive analysis of the influence of Sergej Solov'ev on Solov'ev's views of history, see subsection 2b) of chap. III. 55. Hans Gleixner, Vladimir Solov'ev's Konzeption vom Verhaltnis zwischen Politik und Sittlichkeit: System einer sozialen und polilischen Ethik (Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang, 1978); Wenzler 1978; Alain Besancon, La falsification du bien (Paris: Julliard, 1985). 56. For instance Stremooukhoff 1974, p. 227. Dmitrij Merezkovskij claimed that Solov'ev's obsession with evil 'almost left no traces on his philosophical works. There, everything is balanced and even too polished' (Dmitrij Merezkovskij, 'Nemoj prorok', in Polnoe sobranie socinenij, vol. 12 (Moskva, 1911), pp. 324-337: p. 327). 57. It was only in 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste' that he exposed his vision of a world totally ruled by the Antichrist, the vassal of Satan. Biographical testimonies report that Solov'ev had visions of the devil, at least in 1899 (memoirs of Koni, quoted in Marina Kostalevsky. Dostoevsky and Soloviev: The Art of Integral Vision (New Haven et al.: Yale University Press. 1997), pp. 66-67). 58. See the five case studies below, made on the basis of Solov'ev's publicistika. 59. Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, p. 88. 60. Letter to Tavernier (21.7.1888), E. 1978, p. 325. 61. For a definition of eschatology and apocalyptics, see chap. 1. 62. On Solov'ev's treatment of Nietzsche and Nietzscheanism, see Nel Grillaert, 'A Short Story about the Ubermensch: Vladimir Solov'ev's Interpretation of and Response to Nietzsche's Ubermensch', Studies in East European thought 55 (2003). 2, pp. 157-184. 63. For an interpretation of Solov'ev's 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste' as an answer to Dostoevskij's 'Legenda o velikom Inkvizitore', see subsection 2biii) of the present chapter. 64. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 35, transl. p. 32. Solov'ev used a very broad definition of faith, defining it as a cognitive type for which the existence of an object is not conditioned by external sensations or notions, but by the inner unity of the object and the subject in the all-one being. In other terms, faith reveals to us the absolute being of the object. Solov'ev defined faith as the 'expression in the consciousness of a preconscious link of the subject and the object' ('Vera'. SS. 12. p. 553). This very broad definition was borrowed from Khomjakov [see subsection 2bi]. On Solov'ev's conception of faith, see George 1988 and Sutton 1988. 65. 'This point of view, which subordinates the fact to the principle, and belongs rather to a general truth than to the external certitude of material phenomena, is [ ... ] the opinion of the Orthodox Church itself (La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 222 [italics mine]). In order to illustrate this thesis, he referred to a delicate event for the Orthodox Church, namely the construction of the Christian church in Rome. He argued that it was an incontestable fact that the founding stone was transported to Rome, so that one could not reject it without denying the sacred tradition and history itself of Christianity (Ibid.) 66. Solov'ev's erudition on church history and theology appears from about fifty entries that he wrote on these topics for the encyclopaedia, from the letters V to S. He wrote not only on philosophy, for which he was officially responsible, but also on theology and church history. He also quoted the great collections of Greek and Latin texts compiled by Migne and Mansi, as well as excerpts from correspondence of church fathers and from the predications of Leo the Great (DGA 2, pp. 493-498, DGA 3, pp. 435-450). These quotes were sometimes left out in the publications (see for instance S 1989 I. pp. 169-173). 67. 'Ponjatie o Boge', SS. 9, pp. 3-29: p. 14 [italics mine]. 68. 'Iz filosofii istorii', p. 343. Solov'ev extensively used the Russian word 'istinnyj', an adjective by which he referred to istina, namely the quality of being conform with God's plan, true according to the absolute, and not to pravda, which designates something true in the relative, logical and moral sense, according to human criteria (Konstantin G. Isupov, 'Wahrheit', in: Franz 2003, p. 474). See also Solov'ev's entry 'Istina' (SS. 12), Teoreticeskaja filosofija and Smysl Ijubvi for elaborations on 'istina'. 69. Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, p. 98. 70. Valliere 2000a, p. 141. 71. Ibid., pp. 137-139. 72. Ibid., p. 139. 