|
HISTORY, SOPHIA AND THE RUSSIAN NATION |
|||||||||
|
IV. Solov'ev's Sophiology of History
Solov'ev's historical intuition was that of a feminine and material entity engaged in the world in a process of spiritualization. This intuition was intimately linked with his mystical visions of Sophia, which were 'so far the most significant event' of his life, as he wrote in 1898 at the age of 45. [2] From the outset of his career, this experience urged him to investigate the topic of Sophia and its doublet, World Soul, in various traditions, the most significant aspects of which he integrated in his own conception, which I label his sophiology. For the sake of ease, I use the expression 'Sophia-World Soul', and in this chapter, I analyse the complex relationship that Solov'ev established between the two components. The fact that his sophiology was far less elaborated as an articulate discourse than his theology of history and his philosophy of history is shown by his many unsuccessful attempts to conceptualise Sophia-World Soul and to find an adequate medium of expression to convey his views. The quasi-absence of a link with specific historical events or characters also suggests that this register is not so much about historicity as about process. However, Solov'ev established a link between Sophia and Russia, which reveals his conviction that Russia was historically bound to incarnate Sophia in a near future. One of the most fascinating features of Solov'ev's writings is found in his unwavering search for a way to express this sophianic intuition. [3] This chapter seeks to unravel the stage of elaboration and the role of sophiology of history in Solov'ev, and advances the fallowing five theses. Firstly, Sophia-World Soul is intrinsically linked to history, and, conversely, that history, in Solov'ev's eyes, can be best understood in terms of sophianisation. Secondly, a core aspect, which though remains mostly implicit in Solov'ev's work, is that the imminent incarnation of Sophia is the mission that Russia, as the mediator between the divine and the human world, is bound to fulfill under the guidance of the prophet Solov'ev. Thirdly, in his theoretical writings. he only paved the way for sophiology, without realising an articulate '-logy.' Interestingly, Russia's 'most systematic philosopher's' conception of Sophia was dominated foremost by his initial intuition. [4] Fourthly, Sophia-World Soul is the cornerstone of Solov'ev's work as a whole, which he, however, left for the most part concealed. The role of visible cornerstone is performed by the metaphysical principle of all-unity [vseedinstvo], which applies to all things and beings, and by the theological principle of the humanity of God [Bogocelovecestvo], which applies only to human beings. A demonstration of the intimate connection between Sophia-World Soul and the two principles is provided below. My fifth thesis concerns the relationship between sophiology of history and the two other registers of history. Solov'ev introduced sophiology of history [SH] in order to compensate for the flaws of TH and PH. An exclusively theological view of history leaves the gulf between man and God, between the immanent and the transcendent levels, intact. Philosophy of history is limited in the sense that it focuses on the development of individuals, and humanity, and tends to suppress the level of transcendence. Besides, neither theology of history nor philosophy of history take into account nature and matter in their own value, and as a result do not deal with the world as a whole. Neither is there space in these registers for a type of knowledge that was fundamental for Solov'ev, namely inspiration. In order to overcome the limitations of these two conceptions without giving up their contribution, Solov'ev created a third conception of history, his sophiology of history. Two aspects are central in this register, namely the idea of a fusion between the divine and the world, and a conception of process in which nature also takes part. [5] As a result, this register does not present a sharp historical view, but rather emphasises the process-like character of the rapprochement between the world and God. That Solov'ev saw it as his mission to contribute to this rapprochement shows from his considerations on the affinity of the Russian people with Sophia, and his implicit self-definition as that prophet able to guide Russia on this path. Solov'ev's personal intuition of Sophia-World Soul, based on his mystical and erotic visions of Sophia, and his perception of World Soul in nature, was so significant to him that he consistently searched for ways to express it. [6] For this purpose, he explored two main genres: speculative essays and poetry. He wrote an essay entirely devoted to Sophia, entitled La Sophia, which remained unpublished until the 1970s. He also wrote passages about Sophia-World Soul in his theological essays Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, and, in a more scattered way, in Smysl ljubvi. [7] Not less importantly, a whole range of Solov'ev's poems deal with Sophia-World Soul. [8] In all these texts, he advanced elements for a sophiology of history. [9] Below I deal with the following issues: in the first part (1), I give a general definition of SH (a) by clarifying the concepts of (i) Divine Sophia and (ii) Earthly Sophia or World Soul; (b) by characterising the underlying framework, (ci) periodisation, (cii) conception of time, (di) criteria, (dii) method, and (e) the main actors in SH. In the second part (2), I explore the sources from which Solov'ev drew inspiration to construct his sophiology of history, namely (a) the Kabbalah, (b) Gnosticism, (c) Jacob Bohme, and (d) Schelling. 1. The Register of Sophiology of History in Solov'ev At the age of twenty-one, Solov'ev felt a call to contribute to the process of history in a specific manner. Sophia urged him to build a new synthetic system. or 'universal religion', which not only brought together all fields of knowledge, namely philosophy, religion, and science, but which also integrated the spiritual or inner sphere with the external sphere of social and political life. [10] Significantly, his ambition of system-building lay beyond the purely intellectual field: Solov'ev sought to contribute to the practical or 'real incarnation of Sophia', which he understood as the logical and culminating step after her 'theoretical incarnation' in modern philosophy. [11] The question of the definition of sophiology in general is problematic. [12] The issue of Sophia-World Soul and her role in Solov'ev's thought is particularly complex, and deserves close attention. It has been the object of renewed scholarly interest over the past ten years. [13] The reasons for this complexity are at least threefold. Firstly, Solov'ev tried to syncretise various traditions, such as the Kabbalah and Gnosticism, and cast them in a nineteenth-century worldview. Secondly, he elaborated on Sophia-World Soul in often conflicting ways, or at least so it appears at first sight. Thirdly, his definition of Sophia- World Soul evolved in the course of his work, which raises the question of whether he rejected or revised previous views or whether he merely shifted focus. It is therefore relevant to first examine the two notions of Sophia specifically, as Divine Wisdom, and as World Soul. i) Divine Sophia or Divine Wisdom Throughout his years, Solov'ev consistently defined Sophia first and foremost as the feminine figure of Divine Wisdom, She appeared as such to him in mystical visions, which he narrated in his aptly entitled poem 'Tri svidanija' [Three Encounters]. [14] Her revelations are cast into a discursive form for the first time in a dialogue in La Sophia, where 'Sophia' is the interlocutor of 'the philosopher.' She wants to 'reveal to me the mystery of the three worlds and the future of humanity' and to entrust him with the mission of building a universal religion. [15] Having received this divine impulse, Solov'ev elaborated on Sophia in scholarly discourse. In Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, he defined Sophia as the unity which is produced, as 'God's body, the matter of divinity, permeated with the principle of divine unity.' [16] From the definition as produced unity, it was only one short step to provide Sophia with a teleological dimension: Solov'ev took this step when he characterised her as 'the expressed and actualised idea', 'the ideal or perfect humanity'. or in other terms, the ideal unity between man and God. [17] This conception is elaborated further in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle. Sophia is the substance of Holy Trinity and 'the plenitude or the absolute totality of being, anterior and superior to any partial existence'; [18] as such, Solov'ev argued, she can be identified with the Old Testament Chochmah. [19] By positing Sophia both prior to creation and as that ideal unity that humanity has to achieve, he understood history as the process of actualisation of Sophia, or, which is the same, sophianisation:
In this quotation, it is clear that his ambition is to posit the transcendent and the immanent levels in terms or fusion. The Russian philosopher also sought to connect his view of Sophia with the living tradition of the veneration of Wisdom [Mudrost' or Premudrost'] in Eastern Christianity, inspired by the Old Testament book or the Proverbs. Solov'ev saw numerous signs or the incarnation of Sophia in the church, from the construction of the basilica Haghia Sophia in Constantinople to the Russian Orthodox icons of Wisdom. It is obvious that his conception of Sophia shares little with the liturgical Orthodox tradition. [21] However, he had the unwavering conviction that his own country was bound to embody Sophia in a concrete and practical way. The link that he made between Sophia and the Russian mission in history forms the core of his self-perception as a prophet [see subsection e] and guided his main interventions in social and political matters [see case studies]. The divine Sophia, as unity between man and God, acts among humans not only in the form of an icon, but, in a far more subversive tone, Solov'ev posed that her most definitive form of incarnation is the spiritual and sexual love between man and woman. Indeed, it is through a mortal woman that a man loves the feminine divine eternal being. [22] In his poetry, Solov'ev narrated his love for Sophia through his encounter with a mortal woman. [23] However, his own mystical experience entitled him to relate to Sophia without the intermediary of an earthly woman: he also directly addressed Sophia as his 'empress', his 'goddess', 'who is not here and not there, in the kingdom of mystical dreams', and saluted her: 'eternal femininity is now coming on earth, in an imperishable body.' [24] Solov'ev saw the mystical union of the true poet with Sophia as a reflection of a process that takes place on the cosmic level, namely the fusion between God and World Soul. ii) Earthly Sophia or World Soul Solov'ev had an intuition of Sophia as not only Divine Wisdom, but also as the created, earthly, 'Divided Sophia', or World Soul. [25] The expression' Divided Sophia' suggests to some extent a common nature of Divine Wisdom and World Soul. Initially, in La Sophia, Solov'ev examined the notion of a superior cosmic being called Soul [Ame, Ame universelle], which had wanted exclusive power, and had therefore fallen. [26] Soul also contains in its strife 'the principle of real unity.' The cosmic and historical processes are about the strife of the fallen Sophia or Soul to reunite with God through man and through nature. [27] Solov'ev connected her intimately to history by declaring that Soul 'in its divided and suffering aspect is the matter or the substratum of the process.' [28] From hereon, he attempted to further conceptualise this double character of World Soul as divided and striving to unity. In Kritika otvleeennykh nacal, [Critique of Abstract Principles, 1877- 1879]. Solov'ev founded the notion of World Soul in a metaphysical framework. He characterised World Soul not only as a free being, thus positing a third free being next to the traditional Christian view of God and man, but he also resolutely defined World Soul as a 'second Absolute' or as 'becoming absolute' through man, in contrast to God's 'being absolute.' [29] As becoming absolute, World Soul contains within herself two main components: the divine clement of all-unity [vseedinstvo], which she possesses only in potency, and the material clement of particularity [to castnoe] or plurality [mnozestvennost']. [30] World Soul is the fundament of all that exists outside God. She is present in nature. but here the divine element is only potential, blind, and unconscious. The divine element receives its 'ideal reality' only in man, and through man, World Soul becomes conscious of herself. [31] In this way, Solov'ev firmly tied the destiny of World Soul to that of men, and equated its ideal form with the theological principle of humanity of God, as well as with the philosophical principle of all-unity. [32] In Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, Solov'ev further specified the nature of World Soul as a 'dual being', both as the present, suffering soul of the world, striving for this ideal of unity with the divine, and as ideal humanity. By this move, he brought World Soul so close to Sophia as to nearly identifying them with one another. [33] World Soul occupied a 'mediating position' between the divine and the human. [34] This definition of World Soul in terms of mediation reinforces Solov'ev's thesis that it is fundamentally through World Soul that the goal of all-unity can be achieved. At a later stage, Solov'ev abandoned this ambiguous definition of World Soul as half divine, half non-divine, a definition which did not escape the criticism of creating a second absolute next to God that God would need in order to become perfect. [35] As a result, in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, while maintaining the definition of Sophia as divine, he redefined World Soul as the first creature of God. He presented a theologically more acceptable interpretation by radically distinguishing between, on the one hand. Sophia the wisdom of God, as primordial unity between God and creation. and. on the other hand. World Soul -- no longer an intermediary between heaven and earth, but 'the opposite or the antitype of the essential Wisdom of God." In conformity with the earlier definitions, World Soul is 'the materia prima and true substratum of our created world', striving to reunite with the divine in virtue of the divine element present within herself and against the temptations of chaos. [36] So, even though Sophia and World Soul are now separated at their origin. the goal of history still consists in their fusion, and in this sense is close to the theological ideal of the humanity of God. [37] In his last explicit publication on the issue. namely 'Mirovaja dusa' [World Soul] for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia. Solov 'ev adopted an entirely different tone and spoke of the 'united inner nature of the world' from the perspective of history of philosophy. He described the evolution of the term World Soul in two directions, the one leading from Plato to Schelling, which included a being superior to World Soul, the other leading from Indian philosophies to Schopenhauer and von Hartmann, which in contrast excluded any God. [38] To this scholarly account he added his own position. He criticised the second orientation for not taking into account the 'fact' of a teleological process governing the world. His final judgement was that a consistent understanding of World Soul included a conception of God -- a point in line with his own essays, yet which took him many attempts to