|
HISTORY, SOPHIA AND THE RUSSIAN NATION |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1. Vladimir Solov'ev's Life and Work [1] Vladimir Solov'ev's biography can be best understood from the perspective of his sense of mission, which the following quotes suggest:
Great haste and tremendously prolific work in philosophy, theology, publicistika, literary criticism and poetry characterise his life that was devoted to fulfilling his mission. [3] He was born in 1853 in the large, well-to-do and pious Solov'ev family. The home atmosphere was dominated by the figure of his father, the historian and rector of Moscow University, Sergej Solov'ev. Two brothers, Vsevolod and Mikhail, and one of his sisters, Poliksena, developed literary talents, as did Solov'ev. Young Vladimir grew up as a remarkable pupil and a highly pious child. At the age of nine, he had his first unhappy love affair, which inspired his first mystical vision of divine Sophia in a church. In the 1860s, while at school, his convictions as a teenager reflected the tendency in his time to promote the natural sciences against the idealist philosophy of the former generation. At the age of 14 he had rejected faith and was a 'zealous materialist', and at 16 he joined the faculty of sciences at Moscow University. [4] There he developed an interest in natural sciences and an affinity with Darwin's theory of evolution. However, the influence of Spinoza, who was his 'first philosophical love', impressed him by the concept of God as causa sui et causa omnium. [5] Subsequently, Schopenhauer's emphasis on the vanity of science and philosophy led him to the desperate view of the world as being dominated by evil. He came out of this existential crisis by again finding his Christian faith, which motivated him to quit the faculty of sciences and to independently prepare for the final exam of the faculty of history and philology, which also included philosophy, in one year. He found support for his religious views in two professors, Pamfil Jurkevic and Aleksandr Ivancov-Platonov, and decided to complete his training by following courses at Moscow religious academy in 1873-1874. He read the main Western philosophers in an amazingly short time. This is demonstrated by his candidate dissertation The Crisis of Western Philosophy: Against the Positivists (1874), which established him as a brilliant and provoking philosopher: 'Russia can be congratulated with a genial philosopher', a Slavophile historian claimed at Solov'ev's defence. [6] The young scholar stood out by his substantial criticism of the dominating philosophical trend of the moment, positivism, and his call to a revision of the Slavophile historical and religious worldview. Fiercely criticised by positivist and progressive scholars, he raised the interest of the Slavophiles, with whom he entered into close contact for about a decade. [7]
From then on Solov'ev led a nomadic life, living with his family in Moscow or with friends in St. Petersburg or in the countryside. He intermittently worked as university lecturer from 1874 to 1881. [8] However, his main concern was to develop a new philosophical system. He decided to take one year's leave to study 'Hindu, Gnostic and medieval philosophy' in the British museum. [9] In 1875-1876, he made a yearlong journey, first staying in London for six months, then quite unexpectedly leaving for Egypt, where he hoped to find a kabbalistic society, and finally resting in Italy and working briefly in libraries in Paris. It was during this journey that he wrote La Sophia. Upon the return from his journey of research, he worked at elaborating his system, and started to write jocose poetry and comedies. He first presented his system in The Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge (1877). This was part of his project of an overall system of 'integral life', in which he strove to redefine all human activities from the perspective of a conscious link between man and God, and designed a three-fold project of free theosophy, free theocracy, and free theurgy. He posited that the Slavs, and among them, the Russians, were most capable of realising the ideal of 'integral life'. In this respect, the following table is a key to his own understanding of his mission and to his views on history: [10]
