|
HISTORY, SOPHIA AND THE RUSSIAN NATION |
|
|
Back Cover: In this study, the work of the philosopher, publicist, poet, mystic and activist Vladimir Solov'ev (1853-1900) is addressed from a new, interdisciplinary perspective. The author explores the connections between Solov'ev's views on history and his attempts to change the course of affairs in Russia. Firstly, the theological and philosophical aspects of Solov'ev's conception of history are unravelled. Most importantly, the central role of Sophia (Divine Wisdom) in his self-perception as the guiding prophet of Russian society is highlighted. Then, the author examines how Solov'ev's views on history prompted him to intervene in the following affairs: the crisis following the murder of tsar Alexander II in 1881, the famine of 1891-1892, and the condition of three religious minorities in Russia, namely the Old Believers, the Jews and the Catholic Poles. This two-fold analysis shows that Solov'ev departed from the ambition to cast Christian tradition in a modern mould by various means, speculative as well as practical. Characteristic for his attitude toward history is a tension between his professing an eternal truth and responding to a crisis in Russia. He emerges as a prodigiously erudite thinker, capable of synthesising various intellectual traditions ranging from Jewish mysticism to German idealism, and as a committed and independent intellectual in late tsarist Russia. Manon de Courten (Bern, 1969) studied Russian, History and Philosophy at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. From 1998 to 2004 she worked as a PhD student at the Centre for Russian Humanities Studies of the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. She has taught seminar courses in philosophy of history, which, together with the intellectual history of Russia, forms her major research interest. European University Studies Series III Vol. 996 Manon de Courten History, Sophia and the Russian Nation A Reassessment of Vladimir Solov'ev's Views on History and his Social Commitment This study has been realised within the framework of the research programme 'Civil Society and National Religion: Problems of Church, State, and Society in the Philosophy of Vladimir Solov'ev (1853-1900)', financed by the Dutch Foundation for Scientific Research [NWO] and hosted at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Nijmegen. Both institutions have also provided financial support for my research stays in Moscow and St. Petersburg in the summers of 1998, 1999 and 2000. For however much this work might look like an individual enterprise, numerous people have been involved in it, and I would like to express my vivid gratitude to all of them. In Moscow, Nikolaj Kotrelev and Aleksandr Nosov (t), with their comprehensive knowledge and accumulated expertise of Solov'ev's texts, have provided me with precious insights into the thought and life of this philosopher. In Nijmegen, my colleagues at the Faculty of Philosophy, and in particular in the Section of Social and Political Philosophy, reacted with an open mind to my somewhat exotic project. I am deeply grateful to my colleagues and friends of the Centre for Russian Humanities Studies for maintaining during these six years an atmosphere of lively scholarly exchange, which contributed to a deeper understanding of Solov'ev and shaped my views on this subject matter. In many workshops, the intellectual enthusiasm and challenging views of Anton Simons, Frances Nethercott, and Katharina Breckner were important components of this formative period. Also part of this group was Pauline Schrooyen, with whom I could share both my discoveries (rare and precious moments) and my endless explorations and errings (much more frequent periods), which together make for the lot of any PhD student. Her affectionate and critical attitude gave me the last kick I needed to achieve my thesis. Wil van den Bercken and Jonathan Sutton provided encouragement and expressed confidence in my research, while in Machiel Karskens I found a supervisor always ready to give advice and to help me focus on the main line of my argument. At a later stage, Jutta Scherrer provided me with refreshing insights and stimulating remarks as a historian. My gratitude goes especially to Evert van der Zweerde. Not only did he set a collective research programme about Vladimir Solov'ev and created from the outset an atmosphere of collegiality and mutual inspiration. He also provided me with sympathetic and critical guidance in this six-year project, demonstrating an untiring willingness to help sharpen and deepen my arguments as well as a great capacity of 