conceptualise. A statement made in Smysl ljubvi confirms the thesis that Solov'ev actually saw Sophia and World Soul as two sides of the same coin. The perfect unity of all, symbolised by Sophia, is already a reality for God, while it is for us in the process of realisation. [39] Solov'ev hereby defined an analogical relationship between, on the one hand, Sophia and God (realm of perfection in being), and World Soul and human beings (realm of perfection in becoming), on the other. In other terms, . World Soul is the means by which Sophia bridges the two realms' of matter and spirit. [40] In this sense, Sophia-World Soul allows the conceptualisation of mediation between God and the world, understood as a fruitful tension between being and becoming, eternity and time, transcendence and immanence. So far Solov'ev had emphasised the incarnation of World Soul in man. In writings such as Opravdanie dobra, 'Krasota v prirode' and 'Obscij smysl iskusstva', he added further elements of the incarnation of World Soul in nature and matter. [41] The view that nature and matter arc involved in the process towards the fusion of World Soul with the divine was present from La Sophia onwards. But in these later writings, although he rarely referred to World Soul, the philosopher made efforts to conceptualise how precisely nature and matter contribute to this process. Firstly, Word Soul defined as nature is the battlefield of the forces of chaos and order. [42] Inorganic, and, far more obviously, organic life incarnates the idea of unity, with each stage an improvement upon the previous stage, and hereby producing beauty. In this argumentation, interestingly, beauty is defined as the result of a process involving the material realm and the spiritual realm, namely as the "transformation of matter through the embodiment in it of another, supra-material principle.' [43] In art, the work of nature is continued. through the incarnation in sensible forms of ideal content. [44] Solov'ev posited this activity as a central contribution to 'integral life' b) defining it as 'free theurgy', next to "free theosophy' and 'free theocracy.' [45] Another way of spiritualising material nature is through agriculture. The philosopher insisted on the moral obligation of treating nature respectfully, and of cultivating it with love for its 'future renewal and regeneration.' [46] More generally, the spiritualization of World Soul in its manifestation as nature of 'material life' was one of the historical tasks of human beings. It thus implied a treatment of matter in economics in respectful rather than instrumental terms. [47] In this sense, the spiritualization of World Soul should be worked at in human activities varying from art to economics and agriculture. In this way he sought to positively value the world in its material it) and to shows that it should be included in the process of spiritualization. Solov'ev's various attempts to conceptualise Sophia and World Soul should not he seen as failures. but are in themselves deeply significant, and testify to a quest for a place for both notions. However, one can wonder about the meaning of his progressive differentiation between Sophia and World Soul. On the one hand, it can be viewed as a fundamental change, which was dictated notably by the need to present an 'Orthodox' view. On the other hand, Solov'ev's poems reveal that he actually continued to think in terms of a close link, and not an opposition, between earth and heaven, between the material and the spiritual, between a created and an uncreated Sophia. [48] This suggests a change of method, apparent in two moves: an attempt to produce a theologically acceptable discourse on divine Sophia, as we have seen in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, and at the same time, a transfer of the treatment of created Sophia, or World Soul, to the genre of poetry, and, in an underdeveloped way, to the field of aesthetics and economics. With these two notions of Sophia and World Soul, Solov'ev paved the way for a new theory of creation and history, namely sophiology of history. in which he places an emphasis on the link between the divine and the human in a new way. On the one hand, he does this through positing the feminine figure of Divine Wisdom, which he sought to provide with, as Boris Groys has aptly put it, 'maximal equality' [Gleichberechtigung] with respect to God and, on the other hand, through underscoring the value of the world, which is perceived as a feminine and material entity. [49] In this register, the goal of history consists of reunifying the two Sophias through the incarnation of Divine Sophia by World Soul; all things and beings, that is, not only human beings, but also nature and matter, are involved in the process. Solov'ev identified the becoming incarnation of Divine Sophia by World Soul as the bridging itself of the opposition between transcendence and immanence. In sophiology of history, a third realm is introduced against the strict distinction between the transcendent and the immanent levels in theology of history and philosophy of history, which is not limited to man, but also includes matter and nature, and which works towards the ultimate unification with God. [50] The characterisation of this third realm varied in Solov'ev's works. First, in La Sophia, it is represented by three cosmic entities, namely Satan, Demiurge and Sophia, which struggle for the power over humanity in history. [51] Later. Solov'ev describes this realm in terms or 'World Soul.' [52] He suppressed the cosmic characters presented in La Sophia, and attempted to cast his views in a theologically and philosophically acceptable discourse, Between the chaotic existence of Earth on the one hand. and the divine light and unity on the other, it was necessary, he said, 'to produce an existence which is half-earthly and half-heavenly, which is able to embrace in its unity the totality of creature and to reattach it to God.' [53] By 'totality of creature' Solov'ev also meant matter, which is included in the cosmic and historical process towards its 'reattachment' with God, in contrast with the framework of theology of history that only has a bearing on human beings. World Soul strives for reunification with God, to 'incarnate in a created form the eternal divine Wisdom.' [54] In this way, Solov'ev attempted to solve the ambiguity of the relationship between World Soul and Sophia. c) Periodisation and conception of time Characteristic for Solov'ev's efforts to relate Sophia-World Soul to the cosmic and historical process are the periodisations offered in La Sophia, Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, and La Russie et l’Eglise universelle. [55] Prior to the actual occurrence of the process, Solov'ev posed a primordial unity of everything in the divine principle. [56] The ensuing process was provoked by the fall of World Soul. since it wanted freedom and thereby exclusive power. In general terms. the procedure as a whole consists of a history or gradually regaining the primordial unity, through ever-better unifications with the divine principle with World Soul, or 'manifestations of the divine idea (all-unity)' in the world. [57] Solov'ev distinguished three main phases, in which World Soul appeared in increasingly perfect forms of unity with in itself and with God. The first phase is perhaps sophiology's most original contribution to the theological and philosophical schemes of history. and bears a Gnostic or a Kabbalistic influence [see subsections 2a and 2b]. It properly speaking took place before human history started. This cosmogonic phase witnessed the external manifestation or all-unity in the law of universal gravitation up to the creation of more complex forms of unity in 'vegetative and animal organisms" in which World Soul manifested itself. [58] In the second phase, known as mythological or theogonic, humanity, which now was constituted as an organic body, started to manifest inner unity 'in the form of consciousness and free activity.' [59] Henceforth, World Soul acted through man, who is 'the natural mediator between God and material being', and who, as such, could realise de facto unity and order in the chaotic realm of nature. [60] Through human consciousness, World Soul developed different worldviews or ideas of unity of God with the universe, namely in Buddhist and Hindu civilisation, in Greek philosophy, and in Judaism. [61] Here we encounter the same 'episodes' of world history as in TH, and partly PH, but with a different emphasis. Sophiology of history emphasises the relationship between the divine principle and the World Soul through man, With Judaism, 'a living personal force' was capable of taking possession of the soul for the first time. This process led to the formation of the 'self-consciousness of the human soul as a spiritual principle.' [62] This provided the basis for the third, historical phase. [63] According to Solov'ev, this last phase started with the life of the God-human individual, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. It was only at this point in time that humanity started to develop into the universal Church, or 'Incarnate Sophia' in its 'universal extension. [64] In La Sophia, the periodisation within each phase is structured by the successive influence of the cosmic principles Satan (from the beginning of Christianity to the Middle Ages), Demiurge (from 1500 to approximately the 19th century), and Soul or Sophia. [65] The latter is of particular interest for our analysis. A first, theoretical, incarnation of Sophia had already taken place in modern philosophy and in the systems of Bohme, Swedenborg, and Schelling, who had laid the basis for universal religion. [66] Under the influence of Sophia- soul, these thinkers, who were able to effectively understand and express her revelations, initiated a philosophy based on the subjective, human soul, which replaced the objective thought of the Ancients and hereby removed the 'theoretical imperfection of Christianity.' [67] Now its practical imperfection, namely only a partial realisation of the Christian message in society by Catholicism, also had to be removed, namely by a Slavic, preferably the Russian people. [68] In a revelation found in automatic writing, Sophia even showed Solov'ev a precise year for what we may understand as her actual incarnation: 'I will be born in April 1878.' [69] Out of this last indication we can deduce that the last stage of history was to start in a very near future. We also can see Solov'ev's direct belief in the concrete advent of 'Incarnate Sophia' and possibly his own role in it. [70] The philosopher pointed only in passing to 'Incarnate Sophia's' forms of realisation in the three main spheres. Arguably, in the sphere of knowledge, his project of 'universal religion' served this goal. Concerning the social sphere, he hoped for an interaction between individuals and collectivity in terms of love and 'syzygy' [see subsection di]. As to the sphere of creation. since European art had exhausted all forms of art known to us, new forms were bound to come. [71] As he stated in Smysl ljubvi, the goal was perhaps obvious, but the means of attaining it were still unclear. [72] As a matter of fact, he only sketched a first draft of sophiology of history, and the historical content remained undeveloped. More strongly perhaps than in the two other registers of history. Solov'ev was concerned with drawing a close link between sophiology and time. This is shown by the fact that the three main texts devoted to sophiology contain most of his considerations on time. In line with his theology of history, Solov'ev envisaged time in a three-fold manner: with respect to nature, to World Soul, and to God. He argued that time in nature is one of the forms of God's heteronomy. Indeed, contrary to the essence of God, which is all-unity. there is in nature an 'undetermined succession of exclusive and indifferent moments. which we call time.' [73] Time in nature is only a mere succession of moments that struggle for existence and are so deprived of any inner bond between them. In this sense. time is not only heteronomous, but also heterogeneous. However, World Soul strives towards unity within itself, and for this purpose has to complete each moment by linking it to the past and to the future. through reminiscing and waiting. Only in this way can World Soul reach total inner subjectivity. [74] Solov'ev proceeded by linking World Soul more closely with God from the perspective of time. He identified past, present, and future in World Soul with 'its three positions with respect to the Divinity'. which he also called the 'ideal trinity of the three times'. and which echo his periodisation:
Characteristically. Solov'ev considered the future only in 'ideal' terms of a union with God, and left aside the possible negative outcome of World Soul's freedom, which would incite the world to once again turn away from God. [76] According to Solov'ev, World Soul was bound to reunite with God sooner or later. This view of the future testifies to Solov'ev's deep-seated optimism. [77] As to the implementation of the ideal. Solov'ev had in mind all- nity as defined in the register or philosophy of history, though informed by another force, namely love. To summarise, a sophiological conception or time is typified by the emphasis on a subjective perception of time, as the elaborations on the necessity far World Soul to experience time show, as well as on the future as the dimension or necessary reunification of World Soul with God. i) Criteria: cosmic, mystical and erotic love Arguably, the main criterion that distinguishes the sophiological from the theological and philosophical register or history is love. From a sophiological perspective. love is the motor for the achievement or all-unity, the unifying force between all three above-mentioned levels. that is, God, man. and World Soul, including nature. This criterion has already been pointed out in his theology of history, but in the sophiological register love refers to a broader content. Rather than the traditional Christian view of love as mutual charity between human beings, love consists of the relationship between the masculine and the feminine principle at various levels. He posited love as the cosmic relationship between God and World Soul that want to reunite, as the personal, mystical and erotic relationship between feminine Sophia and the poet-prophet, and as the one-to-one relationship of sexual love as 'real and all-mighty love.' [78] Solov'ev had already devoted attention to love in Lu Sophia as the 'free and intimate link' between spiritual beings par excellence. [79] Later, he explicitly argued that 'sexual love' in marriage creates the 'true individual elements of true society, of incarnate Sophia.' [80] In Smysl ljubvi, he specifically connected cosmic love to heterosexual love. In the latter, divine substance finds a means to once and for all incarnate itself in individual human life in an altogether profound and external. tangible way. [81] Through the love for a woman, man loves and venerates the heavenly object of love, the feminine divine eternal. Undoubtedly, Solov'ev drew elements of inspiration for this connection between cosmic and human love from his personal experience. Not only does the poet-prophet have contact with Divine Wisdom, but cosmic love and human heterosexual love also reflect each other: the whole universe, from individual human beings to God, is bound up in a single movement. [82] In neither of the other registers is the cosmic dimension tied up with the worldly and human as closely as in sophiology of history. As a matter of fact, in Smysl ljubvi, Solov'ev concluded that this loving interaction goes beyond individuals and extends to social, national and universal collectivity. He characterised it as syzygy [literally from the Greek syzygia, 'yoke'], hereby stressing the aspect of mutual love and autonomy of individuals within the collectivity, and linking the ideal of all-unity with a mystical dimension. [83] ii) Method: speculation and inspiration While PH is based on speculative and empirical reason alone, and TH on reason and faith, in SH reason is combined with another instance: inspiration, The expression 'intellectual intuition' that Solov'ev employed to evoke man's contact with the divine world shows that he considered a combination of speculation and inspiration necessary. He used them both in his attempts to present his sophiology in a discursive medium such as in La Sophia, Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve or La Russie et l’Eglise universelle. He also defined the principle or prophecy as the 'freedom of individual inspiration", which shows the central role that he ascribed to this type of knowledge. [84]Although he deals with inspiration and the related notions of intuition and imagination in several passages, he did not elaborate a theory of inspiration, and in his entry 'Vdokhnovenie' [Inspiration] for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia, contented himself with mentioning existing positions with respect to this topic. [85] A more explicit relation can be unravelled between his conception of Sophia and his reflections on mysticism. [86] In his early scheme of integral life, he ascribed a significant status to his mystical experience, which shows from his positioning mistika as the highest possible form of creation [see table, p. 12]. Later, in the encyclopaedia entry 'Mistika, misticizm', considering the unmediated communication between the subject and the divine an essential basis (and one which he experienced in his mystical visions), he distinguished between a conception of this communication as the privileged instrument of knowledge above all other devices (mysticism), and one as an essential basis of knowledge (theosophy). [87] The fact that Solov'ev experienced mystical inspiration is beyond doubt. What remains problematic, however, is the question whether we can speak of a coherent mystical discourse formulated in the many texts in which he expressed this inspiration. Viktorija Kravcenko raises the relevant question of the character and scope [ob "em] of the information that Solov'ev received in mystical trance, and that served as basis for his philosophical reflection. Which part of the information he received was actually worked out and developed? Two problems arise at this point. Firstly, there is almost no trace of the automatic writing fragments in the discursive texts, which suggests that Solov'ev carefully concealed the information that he had received in trance. [88] Secondly, Khoruzij has convincingly pointed out that Solov'ev did not introduce an intermediary stage between inspiration and speculation. The absence of this stage leads to incoherence, and to an 'unpurified' account of the mystical experience. [89] Finally, what distinguishes his discourse from that of other mystics is that he elaborated on God, the world and man, rather than on his personal experience, soul, or spiritual path. [90] In the discursive medium, Solov'ev kept his main source of inspiration concealed and was careful, as it were, not to reveal anything of his own experience. Solov'ev valued not only speculative knowledge but also the type of knowledge that poets attain through inspiration and intuition. [91] This was exactly what he himself aimed at in his poetry. Indeed he held that the 'clear forms of glory and eternal beauty', are most accessible through 'poetic creation', 'that inner illumination that is called inspiration, through which we may find, even in the actuality of nature, sounds and colours that will embody those ideal types.' [92] One cannot emphasise enough the fact that Solov'ev chose precisely the poetic medium and actively explored it to render his encounters with Sophia. His poetry also expresses his perception of the liveliness of World Soul. On this point, his comment on the lyrical poetry of Fedor Tjutcev is highly instructive. He particularly admired the Russian poet and diplomat for having expressed not only the life of nature, but also the 'actions of World Soul', better than anyone, even Goethe. In storms Tjutcev perceived the deep essence of World Soul, namely chaos and irrationality. He identified life of nature as a fight between light and darkness. Tjutcev did not limit himself to feel nature, but he was also deeply convinced of the objective truth of his view of nature. In this way, 'his mind was completely in accordance with his inspiration.' [93] As a matter of fact, Solov'ev's own poetry contains a form of adoration of the earth, for instance as 'Queen Earth', 'Eve of Turania', Madonna of the steps.' [94] In contemplating nature, the poet witnesses the painful strife of the 'earthly soul' to unite with the 'unearthly world', as well as their fusion. [95] He read in nature, as well as in history as we have seen, the symptoms of the progressive fusion of the world with God, in other terms, of the sophianisation of humanity. His poetry reveals that he understood his own individual mystical fusion with Sophia as part of the same process. [96] In a freer way than was possible in theoretical treatises, this genre allowed him to express a direct relationship with Sophia-World Soul by means of a non-discursive language, the immediacy of which speaks to the senses and the emotions rather than to cerebral cognition. Besides, the freedom inherent to the poetic language enabled him to speak of both the materiality and the spirituality of the experience. and, even belter, to establish an intimate link between these two levels. That he worshipped Sophia, and with her World Soul did not escape his contemporaries, who labelled it as a 'cosmic cult' of the 'earthly Aphrodite' close to paganism. [97] This did not hinder him, however, to fiercely reject the cult of humanity as Comte promote it. [98] However, poetry was not sufficient to express the ultimate truth. since it expressed only the emotion of the moment, and not eternal truth. [99] It had to be combined with philosophical speculation. In La Sophia, he considered dialectics to be the most adequate means of expressing the most powerful force active in history, the reality of love. [100] By dialectics [see previous chapter], he meant not only a logical device, but also a totalising approach. which enables one to conceive of the unity of all and which seeks to unveil the cosmic process as a whole. [101] Solov'ev understood its main principle as the 'unity of itself and of its opposite.' In this way dialectics can indeed he understood as a translation of love. which unites the self with one's other. into logical thought. This interpretation explains Solov'ev's early fascination for dialectics as the best means of building universal religion. [102] However, the core of dialectics, namely negation and negation of negation, found no real echo in his considerations, which focused rather on the 'union' or 'synthetic' moment of the process. He abandoned this method in his later works on sophiology. Speculation dominates, in the form of abstraction, generalisation and theorisation, sometimes combined with data from physics, biology and psychology. In Smysl ljubvi the philosopher made a unique attempt to combine speculation with the poetic trope of oxymoron and with scientific discourse, in order to express the penetration of the mystical dimension in the material world. He identified light, electricity, magnetism, and warmth as 'weightless matter that penetrates and is penetrated everywhere -- in a word, immaterial matter.' [103] The oxymoron, in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction. was the figure of speech par excellence by which Solov'ev was able to express the combination of spiritual and material typical of sophiology. i) God, Sophia, and World Soul From the preceding paragraphs, the role of the actors God, Sophia and World Soul is clearly shown and needs only to be summed up at this point. As far as God is concerned in this register, he plays a major part as the absolute principle and the creator, who loves his creation, which is embodied in its ideal unity in Divine Sophia. This love also is. or at least should be, the central force that animates common man in his activities and interactions with other individuals. with the collectivity, and with nature. Sophia as Divine Wisdom exists prior to creation, and is its model. Besides. she is in contact with man to the extent that she speaks to the poet-prophet. World Soul, the created substratum of all that exists, labours towards its union with God through man and nature. ii) The prophet Let us now turn to the last main actor of this register, namely the individual capable of perceiving Sophia-World Soul, that is, the prophet. The prophet is the key figure in the union between God and the world. [104] Solov'ev describes this person as a privileged individual, chosen by Sophia, who receives and picks up her message, and transmits it to his or her contemporaries. These individuals can be philosopher-mystics, such as Bohme, Swedenborg and Schelling, whom Solov'ev mentioned as the creators of the philosophy of soul: he added himself to this list. [105] These can also be poets. In this connection, he elaborated an original conception of prophecy. Although mystic insight and poetic inspiration do not necessarily make a prophet, in Solov'ev' s case mystic experience 'provides a possible foundation and validation for the poet's prophetic status.' [106] Very early on, Solov'ev sought to construct an ideal and tradition of prophecy that could fully legitimate his own experience. He first investigated the well-established Russian literary tradition of the poet-prophet based on the figure of Puskin, and formulated it by choosing Dostoevskij as its initiator. He then turned to a purely religiously based tradition, that of the Hebrew prophets. [107] To this picture we could add Solov'ev' s sustained interest in mysticism, as shown by a whole range of publications on the topic. [108] Arguably, his sense of prophetic mission took its source in his mystical visions. Revealing in this respect is Solov'ev's view regarding biblical prophecies about Jesus Christ, that 'the unconscious is the distinctive sign of true prophecy.' [109] One can reasonably assume that the dialogue form which he chose for La Sophia reflects for a great part an original mystical experience, in which Sophia reveals the date of her rebirth to the philosopher and others, and instructs him for this purpose to definitively establish universal religion in theory and in practice. The altogether intimate and dependent relationship that Solov'ev enjoyed with Sophia is quite obvious from the following scene transcribed in automatic writing, and in which Sophia commands him:
However, in Solov'ev's eyes, mystic insight and poetic talent were not enough to make somebody a prophet. The true prophet is entrusted with a moral mission, the application of which should start in his own life. This is the reason why Solov'ev praised Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz so highly. Mickiewicz had also had a mystic experience: the Orthodox icon of the Virgin of Czestochowa situated on Polish ground, had appeared to him, indicated the right path to him, and thus saved him. This is a striking reminder of Sophia. The poet had overcome three temptations or forms of exclusive love: sexual love, nationalism, and obedience to the Catholic Church. [111] These heroic deeds made him a superior man, in contrast to Puskin, who, though perhaps the established poet-prophet of the Russian tradition, had not lived according to the higher principles that he had caught a glimpse of. Solov'ev was concerned with the reformulation of the notion of poet-prophet, which had become a cliche by the Puskin commemoration of 1880. In his commemorative speech, Solov'ev emphasised Mickiewicz's concern for moral order. His essential merit had been to indicate paths, without needing to be more specific. These two aspects are also central in Solov'ev's interventions. From this speech it appears that Solov'ev found in Mickiewicz a kindred spirit and the model of the prophet he himself strove to be. He remoulded the notion of prophecy primarily in his sophiology. Arguably, the prophet is essentially a translator of higher truths, which he has received through sophianic revelation and poetic inspiration into his own life, but also into the social environment in which he lives. Prophecy contained a moral, social, and national dimension that Solov'ev deeply felt to be his mission. [112] Typical for this very peculiar kind of social activism is the combination of solitary action with an interpretation of events from a moral perspective. Solov'ev identified himself with the prophet, who is entitled to playa fundamental role in history, as the authority that anticipates the union of God with the world through moral deeds, reminds the earthly power and society of their moral duty, and guides them towards the right path. iii) Russian educated society and people The prophet is the guide of educated society and the people: 'the social life of the people has its theocratic organ in the person of the prophet.' [113] This link which Solov'ev made in his theocratic scheme forms the core of his self-perception as a prophet. While in his interventions he constantly addressed Russian educated society [see all case studies], his exhortations after the tsaricide and during the famine especially aimed to guide his fellowmen towards unification with the simple folk [see case studies I and V]. In the Russian tradition, there was already a notion which expressed that ideal unity, namely that of zemstvo. Rather than referring to the institution of local self-government created in 1860, zemstvo in the Slavophile meaning was the 'force originating in the spiritual unity of the people' as opposed to the state. [114] This was also precisely the term that Solov'ev used in his scheme of free theocracy to mean this unity. [115] His untiring prophetic commitment can be best explained through his conviction that Russia was bound to embody Sophia on earth. This conviction was seldom expressed, but was nonetheless deep-rooted in his thought. In his eyes, Russians had a special bond with Sophia through their veneration of Wisdom. Solov'ev interpreted this veneration in a messianic perspective:
With this key passage Solov'ev introduced the last part of La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, devoted to a presentation of the idea of free theocracy. This transition reveals the close link between Sophia, Russia and his model of free theocracy: he developed the idea of free theocracy as that 'rational expression' of Sophia, which should be concretely realised by his country and under his guidance. One last factor confirms the intimate link between Sophia and Russia in Solov'ev's thought. The fundamental feature that I have identified in Solov'ev's sophiology of history, namely mediation, is central to his characterisation of the Slavic peoples in general, and of the Russian people in particular. In his eyes, Russia was destined to act as a people-mediator [narod posrednik] between the divine and the human world in the sense that it would 'not act out of itself, not realise its own business'; in this way it would also mediate on the horizontal level of immanent history and contribute to reconcile the Western and the Eastern civilisations. [117] One necessary condition for this role was that free theocracy be properly announced by the prophet, and the leaders conscious of their role. The case studies show how Solov'ev set upon himself to realise this mission. In his sophiology of history, Solov'ev succeeded in bringing to the fore an alternative way of expressing his intuition about history and the relationship between God and the world in terms of mediation. This register provided him with a framework to conceive of Divine Wisdom both in her perfection and in her commitment to the world, and especially to the poet-prophet. It also enabled Solov'ev to render his perception of the world in its materiality and its femininity, as well as in its attraction to God. Combining these two views harmoniously represented a considerable challenge, which Solov'ev achieved perhaps most effectively in his poetry. In his essays, he progressively separated Sophia from World Soul by confining the latter to the world, and exploring the field of aesthetics and philosophy of love to best express it. The process-like character of World Soul and the teleological perspective of the ultimate unification of World Soul, and through her of man and nature with God, playa central role in this register. Although the properly historical aspects of his sophiology are generally not related to specific historical facts and events, they are present, for instance, in his periodisation as well and in his indications of the fundamental task of man. He did connect Sophia with history in three ways: by identifying Sophia from a messianic perspective, that is, as the ideal society to build on earth, by ascribing to Russia the task of realising Sophia concretely, and by setting upon himself the task to guide society towards that goal. In this respect, he demonstrated these points rather in deed than in his theory, where it remained mostly implicit. The case studies will provide clear evidence of his engagement in society. His experience confirmed his intuition that World Soul was engaged in a process of divinisation. His search for elements that would allow the integration of both views within one system led him to investigate various traditions and thinkers, ranging from the Kabbalah to the late Schelling. The purpose of the next section is to show that he there found many inspiring thoughts and schemes that would influence his sophiology in an enduring manner. In one of the drafts for La Sophia. Solov'ev writes:
This quote reveals that Solov'ev saw himself as part of a line of a tradition that he felt it was his mission to complete and to crown, The strongest and most enduring sources of inspiration for his sophiology were the Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Bohme, and Schelling. I present and discuss these below in this order. The Kabbalah is the main body of Jewish mystical writings, written in the 12th century in Southern France (Provence), and which has been actively elaborated upon since then. [119] A major characteristic of the Kabbalah is that 'God is linked to the world through ten sephirot or hypostatic numbers, These mediate between the Infinite and this world and are one of the functions that help to explain how an entirely ineffable being can produce the amount of variety found in nature.' [120] From this definition, it is clear why the Kabbalah attracted Solov'ev, as it offered a way of conceptualising mediation between God and creation, a central aspect of sophiology, as I have argued above. In addi- tion, the Kabbalah posits the possibility of a personal knowledge of God, attainable through spiritual exercise. Doubtlessly, although he did not elaborate on this topic in his treatment of the Kabbalah, this teaching gave Solov'ev an effective framework that took into account the possibility of a mystical knowledge of God. The role of Kabbalah in Solov'ev has been comprehensively analysed by Konstantin Burmistrov. [121] Burmistrov convincingly demonstrates the inconsistency of a commonly accepted view: against a general agreement on Solov'ev's study of Kabbalistic sources in the 1870s, especially during his stay in the British museum of London in 1875, there is no evidence that Solov'ev had a direct knowledge of Kabbalistic texts, apart from translations and works of vulgarisation. [122] On the whole, his first encounter with the Kabbalah did indeed bear the stamp of the occultist interpretation of the Kabbalah that was in fashion in his time. [123] At that time, the Kabbalistic influence on his sophiological writings must therefore have been highly limited and reduced to the appropriation of certain terms that he redefined such as 'Eyn Sof [Infinity, as the main attribute of God], 'Adam Kadmon' [Heavenly human being, containing within itself the incarnation of all divine forms], 'Beth Col' [literally 'Daughter of the voice', or divine voice heard by the human being who is in the state of elevation], 'Sephirot' [basic force], 'Shekhinah' [literally 'presence' or 'dwelling', designating the feminine Other of God, his extrinsic manifestation] and schemes combining these categories or characters. [124] Solov'ev developed his knowledge of the Kabbalah at a later stage, in the 1890s, the result of which we can see in his article on the Kabbalah for the encyclopaedia Brokgauz-Efron, and in his introduction to David Gincburg's article on the Kabbalah published in Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii in 1896. [125] His study of the Kabbalah advanced considerably with his learning Hebrew from the start of the 1880s onwards and his visits to Gincburg, who possessed an impressive collection of Jewish literature, including Kabbalistic manuscripts. [126] His deepened knowledge coincided with his scholarly investigations of the history of Judaism as a whole [see case study III 'The Jewish Question']. Beside his erudition in Hebrew terminology and his historical sense in the scholarly discussion of the difficult issue of the emergence of the Kabbalah, his entry reveals his profound sympathy for the teaching. Two points are highly significant with respect to the issue of Solov'ev's sophiology of history. Firstly, in this entry, he brought to the fore the peculiar feature of the Kabbalistic conception of God as possessing a feminine Other [Shekhinah]. Shekhinah is 'the feminine aspect of God', and, significantly, in the Kabbalah is sometimes assimilated to the last sephirot, namely Kingdom [Malchut], which, in contrast with the other sephirot, is also feminine. [127] As we have seen above, Solov'ev picked up this significant link between feminine divinity and Kingdom and reinterpreted it in Christian eschatological terms in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle. [128] Secondly, in this entry as a whole, he emphasised the process-like and gradual character of the Kabbalistic scheme. [129] Summing up, Solov'ev's sustained study of the Kabbalah, which he began in the early 1870s with secondary literature and which he deepened with the analysis of original manuscripts up to the 1890s, testifies to his vivid interest for this complex tradition. This can be explained by the fact that he was inspired by some of its core aspects. Here he found a framework that obviously confirmed his intuition of history, structured on the one hand by the vertical line of ontological hierarchy, the mediation between God and the world through a whole range of onto logically intermediary beings, and, on the other, on the horizontal line of chronology, God's feminine Other as its starting point, and the Kingdom to come as its endpoint. These aspects were totally absent in the theological and philosophical understanding of history. Finally, the Kabbalah involved knowledge by emanation, which could only appeal to Solov'ev, who had experienced mystical visions and took them as a point of departure for his grand system. In 1875, Solov'ev wrote a prayer to Sophia that contained numerous central Gnostic categories. [130] That Gnostic teachings captured his attention from early on is clearly shown by the fact that he considered writing his doctoral dissertation on gnosis. [131] In fact, another work altogether resulted from these reflections, namely Kritika otvlecennykh nacal, but the influence of Gnosticism remained pregnant under the surface of his works. In scholarship on the influence of Gnosticism on Solov'ev, Aleksej Kozyrev's study stands out as a major work. [132] Defining Gnosticism is not an easy task. It is divided into various systems, and its origin is still problematic. Most generally speaking, however, Gnosticism refers to the body of teachings of gnosis [the Greek term gnosis meaning literally: knowledge], which arose in the first centuries of Christianity, and which sought to overcome pure faith in order to attain a higher level of knowledge of the mystery of the Christian religion. In this sense, Gnosticism is less a religion than a religious philosophy. Roughly speaking, Gnostic thought is characterised by five main features. Firstly, a radical dualism, with, on the one hand, the transcendent realm of spirit, and, on the other, gross matter. Second, a distinction between absolute divinity, seen as good, and the creator or Demiurge, considered evil. Third, a conception of humans as originating in the higher realm, but which is 'now imprisoned in the form of a soul within the material body.' Fourth, a battle to liberate one's soul from materiality, hence positing a puritan ethic. [133] Fifth and finally, the selective aspect of knowledge, which is available to the initiated few. The Gnostic cosmogony is original in many respects. In the transcendent realm, divinity is not alone, but surrounded by a wide range of partial expressions of his perfection that emanate from it, the thirty aeons, which together form the pleroma [plenitude]. [134] The last aeon is a female aeon, Sophia, which, out of an excessive desire to know the unknowable divinity, 'is drawn into a history of passion and error that leads her outside the blessed pleroma.' [135] The goal of history is the return of the exiled Sophia into the pleroma, and with her, the whole of creation. On the basis of Solov'ev's early drafts and the entries he wrote for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia, it is clear from the outset that he had a vivid interest in Gnosticism and was well versed in Gnostic teaching, especially the one developed by theologian Valentinus [around 150 AD]. Solov'ev wrote two texts explicitly on Gnosticism, namely the entries for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia 'Gnosticizm', and 'Valentin i Valentiniany.' [136] In 'Gnosticizm', Solov'ev showed himself highly critical of the Gnostic body of teachings and denounced the reconciliation that it had made between all elements that true Christianity had sought to reconcile as only 'apparent.' In fact, Solov'ev argued, God and the world remained separated in Gnostic doctrine, contrary to the Christian tradition. [137] Arguably, his exclusively disapproving stance was dictated by the need to avoid censorship on this delicate matter: after all, Gnosticism was judged the heresy par excellence, and the qualification 'Gnostic' equated to 'heretic' in Russia. [138] As a matter of fact, this reaction neither reflects Solov'ev's personal valuation of the Gnostic teaching, nor the tremendous role that Valentinus' thought played in Solov'ev's own intellectual development. A far more sympathetic tone prevailed in the entry 'Yalentin i Valentiniany', in which Solov'ev presented 'one of the most brilliant thinkers of all times.' [139] Of the description of Valentinus' cosmogony, which he trustfully made on the basis of the canonical authority in this matter, namely Irenaeus of Lyon, the most significant aspect for our discussion is that of the two Sophias. [140] The first or higher Sophia was the last aeon, who wished to know the unknowable God. Frustrated in her desire, she became indeterminate and passive. [141] She was stopped in her strife by encountering the limit, which expelled her infant, also described as 'objectivated passionate desire', from the pleroma and 'reestablished Sophia in her previous place in the pleroma.' This infant, characterised as 'formless' and called 'Achamoth' [Mother], is the second or lower Sophia. [142] She was exiled from the pleroma, fell into an even deeper state of distress and suffering than the first Sophia. She generated first matter [hule], and then the Demiurge, Satan and devils, and other spirits. Without the Demiurge's knowing, she blew a divine seed into the Demiurge's creature, man: 'The goal of the world process consists precisely in that this small spiritual seed opens itself, develops and nourishes itself through the knowledge of the psychic and material things. [... ] The moment all Gnostics know themselves and have developed their spiritual seed, the end of the world will come. Sophia- Achamoth will definitely unite with the Saviour and enter the pleroma; the souls of the Gnostics, which will adopt a feminine aspect, will enter into union [sizigija] with the angels and will also be accepted in the pleroma.' [143] Solov'ev was eager to integrate these Gnostic elements in his early cosmogony. In La Sophia, we find a three-level scheme consisting of God, Soul or Sophia, and man, and the following narrative; first, the primordial and ultimate all-unity or pleroma; second, a close relationship of the fallen Sophia with the world, which her son the Demiurge creates, and towards the salvation of which she works; and finally her intimate relationship with man, to whom she gives a divine spark, the element necessary to make him elevate himself to gnosis or complete knowledge of God. [144] It was only later, in Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve and La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, that he adopted the conception of the two Sophias, one being (again) part of the pleroma, and the other suffering and working at man's salvation. In 'Valentin i Valentiniany', which is mostly devoted to a survey of Valentinus' cosmogony, Solov'ev added only one appreciative remark, which is central for our analysis. He acknowledged Valentinus' 'greatest achievement' from a philosophical point of view, namely that of having developed a new view of matter. By overcoming the dualism between matter as an illusion (Indian pantheism and Eleatic philosophers), and matter as an autonomous reality (rest of Greek philosophy [sic, Me]), Valentinus had succeeded in positing matter as a 'conditional reality, namely as a real result of psychic changes.' [145] Solov'ev therefore found a positive valuation of matter in Valentinus' teaching that integrated two elements, namely the relationship of matter to the spiritual, and its participation in the historical process. These are central elements of his thought. However, it seems that by interpreting Valentinus' teaching in this way, Solov'ev twisted it. Worth remembering, indeed, is the Gnostics' view of the world as an omnipresent reign of evil, a view that prompted them to hold this world in contempt. Solov'ev gave Valentinus' conception of matter a distinctly positive turn, which was certainly not the intention of the ancient author. Can we say that Solov'ev adopted the Gnostic theory of the knowledge of God? It is tempting to typify him as 'Gnostic' or 'pneumatic', the highest category of human being, who, according to the Gnostic teaching, possesses the perfect knowledge in virtue of the spiritual seed that Sophia has placed in them. [146] However, Solov'ev not only claimed gnosis but went further and strove by his deeds to change the state of things. [147] He shared neither their aversion nor contempt for the world, nor their conception of a radically transcendent and distant God. In contrast, he used the figure of Sophia to bridge the gap between God and the world, and assumed their narrative on the divine origin of matter precisely in order to integrate it into his own narrative on the spiritualization of matter. The most obvious traces of Gnosticism can be found in La Sophia. The more Solov'ev reworked his