For a short while, Solov'ev sought to contribute more concretely to the Slav cause. When war was threatening in the Balkan, he made a short trip to Kishinyov and Bucharest, as a military correspondent for Katkov. After a brief stay, he decided to work 'by those means which were at his disposal', namely lectures. [11] He started a series of lectures that are central to his understanding of history, published between 1878 and 1881 under the name Lectures on the Humanity of God. Highly esteemed figures such as Fedor Dostoevskij and Lev Tolstoj attended these lectures, which fascinated some as much as they repulsed others. At about that time he actively frequented the salon of Aleksej Tolstoj's widow, countess Sofija Tolstaja, where people shared an interest in spiritism and mystic teachings. There he met Sofija Khitrovo, to whom he proposed marriage several times, in vain. He also wrote his doctoral thesis The Critique of Abstract Principles (1880). In 1880, he became lecturer [prival-docent] at St. Petersburg University, and taught at the Higher Women Courses. But these academic teaching activities stopped in 1881, after Solov'ev publicly expressed his disapprobation of the death penalty for the murderers of tsar Alexander II [see case study I]. A new period in his professional life began, which he devoted to works on issues related to the church. His Three Speeches in Memory of Dostoevskij (1881-1883) and The Spiritual Foundations of Life (1882-1884) deal with Christian ethics and the universal church. From 1883 onwards, he worked at two main projects, namely free theocracy and church reunion, which farm the core of three main publications of the 1880s that are significant for his understanding of history, namely The Great Controversy and Christian Politics (1883), the first volume of The History and Future of Theocracy (1887), and Russia and the Universal Church (1889). First, under free theocracy, he understood the realisation on earth of a Christian society based on the three pillars mentioned in the table (church, state, zemstvo), ruled by a priest, a king and a prophet respectively. Second, his growing sympathy for Catholicism prompted him to defend the reunification of the Orthodox and the Catholic churches. Facing censorship, he published the two latter books abroad, in Zagreb and Paris respectively. He had intensive contact with high-ranked Catholic religious figures who he tried to mobilise for his goal, such as Bishop Strossmayer and Canon Racki in Zagreb, and the Jesuit Father Pierling in Paris. His pro-Catholic stance and ecumenical commitment clashed with the worldview of the Slavophiles. The definitive break with Slavophilism and its nationalist epigones took place with the two collections of articles The National Question in Russia (1883-1888 and 1889-1891). Solov'ev was also highly productive in publicistika and developed a concrete social activism in the 1880s against the persecution of such religious minorities as the Old Believers, the Jews and the Polish Catholics [see case studies II, III, and IV]. This was also the time when the mutual affection with the Slavophile religious thinker Konstantin Leont'ev turned into a fierce polemic. From the end of the 1880s onwards, he became close with the liberals and began to actively collaborate with them, as his participation on the editorial board of The European Herald shows. His scholarly activities also received a new boost. In Moscow, together with Nikolaj Grot, he founded the journal Questions of Philosophy and Psychology (1889), and was appointed editor of the philosophy section for the encyclopaedic dictionary Brokgauz-Efron. He remained the target of fierce criticism by neo-Slavophiles and nationalist conservatives. In 1891, his public lecture 'On the Downfall of the Medieval Worldview' created a stir among Orthodox conservatives, and he was forbidden from giving public lectures. [12] Solov'ev devoted the winter of 1891-1892 to writing on the severe famine that struck Russia [see case study V]. His personal life was again in tumult as a result of his love affair with Sofija Martynova, which inspired him to write a number of splendid poems and his long essay The Meaning of Love (1892-1894). Apart from a trip in 1893 to Sweden, Scotland, and France, this also was a period of contemplation and admiration of nature, nurtured by his frequent trips to Finland, and of his writings on Russian prose and poetry, he shared his love for poetry with the poet Afanasij Fet, with whom he regularly stayed and enjoyed an enduring friendship. The 1890s also meant a return to philosophical works, the most comprehensive of which is the systematic work in ethics The Justification of the Good (1894-1897), and Theoretical Philosophy (not completed, 1897-1899). He paid homage to older philosophers with The Concept of God (in defence of the philosophy of Spinoza) (1897) and