'thinking along' (aptly called 'mee-denken' in Dutch). This list of professional support would not be complete without naming Mark Gray, who devoted much time, including the greater part of his Christmas holiday, to editing my thesis in readable English. Of course, any language-bound errors and logical inconsistencies resulting from later additions are my own responsibility. I also received support from a few other people, who were close to me irrespective of their various degrees of geographical separation. Through the years, Clarisse, my sister, never failed to come and visit me, whether in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Nijmegen or The Hague. Before I was even envisaging a thesis, Sandrine, Nard and Bait oriented my path towards the Netherlands. And while I was doing research in Nijmegen, I met Frank, with whom I now share my life. Having been through the same drawn-out process himself, he cheered me on daily with his attention, warmth and humour. During the last stage of my thesis, he was able to temper my sometimes apocalyptic mood and to dissipate my 'Last Judgment' feelings about my work, by taking me out for some fresh salty air by the seaside and in the night hours by fishing lots of hacheks for me. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their support during my zigzagging itinerary to Russia and later to the Netherlands. Long ago, they gave me a first taste for foreign languages, travels, and cultures and their past. To them I dedicate this book. Manon de Courten, To my parents, 1. Presentation, method, hypotheses Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian people have been rewriting their history, a process that involves among many others an active reinterpretation of pre- revolutionary thought. One of the results of this rekindled interest and scholarship is that nineteenth century authors who had previously been forbidden through censorship or neglected in the Soviet era are again being published and studied. The work of Russian philosopher Vladimir Solov'ev (1853-1900) has gained new actuality for two main features that make him an inspiring discussion partner, namely the centrality of religion and the all- embracing approach to existence. Vladimir Solov'ev deserves the status of 'Russia's most systematic philosopher' for his prodigious ability to address issues related to a wide variety of fields in philosophy including metaphysics, logic, ethics, and theory of knowledge. His efforts were concentrated on his concern to link all that exists in a harmonious whole. This was also reflected in his conception of history, which touches upon and aims to transform all domains of life.
The present study takes its point of departure in the statement that, contrary to his comprehensive works in the abovementioned fields, Vladimir Solov'ev never elaborated his conception of history in a systematic manner. His numerous views are scattered over many varied texts, but he neither produced one single book devoted exclusively to his views of history, nor addressed the possibility and methods of knowing history. In a century when a philosophical interpretation of history had become a fully acknowledged domain of investigation, it did not receive the perhaps expected attention in his thought. How can we explain this absence of focus from a thinker who strove to build a system that embraced the totality of reality? The numerous fragments suggest that history did not have priority in his agenda, or that he instrumentalised the material of history for the sake of what he sought to demonstrate. At the same time, Vladimir Solov'ev profoundly believed that history is the locus for divine and human action. This conviction forms the core of his theory of the 'humanity of God.' Equally significant are the tremendous efforts he invested to redirect the course of history by trying to influence the state of affairs in his country, from the attitude of tsar Alexander III towards the murderers of his father, to the repressive policy regarding religious minorities. Between these two understandings of history as a mere reservoir of illustration and as the place of the progressive meeting of man and God, a tension arises regarding Solov'ev's own relationship to history. The purpose of this study is to explore this tension and unravel his self-perception as a scholar, mystic, publicist, and activist. For this reason, the analysis is conducted on three levels: investigating the content of Solov'ev's views of history as well as the methods he used; examining how he inscribed himself in a tradition of thought (actually several traditions) and at the same time sought to