cosmogony, the more he purged it of obvious Gnostic allusions, and put to the foreground a neutral philosophical apparatus and orthodox Christian terminology. The gradual disappearance of overt Gnostic terminology (pleroma, aeons, Achamoth, Demiurge, to name the most important) does not mean, however, that Solov'ev completely distanced himself from Gnosticism. In his sophiology proper, I agree with Kozyrev that Solov'ev never turned his back on the Gnostic teaching. For instance, he returned to the Gnostic cosmogonic myth in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle. [148] Moreover, in my eyes, passages in Opravdanie dobra on the spiritualization of matter bear Gnostic features. Another aspect is Valentinus' positive valuation of heterosexual intercourse and marriage as a symbol of the sacred marriage of the aeons or syzygy. [149] The myth, presented by Plato and remoulded by Valentinus, that man and woman together reflect divine androgyny was completed, in Solov'ev's sophiology, by another erotic relationship, namely that between Divine Wisdom and the poet-prophet, and by extension to the social organism. [150] Fifteen hundred years earlier, Valentinus had advocated a 'Christianity with a mystic and philosophical orientation', and combined within his cosmogony two feminine figures, that of higher Sophia and that of lower Sophia. [151] His thought doubtlessly lay close to the ambition of the Russian philosopher, who picked up these two categories, in which he found an echo of his own perception of Sophia-World Soul. The decisive influence of the German mystic and theosophist Jacob Bahme (1575-1624) on Solov'ev's sophiology has long been acknowledged. [152] The theosophist allowed him to deepen one fundamental aspect of his sophiology, namely Divine Wisdom as the feminine figure of Sophia. Bohme provided Solov'ev with a category of Sophia that suited many of the Russian philosopher's aspirations, by relating her to God, to humanity, and to history. Whereas Valentinus and the Kabbalah had provided the metaphysical framework for his sophiology, Solov'ev found in Bohme a first attempt to anchor Sophia in the properly Christian tradition, and to enrich the conception of her role in history in particular. Solov'ev first entered the world of German mysticism in the early 1870's through salons, in particular that of Sofija Tolstaja, and through the academic milieu. [153] In the years 1875- 1877, Solov'ev deepened his knowledge of theosophical literature, especially of Jacob Bohme, Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), and their predecessor Paracelsus (1493- 541). [154] During this two-year period, he came to identify his ecstatic visions of divine Sophia with the gottliche Sophia of Bohme's theology and cosmology. From then on, even though we do not have many references to Bohme at our disposal, according to Solov'ev's own testimony his religious and philosophical views paralleled the crucial insights of the Bohmist school. [155] In contrast to the traditional definition of God as pure being and opposed to the pure becoming characteristic for the world, Bohme developed an alternative conception of God that took into account opposition and becoming. He stated that God poses himself and opposes within himself his own contrary being in order to develop a clear consciousness and possession of himself, and to absorb the infinity of partial disharmonies in a harmonious synthesis. [156] Bohme's conception of Sophia is central to his thought, which he however did not develop into a system. Alexandre Koyre has brought to the fore the multiple facets and at the same time the unity of B5hme's idea of eternal Wisdom:
This quote clearly shows that in Bohme's view, it is not only Wisdom that evolves, but God also, precisely through Wisdom. Besides, Wisdom functions as an intermediary between God and nature, and as an ideal for the latter. Solov'ev closely followed Bohme in the following points: Sophia as the 'essence of God, as the ideal nature of the world, and as the instrument of human salvation.' [158] Firstly, Solov'ev agreed with the link made by Bohme between Sophia and God. Bohme defined this link in terms of manifestation and revelation: Sophia, as God's essence and essential wisdom, is the first revelation and objectivation of the divine thought. [159] Sophia emanates as the result of the struggle within God of two poles, the 'One' and 'prime matter' or 'Centre of nature.' [160] The One gradually overcomes prime matter and shapes it into Sophia, according to a primeval master plan [the 'Eternal Idea']' Furthermore, in Bohme, Sophia is related to the persons of the Trinity as follows: 'The loci of powers with which the One transforms prime matter into Sophia are the Persons of the Trinity. [... ] Sophia thus becomes the embodiment of all the potentialities of the Trinity.' [161] Exactly the same formulation can be found in Solov'ev's La Russie et l’Eglise universelle. [162] Secondly, in elaborations on the relationship between Sophia, man and the world, Solov'ev follows Bohme. Before him, the German thinker had found a confirmation of his view of Sophia as God's plan for the world or 'heavenly humanity' in the Old Testament texts on Divine Wisdom. [163] Just as the world is a projection of Sophia in nature, man is a reproduction of Sophia. But since the fall of man and the world, both have ceased to be Sophia's image, and have instead become subject to Sophia's rival, which Bohme called Seele der grussen Welt, Geist dieser Welt [soul of the big world, spirit of this world]. [164] However, the point of rivalry is not a constant view in Solov'ev's work. [165] The Russian philosopher came to this view of World Soul in opposition to Sophia in later reflections, as we have seen, at the end of the 1880s in La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, but not before. Thirdly, Solov'ev shared with Bohme the idea that the future would bring about the 'rehabilitation of the world from its current fallen state as a gradual reincarnation of Sophia through man.' [166] In La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, we do indeed see how Solov'ev, following Bohme, identified particular manifestations of Sophia in the Virgin Mary and in Jesus Christ, a logical extension of which would be Sophia's incarnation in humanity as a whole, once it will have absorbed World Soul. [167] It seems therefore that Bohme had a vivid sense of Sophia standing both at the beginning of history, as humanity's model, and at its end, as its ideal. Incontestably, Solov'ev was happy to find a framework in Bohme that enabled him to translate his own intuition about the role of Sophia for the destiny of humanity. It is relevant, however, to point out significant differences between the two theosophists, and not to take Solov'ev as a Bohmist, as David at some points suggests. Solov'ev found useful means of attaining a greater stage of conceptuality of Sophia in the German theosophist. However, he later abandoned these or openly rejected them. Firstly, Solov'ev explicitly disagreed with Bohme's admittance of an element of chance and arbitrariness in history. [168] Secondly, after having adopted the German theosophist's idea that God struggles with his opposite [in Filosofskie nacala cel’nogo znanija], he abandoned it and privileged a narrative in which God is only unity and plenitude [in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle]. [169] Other differences must be mentioned specifically regarding Sophia. The Bohmian Sophia is essentially the Eternal Virgin, whereas for Solov'ev Sophia possesses a highly erotic character and is distinct from the Virgin. [170] Solov'ev also actively thematised his personal relationship with this Divine feminine figure, whereas such an intimate relationship did not appear at all in Bohme's texts. [171] The Bohmian Sophia was after all not feminine, not erotic, and not personal, in contrast with Solov'ev's Sophia. Besides, the 17th century mystic and Solov'ev quite logically did not share the same worldview, which can be reflected in their sophianic conceptions: Solov'ev's was far more penetrated with the nineteenth-century ideas of progress than Bohme's was. [172] He also ascribed a far more active role to man and humanity in incarnating Sophia than Bohme did, and consequently, placed far greater emphasis on humanity as the main actor in history. The Russian philosopher nevertheless found inspiration in Bohme for his definition of Sophia in relationship to God, and as both the ideal of history and the means of attaining it. Testimony of Solov'ev's profound admiration for Schelling is found in a draft in which the twenty-year old philosopher stated that 'Schelling is the true ancestor of universal religion.' [173] At about the same time, Solov'ev studied the positive philosophy of Schelling, and in particular assumed the conception of the Absolute for its intimate connection with nature in its materiality and its femininity. [174] It is precisely this aspect that forms the cornerstone of Solov'ev's sophiology of history. By the 1840s, German philosopher Friedrich Schelling (1755- 1854) had become a central figure in Russian thought. [175] The similarity between Solov'ev's philosophy and that of Schelling therefore did not escape the attention of his contemporaries. [176] But reflecting on the Schellingian thought often amounted to being perceived as a pantheist, at least in the Orthodox Christian circles to which Solov'ev wanted to belong. Arguably, this explains why Solov'ev preferred not to mention this source in his works. He made explicit references to the German philosopher extremely rarely in fact. Nevertheless, Schelling's role in Solov'ev's work has hardly ever been contested: with the notable exception of Losev, all commentators conclude to a direct influence of the German idealist on the Russian thinker. [177] More specifically, Schelling as a source of inspiration for Solov'ev's sophiological writings was already detected by Bulgakov, and recently examined by Paul Valliere. [178] It seems relevant to affirm that Schelling provided the first theoretical impulse for Solov'ev's sophiology. [179] As far as sophiology of history is concerned, Schelling played a major role with respect to two central points, first, the emphasis on the value of matter and nature, and, second, a newly defined link between nature and God. According to Bulgakov, Schelling, and after him Solov'ev, had the immense merit of elevating the ontological significance of matter, and of transferring the observation of nature into the field of philosophical investigation. [180] This 'religious materialism' had dominated Christian thought from the ecumenical councils onwards. The tradition was broken, however, with the rise of rationalism in Western thought, which considered nature purely in mechanistic and causal terms. It was only with Schelling that the metaphysical link between man and nature was restored through a consideration of nature as God's living creation. [181] He reanimated the concept of World Soul for this purpose. Solov'ev knew about this, and considered Schelling to be the last of a long tradition of authors from Plato to Goethe who had dealt with World Soul. [182] The question then whether Solov'ev borrowed the concept from Schelling. In order to answer this question, we must first turn to Schelling's elaborations. The German philosopher's views evolved considerably during the course of his life. First, in his treatise Uber die Weltseele (1798), he defined World Soul as 'an eternal and infinite willing-of-itself [... ] in all forms, grades, and potencies of reality', an 'organising principle developing the world as a system. Perhaps the ancients wished to indicate [such a principle] with the world Soul.' [183] Later, in Philosophie und Religion (1804), he rejected the theory of emanation that dominated his philosophy of nature, and advocated the need for a leap between the Absolute and the world, which he introduced with the notion of fall. [184] In his Einleitung in die Philosophie der Mythologie (1842, 1847-52, published posthumously) he defined World Soul as 'that what God is and at the same time is different from him. She is the mediator [Vermittlerin], who leads the divided and material being to eternal unity.' [185] Here World Soul is defined as a mediator between the material and the divine. If we look into his lectures on the philosophy of revelation (Philosophie der Offenbarung, given in Berlin in 1841-2 and published posthumously), we observe that the concept has disappeared, but, interestingly, that the Old Testament idea of Wisdom is mentioned. In the history of religion, the idea of Wisdom succeeded that of Weltamme [upokeimenon]. It is in the Proverbs ascribed to Solomon that the original potency [Urpotenz] is the most precisely described, as 'Chochmah', as 'subject, prius, supposition of all future movement, that which communicates to the Creator his knowledge of future movement.' [186] Wisdom is thus closely involved in God's creation of movement. However, Schelling did not elaborate on a possible link of succession between Wisdom and World Soul. As far as Solov'ev's treatment of Schelling is concerned, the five following aspects are significant. Firstly, he welcomed the fact that Schelling had recognised the reality of the material feminine principle, without which, Solov'ev added, there is no process. [187] Second, like Schelling, he ascribed two main qualities to World Soul, namely unity and life. Third, he also identified World Soul with the material principle or upokeimenon of our world, which is the term with which Schelling designated the substratum of future creation. [188] Fourth, he also distinguished Divine Sophia from World Soul. And finally, Schelling's description of Wisdom on the basis of Solomon's Proverbs can be found in Solov'ev's La Russie et l'Eglise universelle. There is therefore a similarity of evolution of thought, and a terminological and, to a certain extent, conceptual correspondence. We cannot however speak of direct borrowing. As a matter of fact, in Solov'ev's work, World Soul is defined essentially as the link between the divine and the human, whereas in Schelling's thought, apart from in his Einleitung in die Philosophie der Mythologie, World Soul is mainly the foundation, Ungrund of nature. [189] Perhaps, it was this definition that Solov'ev had in mind when he criticised Schelling's emphasis on the 'absolute and arbitrary worldly force.' [190] With this view of World Soul as Ungrund, he seemed to identify Schelling's Weltseele with that of Schopenhauer. However, Solov'ev explicitly rejected Schopenhauer's definition of World Soul as a blind, impersonal will, which was subject to no higher power, and which thus did not suppose the existence of God. [191] In this sense, he used Schelling in his position against Schopenhauer. I would like to suggest yet another difference. The early Schelling emphasised World Soul's battle towards unity, and her simultaneous will to separate herself from God, and made this opposition between unity and conflict central to his conception. [192] By contrast, Solov'ev preferred not to make these two battles coincide in his cosmogony, but posited them as alternating with each other: after a period of revolt and conflict, World Soul had striven to return to the divine. [193] Solov'ev was not only inspired by the regained ontological status of matter that Schelling had provided, but also by the new link between matter and God, which follows from it. Against the ontological distinction between God and nature that had become dominant, especially since the triumph of rationalism, Schelling strove to conceptualise a close link between the two. He provided the logical apparatus of this conceptualisation with his theory of the potencies [Potenzlehre]. [194] The life