his biography of Plato The Life Drama of Plato (1898) as well as translations of Plato's works. He did not however abandon other genres, including publicistika, as is shown by his Sunday Letters and Easter Letters (1897-1898), and poetry, for example his poem 'Three Encounters' (1898) relating his mystical experience of Sophia. At this stage, his health deteriorated, and he stayed in Cannes, Geneva and Lausanne (1899) with the family of his beloved Sofija Khitrovo. His last public lecture was a remarkable text on the end of history which he read publicly in May 1900, 'A Short Story about the Antichrist'. It was part of an imaginary dialogue Three Conversations (1899-1900). Three months later, at the age of 47, Solov'ev died of exhaustion and illness at the house of his friend Sergej Trubeckoj outside Moscow. Solov'ev's short career and restless life were characterised by tremendous production, an immense philosophical erudition, a vehement and at the same time patient zeal in his polemics -- not only with Slavophile friends, but also with such various personalities as Lev Tolstoj, Vasilij Rozanov, Boris Cicerin, Lev Lopatin --, a high sensitivity to poetry and nature, and a nomadic existence. The following account gives an idea of the complexity of the world he was living in and was trying to transform. 2. Politics and Society in Russia 1850-1900: a Survey [13] The time in which Vladimir Solov'ev lived was a period of tremendous change. Under the rule of three tsars, Alexander II ( 1855-1 881), Alexander III (1881-1894), and Nicholas II (1894-1917), Russia underwent fundamental transformations that affected all domains of life: industrialisation, urbanisation, social differentiation, professionalisation, and a multiplication of voices within Russian public opinion, to name only a few major developments. [14] Contrasting with these changes, two factors remained constant: the misery of the peasants, who formed about 80% of the population, and the political structure of autocracy. Since 1815, Russia was counted among the great European powers. In the cultural and intellectual arena, Russia was fully taking part in the European debate. But politically speaking, Russia was the only country, together with Turkey and Montenegro, not to have a parliament. The tsar reigned as the absolute autocrat over the whole empire, and in many areas his will had the force of law. He was the head of state, of the administration and of the army; in addition, he was in charge of all areas controlled by the state, namely industry, transport, local government, education, the church, public health, and welfare. [15] His preferences, prejudices, and source of advice in matter of politics and culture were therefore decisive in shaping Russian life. Under the tsar's paternalistic authority, the Ministers (Interior, War, Navy, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Education, Justice, the Holy Synod, State Domains, and Trade and Transport) administered the country, made their own policies provided they had their leader's backing, and reported to the tsar individually about their activity. The Committee of Ministers was not a collective policy-making organ, and while none of the ministers had the power to implement comprehensive programmes of reorganisation, these superior clerks intruded into many aspects of the country's life. [16] In order to implement the power of the state, a whole bureaucratic apparatus was established hierarchically from the centre to the villages. The empire was divided into provinces (gubernii), which governors administered as they pleased. In the 1860s, organs of local self-government were instituted, the zemstva [plural of zemstvo], both at the provincial and district level, completed by municipality councils. Given the expansion and multiplication of tasks, state service opened to non-nobles in the 19th century, hereby contributing to a diversification of the social origin of bureaucracy dictated by the rigid Table of twelve ranks. [17] The population was most involved with the Ministry of the Interior, which controlled and supervised the police, press, local government, medical services, and peasant resettlement. [18] In this extremely centralised system, contact with high-ranked people working at the court or in the government was precious if one wanted to influence political decisions or to obtain favours. The church occupied a peculiar position with respect to the government, as it was subordinate to the state, with the Holy Synod as a sort of ministry of religion, presided over by a layman. This might