supersede this; addressing his social commitment as the field in which his views on history come closest to his will to contribute to its transformation. In my research, I adopt a new approach to Solov'ev's conception of history in general, and of Russian history in particular. This approach aims at a deeper understanding of Solov'ev's writings on history, firstly by respecting the complexity of his thought, instead of reducing it to a single undifferentiated line. In this context, I distinguish three registers of historical sources of inspiration or lines of thought on history, namely a theology of history, a philosophy of history, and a sophiology of history. Secondly, I link Solov'ev's views with different kinds of activity to which he was committed, taking into consideration the time in which he lived. Against a frequent neglect in scholarship of Vladimir Solov'ev's publicislika or commentary on current affairs [see definition below], this research aims at understanding his conception of history that not only takes into account, but also explores the relationship between his speculative essays and his publicistika. In my eyes, the alternative distinction into three sources of inspiration mentioned above provides the very instruments necessary for analysing this relationship. The hypotheses that I advance are the following: 1. Vladimir Solov'ev sought to combine the traditional Christian model of history [theology of history] with the modern conception of universal process [philosophy of history] into a synthesis [sophiology of history], which, however, remained unachieved. 2. His conception of Divine Wisdom, Sophia, and her counterpart World Soul, is central to his view of history [sophiology of history]. It was also central to his social commitment in Russia, which, in his eyes, was bound to embed the eternal Sophia. But this conception remains mostly hidden in his texts. 3. His views on history function as source for his social commitment to intervene, and as criteria that allowed him to judge the events current in his time. 4. His views on history take shape within a dense network of dynamic relationships with texts and authors past and present. With these he engaged into a critical dialogue, aiming at a synthesis between various traditions. 5. The originality of his views on history lies in his attempt to synthesise them in his sophiology of history, in his model of free theocracy, as well as in the combination of various traditions of thought and political currents. 6. Vladimir Solov'ev's social commitment was incontestable and departed from a view of Russian society in terms of cohesion between the social groups. This notion of society was necessary for his conception of theocracy and his self-perception as the prophet of that society. 7. Despite his commitment, the transition that he made from speculation to concrete historical situation remained underdeveloped, which shows a relative detachment on his part from the hic et nunc. These hypotheses provide a basis for making the following point: Vladimir Solov'ev's self- perception was that of a translator of the eternal truth, revealed in the Christian tradition, into the situation of the modern world. But from this rational expression, which he gave in his ideal of free theocracy, to its realisation, another translation was necessary, which he did not elaborate. Neither did he provide a concrete guidance for this realisation. Characteristic for his conception of history as a whole, therefore, is a remaining tension between eternal truth and historical emergency. This tension remains unsolved in so far as the eternity of the revealed truth excludes historical emergency. The figure of Vladimir Solov'ev is a particularly inspiring figure in any study on Russian thought. The philosopher possessed an immense erudition and knowledge of the Western philosophical tradition, and had a multifaceted talent as committed publicist, literary critic and refined poet, making his thought a fascinating field of investigation. Among his fellowmen, he was certainly an original figure who could not be placed in a single camp, a position which defies any attempt by his fellow readers and today's researchers to range him and his time under a single label, whether 'liberal', 'Slavophile', 'progressive', or 'conservative'. In this way, his thought forcefully engages a questioning of the received scheme of polarised Russian public opinion at the eve of the 20th century. Between 1870 and 1900 -- a period often neglected by historians who rather focus on the Reform Era (1860s) and on the wake of the Revolution (1905-1917) -- Russia went through a deep and