of the absolute can be distinguished into a first potency (indeterminate ground of being or pure possibility), a second potency (of determinate being or pure actuality or positing of the other), and a third potency of overcoming the alienation between the first and the second, or harmonisation between the two. [195] Schelling thereby situated identity and opposition in the core of being, and thus also in God. This allowed him to introduce nature in God, which was precisely what Solov'ev sought, in order to provide World Soul with a maximal ontological status, and to conceptualise his intuition of the intimate connection between World Soul and the divine. In Kritika otvlecennykh nacal, Solov'ev adopted two significant moments of the Potenzlehre, that of God's positing his other, and the view that the idea has two lives, one in the absolute, and one in itself, separated from the absolute. [196] At this stage, Solov'ev distinguished within the Absolute two poles, the first absolute or all-united being, and the second absolute or all-unity in becoming. This second pole is necessary to the Absolute to the extent that 'the Absolute cannot exist in reality otherwise than realised in its other.' [197] 'Next to the absolute being [absoljutno suscij] [... ], we have to admit another essence [suscestvo] which is just as absolute, but which at the same time is not identical with the absolute as such'; It 'progressively becomes all- united'; 'possesses the divine element, all-unity, as its eternal potency, which gradually turns into reality.' [198] The following step is crucial for our analysis: 'this essence, in its relative being, represents two elements: the divine idea [... ] as the form of all-unity, and the material element, the perceivable plural natural being'; 'this second absolute [... ] being in this quality the World Soul' perceives itself first in man: 'in the extra-human world of nature the divine element of World Soul, all-unity, exists only potentially, in a blind, unconscious strife. [199] Judging from these quotations, Solov'ev assumed Schelling's Potenzlehre. Notably at stake was the possibility of suppressing the dualism of God and nature, and of spirit and matter. Indeed: 'The supernatural divine being [suscestvo] needs nature for the manifestation of its divinity.' [200] In his poetry and his aesthetics, Solov'ev claimed to see in nature a strife towards the divine. Basing himself on Schelling, he conceptualised this link between World Soul and the divine through the theory of the two essences of the absolute. Solov'ev constructed his whole history of religion on this basis? [201] However, there was a limitation to Schelling's influence. This is a point that returns recurrently with respect to Schelling, Bohme, and Hegel, namely that the negativity of being and of the world posited by these thinkers, is nearly absent in Solov'ev. [202] Schelling's influence on Solov'ev's sophiology was crucial at the early stage of elaboration. Solov'ev picked up Schelling's positive valuation of nature, the concept of World Soul, and the ontological connection of World Soul to God as his second absolute. Later, as we have seen, he abandoned this conception of the absolute probably because it was unacceptable from the theological point of view. To summarise, Solov'ev drew from currents of thought which offered ways of overcoming the traditional chasms -- between rational knowledge and mystical contemplation, between the divine and the natural, between good and evil, between being and becoming -- elements which he temporarily integrated into his sophiology. From the Kabbalah he borrowed the conception of God's feminine Other (Shekhinah) for his definition of Sophia, as well as the notion of Malkhout or ideal Kingdom, which he integrated into his eschatological view of history, and also, in his early writings, the ontological intermediaries which inhabited the distance between God and the world. A crucial structural element of his scheme was the Gnostic idea of two Sophias: the Valentinian tradition equally stressed a point that Solov'ev had experienced himself, namely a mystical, personal knowledge of God, on the basis of a divine spark or seed that man has to develop. As far as the positive valuation of matter is concerned, it was not central to Gnosticism, as Solov'ev alleged, but rather to Bohme, and later, in a more thoroughly worked out form, to Schelling. From Bohme, Solov'ev took inspiration to combine his idea of Sophia with the Christian tradition, and to define her as the essence of God, to unravel her relationship with the world, and to establish her at the horizon of history, at its glorious end. In Schelling, finally, Solov'ev found a solid conceptual framework in the Potenzlehre, which enabled him to include change in God, to positively value nature, and to place World Soul at a higher ontological level than the Christian tradition had ever done. Solov'ev's mystical visions of Sophia, together with his perception of World Soul in nature, form the core of his sophiology of history. He sought a way to express in a discursive manner his intuition that World Soul and Sophia were two sides of the same coin by conceptualising the bringing together of man and the divine through World Soul on the model of Sophia. In this sense, mediation is central in the definition of sophiology of history, in contrast with theology of history, which emphasises the ontological distance between the transcendent God of Christianity and the world, and in contrast with philosophy of history, which focuses on the world, regardless of the transcendent level. Mediation is also the central characteristic of the mission of the prophet Solov'ev, who translated eternal truth into the situation hic et nunc, and with this message attempted to guide his fellow countrymen so that they could form a cohesive society. Finally, his interventions found their motivation in his belief that the Russian people possessed the qualities to be the mediator between heaven and earth and to realise Sophia concretely. Sophiology of history draws from the two 'traditional' registers in the sense that it integrates the dimension of the divine, which forms the core of theology of history, and combines it with the dimension of process, which is central to philosophy of history. However, this combination amounts to an enrichment of the two registers with categories that did not fit into them. The goal of sophiology of history entails the ideal of theology of history, humanity of God, but goes beyond it by including nature and matter, art and sexual love. In the same way, it entails and overcomes the ideal of philosophy of history, all-unity, for the same reasons, and by putting at its core the spiritual dimension absent in that register. Even though Solov'ev did not work out these views in a comprehensive work, and only opened the way for this new register on history, it is precisely the fruitful mediation between the material and the spiritual, between the personal and the cosmic, in a process- like scheme which generates the specificity of his sophiology of history, and a challenging response to traditional worldviews. In the second part of my research I show on which occasions and with which means Solov'ev sought to transform Russia so that it could lie at the basis of a concrete incarnation of Sophia. _______________ Notes: 1. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 131, transl. p. 131. 2. Written as a comment to his own poem 'Tri svidanija', SS. 12, p. 86. 3. Scholars haw pointed out that Solov'ev's 'erotic utopia' or Sophia is not less central to his thought than his ‘theocratic utopia' (Leonid Heller, Michel Niqueux. Histoire de l’utopie en Russie (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995), p. 161. 4. Kline 1974, p, 159. 5. I will come to a more specific characterisation at the end of the following paragraph, after analysing the notion of Sophia-World Soul. 6. One can indeed speak of Solov'ev's 'lifelong devotion to Sophia' (for a sensible portrait of the philosopher, see Nicolas Zernov, Three Russian Prophets: Khomiakov, Dostoevsky, Soloviev (London: S.C.M. Press, 1944), quotation from p. 128). From here onwards, I use the personal pronouns 'she' and 'her' to designate Sophia-World Soul, in order to emphasise the personal relationship that Solov'ev entertained with this figure. As a matter of fact, Sophia-World Soul not only fulfilled the function of a metaphysical principle in Solov'ev's thought, but is also his interlocutor, inspiration and beloved. Sophia's physical presence is indicated in his work La Sophia in which Sophia speaks to the philosopher through her eyes. her words. and her gestures (p. 80). As far as World Soul is concerned, he qualified this being as a 'living being with aspirations. representations and feelings’ ('Mirovaja dusa', SS. 10. p, 246). and is therefore also treated as a person. 7. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve (op. cit.): I translate mirovaja dusa as 'World Soul' and not 'the world soul' as the translator does, to emphasise the role or this entity as a concrete figure, as it were, in Solov'ev's perception. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, op. cit: Smysl ljubvi, first published in 1894. Edition used: Vladimir Solov'ev. S. 1998 2. pp. 493-547. 8. A portion of his poems was published during his life in journals. Edition used: SS. 12. English translation: Vladimir Solovyov's Poems of Sophia, Boris Jakim and Laury Magnus (transl. intr. notes) (New Haven, Connecticut: The Variable Press. 1996). 9. It is relevant to make a distinction between his sophiology or history, which is the subject matter of this analysis, and his sophiology of love and nature. 10. La Sophia, first published in 1978, republished with the addition of the Russian translation in PSS. 2. pp. 8-160: n. p. 78. 11. La Sophia, p. 150. 12. Solov’ev was perhaps 'the first Russian sophiologist" (Sergei Bulgakov, Sophia the Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology, Rev. Patrick Thompson. Rev. O. Fielding Clarke, and Xenia Braitevitc (transl.) (1st publ. 1937; Hudson, New York: Lindisfarne Press, 1993) p. 9). Solov'ev's followers Sergej Bulgakov and Pavel Florenskij developed sophiology in different directions, however, so that it is difficult to find a definition that applies to them all. Bulgakov defined sophiology as proceeding from the 'relation between God and the world, or, what is practically the same thing, between God and humanity' (Ibid., p. 14 [italics Bulgakov's]). Pavel Florenskij defined Sophia even more within the clerical Orthodox conceptual framework with his clearly ecclesiological and Marian understanding of her (Thomas Schipflinger, Sophia-Maria: A Holistic Vision of Creation (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser Inc., 1998). p. 266). In present scholarship. Aleksej Kozyrev considers sophiology as focussing on 'the problem or the mutual relationships of God and the world, and on the origin or the imper- fect world from the perfect God' (A.P. Kozyrev, 'Sofiologija', in: M.A. Maslin (ed.). Russkaja filosofija: Slovar' (Moskva: Respublika, 1995), pp. 465-469: p. 465). According to Paul Valliere, sophiology consists or a 'reflection on the humanity of God as intimated in the cosmicising, transformative works or human culture' (Paul Valliere, 'Sophiology as the Dialogue of Orthodoxy with Modern Civilization', in: Kornblatt and Gustavson 1996, p. 182). The definitions provided by Kozyrev and Valliere are only partially applicable to Solov'ev. They rather express the common denominator or sophiology and Christian tradition than Solov'ev's original contribution or challenge of sophiology with respect to the Christian tradition. 13. Two classic works on Solov'ev's thought have already paved the way for the study or Solol'ev's sophiology: Stremooukhoff 1974, and Losev 2000. Other publications that address the topic are: Paul M. Allen. Vladimir Soloviev: Russian Mystic (Blauvelt, New York: Steiner books, 1978): Samuel 1). Cioran, Vladimir Solov'ev and the Knighthood of the Divine Sophia (Waterloo. Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1977). The following recent publications are also highly valuable: Wendy Helleman. 'The World-Soul and Sophia in the Early Work of Vladimir Solov'ev', in: van den Bereken et al. 2000. pp. 163-184: Sergej Khoruzij, 'Nasledie Vladimira Solov'eva sto let spustja', Zurnal moskovskoj patriarkhii, 2000. 11. pp. 69-84: Aleksej Kozyrev, 'Paradoksy nezaversennogo traktata: k publikacii francuzskoj rukopisi Vladimira Solov'eva 'Sofija'", Logos 2 (1991), pp. 152-170: Robert Slesinski. 'Sophiology as a Metaphysics of Creation according to Solov'ev'. in: van den Bercken et al. 2000. pp. 131-146. Specifically on World Soul, see Madey 1961. 14. 'Tri svidanija', SS. 12. pp. 80-86. Of course this poem, like any other writing on his visions, cannot he taken as a direct, unfiltered description of his mystical experience, but is the fruit of a selection and formulation that are well thought through. For an analysis for his poem, see Michel Grabar, 'Les rencontres avec la Sophia: Une experience erotique et mystique de Vladimir Solov'ev', in: van den Bercken et al. 2000. pp. 147-162. 15. La Sophia, p. 74. The three worlds in question are the divine, the ideal, and the natural world (Ibid., p, 48). 16. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 108, transl. p. 108, Solov'ev indeed distinguished between two types of unity in the sphere of the absolute: that which produces (Logos), and that which is produced (Sophia) (Ibid.). By this, he sought to offer an alternative concept of Sophia to the traditional Christian, foremost Byzantine, identification of Sophia either with Logos, or with the Holy Spirit. 17. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 113. transl. p. 113. 18. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p, 249. From the point of view or Orthodox theology, his reflections on Sophia in relation to the hypostases can be considered 'false dogmatics' (Khoruzij 2000, p. 79). For a similar opinion, see Ivan Andreev, 'Vladimir Solov'ev: mistik v svete pravoslavija', Pravoslavnyj put', 1950, 1. pp. 159-172. 19. 'This universal substance, this absolute unity, is the essential wisdom of God (Khocmah, Sophia)' (Ibid.). The spelling is different in English (Chochmah) and in French (Khocmah). 20. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 259 [italics mine]. 21. For convincing argumentation on this point, see Sergej Khoruzij, 'Pereput'ja russkoj sofiologii', Novaja Rossija, 1997, 1. pp. 122-130: p. 126. That Solov'ev, though, was inspired by the specifically iconographical tradition, has been shown by Michel Grabar, who has drawn interesting parallels between Sophia's apparitions to Solov'ev in the poem 'Tri svidanija' and the Byzantine tradition (Grabar 2000, pp, 153 -154). Recent literature on the veneration of Premudrost' includes: Elena Mitina, Kategorija mudrosti v drevnerusskom religioznom soznanii (PhD thesis Moskva: Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, 2001). A recent anthology of texts on Sophia/Virgin is Schipflinger 1998. 22. Solov’ev broached this issue in passing in La Sophia (pp. 152-154), and twenty years later devoted to it his Smysl ljubvi. 23. See 'Tri svidanija', op. cit. 24. ‘U caricy mocj …’ (SS. 12. p. 12). 'Prometeju' (Ibid., p. 92); 'Das ewig-weiblichte’ (Ibid., p. 72). 25. La Sophia, p. 60. The expression 'World Soul" [mirovaja dusa] can be found in the tradition of Western philosophy, from Plato [psykhe tou kosmou] up to Schelling [Weltseele]. Solov'ev devoted to it an entry for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia ('Mirovaja dusa', SS 10, p. 246). 