seem to point to a secularisation process. However, in the 19th century, a revival of Orthodox faith occurred, which was powerful among the clergy and often took reactionary forms. A prominent figure was the rigorist and authoritarian Konstantin Pobedonoscev, who from 1880 to 1905 was the High Procurator or Head of the Holy Synod. The church exerted considerable power in religious affairs as it had institutions that paralleled those of the state, namely its own organs of censorship, schools, and courts. The many attempts made by Pope Leo XIII for a rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church from 1880 onwards clashed with the strong anti-Catholic views that dominated in the Orthodox Church. [19] Besides Orthodoxy, the Russian empire was home to many representatives of other religions, including Catholics, Protestants, Uniates, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and numerous sects. The 1897 census counted a total population of 122 million inhabitants, of which almost three quarters were Slavs, with the remainder composed of various ethnic groups, the most important or which were 10% Turkic (Muslim) people, 4% Jews, and 2.5% Finns. These groups lived for the most part in sensitive border areas. [20] Without being victims of repressive policies, they were subject to an insensitive and sometimes heavy-handed policy of administrative integration. The Jews were an exception, and were more repressed and isolated than any other of the non-Russians. [21] By the end of the 1880s, the Russian empire stretched from today's Eastern Poland to Vladivostok, and from the Arctic Ocean to the boundaries of Persia in the southwest, and Mongolia and China in the southeast. Following the Napoleonic wars, it had in the west annexed territories of Poland, Finland, Bessarabia and many areas of the Caucasus, in the east it had taken minor portions along the Amur, and in the south now counted important areas in Central Asia (Turkestan, 1864-1885). As to its foreign policy, Russia endured two humiliating defeats against Constantinople backed by Great Britain, first in the Crimean war (1853-1856), then in the Turkish war (1877-1878). For a country that since the victory over Napoleon had felt invincible, these were two blows that prompted the emergence of a nationalistic discourse. In 1873, Russia joined the Three Emperors' League (Prussia-Germany, Austria, Russia), which equated to a declaration of monarchic solidarity against subversive movements. This alliance lasted until Bismarck broke it in 1886. Facing isolation, Russia concluded an alliance with France in 1894 that became the cornerstone of its foreign policy. This also had positive repercussions on the economy, to the extent that many French investors and traders implanted themselves in or worked with Russia. However, economic development from 1860 to 1885 remained low, since the government was not able to define a line of economic policy. [22] But in the 1890s, especially under the impulse of Sergej Witte, a great industrial leap occurred with metallurgical and machine works, iron and steel, mechanised textile industry, coal mining, oil, etc. Railway construction accelerated, especially the Trans-Siberian. Foreign financing also fostered industry, business, credit and commerce. Still, much of the artisan and handicrafts industry remained centralised activities, and low productivity was not an exception, even in large modern enterprises. On the whole, the social composition diversified in the second half of the 19th century, accompanied by an intensified professionalisation. With industrialisation and urbanisation, a significant working class and lower middle class emerged. In addition, increasing numbers of professionals got involved in commerce, industry, finance, engineering, and science. However, some 80% of the population remained part of the peasantry, so that one cannot speak of an urbanised society. [23] Although the peasants had been emancipated from serfdom in the early 1860s, their economic condition mostly deteriorated in the 1870-1890s to the point that they repeatedly suffered from famine. The cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Minsk, Samara, and Odessa enjoyed tremendous cultural development, however. The flowering of Russian literature and art knew two waves, in the reform era of the 1860s, and foremost from 1890 onwards in the so-called Silver Age. Intellectual life was marked by a significant growth of the press. Publications were controlled by two main organs of censorship, namely lay censorship and religious censorship. While the former tended to greater flexibility from the 1860s onwards, religious censorship maintained an iron hand on publications, especially under Alexander III. However, the boom of publications increased in such a way that it was impossible to exert total control over all of them. Thus despite censorship, there was vivid public debate and a gradually larger proportion of educated population was mobilised. 