73. From a terminological point of view, it is interesting to note that Solov'ev spoke of God's Promysl and only occasionally of the power of Providenie for significant historical events such as the reign of Peter the Great. (Ex.: Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, p. 397, L'idee russe, in E. 1978, pp. 85-102: p. 96). In the entry 'Providenie' he only expanded on the Greek original term of pronoia in Socrates, Filon and Plutarch, without any elaboration on modern theories like Providentialism ('Providenie', SS. 10, pp. 266-267). 74. Only on rare occasions did he show modesty with respect to assumptions about God's action in history: 'Recognising in the divinity the absolute fullness of being, we connect to him or bring the world and historical process in a certain correlation with him, we find in the divinity the final founding for the collective history of humanity as well as for the individual history of each human soul. We affirm the decisive presence of the divinity in all events of the world and private life; here everything is acknowledged as non sine numine factum by us. But this only concerns the fact: the middle [sposob] of the divine presence, the quomodo factum, can be completely unknown: we only know that this middle is adequate to God, or corresponds to his absolute substance; we know that the divine as such takes part in the cosmic and the historical process in a divine way [po bozeski]' 'Ponjatie o Boge', pp. 25-26). 75. Valliere 2000a. p. 155. 76. The term Bogocelovek indeed points to both the divine and the human nature of Jesus Christ: to the dogmas. Solov'ev added that these natures have inner unity, which does not hamper a subordination of the material to the divine principle (Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, pp. 152-153). 77. Richard F. Gustavson, 'Soloviev's Doctrine of Salvation', in: Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Richard F. Gustavson (eds.), Russian Religious Thought (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996). pp. 31-48: pp. 37-8. 78. By contrast, Western tradition emphasised the redemptive agony and suffering of Christ as victim (Gustavson 1996, pp. 34-35). For his treatment of the figure of Jesus Christ, Solov'ev was influenced by the Eastern Church fathers [see subsection 2a]. 79. See Wil van den Bercken, 'The Macrochristianity of Vladimir Solov'ev: A Collectivist and Geographical Concept of Christian Religion', in: van den Bercken et al. 2000, pp. 63- 4: p. 68; Valliere 2000a, p. 165. 80. Ctenija a Bogocelovecestve, p. 131, transl. p. 132. 81. Accordingly, when he referred to the religion of the Holy Spirit, he arguably had the decisive role of the church in the future in mind (Letter to Rozanov (Pis 'ma 3. p. 44). See also footnote 26. 82. Solov'ev was deeply influenced by the Slavophiles in his conception of the church (see subsection 2a for an analysis of this influence). 83. Dukhovnye osnovy
zizni, p. 381; 'O raskole v russkom narode i obscestve', SS. 3, 84. 'O cerkvi', in Dukhovnye osnovy zizni, pp. 380-402. 85. Ibid., p. 380; Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 18. 86. Solov'ev's definition of the church as visible and one authority seems to disqualify Protestantism from the outset as one of the pillars of the universal church. However, despite his criticism of the rejection of the church by the Protestants (see Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, p. 154), Solov'ev esteemed the value of individual freedom and conscience in Protestantism highly. Its representative, Professor Pauli, plays a crucial role in his 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste'. For an analysis of Solov'ev's views of Protestantism, see Ludolf Muller, 'Solovjevs Verhaltnis zum Protestantismus', in Muller 1951, pp, 9-92. Solov'ev's sustained interest in Protestantism is also shown in the long essay he wrote on the Reformation in Germany 'Reformacija v Germanii po novejsemu issledovaniju', Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, 1885, 8, pp. 698-742. On the context of this writing and inspiration in Protestant sources for his 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste', see Kotrelev 1993. 87. 'O raskole v russkom narode i obscestve', p. 390, Dukhovnye osnovy zizni, pp. 380-402. Only the hierarchical order of church allows the aversion of egoism and an unauthorised mediation between God and man (Ibid., pp. 383, 395). 88. The term 'Orthodoxy' [pravoslavie] includes the element 'right' or 'correct' [pravo-], which suggests that this branch of the Christian church is the only warrant of Christian faith in its purity and in full conformity with the tradition. 