many-fold crisis, which was only exacerbated by the fact that the country was ruled by an autocratic regime. Vladimir Solov'ev lived precisely in that period. By his thought, work and acts, he held an intermediary position between the main forces in the game, and tried to reconcile tradition and change in an original way. Solov'ev views on history represent a challenging field of investigation in at least six respects. Firstly, in Solov'ev scholarship, his views are often only partially or one-sidedly understood. Secondly, they intersect his metaphysics, ethics, theology, aesthetics, theory of knowledge, and political philosophy. Thirdly, as pointed out above, the fact that, contrary to his elaborate treatment of these fields, he did not problematise his approach to history intrigues the reader. Fourthly, the sketch-like state of his historical considerations demonstrates an often neglected side of Solov'ev as the hastened thinker. Fifth, his Christian dogmatism and universalism are actual nowadays, as well as the temptation for all-embracing views on history. Sixthly, his work is a brilliant example that speculative views on history are mostly political, and imply to some degree a link to social practice. In this connection, the method that I have adopted aims to show the connection between historical views and a social-political context, as well as with a political commitment. More globally, by developing and explicating a theoretical model, I have aimed to counter the often inadequate theoretical foundation underlying Western analyses of Russian intellectual history. These run the risk of approaching (Russian) history through the prism of Russian-European liberalism, as the recent example of Orlando Figes shows. [1] Since a researcher permanently has to make choices and sometimes pass judgments, his or her normative perspective can never be eliminated. The risk of a projection of his or her own value system can nevertheless be reduced if the framework of interpretation that lies at the basis of the analysis is explicated. [2] I therefore devote special attention to defining what I mean by 'theology of history', and 'philosophy of history' [chap. I]. For this reason, it is also relevant to point out that my approach reflects the preoccupations of our times. The crisis of the discourse of progress and of the concept of nation, the emphasis on the limitations of rationalism, the resurgence of apocalyptic moods, as well as a renewed interest in mysticism and religion, have certainly contributed to mould my theoretical framework. My treatment of the case studies also echoes the vivid preoccupation, in early 21st century Western European press and scholarship, with issues related to a multicultural society, namely the cohabitation of people from several cultures and religions. This study on a late 19th century Russian philosopher therefore also indirectly addresses contemporary issues. The use of the three-fold model of theology of history, philosophy of history, and sophiology of history developed below has several objectives. Most importantly, it provides an explanatory basis with respect to Solov'ev's work, permitting an understanding and classification of scattered elements and influences. From a perspective external to his work, it aims at understanding the criticism and often only partial reception of his views by his contemporaries and later scholars. My concern with theorising and typologising historical views corresponds to a personal preoccupation, and is inspired by the complexity and frequently neglected underlying suppositions. In this way, I wish to make a critical contribution to the present-day rewriting of the history of late imperial Russia. By approaching the central categories of Solov'ev's thought on history and Russia as constructs, I also wish to contribute to ongoing discussions in Russia on the status of historiosophy. Finally, this study is an example of how to extend Western theoretical discussions on history to other areas, in this case, Russia. I hope to show convincingly that this operation works in an inspiring way for Western scholarship. The significance, range and depth of Vladimir Solov'ev's views on history, the distinction of competing elements within them and his attempts at a synthesis, his social commitment, his interaction with Russian public opinion, as well as the role of Sophia: these points have mostly been addressed separately in Solov'ev scholarship. My intention is to bring these different lines together. Historians of Russian philosophy and Solov'ev biographers have recurrently emphasised his sharp historical sense and acknowledged his views on