26. Interestingly, Solov’ev again offered an alternative treatment of the Christian topic of the fall. Similar to his theology of history, he did not integrate it into the biblical story of the fall of, but, firstly, made World Soul the subject of fall, and, secondly, placed this event prior to the creation of human beings (Muller 1951, pp. 93-123). 27. La Sophia, p. 130. The identity of the terms ‘Sophia’ and ‘Soul’ in this text can be noted for instance on p. 142 and 150. 28. La Sophia, p. 128. 29. Kritika otvlecennykh nacal, PSS. 3, pp. 285-289. On the influence of Schelling on this point, see subsection Bd). Against Valliere’s view that the expression ‘second absolute’ comes from the 20th-century historian of philosophy Frederick C. Copleston, we can confirm that Solov’ev did use it himself (Ibid., p. 285) (Paul Valliere. ‘Solov’ev and Schelling’s Philosophy of Revelation’, in: van den Bercken et al. 2000, pp. 119-129 [abbreviated Valliere 200b], p. 125, n. 21). 30. About this divine element or principle, other texts suggest that it is an entity that exists apart from, and not within. World Soul, though interacting with it (ex.: Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 136) 31. Kritika otvleeennykh nacal, p. 286. 32. The terms all-unity and humanity or God are used in Ibid., p. 295 and 289. 33. Solov’ev wrote about 'world soul or ideal humanity (Sophia), which contains within itself and unites within itself all particular living entities, or souls. As the realisation of the divine principle, its image and likeness, archetypal humanity, or World Soul, is both one and all. World Soul occupies a mediating position between the multiplicity of living entities, which constitute the real content of its life, and the absolute unity of Divinity, which is the ideal principle and norm of its life. [...] It is a dual being' (Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 131. transl. pp. 131- 132 [italics mine]). Another fact points to a certain identity of Sophia and World Soul at this stage. Solov'ev defined World Soul in the same terms as Sophia, as 'passive unity.' Like Sophia, World Soul was a complementary, passive entity to the active divine principle (Ibid.). Sergej Bulgakov further explored this line: 'remaining one, Sophia exists in two modes, eternal and temporal, divine and creaturely' (Bulgakov 1993, p. 74). 34. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 131, transl. p. 131. Another expression used is that of 'middle term or uniting link' (Ibid., p. 120, transl. p. 121). 35. This criticism was not spared him. Trueckoj tried to defend Solove'ev's views against this it (Trubeckoj 1995 1. pp. 111-117). 36. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 257, 254. In a panentheistic vein, Solov'ev argued that, since nothing can exist outside God, 'the extra-divine world cannot but be the divine world, subjectively transposed and turned upside down', the 'subject' of which is World Soul (p. 254). The philosopher nevertheless preserved a link between Sophia and World Soul, which he did not further explicate: 'World Soul exists in God in the state of pure potency, as hidden basis of eternal Wisdom' (Ibid., p. 254) . 37. Ibid., p. 254. 38. About Solov'ev's position with respect to Schopenhauer, von Hartmann, and Schelling, see Kochetkova 2001, pp. 71-100. 39. Smysl ljubvi, pp. 533-534. 40. Judith Deutsch Kornblatt, 'Solov'ev's Androgynous Sophia and the Jewish Kabbalah', Slavic Review 50 (1991), 3. pp. 487-496: p. 495. 41. 'Krasota v prirode’(1889) (S. 1988 2. pp. 351-389). 'Obscij smysl iskusstva' (1889) (S. 1988 2. pp. 390-404). In the definition he gave in the entry 'Priroda', he tended to identify nature and matter ('Priroda', SS. 10. pp. 260 263). 42. 'Krasota v prirode’, p. 388. 43. Ibid., p. 358. English translation in Wozniuk 2003, ‘Beauty in Nature’, pp. 29-60; p. 35. Perhaps his considerations on the link between matter and spiritual principles were inspired by Swedenborg, who developed a theory of correspondences between the natural world and the spiritual world. Solov’ev briefly describes this theory in his entry on the Swedish thinker (‘Svedenborn’, SS. 10, pp. 187-497: p. 490). 44. See ‘Obscij smysl iskusstva’, p. 390 ff. This definition, followed by a brief classification of the arts, echoes Solov’ev’s early hierarchical definition of technical arts, beaux-arts and mysticism as parts of ‘integral creativity’ (Filosofskie nacala cel’nogo znanija, pp. 194-195). 45. Ibid., p. 198. 46. Opravdanie dobra, p. 428. 47. Ibid. 48. This also applies to his aesthetic and ethical writings, although he broached the issue far more ‘in passing’. 49. This definition is inspired by Boris Broys’ enlightening essay (Groys 1995, esp. pp. 37- 40). 50. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, pp. 135-136. For the following account, I base myself on Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve and La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, thereby leaving La Sophia aside as this text, which remained at the stage of a draft, presents too many competing schemes to be coherent. 51. This narrative, which offered an alternative to the traditional biblical scenario, contains strong Gnostic and Kabbalistic accents, which will be examined below. As to the notion of Demiurge, it can already be found in Plato’s Timaeus. 52. Ex.: Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 131, La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 260. 53. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 260 [italics mine]. World Soul is indeed composed of nature and divinity. 54. Ibid. See also Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 135. 55. This survey is based on La Sophia, pp. 54-66 and 116-151, Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, pp. 133-172, La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, pp. 259-297. 56. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 127. In his opinion, there was originally therefore only one divine principle. This thesis equated to posing not polytheism at the origin of religious consciousness, as is usually admitted in the history of religions, but monotheism. This was clearly the objective of his very first work, written in 1873, ‘Mifologiceskij process v. drevnem jazycestve’ (PSS. 1, pp. 17-37). 57. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, pp. 137-138, transl. pp. 139-140. 58. The terminology is somewhat ambiguous. In La Sophia and La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, Solov’ev referred to the cosmic process as the first phase: in Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, the expression ‘cosmic process’ means the entire process, embracing the cosmological, theogonic, and historical ones: in Smysl ljubvi, the ‘cosmic process’ is equated with ‘the physical process’, and thus excludes human history. In Smysl ljubvi V, iii. we find a similar interpretation of the law of gravitation. 59. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 139, transl. p. 141. 60. Ibid. 61. Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 145, La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 276, Solov’ev presented the same treatment of these three cultures in La Sophia (pp. 60, 136-140) and in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle (pp. 273-280): these world-views were successively dominated by cosmic principles, namely by the Spirit in Buddhist and Hindu civilization, by Intelligence in Greek philosophy, and by Soul in the Hebrew religion. One difference between the two texts is that, in La Sophia, these developments already belong to the third, historical phase. In Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve he described the two first stages differently: humanity first worshipped the stars, then the sun and the earthly organic or phallic principle (Shiva, Dionysus), and finally a personal God, which better corresponds to World Soul’s battle for inner unity (Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 144). 62. Ibid., p. 145, transl. p. 147. 63. ‘The liberation of the human self-consciousness and the gradual spiritualization of humanity through the inner assimilation and development of the divine principle constitute the properly historical process of humanity’ (Ibid.). 64. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 265. 65. In Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve this periodisation was reformulated in terms referring to the life of Christ, namely as a temptation of evil on the spirit, mind, and soul of humanity (Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, pp. 162-166). In La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, he was more concerned with reattaching his theory of Sophia to Christology and ecclesiology, and, to a lesser extent, to Mariology, and thus abandoned this periodisation. He indeed elaborated on the three manifestations of ‘Incarnate Sophia’ in Jesus Christ, Mary and the church (La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, pp. 265, 280-297). 66. La Sophia, p. 150. About the influence of Bohme and Schelling on Solov’ev’s sophiology, see subsection 2c and 2d. 67. Ibid., p. 150. 68. La Sophia, p. 167. 69. La Sophia, p. 54. This periodisation and characterization of phases is maintained in Filosofskie nacala cel’nogo znanija, even if the cosmic principles have disappeared from the picture. Solov’ev formulated another periodisation on the basis of the action of several intermediary beings, namely genies, souls, and the spirit of the dead. Interestingly, the last phase, which was to begin in 1878-1886, marked the end of the division between the dead and the living, and the immediate reign of Sophia upon the non-incarnated souls (this probably meant the souls that are not incarnated in a body, or in other terms, that of the dead (La Sophia, p. 142). This characterization is understandable if we bear in mind the influence of spiritism on Solov’ev’s thought and his own spiritist practice in the 1870s. Interestingly, in automatic writing, Solov’ev wrote not only under the influence of Sophia, but also of his professor Pamfil Jurkevic, who had recently died (see PSS. 1, p. 181, n. p. 357). On Solov’ev’s automatic writing, see G.I. Culkov, M.V. Mikhailova (pref.). ‘Avtomaticeskie zapisi VI, Solov’eva’, Voprosy filosofii 1992, 8. Pp. 123-132. In the year 1877 and 1878, Solov’ev mainly wrote Filosofskie nacala cel’nogo znanija and started giving his Lekeii o Bogocelovecestve. 70. April 1878 corresponded to the time he gave his Twelfth and last Lecture on the Humanity of God. On this period of Solov’ev’s life, see Nosov, 1992. 71. ‘Obscij smysl iskusstva’, p. 404. 72. Smysl ljubvi, p. 547. 73. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 253. 74. Ibid., p. 255. 75. Ibid. [first italics Solov’ev’s, second and third mine]. 76. On the connected issue of prophetic ideal in the sophiological register of history, see paragraph Ac). Only in ‘Kratkaja povest’ ob Antikhriste’ did Solov’ev depict a negative outcome of history. 77. Another close connection between World Soul and future is made with respect to the word ‘nature.’ Solov’ev suggested that, etymologically speaking, the word itself means ‘which will be born’ and is in the future tense, which confirmed his point that the true subject of all-unity’ was still to be born (Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 134). The classical use of the term natura is of course a substantive. 78. The expression 'polovaja ljubov', literally 'sexual love', refers to love between the sexes, which includes sexual love, but also spiritual love between two persons. This enlightening comment is taken from: Vladimir Solovjov. Over liefde, Ton Jansen and Evert van der Zweerde (eds.) (Bergen op Zoom: Damon, 2001). p. 187. 79. La Sophia, p. 66. 80. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 296. 81. Solov'ev sought to posit radical equality between man and woman, radical individuality of both, while at the same time integrating his scheme in the traditional understanding of man's superiority over woman. 82. Kornhlatt 1991 has emphasized the androgynous character of Solov' ev' s ideal. 83. For a challenging interpretation of syzygy as discourse in Solov’ev’s Smysl ljubvi, see Edith Clowes, ‘The Limits of Discourse: Solov’ev’s Language of Syzygy and the Project of Thinking Total-Unity’, Slavic Review 55 (1996). 3. Pp. 552-566. Solov’ev did not elaborate on this term, but limited himself to stating that it was the only apt term that he had found to express his thought. About the use of the term by the Gnostics, see subsection 2b). 84. ‘Evrejstvo I khristianskij vopros’, p. 238. 85. See Kritika otvleeennykh nacal, p. 301: ‘Vdokhnovenic’: SS. 10, pp. 229-230. 86. On mysticism in Solov’ev, see Jonathan Sutton, The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov, Towards a Reassessment (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988): Martin George, Mystische und religiose Erfahrung im Denken Vladimir Solov’evs (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988); Michael Aksionov Meerson, The Trinity of Love in Modern Russian Theology: The Love Paradigm and the Retrieval of Western Medieval Love, Mysticism in Modern Russian Trinitarian Thought (from Solovyov to Bulgakov). Series Studies in Franciscanism XX (Quincy, Illinois: Franciscan Press, 1988): Viktorija V. Kravcenko. Mistizm v. russkoj filosofskoj mysli XIX-nacala XX vekov (Moskva: Izdatcencentr, 1997), chap. 3: ‘VI. S. Solov’ev i gorizonty novoj metafiziki', pp. 69-155. On the basis of many or Solov'ev's publications, Kravcenko convincingly shows that mysticism interested Solov'ev throughout his career. Although she sometimes addresses pertinent questions, the argumentation often lacks coherence and rigour, as well as clear points. Besides, it does not lake into account the different periods of Solov’ev’s treatment of Sophia. 87. 'Mistika, misticizm’, SS 10. pp. 243-246: p. 244. By the term 'theosophy' he referred to the church fathers, and to Bohme's and Swedenborg's teaching, rather than to his own early definition of theosophy as a branch beside theocracy and theurgy. Nevertheless, this definition of theosophy applies to his activities as a philosopher, poet and mystic very well. 88. Kozyrev 1991, p. 165. 89. Khoruzij 2000. p. 75. 90. This remark has been made with respect to Bohme in Nicolas Berdiaeff -Etudes sur Jacob Bohme’, in the first French translation or Bohme's work: Jacob Bohme, Mysterium Magnum (Paris: Aubier, 1945). pp. 6-45: p. 7. It is perfectly applicable to Solov'ev as well. 91. See Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, p. 121. 92. Ibid., p. 111. transl. pp. 110-111. 93. ‘Poezija F.I. Tjutceva’ (1895), in: S. 1991. pp. 465-483: p. 472. Solov 'ev also expressed the dark force of nature in his poetry (see for instance ‘Sajma’, 'Imatra’, ‘Son najavu’, 'Kak v cistoj lazuri ...' (SS 12. pp. 41, 45, 45-6, 88-9). For an analysis of Tjutcev's influence on Solov’ev, see Florovsky. 'Tiutchev and Vladimir Soloviev', Collected Works 11. pp. 33-45. 94. 'Zemlja vladycica!...', (SS. 12. p. 22: Gazeli pustyn ....’ (Ibid., p. 90). Interestingly, the expression 'Eva or Turania' was used by the French writer and diplomat Melchior de Vogue (1848-1910) and applied to Sofija Khitrovo (S. Solovyov 2000, p. 243). This suggests that Solov'ev's poem was perhaps about simultaneously World Soul and his beloved Sofija Khitrovo. 95. Ex.: ‘Ili v javnom tainstve vnov' vizu socetanie / Zemnoj dusi so sveto, nezemnym' ('Zemija vladycica! ...’, p. 22). 96. For a sympathetic analysis of his poems on Sophia, see Sergei Bulgakov, 'Vladimir Solov' ev i Anna Smidt' in Tikhie dumy (1st publ. 1918: Moskva: Respublika, 1996), pp. 51-82. 97. Madey 1961, p. 39. 