89. Using the metaphor of the seed gradually becoming a tree, he tried to show that since its first imperfect forms, the church had been and still was developing (Dukhovnye osnovy zizni, pp. 392 ff.). In Dogmaticeskoe razvitie cerkvi v svjazi s voprosom o soedineniem cerkvej on this point he followed the Tubingen theological school, especially that of the Catholic theologian Johann Adam Mohler (1796-1838), who conceived of the development of doctrine in terms of organic growth (Cf. entry 'Development of doctrine', in: Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason and Hugh Pyper, with Ingrid Lawrie and Cecily Bennett (eds), The Oxford Companion of Christian Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 163). 90. Solov'ev did not find a 'definition of the church in its true idea' in the Russian theological tradition of the 18th-19th century, nor in the authoritative source, metropolite Filaret (1783-1867) (Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, pp. 250-1). In addition, the Slavophile definition of the church remained merely an ideal (La Russie el l'Eglise universelle, p. 166 ff) [see subsection 2bi]. 91. See Jacqueline de Proyart, 'Vladimir Soloviev et l'Eglise catholique romaine: La naissance d'une conviction', in: de Guibert 1994. pp. 50-71. 92. Ecumenism begins in your own oikos. Indeed, Solov'ev also preoccupied himself with the Russian Orthodox schismatics, the Old Believers. But strikingly there is no trace of an effort to reunite the autocephalous Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Russian Orthodox churches. According to Stremooukhoff, he was inspired by the 17th century Croat Krizanic's conception or church reunion. Solov'ev considered him as the first Slavophiles (Stremooukhoff 1974, passim). 93. See La Russie et l'Eglise Universelle, p. 208. 94. Ibid., p. 134. Neither Jerusalem, the seat of the national theocracy of the Old Testament, nor Constantinople, the seat of cesaro-papism, could be the seat of universal church (Ibid., pp. 186-188 [italics mine]). 95. Solov'ev also worked at church reunion by trying to convince Catholics in the West (Racki, Strossmayer, Pierling). As for the Russian Orthodox clergy, two examples of a discussion are his invitation from the St. Petersburg Religious academy to present his views on Catholicism in 1886 (Stremooukhoff 1974. p. 191), and his advocating suppression of religious censorship in order to provoke discussion notably on Catholicism (ex.: 'Kak probudit' nasi cerkovnye sily?' (1885) (S 1989 2. pp. 185-188). Otherwise, his collaboration with and address to the Russian clergy seem to have been limited. 96. The filioque issue refers to an addition made by the Western church to the definition of the Holy Spirit as established in the ecumenical council of Constantinople (381). According to this council, the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father; according to the addition, also from the Sun. Until this day, the Orthodox reject this addition as an intrusion into an ecumenical statement, and as a theologically incorrect point. As far as papal infallibility is concerned, it was a particularly current issue as it had just been stated in the Vatican I council in 1869-1870. Like all decisions taken after the seven first councils, the Orthodox church, which was moreover overwhelmingly anti-Catholic minded, did not acknowledge this one. 97. His Dogmaticeskoe razvitie cerkvi v svjazi s voprosom o soedineniem cerkvej (1886) aimed at this purpose. 98. Ibid., pp. 63-4. 99. It is difficult to indicate precisely when he became disillusioned on this point. During the famine of 1891-1892, he did not address the church a single time, which suggests that by that time he no longer nurtured hopes regarding its mission. 100. Solov'ev's formulation indeed strongly suggests that the realisation of theocracy will not be imminent: 'If it is certain that truth will be definitely accepted by only a more or less persecuted minority, one must definitely abandon the idea of the exterior power and greatness of theocracy as a direct and immediate goal of Christian politics' (Letter to Tavernier, E. 1978, p. 338). However, he never stopped believing in the reunification of the churches, as a 'moral and religious unity' and the form of human collaboration to Jesus Christ's light against the Antichrist (Ibid., p. 342). 101. Ibid. For an analysis of his role as a prophet, see chap. IV 'Solov'ev's Sophiology of History'. 102. Muller 1947, p. 88. Valliere has tentatively showed that Solov'ev's scenario of church reunion in 'Kratkaja povest' oh Antikhriste' was an answer to Schelling's ecumenism (Valliere 2000b, p. 128). 103. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, pp. 74-75. 