3. Speculative Conceptions of History in Russia 1850-1900 [24] During the same period, intellectual contacts with Western Europe intensified, German and French philosophy in particular had an enduring effect on the development of Russian speculative views on history. The Russians received Schelling, Hegel, Marx and Comte eagerly and reformulated core issues of these thinkers within the Russian context. As a matter of fact, the political situation of Russia was decisive in shaping the debate on history. Precisely because Russia was a peculiar case with respect to Europe, the question of its identity was debated vividly, with interest focused on the discussions regarding national identity and character conducted in the West. Given the monolithic character of the government, it became the task of the philosopher and the intellectual in Russia to gain insight into the course of history, and to determine which place Russia had in it. Petr Caadaev had sharpened the issue by provokingly stating that Russia's contribution to world history had so far amounted to almost nothing. [25] Yet he gave a positive twist to this negative conclusion: it was precisely because Russia was a blank page in history that it could answer the questions posed by the Western nations without being burdened by the past. Caadaev's questioning contributed to the polarisation of the debate into two main positions, known as the Slavophile and Westerniser camps. The Slavophiles attempted to provide an interpretation of history in which Orthodoxy was central, and claimed that Russia should not follow Europe, but develop a path of its own in conformity with its own tradition, namely Orthodoxy, tsarism and the village commune [obscina]. [26] At the core of this tradition, there was an emphasis on the integration of the individual in a harmonious community. The founding fathers of Slavophilism, Ivan Kireevskij and the more prolific Aleksej Khomjakov, founded the ideal of social life on freedom and love, which they found in the Russian commune and in the Orthodox Church. [27] Fedor Dostoevskij fiercely defended the idea of a national mission of Orthodox Russia and expected a replacement of Catholicism by a reborn Eastern Christianity. [28] Solov'ev conducted years-long discussions with all three. Konstantin Aksakov, the elder brother of Ivan Aksakov with whom Solov'ev was closely connected, focused on a defence of Russian tsarism against the Western coercive model of government. [29] An original interpretation came from Konstantin Leont'ev, who provokingly professed rigorous Orthodoxy, unity and authority of the church on the model of Catholic papacy in order to counter the disastrous effects of modernity. [30] The Slavophile idea of Russia's development separate from the West found its mouthpiece in another, empirical approach, made by Nikolaj Danilevskij, who developed a view of history as the development or autonomous cultural-historical types. [31] By contrast, the Westernisers emphasised the necessity for Russia to follow the path of the Western nations, by initiating reforms towards representative government and individual freedom. The three scholars who founded the historical state school, Sergej Solov'ev (Solov'ev's father), Konstantin Kavelin and Boris Cicerin laid the foundations for Russian liberalism. They emphasised the idea of the state as the driving force of Russian culture and as the warrant of individual freedom from a secular perspective. While the historian Sergej Solov'ev illustrated this in his monumental History of Russia, jurists Kavelin and Cicerin analysed the development of a legal system in Russia and the progress of the defence of individual property. [32] From this perspective, they saw the reforms implemented by Alexander II as the continuation of the work initiated by tsar Peter the Great, bringing Russia on the path of modernisation and closer to Europe. Next to the Slavophiles and the Westernisers, a third main camp in Russian public opinion was that of Russian socialism and populism, based, like the Slavophiles', on the Russian commune, but completely stripped of its religious connotations and blended with revolutionary