Part 2 of 3
i) Origen of Alexandria
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the Alexandrian theologian, namely the comprehensive entry 'Origen' which Solov'ev wrote for the encyclopaedia, and an unpublished entry, entitled 'Bolotov', on the work of his contemporary, theologian V.V. Bolotov, on Origen.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.
ii) Maximus ConfessorMaximus 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.
b) Russian religious thinkersIn 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 SlavophilismSolov'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:
It seems to me that you only see papism, whereas I see above all great and holy Rome, the eternal city, a fundamental and inseparable part of the universal Church. I believe in this Rome, I venerate it, adore it with all my heart, and with all the powers of my soul desire its regeneration for the sake of the unity and wholeness of the universal church; let me be cursed as a patricide if ever I cast a word of condemnation at the sanctity of Rome. [162]
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]
ii) Fedor TjutcevThe 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]
iii) Fedor DostoevskijThe relationship and mutual inspiration between Fedor Dostoevskij and Solov'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.
ConclusionTo 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[/b]. 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. [b]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'.