104. See 'Ucenie XII apostolov' (SS. 4. pro 227-240). Even though the apostles were neither teachers, prophets, bishops nor deacons, they were irreplaceable (Ibid., p. 231). 105. Pis 'ma 3. pp. 204-5. 106. On Vladimir, see 'St Vladimir et l'Etat chretien', op. cit. Solov'ev did not deal extensively with the role of individuals in history, for example in the form of a biographical essay devoted to one particular pope, saint, or starec. 107. Muller 1947, pp. 85-86. 108. Dukhovnye osnovy zizni, pp. 315-350. 109. 'O pricinakh upadka srednevekovogo mirosozercanija', p. 354. This statement scandalised conservatively minded people, and unlashed a fierce polemic. For a comprehensive analysis of this polemic, see Evgenij Barabanov, 'Zabytyj spor', Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizenija 118 (1976), 2, pp. 117-165. 110. 'O pricinakh upadka srednevekovogo mirosozercanija'. p. 355. 111. Solov'ev most probably started to read Origen and Maximus at Sergiev Posad in the mid-1870s. He wrote entries for the encyclopaedia on Origen, Maximus Confessor, and two Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Caesarea or the Great (SS. 10, pp. 292-4), and Gregory of Nyssa (SS. 12. pp. 573-4), and on a contemporary of Origen Gregory Thaumaturge (Ibid., p. 574), although his authorship of the two latter entries is not certain (DGA 6, p. 640). Strikingly, he did not complete this set with the third Cappadocian father, Gregory of Nazianzus (also called the Theologian), or with John of Damascus and John Chrysostom. Other authors wrote on church history for the encyclopaedia, for instance Professor N. Barsov on John the Baptist and John the Theologian ('Ioann Krestitel' i Ioann Bogoslov') and Professor A. Lopukhin on John Chrysostom ('Ioann Zlatoust'). 112. Brian Daley, with the collaboration of Josef Schreiner and Horacio E. Lona, Eschatologie in der Schrift und Patristik, in: Michael Schmaus, Alois Grillmeyer, Leo Scheffczyk and Michael Seybold (eds.), Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. 4 (Freiburg. Basel & Wien: Herder, 1986), p. 122. A reason why Origen was controversial relates to the fact that he never bothered to define a doctrine in the proper sense of the word, and worked by throwing up hypotheses, resulting in a great deal of tension and contradictions in his works (Henri Crouzel, Les fins dernieres selon Origene (reprint of separate articles: Aldershot & Brookfield: Variorum, 1990), p. 283). 113. Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson (Lanham & London: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1996). Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church (Lanham & London: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1996), pp. 245-6. The question as to which authors should be regarded as 'church lathers', and not only teachers or doctors of the church, has received different answers throughout history. 'Today only those who combine these four necessary qualifications are to be regarded as 'Fathers of the Church': orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life, ecclesiastic approval, and antiquity' (Johannes Quasten. Patrology, 4 vols., vol. 1 (Utrecht & Antwerpen: Het Spectrum, 1950), p. 10). The Greek Orthodox Church only venerates three great ecumenical teachers, namely Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom (Ibid.). In contrast, Rome acknowledges, in addition to the three fathers mentioned, Athanasius, and four Western fathers, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great. 114. Despite the promising title, A. Nikol'skij did not go beyond very general remarks on Solov'ev's defence of Christianity in his Russkij Origen XIX veka Vl. S. Solov'ev (1st publ. 1902; Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2000). Losey only devoted a couple of pages to the issue of the influence or Origen on Solov'ev, first to criticise Nikol'skij's conclusions and then to point to Solov'ev's own tendency of subordinationism in his treatment of Trinity (Losev 2000, pp. 151-157). We do know that Solov'ev consulted literature on Origen in 1890 (his notes on a copy book were published in: Mark Smirnoy. 'Zapisnaja knizka', Logos 50 (1995), pp. 267-278, see esp. p. 273). 115. 'Origen' (SS. 10, pp. 439-449). 'Bolotov' (Pis'ma 4, pp. 298-308). Solov'ev probably wrote 'Bolotov' in 1889. In a letter to the encyclopaedia editor Vengerov, dated 14th June 1889, Solov'ev suggested that he write a piece on Bolotov (Pis'ma 2, p. 316). The reason why 'Bolotov' was not published is unknown. Hampering by religious censorship should not be excluded (Pis'ma 2, p. 318, possibly about Bolotov'). No information has been found on the possible contact between Solov'ev and Bolotov. Solov'ev wrote a necrology on Bolotov in 1900 (mentioned in Luk 'janov 1990 1, p. 335). 