history as a core dimension of his work. [3] A century-long tradition of Russian and Western scholarly work has been devoted to critical analysis of various aspects of Solov'ev's conception of history, ranging from Georg Sacke, Dimitri Stremooukhoff, Ludolf Muller, to Joachim Sternkopf, Axel Schwaiger, and Mikhail Maksimov, [4] Within this corpus of monographs, the classical work by Stremooukhoff still stands out for powerfully and comprehensively connecting Solov'ev's conception of history with his life and work as a whole. The syncretic character of Solov'ev's work has also been widely acknowledged. [5] And with respect to his historical views in particular, scholars have highlighted, both admiringly and disapprovingly, the attempts by the Russian philosopher to create a synthesis of various traditions. [6] That these traditions are present in Solov'ev's work as identifiable lines is also sometimes pointed out, but mostly without further elaboration. [7] Only Muller has developed a model of Solov'ev's eschatology within the framework of the latter's religious experience, without, however, exploring the sources of influence, or connecting these lines with his historical experience or social commitment. [8] I will try to show that Solov'ev's views on history and his interventions in it are shaped by three registers, and explore in each of these precisely which influences he underwent, sought to integrate and to supersede. On the whole, Vladimir Solov'ev's social commitment is a particularly underdeveloped field of research, and to my knowledge there is only one comprehensive study, namely that of Gregory Gaut. [9] Two valuable monographs deal with the related issue of Solov'ev's interaction with Russian public opinion, namely by Walter Moss and Andrzej Walicki. [10] On the whole, there are two poles of interpretation, one portraying Vladimir Solov'ev as an abstract and idealist thinker (Trubeckoj, Florovsky, Losev), the other -- which enjoys some success nowadays -- defending the image of Solov'ev as the devoted social activist (Rupp, Gaut, Morson, Wozniuk). [11] These authors can also be divided along the line of interpreting Vladimir Solov'ev as a 'Christiano-centrist' vs. Vladimir Solov'ev as a defender of pluralism. On the basis of the case studies, I will argue for an interpretation of Solov'ev's involvement in his time and society that combines these polarised views in a balanced manner. A key aspect of my research is to show the centrality of Sophia in both Vladimir Solov'ev's views on history and his social commitment. While the classic authors (Mocul'skij, Zenkovsky) acknowledge the former, some scholars have pointed out the intimate link, and even at some point the identification by Vladimir Solov'ev of Russia as the force able to realise incarnate Sophia (Stremooukhoff, Losev, Boris Groys). [12] The present research explores his attempts to implement this ideal on the basis of a historical analysis of his concrete interventions. In order to tackle the abovementioned questions, I have divided my research into two main parts, the first philosophical and theoretical, the second historical and empirical. In the first part (A), I develop a heuristic model (I) which allows me to distinguish three registers in Solov'ev's views of history, namely (II) a theology of history, (III) a philosophy of history, as well as (IV) a sophiology of history, the latter being his original contribution. I reconstruct each of these registers and disentangle the influences that the philosopher received and reworked. In the second part (B), I investigate Solov'ev's reaction to the five main social and political issues of his time that mobilised Russian public opinion, These are: (I) the tsaricide of Alexander II, (II) the Old Believers issue, (III) the Jewish question, (IV) the Polish question, and (V) the famine of 1891-1892. In each case study, I confront Solov'ev's texts on these issues with the historical (political, social) context and with the positions held by his contemporaries. The primary purpose is to evaluate the originality of his views. By examining, at the same time, to what extent each of the abovementioned registers is used in Solov'ev's interventions, I test the relevance of my theoretical framework. Before embarking on my analysis, a note on terminology is necessary to prevent misunderstanding regarding four central notions: In order to render the restricted understanding of Russian society as its upper layer in late 19th century, I translate obscestvo as 'society' or 'educated society.' In Solov'ev's time, even though educated society was called upon to unite with the people [narod], it