tendencies. Initiated by Aleksandr Gercen and Nikolaj Ogarev in exile, socialism found its first most influential mouthpiece in Russia in the work of Nikolaj Cernysevskij. [33] Cernysevskij developed the idea of a 'communal socialism' as the ideal of Russian society, which would be attained after the capitalistic stage, followed by a peasant revolution. The view that capitalism was a necessary stage for Russia was rejected by the populists, who became the predominant current in Russian public opinion of the 1870s. Two theoreticians, Petr Lavrov and Nikolaj Mikhajlovskij, developed a moral foundation of socialism and sought to guarantee a place for individualism in it. The idea of paying one's debt to the people plays a central role in Lavrov's views on history, which promoted the ideal of a Russian federation of communes and associations of craftsmen or cartels. [34] Impregnated with philosophical empiricism and Comtian positivism, Mikhajlovskij was concerned with freeing the moral consciousness from determinism in history. [35] In the 1890s, the success of populism became overshadowed by the rise of Russian Marxism. Its major proponent, Georgij Plekhanov, combined his inspiration from Marx's historical materialism with his commitment in the international labour movement. [36] All these examples show the vivid interest of these intellectuals in speculative views on history that entailed practical solutions for their country. Despite their differences, Westernisers and Slavophiles, Russian socialists, populists and Marxists shared, except perhaps the late Gercen and Leont'ev who held a pessimistic view, defended the idea of a globally progressive development of history and the idea of stages in this process. Solov'ev's views on history emerged in this intellectual context. Even though he only seldom mentioned his sources of inspiration or targets, the discussions between Slavophiles and Westernisers, between liberals, populists and/or socialists were ever present as the background of his thought. _______________ Notes: 1. This account is based on Stremooukhoff 1974, on the biography written by Solov'ev's nephew: Sergej Solovyov, Vladimir Solovyov: His Life and Creative Evolution, Aleksey Gibson (transl.). 2 vols. (Fairfax, Virginia: Eastern Christian Publications Inc., 2000) [abbreviated S. Solovyov 2000], and on Evert van der Zweerde. 'Vladimir Solovjov -- een levend denkwerk', Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 65 (2003), pp. 715-735. For the sake of a fluent reading, I provide the title of Solov'ev's works in English translation in this survey. The Russian titles are given in the chapters in which I deal with these works. 2. The letters are quoted from two sources: Pis'ma Vladimira Sergeevica Solov 'eva, 4 vols. (Bruxelles: Zizn's Bogom, 1970), 3, pp. 81, pp. 88-89 (1873) [italics Solov'ev's]. The second source is La Sophia et les autres ecrits francais. Francois Rouleau (ed.) (Lausanne: La Cite-L'Age d'Homme, 1978) [abbreviated E. 1978], p. 335 (probably 1894), p. 342 (1898). 3. Solov'ev's published work can be found in two comprehensive editions as well as isolated volumes: Sobranie socinenij Vladimira Sergeevica Solov'eva, Sergej Solov'ev and Ernst Radlov (eds,), 14 vols, (Bruxelles: Zizn' s Bogom, 1966- 970), vols. 1-10 (1966): facsimile reprint of 2d ed.: (Sankt-Peterburg, 1911-1914): vols. 11-12 (1969): additional material not in 2d ed. [abbreviated SS,]: vols. 13- 14 (1970): facsimile reprint of the 4 vols. of letters plus additional material: Vladimir Sergeevic Solov'ev, Socinenija v dvukh tomakh. Aleksej Losev and Arsenij Gulyga (eds.), 2 vols. (Moskva: Mysl'. 1988) [abbreviated S. 1988]: V.S. Solov'cv. Socinenija v dvukh tomakh. Nikolaj Kotrelev and Evgenij Raskovskij (eds.), 2 vols. (Moskva: Pravda, 1989) [abbreviated S. 1989]: V.S. Solov' ev. Filosofija iskusstva i literaturnaja kritika, R. Gal'ceva and I. Rodnjanskaja (eds.) (Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1991) [abbreviated S. 1991]: V.S. Solov'ev, Polnoe sobranie socinenij i pisem v dvadcati tomakh. Sovinenija v pjatnadcati tomakh. Nikolaj Kotrelev, Aleksandr Nosov (eds.), vol. 1-3 (Moskva: Nauka, 2000-2001) [abbreviated PSS.] I shall use the most recent publication of Solov'ev's texts (mostly PSS., S 1988, S. 1989), except for his entries for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopedia: for these I base myself on SS. 10 and 12. which reproduce the whole text, contrary to a recent edition which has notably left aside bibliographical information provided by Solov'ev (G.V. Beljaev (ed,), Filosofskij slovar Vladimira Solov'eva (Rostovna-Donu: Feniks, 1997)). I refer to the Russian original text. For translations or quotations I refer first to the original, then to the available English translation. 