116. 'Bolotov', p. 300. 117. Origen had succeeded in renewing the definition of the Trinity, first as hypostases, by no longer defining them in material and spatial terms, second as the place of divine self- revelation above time and coeternal with God ('Bolotov'. pp. 304-305). In addition to propagating information on Bolotov's dissertation on Origen, which he valued as a serious work at the level of European science, Solov'ev added to the theologian's work some considerations as a philosopher on Origen's conception of Trinity, namely a philosophical definition of divinity in relation with the hypostases, and a criticism of Origen's subordinationist definition of the hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit with respect to the Father. In 'Origen', Solov'ev's critical attitude may be explained by the concern of approaching Origen from a perspective conform with the canonical Orthodox tradition. The structure of the entry is common to all the entries he wrote for the encyclopaedia, and consists of a biographical account, the description of the works, the synthetic survey of the teaching, and the evaluation of the thought of the author. Solov'ev added an overview of the transmission of Origen's works and their influence through the history of Christian thought up to 19th century theosophists like Baader. The question whether for this publication Solov'ev was limited in his judgment by religious censorship remains unsolved. 118. 'Origen', p. 443. 119. Valliere 2000a, p. 13. The term was rarely used in patristic literature, and usually indicates Origenist and monophysite tendencies (Ibid.). Therefore it was avoided by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, and was only much later picked up by Jakob Bohme and Hegel (Peter Ehlen [O. Peter Elen, 0.1.], 'Ideja bogocelovecestva v filosofii Vladimira Solov'eva', in: I.V. Borisova and A.P. Kozyrev (eds.), Solov'evskij sbornik: materialy mezdunarodnoj konferencii 'V.S. Solov'ev i ego filosofskoe nasledie' (Moskva: Fenomenologija-Germenevtika, 2001). pp. 295-317: p. 295. 120. 'Origen', p. 447. 121. This is at least how we can understand the passage following this criticism, in which Solov'ev pointed to Origen's neglect of 'the historical meaning' of the Bible. Solov'ev did not expand on this point. 122. Origen investigated points that had not been worked out by the apostolic and biblical teaching, in particular the questions as to what came before this world, and what would come after its end. As regards the first question, Solov'ev sought to integrate some of Origen's elements into his sophiology. The second question was central in Solov'ev's theology of history. 123. 'Origen', p. 447; see also for instance in La Russie et l'Eglise universelle (p. 267). Gustavson and the commentators or Solov'ev's Polnoe sobranie socinenij have affirmed Origen's influence on this point (Gustavson 1996, p. 33; PSS. 2. p. 335). Solov'ev also used the expression apokatastasis ton panton to refer to the unity and universality of the absolute spirit acknowledged by Western philosophy, notably von Hartmann. Characteristically, he valued this rediscovery of ancient truths preserved in the traditions of Eastern Christianity' (Andrzej Walicki, The Slavophile controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth-Century Russian thought (1st publ. 1964; Notre Dame, Indiana: University or Notre Dame Press, 1989), p. 561). 124. On the other hand, Origen's concept should not be seen as a mere return to the primary order, but something higher than the beginning stage (entry 'Origenes', Sigmar Dopp and Wilhelm Geerlings (eds.), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur (Freiburg, Basel & Wien: Herder, 1998), pp. 460-467: p. 466). In this sense, Solov'ev seems to have understood Origen's thought correctly. 125. Solov'ev's criticism concerning nature seems justified, but that concerning the human body does not. Outside the text 'About the Principles', no text can be found in which Origen defended an incorporeal apokatastasis (Crouzel 1990, p. 285). The positive emphasis put by Solov'ev on nature and matter as well as the ultimate fusion of the two spheres is precisely the object of his sophiology of history [see chapter IV]. 126. This is at least what tradition has retained of Origen's ambiguous affirmations. By now evidence has shown that Origen did not mean this. It seems that Solov'ev also simplified the thought of the Greek thinker when he reproached him for an unchristian conception of death. While it is true that at some places Origen identified death with the devil (Crouzel 1990, p. 286. 