was 'for the time being limited to that small fraction of society as a whole where intellectual life develops, where public opinion is formed, which is capable of organising itself autonomously in the margin of political institutions.' [13] The notion also has a cultural connotation and refers to an entity distinct from the state. In this connection, the adjective obscestvennyj means 'social' in the restricted sense indicated above. I also translate it as 'public' in the sense of emanating from educated society, not from the state. [14] The term publicistika is difficult to translate and is therefore left in the original Russian. Within the social and ideological conditions of late imperial Russia, there was hardly any form of political commitment allowed, so that publicistika was practically the only channel through which one could voice one's political opinion on the country's affairs. In this respect, being active in publicistika, that is, being a publicist, meant more than today's journalism: it referred to social and political commentary on current affairs. [15] Celovek is translated as man or as human being, in both cases meaning not only the male human being. I have used the international transcription usually followed by European scholars, with the exception that the Russian character 'X' is transliterated as 'kh'. [16] The dates are given according to the Julian calendar, which was 12 days behind the Gregorian calendar. _______________ Notes: 1. Orlando Figes, Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia (London: Allen Lane. 2002). 2. See Manon de Courten. 'Gesehiedenis en methode: Vladimir Solov'ev door de ogen van Michel De Certeau', in: Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen (ed.). Metamorphose: Acten 20e Nederlands-Vlaamse Filosofiedag 24 oktober 1998. Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen (Nijmegen: KUN, 1998). pp, 259-267. 3. On Solov'ev's 'unusual sense for history', see Basile Zenkovsky, Histoire de la philosophie russe, 2 vols. (1st publ. in Russian 1950; Paris: Gallimard, 1953), vol. 2, pp. 21-22. Losev points to philosophy of history (understood in the broad sense or views on universal history) as the privileged field where Solov'ev's philosophical views were united with his personal concerns: Aleksej Losev, Vladimir Solov'ev i ego vremja (1st publ. 1990; Moskva: Molodaja Gvardija, 2000), p. 509ff. See also Konstantin Mocul'skij, 'Vladimir Solov'ev: Zizn' i tvorenie' (1st publ. 1936), in Gogol', Solov'ev, Dostoevskij (Moskva: Izd. Respublika. 1995), pp. 63- 216: p. 128; Frederick C. Copleston, Russian Religious Philosophy: Selected Aspects (Notre Dame, Indiana: University or Notre Dame Press, 1988), p. 43 ff.; Wilhelm Goerdt, Russische Philosophie: Grundlagen (Freiburg & Munchen: Verlag Karl Alber, 1995). pp. 471-516: p. 482ff. 4. Central contributions are the following studies, The first monograph devoted to Solov'ev's conception of history was made by Georg Sacke, W.S. Solowjews Geschichtsphilosophie (PhD thesis Leipzig, 1929): Dimitri Stremooukhoff succeeded in unraveling Solov'ev's core intuition of a mission on the basis of material ranging from philosophical and theological essays to poetry and correspondence in Vladimir Soloviev et son oeuvre messianique (1st publ. 1935: Lausanne: L'Age d'Homme, 1974): Ludolf Muller proposed a periodisation of Solov'ev's work based on his views on history in Die eschatologische Geschichtsanschallung Vladimir Solovjevs (PhD thesis Marburg. 1947): in his monograph entitled Sergej und Vladimir Solov'ev: Eine Analyse ihrer geschichtstheoretischen und geschichtsphilosophischen Anschauungen (Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner, 1973). Joachim Sternkopf has offered a thorough analysis of Solov'ev's views of history and their metaphysical foundations from a comparative perspective. The same perspective, extended beyond Russia, can be round in Axel Schwaiger, Christliche Geschichtsdeutung in der Moderne: Eine Untersuchung zum Geschichtsdenken von Juan Donoso Cortes. Ernst von Lasaulx und Vladimir Solov 'ev in der Zusammenschau christlicher Historiographieentwicklung. Series Philosophische Schriften, vol. 41 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001): Mikhail Maksimov has convincingly demonstrated that Solov'ev's interpretation of the historical process is founded on his mystical rationalism in Istoriosofija V.S. Solov' eva v otecestvennoj i zarubeznoj filosofskoj mysli XX v. (PhD thesis Moskva: Pedagogiceskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. 1999). 