4. Pis'ma p. 158. 5. Quoted in Stremooukhoff 1974, p. 22. 6. These words came from historian Konstantin Bestuzev-Rjumin (quoted in S.M. Luk'janov, O Vl. Solov'eve v ego molodye gody, 3 vols. (1st publ. in 1916-1921: with additions of one part: Moskva: Kniga 1990). vol. 2. p. 46). 7. He notably frequented Ivan Aksakov, Nikolaj Strakhov, Jurij Samarin, Mikhail Katkov, Nikolaj Ljubimov, Aleksandr Kireev. 8. He tried to be appointed professor at Moscow University, but the positivist M. Trojickij (1835-1899) got the position, whereas Solov'ev was given the position of lecturer (docent) (van der Zweerde 2003, p. 718). 9. Stremooukhoff 1974, p. 39. 10. Table drawn from Filosofskie nacala cel'nogo znanija, PSS. 3. p. 196. The three categories added in square brackets (priest, king, prophet) came later in Solov'ev's scheme of free theocracy. 11. S. Solovyov 2000. pp. 187-188. 12. Ibid., p.374. 13. Based on Hans Rogger, Russia in the Age of Modernisation and Revolution 1881-1917 (London & New York: Longman, 1995). 14. For an interpretation of the development of Russia during that period from the Luhmannian perspective, see Pauline Schrooyen, 'Modernisation in Late Imperial Russia: Some Critical Reflections on and Suggestions for the Study of Russian Society'. in: Wout Cornelissen, Gerrit Steunebrink and Evert van der Zweerde (eds.), Nation, Religion, Civil Society: Modernization in Context, Series Studies in Intercultural Philosophy, vol. 12 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2004) (forthcoming). 15. Rogger 1995. p.15. 16. Ibid., p. 41. 17. The Table of twelve ranks [Tabel' o rangakh] was introduced in 1722 by Peter the Great to fix a strict ranking to functions in the army, marine and civil service. It remained valid, though with modifications, until 1917 (Entry 'Rangetabelle', in: Norbert P. Franz (ed.), Lexikon der russischen Kultur (Darmstadt: Wisscnschaftlichc Buchgesellschaft, 2002), p. 365). 18. Rogger 1995, p. 29. 19. Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty, L'Eglise russe face a l'Occident (Paris: O.E.I.I., 1991), p. 173ff. 20. Rogger 1995, pp. 182-183. 21. Ibid., p. 183 22. Ibid., p. 101. 23. In the 1890s, some 80% of Russians were dependent on agriculture (vs. 10% in Britain, and 39%, in Germany) (Ibid., p. 127). 24. This account is based on Zenkovsky 1953 I: Th. G. Masaryk, Zur russischen Geschichts-und Religionsphilosophie: Soziologische Skizzen, 2 vols. (1st publ. 1913: Dusseldorf & Koln: Eugen Dideriehs Verlag, 1965): 1I., I. Novikova, I.N. Sizemskaja, Russkaja filosofija istorii (Moskva: Magistr, 1997). The purpose of this subsection is limited to providing a general survey of the main tendencies present in Russian public opinion in Solov'ev's time. For the sake of orientation I mention one significant work by each author. 25. Petr Caadaev ( 1794-1856), Istoriceskie pis'ma (1st published in 1836). 26. In this respect, the Slavophiles' reflection differed from that of most professional theologians, who were reluctant to address Orthodoxy with new elements taken from Western Enlightenment. 27. Ivan Kireevskij (1806-1856) wrote notably O kharaktere evropejskogo prosvescenija v ego otnosenii k prosvesceniju Rosii (1852). Zapiski o vsemirnoj istorii (unachieved) of Aleksej Khomjakov (1804-1860) counts among his most famous writings. 28. Fedor Dostoevskij (1821-1991). Dnevnik pisatelja (1873, 1876, 1877). 29. Konstantin Aksakov (1817-1866), 'O vnutrennem sostojanii Rossii' (1855). 30. Konstantin Leont'ev (1831-1891), Vostok, Rossija i Slavjanstvo (1885-1886). 31. The comprehensive work of Nikolai Danilevskij (1822-1885) entitled Rossija i Europa (1868) was and remains a classic. 32. Sergei Solov'ev (1820-1879), Istorija Rossii s drevnejsikh vremen (1851-1876); Konstantin Kavelin (1818-1885). Vzgljad na juridiceskij byt drevnej Rossii (1847); Boris Cicerin (1828-1904). Opyt po istorii russkogo prava (1858). 33. Aleksandr Gercen (1812-1870), Byloe i dumy, Nikolaj Ogarev (1813-1877), Russkie voprosy: krest'janskaja obscina (year); Nikolaj Cernysevskij (1828-1889). His novel Cto delat'? Rasskaz o novykh ljudjakh (1863) was a classic for generations or socialists. 34. Petr Lavrov (1823-1900), Istoriceskie pis'ma (1868-1869). 35. Nikolaj Mikhajlovskij (1842-1904). Bor 'ba za indicidual'nost' (1875-1876). 36. Georgij Plekhanov (1856-1918). K voprosu o razvitii monisticeskogo vzgljada na istoriju (1895)
|