326), he also developed a more complex conception of death (on Origen's three conceptions of death, see Crouzel 1990, pp. 20ff.). 127. ‘Origen', p. 447. Solov'ev rightly pointed to this tension within Origen's thought as well as an insufficient conception of moral evil (La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 259). Another reason why Origen's view of apokatastasis is inconsistent has to do with the hypothesis advanced by Origen of the new fall of beings who had already been saved. While Origen envisaged this possibility, it does not seem, however, to represent a core thought (Crouzel 1990. p. 286). 128. Origen did elaborate on the biblical hell (Gehenna), which he tried to both distinguish and articulate with the notion of Hades, inherited from Greek thought (see 'L'Hades et la Gehenne selon Origene', in Crouzel 1990, pp. 291-331). 129. Although these views do perhaps not have the sombre dimension that we can find in the Protestant view, they fully belong to the Orthodox worldview (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (1st publ. 1963; London & New York: Penguin, 1997), pp. 261-262). 130. Daley et al. 1986, p. 239. 131. Von Balthasar 1962, Gustavson 1996, and M.J. Le Guillou's Preface to Juan Miguel Guarrigues, Maxime le Confesseur: La charite, avenir divin de l'homme (Paris: Beauchesne, 1976), pp. 7-22. This preface is entirely devoted to Solov'ev's drawing on Maximus Confessor and is an example of the enthusiastic reception of Solov'ev in Catholic ecumenical theological circles. 132. Von Balthasur 1962, pp. 654-655. 133. 'Maksim Ispovednik', SS. 12, pp. 598-599: p. 598. 134. Ibid., emphasis Solov'ev's. 135. See also Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, pp. 309-311: La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 133. 136. 'Maksim Ispovednik', p. 599. He pointed to the reception of Maximus, and especially of John Scotus Erigena's comments on Dionysius pseudo-Areopagite. In another passage Solov'ev posed Maximus together with Western and Eastern thinkers, as acknowledging the absoluteness of God ('Ponjatie o Boge', p. 23). This shows that Solov'ev held Maximus to be one of the perhaps very few bridges between Eastern and the Western thought. 137. Velikij spor i khristianskaja politika, p. 113; La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, pp. 135 and 150. He repeated this point against the professor of church history at Moscow university Aleksandr Ivancov-Platonov (1835-1894) in 'Neskol'ko ob'jasnitel'nykh slov po povodu "Velikogo Spora"', S. 1989 1, pp. 169-173: p. 169. 138. As he explained, the Constantinople patriarch Taras, together with papal legates, had directed the seventh ecumenical council (787), which not only condemned iconoclasm, but also recognised papal authority. Secondary literature, however, does not mention the acknowledgment of papal authority as a decisive point made in the 7th ecumenical council. 139. Solov'ev emphasised this point in La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, pp. 140 and 183. 140. 'O dukhnvnoj vlasti v Rossii', pp. 52-3. 141. Luk'janov 1990 1. p. 334. 142. See his complement to Barsov's entry 'Biblejskaja kritika' (DGA 6 p. 657), 'Kogda zili evrejskie proroki?' (SS. 7. pp. 180-202). 'Zabytie uroki' (SS. 10, pp. 21-25). 143. Gustavson 1996, p. 38. 144. Valliere 2000a. p. 14. 145. Valliere 2000a. p. 161, Gustavson 1996. p. 152. 146. Radlov 1912. Stremooukhoff 1974 and Johannes Madey (Wladimir Sergejewitsch Solowjew (1853 -1900) und seine Lehre van der Weltseele (Dusseldorf: Gebers, 1961)) offer a couple of remarks on this point. While Radlov and Madey too generally point to the similarity of views between the two thinkers, Stremooukhoff declares that Augustine's influence on Solov'ev is not significant (p. 145, n. 12). 147. 'Predopredeknie' (SS. 10, pp. 258-259). 148. Filosofskie nacala cel 'nogo znanija, PSS. 2, pp. 185-308: p. 199. In Augustine, as we have seen in the first chapter, the City of God is the ideal, while for the time being the Christians are plunged into the Earthly City together with the pagans. 149. Pelagij'. SS 10, pp. 449-453: p. 452. 150. Myroslaw I. Tataryn. Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy: Russian Orthodox Theologians and Augustine of Hippo: A Twentieth Century Dialogue (Lanham, New York, & Oxford: International Scholar Publications. 2000), p. 20. However, in the second half of the 19th century, within the framework of an intensive study of the church fathers, Russian theologians at the theological academy of Kiev undertook to translate Augustine and offered positive accounts of his thought (Ibid., p. 14). Surprisingly, Solov'ev did not refer or react to their works. 