5. While Sergej Bulgakov praised the 'accord complet', the harmony of different sounds which was the work of Solov'ev (Zenkovsky 1953 2, p, 32), Zenkovsky was more critical. While pointing to numerous sources of inspiration for Solov'ev (influence or his time, Christianity and rationalism, Slavophiles, etc,), he concluded that Solov'ev did not achieve an organic synthesis: he had combined modern pantheism and principles of Christianity with a metaphysical dualism (p, 72). For a recent analysis of Solov'ev's thought as a combination of 'Enlightenment' and 'traditionalism', see Boris Mezuev. Otecestvennye istoki filosofii V.S. Solov'eva (sociokul'turnyj kontekst 70-90-kh godov XIX v.) (PhD thesis Moskva: Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. 1997). 6. Urs von Balthasar showed the synthesis of Greek patristics (foremost Maximus Confessor) and German idealism in Herrlichkeit, eine theologische Asthetik, vol. 2: Facher der Stile (Einsiedeln: Johannes-Verlag, 1962). Pavel Miljukov critically stated that Solov'ev had mixed up heaven and earth, religion and progress (Paul Milioukov, Le mouvement intellectuel russe (written in Russian in 1893) (Paris: Ed. Bossard. 1918). 7. Setnickij discerned two logics at hand in Solov'ev's views on the Far East, namely an emphasis on historical continuity and progressive unification of humanity, on the one hand. and a catastrophist stance on the other (N.A. Setnickij, Russkije mysliteli o Kitae (V.S. Solov'ev i N.F. Fedorov) (Kharbin: n.p., 1926). Also David briefly distinguished between Solov'ev's philosophy of history, an essentially Comtian influence, and his theology of history, directly borrowed from Bohme (Zdenek Vaelav David, The Formation of the Religious and Social System of Vladimir S. Solovev (PhD thesis Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1960), p. 52. n. 59). 8. Muller distinguished between the emphasis placed by the Russian philosopher (i) on the world process [Vervollkommnungseschatologie], (ii) on the subjective and theoretical choice for Christian faith and ethics [Entscheidungseschatologie], and (iii) on a differentiation between good and evil in history [Differenzierungseschatologie) (Muller 1947, pp. 82-87). On this basis he concluded that Solov'ev's views on history had undergone a gradual transition, from the first to the third scheme, while the second remains in the background. 9. Gregory Gaut, A Christian Westernizer: Vladimir Solovyov and Russian Conservative Nationalism (PhD thesis University of Minnesota, 1992). 10. Walter G. Moss. Vladimir Soloviev and the Russophiles (PhD thesis Georgetown University, 1968); Andrzej Walicki. The Slavophile Controversy: History or a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth Century Russian thought (1st publ. 1964: Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 1989). For articles or chapters or monographs dealing with one specific aspect, see the case studies. 11. E.N. Trubeckoj, Mirosozercanie V1. S. Solov'eva, 2 vols. (1st publ. 1913: Moskva: Medium, 1995): Georges Florovsky, 'Vladimir Soloviev and Dante: The Problem of Christian Empire', in: Ibid., Collected Works, vols. 1-11 (vol. 1-5: Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972-1979: vol. 6-11: Vaduz: Buchervertriebsanstalt. 1987-1989), vol. II, pp. 102-113: Losev 2000; Mgr. Jean Rupp, Message ecclesial de Solowiew: Presage el illustration de Vatican II (Paris: Lethielleux & Bruxelles: Vie avec Dieu, 1974-1975); Gaut 1992; Vladimir Wozniuk. 'Introduction', in: Vladimir Wozniuk (ed. and trans.), Vladimir Soloviev: Politics, Law, and Morality (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2000). pp. xix-xxix; Gary Saul Morson, 'Foreword: Soloviev, the Russians, and Ourselves', in: Ibid., pp. vii-xvi. 12. Mocul'skij 1995, p. 63; Zenkovsky speaks or a 'sophiological determinism' or Solov'ev's conception of history (Zenkovsky 1953 2. p. 68); Stremooukhoff 1974, p. 117; Losev 2000, p. 227: Boris Groys, 'Weisheit als weibliches Weltprinzip: die Sophiologie von Wladimir Solowjow', in Die Erfindung Russlands (Munchen & Wien: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1995). pp. 37-49. See also the broader study by Oleg Rjabov, Matuska-Rus': Opyt gendernogo analiza poiskov nacional'noj identicnosti Rossii v otecestvennoj i zapadnoj istoriosofii (Moskva: Ladomir, 2001). p. 66ff. 13. Robert Philippot, Societe civile et Etat bureaucratique dans la Russie tsariste: Les zemstvos. Series Cultures et societes de l'Est. vol. 14 (Paris: Institut d'Etudes Slaves, 1991). p. 10. 14. Ibid. 15. Wozniuk 2000, p. xxvii. 16. For the spelling of the names of Russian emigre authors, I follow the transliteration adopted in their publications (ex.: Stremooukhoff, Florovsky, Mocul'skij).
|