151. Stremooukhoff 1974. p. 139. Even though the concept of sobornost' was neither coined nor developed by Khomjakov, it is central to his thought (Evert van der Zweerde, '"Sobornost'" als Gesellschaftsideal bei Vladimir Solov'ev und Pavel Florenskij', in: Norbert Franz, Michael Hagemeister and Frank Haney (eds.). Pavel Florenskij -- Tradition und Moderne. Beitrage zum internationalen Symposium an der Universitat Potsdam, 5, bis 9. April 2000 (Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. 2001), pp. 225-246: p. 227). However, Solov'ev hardly ever used the term sobornost'. 152. See Walicki 1989, p. 192 ff. 153. Ibid., p. 563. The peak of this influence can be found in Solov'ev's 'Tri sily' (1877), which can be seen as a variation on Slavophile themes (Ibid., p. 564). 154. He conceded that the Slavophiles had developed Russian messianism, but that their views led to nationalism ("Messianizm', SS. 12, p. 600). National messianism as it developed in the 19th century is a typical blend of theology of history and philosophy of history. In this paragraph I focus on the theological motives of history inherent to messianism. 155. See case study IV 'The Polish Question'. 156. His early position is linked to his criticism of Western philosophy. Solov'ev follows Kireevskij up to a certain point on his view of Western philosophy (Stremooukhoff 1974, pp. 31-2). Kireevskij and Khomjakov believed that only Schelling could mean a new start of Christian philosophy (Ibid., p. 60). For an analysis of Schelling's influence on Solov'ev, see chap. IV 'Solov'ev's Sophiology of History'. He shared their criticism of the separation between reason and faith in Western philosophy, and their claim to a return to primordial unity or integrality (Ibid., p. 35). But he criticised their opinion of an arbitrary development of Western philosophy and their claim to a return to an impossible past. 157. Solov'ev absorbed Kireevskij's philosophical programme of integral knowledge in Filosofskie nacala cel'nogo znanija. But he did not integrate the historical background that Kireevskij had investigated, namely the Roman empire, European feudalism and the Russian commune (Walicki 1989, p. 563). 158. See Georges Florovsky, 'Faith and Reason in the Philosophy of Solov'ev', in: Ernest J. Simmons (ed.), Continuity and Change in Russian and Soviet Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 283-297. 159. Stremooukhoff 1974, p. 26: PSS. 2, comment, p. 370. See especially Filosofskie nacala cel'nogo znanija. Of course, Solov'ev did not take Khomjakov's canon of integral knowledge integrally. Solov'ev valued mystical knowledge and mysticism positively, whereas Khomjakov regarded these as a pretension to strictly determine that what is reeognised as unknown (PSS. 2, comment. pp. 364-5). 160. Stremooukhoff 1974. p. 26. 161. As early as 1878 he was accused by conservatives of being unfaithful to Christian principles because of his heterodox teaching of eternal torment and his spiritism. This criticism would stick with him even after his death. His distancing from the conservative camp took place in the following stages: 1878 from Mescerskij's Grazdanin, in 1885 from Katkov, in 1887 from Kireev, in 1889 from Strakhov (Nosov 1992, p. 257, n. 24). For concrete examples of this distancing, see case studies III and IV on the Jewish and the Polish questions. 162. Pis 'ma 4, p. 21 (March 1883). 163. According to Solov'ev, the true representative of Slavophile thought on history was not Khomjakov but Konstantin Aksakov ("Novaja zascita starogo slavjanofil'stva', Nacional 'nyi vopros 2, S. 1989 1, pp. 501-512: p. 510). His comment on Konstantin Aksakov (1817-1860) concerned the notions of state and community applied to Russia ('Slavjanofil 'stvo i ego vyrozdenie'. Nacional 'nyj vopros 2, S. 1989 1, pp. 433-500: pp. 451-4 and 457-462). On the points of divergence between Solov'ev and the Slavophiles' conception of Russian history, see Pauline Schrooyen, 'Vladimir Solov'ev: Critic or Heir of Slavophilism?', in: van den Bercken et al. 2000, pp. 13-27: pp. 18-22. 164. 'Slavjanofil 'stvo i ego vyrozdenie', pp. 439-444: quote from p, 441. 165. Solov'ev also accused metropolite Filaret of this idealist and exclusively past-oriented view (La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 165), and welcomed the criticism of the actual state of the Russian church made by the last representative of Slavophilism, Ivan Aksakov (Ibid., pp. 171-177). 166. Schrooyen 2000, p. 17. 167. Hereby he meant Mohler, Sartorius and French traditionalists Bonald, Lamennais, as well as Bordas-Demoulins (Pis 'ma 4, p. 107). 168. L 'idee russe, p. 97. 169. Andrzej Walicki, 'Soiov'ev's Theocratic Utopia and Two Romantic Poets: Fedor Tjutcev and Adam Mickiewicz', in: van den Bercken et al. 2000, pp. 473-483, p. 475. The following points are taken from Walicki's masterful analysis. 170. Solov'ev's conception of world monarchy is analysed in chap. III 'Solov'ev's Philosophy of History'. 171. Walicki 2000, p. 479. 172. Radlov, Gessen, Levickij, Belknap, Kostalevsky deal with this issue. See the succinct bibliography in Kostalevsky 1997. 173. See Kostalevsky 1997, pp. 49-80) on Dostoevskij's attending Solov'ev's Ctenija p Bogocelovecestve, their common journey to the monastery or Optyna Pustyn, and Solov'ev's 'Tri reci v pamjati Dostoevskogo'. However, strictly taken these episodes prove only that the two thinkers often met, not an affinity between the two. For the thesis of a profound difference between Dostoevskij the novelist and Orthodox believer, and Solov'ev the system-builder and mystic, see James P. Scanlan, Dostoevsky the Thinker (Ithaca & London: Cornwell University Press, 2002), pp. 55, 238. 174. Quoted in Walicki 1989, p. 555. 175. Ibid., p. 551. 176. Kostalevsky 1997, pp. 75-76. Solov'ev voiced this idea in 'Tri sily' (1877) and Filosofskie nacala cel 'nogo znanija (1877). 177. Quoted in Kostalevsky 1997, p. 76. 178. 'Tri reci v pamjati Dostoevskogo', 'Pervaja rec", p. 301. English translation in Vladimir Wozniuk (ed. and transl.), The Heart of Reality: Essays on Beauty, Love and Ethics by V.S Soloviev (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 2003) [abbreviated Wozniuk 2003], 'Three Addresses in Memory of Dostoevsky', pp. 1-28: p. 1. 179. Stremooukhoff 1974, p. 65. For an analysis of theocratic motives in the novel and a comparison with Solov'ev's work, see Kostalevsky 1997, pp. 121-129. 180. PSS. 2. comment, p. 367. 181. The writer had been condemned to hard labour in Siberia for four years (1850-1854). 182. On the terminology used to characterise Nietzsche, in particular man-God, see Grillaert 2003. 183. Solov'ev, 'Prilozenie: zametka v zascitu Dostoevskogo ot obvinenija v "novom" khristianstve' (probably written in 1882) (S. 1988 2, pp. 319-323: p. 321). Perhaps in this connection Solov'ev called him a 'mystic', because he 'possessed a vital sense of the intrinsic connection with the superhuman' ('Tret'ja rec", p. 314, transl. p. 24). The status of 'prophet' that he gave to the writer is discussed in chapter IV on Solov'ev's sophiology of history. 184. For an overview of these topics in Russian literature from Stefan Javorskij to Daniil Andreev, see A.S. Grisin and K.G. Isupov (eds.), Antikhrist: Antologija (Moskva: Vyssaja skola, 1995). 185. See Kostalevsky 1997, pp. 99-111. 186. Ibid., p. 100. 187. Solov'ev differed from Dostoevskij by initially ascribing good will with respect to Jesus Christ to his Antichrist: 'Originally, he had no enmity toward Jesus either. He acknowledged his Messianic significance and merit, but he sincerely saw in him only the greatest of his precursors. The moral feat of Christ and his absolute uniqueness were incomprehensible to his intellect, which was clouded by Vanity' ('Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste', S. 1988 2, p. 741. English translation in Wozniuk 2000, 'A Brief Tale about the Antichrist', pp. 264-289: p. 269). The motive of self-love is decisive in Solov'ev's plot, whereas the Great Inquisitor is motivated by a theological attack of Jesus Christ. 188. See Ernest Radlov, 'Solov'ev i Dostoevskij', in: A.S. Dolinin (ed.), F.M. Dostoevskij. stat'i i materialy, vol. 1 (Petrograd: n.p., 1922) for an account of structural differences between the two stories. 189. Antichrist is not only the emperor, but also a philanthropist and the author of the acclaimed best seller 'The Open Way'. 190. Valliere 2000a. p. 166, italics mine. 191. See Florovsky ('Western Influences in Russian Theology, in Collected Works 4, pp. 175-7, 201) for a criticism of the influence of Western idealism on Russian thought (in particular theology), and on Solov'ev's excessive propensity to deal with speculation. 192. Valliere 2000a. p. 158: Lev Sestov, 'Umozrenie i Apokalipsis: religioznaja filosofija Vl. Solov'eva', in: D.K. Burlaka. V.F. Bojkov and Ju.Ju. Budycev (eds.). Vl. Solov'ev: Pro et Contra. Licnost' i tvorcestvo Vladimira Solov' eva v ocenke russkikh myslitelej i issledovatelej, vol. 2 (Sankt-Peterburg: Izd. Russkogo Khristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta, 2002), pp. 467-530: pp. 487-488. 193. Valliere 2000a. p. 166.
|