98. Although Solov’ev retained Comte’s notion of humanity as a metaphysical principle [see previous chapter, subsection 2c], he had strong objections to Comte’s identification of humanity as a principle of religion and as an object of cult: ‘Generally speaking, Comte was mistaken when he thought that the idea of a progressing humanity can replace the idea of an absolute being. The concept of progress or of perfectibility is logically conceivable only as a gradual assimilation by something imperfect of an objective perfection, which exists in its totality independently of the progressing subject and prior to it, for then every new step of increased perfection of this subject would be the production out of nothing, which is absurd – the less is in itself not a worthy basis for the more, and emptiness cannot be the only source of plenitude of being. Consequently, the true perfection of the “Great Being” cannot be humanity taken in isolation, but only the humanity of God.’ (‘Kont’, p. 406). For the same reason, the concept of World Soul necessitates a concept of God. 99. This point is convincingly demonstrated in Clowes 1996, p. 555. 100. ‘This idea [i.e. the union of contraries, MC] is but the expression of the great physical and moral reality of love’ (La Sophia, p. 92). 101. This teaching distinguished itself from other systems by its total structure (La Sophia, p. 106). 102. See La Sophia. 103. Smysl ljubvi, quoted in Clowes 1996, pp. 556-557 [italics Solov’ev’s]. 104. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 267. 105. See quote at the beginning of part 2 of this chapter [‘The Dialogue’] 106. For a masterful demonstration of this point, see Pamela Davidson, ‘Vladimir Solov’ev and the Ideal of Prophecy’, The Slavonic and East European Review 78 (2000), 4 pp. 643- 670; p. 647. 107. This aspect belongs to theology of history, and has therefore been examined in the corresponding section. 108. Solov’ev dealt with the topic of mysticism in numerous essays and polemic articles against such authors as Vvedenskij, Aksakov, Strakhov and Kavelin. Moreover, he displayed an immense knowledge of Eastern religious tradition, as shown in his first text on the mythological process and onwards. He also discussed the Western mystical tradition (e.g. Spinoza, Goethe). Finally, spiritism played a major role in Solov’ev’s life and work for many years. For a survey of these publications see Kraveenko 1997, pp. 69-155. 109. Unpublished letter to the Jesuit Perling, quoted in Stremooukhorf 1974, p. 144, n. II. This docs not mean, however, that the unconscious is prophetic by definition. 110. La Sophia (p. 330, italics mine) is a work that Davidson unfortunately did not include in her analysis. The Greek terms hypokeimenon and hypostasion literally mean 'object lying under the root' or 'put underneath' and refer to Solov'ev's total submission to Sophia. The synonymous term hypopodion was used in the Byzantine liturgy and known to Solov'ev (S. Solovyov 2000, p. 473). 111. ‘Mickevic', in: S. 1991. pp. 371-379: p. 376. On Mickiewicz see also the case study IV 'The Polish Question'. 112. This three-fold dimension of prophecy has been highlighted by Davidson 2000, p. 647. 113. 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros', S. 1989 1, p. 231. 114. Definition from Ivan Aksakov, quoted in Philippot 1991, p. 10. For a discussion of the institution of the zemstvo. see case study V 'The Famine of 1891-1892'. 115. Filosofskie nacala cel’nogo znanija, pp. 202-203. The name of this group, which we can hardly call an institution because of the lack of considerations on its organizational and institutional form in Solov'ev, varies in his work: people or simple people, educated society, and zemstvo in the Slavophile sense. The biographer Sergej Solov'ev also pointed to this connection with the Slavophiles (S. Solovyov 2000, p. 181). 116. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, pp. 266-267 [italics Solov’ev’s] See also paragraph 1c. 117. 'Tri sily', p. 207. The expression 'Eternal Testament' is a translation of Vecnyj zavet. 118. PSS. 2. p. 177 [italics mine]. 119. Lemma 'Kabbalah', Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward Craig (ed.), 10 vols. (London et al.: Routledge. 1998). vol. 5. p. 171. 120. Ibid. 121. See 'Solov'ev i Kaballa', Issledovanija ob istorii russkoj mysli, Ezegodnik, 1998, pp. 7-104. Burmistrov shows that the biographical comments on Solov'ev's activities in London were made by people who ignored everything about the field of Kabbalah, and mixed it up with gnosis, Christian mystical writings and freemasonry. A close analysis of Sophia leads him to detect more Gnostic than Kabbalistic elements. For a study with a particular focus on sexuality in the Kabbalah and Solov'ev, see Kornblatt 1991. 122. Indeed, Solov'ev did not know Hebrew at that time, so it could only have been through translations. 123. We can also speak of an indirect influence of the Kabbalah on Solov'ev through Bohme, Swedenborg, Gichtel, Arnold, Pordage, Paracelsus, Agrippa, Saint-Martin, Martinez de Pasqually, Eliphas Levy, and Blavackaja (Burmistrov 1998, pp. 45-70). 124. These terms can be found mainly in La Sophia (ex.: pp. 56. 98. 164. 172). For a discussion of Solov'ev's treatment of Kabbalistic terminology, see Burmistrov 1998, pp. 30-39. The English transcription and translation of these terms are borrowed from the encyclopaedia article quoted above. 125. Burmistrov 1998. p. 95. 126. In this introductory essay, Solov'ev emphasised two characteristics of the Kabbalah that distinguished it from neo-Platonism, and which are interesting for our discussion: first the absence of dualism and of the idea of the fall in favour of a view of the world process in terms of the realisation of the (con)substantial [edinosuscee]: second. the central view of the human being as an absolute and all-embracing form of the universe as a whole' [Burmistrov] which led to 'a conscious and systematic anthropomorphism' (Solov'ev's words, quoted in Burmistrov 1998, p. 92; see also pp. 89-92). 127. ‘Kabbala', SS 10, pp. 339-343: p. 341. 128. See the quote containing the term Malchut, p. 137. 129. He mentioned the absence of boundaries between the different categories of the Kabbalistic cosmogonic hierarchy as well as between cosmogony (creation) and theosophy ('Kabbala'. p. 340). 130. The Sophia prayer was first published in Sergej Solov'ev's biography [S. Solovyov 2000 1. p. 125]. Sergej Solov'ev supposed that Solov'ev had written it under the inspiration of manuscripts that he was reading in the British Museum. Another hypothesis is that it was his own creation (see Sergej Bulgakov, 'Vladimir Solov'ev i Anna Smidt', op. cit., note by the editor, p. 442). 131. He intended to analyse gnosis and integrate the works recently published in the West. Aleksej Kozyrev sketched the context of Solov'ev's preoccupations with gnosis at that time, and mentioned this information found in the philosopher's correspondence (Kozyrev 1991, p. 153). 132. Aleksej Kozyrev, Gnosticeskie vlijanija v filosofii Vladimira Solov'eva (PhD thesis Moskva: Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, 1996); Maria Carlson, 'Gnostic elements in the Cosmogony of Vladimir Soloviev', in: Kornblatt and Gustavson 1996, pp. 49-67). In Kozyrev's and Carlson's enlightening analyses, I find support for my thesis that Sophia is primarily a link between the human and the divine. Carlson has however perhaps focused too much on the similarities between gnosis and Solov'ev's sophiology, as a result of which she tends to make Solov'ev a gnostic himself. Arguably. this is the purpose of her recontextualisation of his thought in a broader movement of modern gnosis including Blavackaja, Bulgakov, Blok, and Western anthroposophy. This raises the question of Solov'ev's exact role in the reactivation of Gnosticism in Russian culture. and to what extent the ground had already been laid for his contribution (spiritism, masonry, Bohme, Baader, etc.). 133. These points are taken from the entry 'Gnosticism', Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 4. pp. 83-85. 134. The term pleroma is not a Gnostic invention but was already present in Plato's works. 135. 'Gnosticism', The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy 3, pp. 336-342: p. 338. 136. 'Valentin i Valentiniany', 'Gnosticizm' (SS. 9. pp. 285-290, 323-328). He also wrote on another gnostic thinker, Basilides ['Vasilid'] (Ibid., pp. 290-2), in which, however, no sophiological themes are brought to the fore. In this analysis some topics have to be discarded for not being central in sophiology, such as the complex relationship Sophia- Christ-Logos. 137. In the same way. Solov'ev opposed the distant Gnostic God vs. the Christian God committed to the world. God and Jesus Christ vs. the Christian Godhuman, the aeons vs. Trinity, divided humanity vs. Christian united humanity, partial vs. total salvation, the end of history as merely a return vs. the end or history as spiritualised humanity or Kingdom of God ("Gnosticizm', pp. 325-326). 138. In her study on the influence of Gnosticism on Solov'ev's cosmogony, Maria Carlson has correctly recommended cautiousness in interpreting Solov'ev's entry on Gnosticism and noted the conformity of his views with the canon, that is, Irenaeus' Adversus omnes haereses. She also reminds that the church actively discouraged any research on a thinker's Gnosticism as further evidence that Gnosticism was an unwelcome subject (Carlson 1996, p. 53, 55). Worth mentioning is the fact that authors such as Goethe, Bohme, and even Hegel were acknowledged Gnostics. 139. 'Valentin i Valntiniany', p. 285. 140. Contesting the criticism made for instance by Zenkovsky of Solov'ev's incoherence in his sophiology, Carlson has made clear that the integration of two Sophias in Solov'ev's narrative was totally consistent within the Gnostic framework (p. 62). 141. ‘Valentin i Valentiniany', p. 286. 142. All these quotes arc taken from Ibid., pp, 286-288. Contrary to the entry "Gnosticizm', in this entry, Solov'ev uses the word pleroma with capitals [Pleroma]: for the sake of consistency, I write it 'pleroma'. Solov'ev correctly warned his readers that on the basis of Irenaeus's text, it was impossible to distinguish Valentinus' teaching from that of his successors. As a matter of fact, recent scholarship tends to identify strictly only one Sophia in Valentinus' thought (Gilles Quispel, 'The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic'. in: Roelof van de Brock and Cis van Heertum (eds.). From Poimandres to Jacob Bohme: Gnosis. Hermetism and the Christian Tradition (Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan, 2000), pp. 233-263: pp. 246-249) or to distinguish between an old stage of Valentinism, which presents one Sophia (the 30th eon, higher Sophia), and a new stage, which presents two Sophias (with addition of Achamoth) (Christoph Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersmchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1992), pp. 372- 373). 143. "Valentini Valentiniany', p. 288. The positive account of the category of process in the Gnostic teaching in this quote stands in sharp contrast with the critical stance adopted in 'Gnosticizm' concerning the same 'process". In 'Gnosticizm', which can be summarised as a Christian judgement of Gnosticism, Solov'ev denounced the Gnostic conception of process as a mere return without any gain for humanity, and as a process that applies only to one part of humanity ('Gnosticizm', p. 325). 144. For a comprehensive discussion or Solov'ev's use of Gnostic terms such as 'Demiurge', 'Satan', 'limit', as well as the reproduction of structural elements of the Gnostic myth (such as the interaction of centrifuge and centripetal principles), see Kozyrev 1996. 145. 'Valentin i Valentiniany', p. 288, italics Solov'ev's. The view or matter as an autonomous reality can be found indeed in the Presocratics, but not in Plato, as Solov'ev seems to suggest in the parenthesis. 146. From a more existential perspective on Solov'ev, Carlson interestingly interpreted Solov'ev's own life drama in the light of the Gnostic teaching: like the Gnostic mystic. Solov'ev took the risk of the descent into the abyss, the risk of being eternally trapped in matter, the risk of despair (p. 61). 147. Besides, the knowledge that the Gnostics possessed did not depend on their acts or belief, as Solov'ev himself pointed out ('Valentin i Valentiniany', p. 288). 148. Kozyrev 1996. p. 94. 149. See Smysl ljubvi, pp. 534-535; Quispel 2000, pp. 242-244. 150. Solov'ev specified that although he took the term syzygy from the Gnostics, his understanding of the term differed from theirs (Smysl ljubvi, p. 545). 151. Riemer Roukema, Gnosis and Faith in Early Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1999), p. 130. 152. Stremooukhoff 1974, 56 ff. This has been firmly established by Zdenck V. David, 'The influence of Jacob Boehme on the Russian religious thought'. Slavic Review, American Quarterly of Soviet and East European Studies 21 (1962). pp. 43-64. David devoted special attention to Solov'ev and emphasised his role as the thinker through whom 'Russian Boehmism was raised to a level where it could, and did, inspire serious and autonomous religious and philosophical thought' (p. 64). Apart from a thorough analysis of Bohme's influence on Solov'ev's sophiology, for which he employs extensive textual evidence, David provides us with an interesting history of the penetration of Bohmism in Russia. 153. Here he was decisively influenced by Pamfil Jurkevic, his philosophy professor and master at the University of Moscow, and by the philosopher and theologian Viktor Kudrjavcev-Platonov during his study at the Moscow Theological Academy. Imbued with the ideas of theosophic mysticism, Jurkevic counted Bohme and Swedenborg among the most important thinkers (David 1962, p. 59, referring to Solov'ev's commemorative article of Jurkevic). 154. Later on he wrote an entry for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia on Swedenborg, who was 'the most remarkable (after Jacob Bohme) theosophist of the modern times' ('Svedenborg', SS. 10, pp. 487-497). He also mentioned his own professor Pamfil Jurkevic as a member of a sect developed on the basis of the Swedish thinker's teachings called the Swedenborg church (Ibid., p. 497). 155. Two letters (1877, 1900) attest to Bohme's role: 'I have not found yet anything special in the library. There are in the mystics a lot of confirmations of my own ideas, but no new light, moreover nearly all of them have an exceptionally subjective character and, so to speak, drivelling [baveux]. I found three specialists on Sofija: Georg Gichtel, Gottfried Arnold and John Pordage. All three had a personal experience, nearly the same one as mine, and that is the most interesting, but properly in theosophy all three are rather weak, follow Bohme, but at a lower level than he did. I think that Sofija spent time on them more for [za] their innocence than for anything else. As a result, the real people remain all the same only Paracelsus, Bohme and Swedenborg, so that the field remains very wide for me.' (Pis'ma 2. p. 200, letter to the Countess Tolstoja, dated 27 April 1877). And in 1900 in a letter to Anna Nikolaevna Schmidt he wrote: 'Having read your letter with the greatest attention, I was glad to see how close you have come to truth in question of the greatest importance, which is contained in the essence itself of Christianity, but has not yet been posed clearly neither in the ecclesiastic, nor in the general philosophical awareness [soznanie], although isolated theosophers do talk about this aspect of Christianity (especially Jacob Bohme and his successors: Gichtel, Pordage, St-Martin. Baader). From 1877 onwards I had many times to touch upon this topic in public lectures, articles and books, observing the due caution. On the basis of many data, I think that a wide disclosing of this truth in the awareness and life of Christianity and whole mankind will come in the nearest future, and your apparition seems to me very important and significant' (Pis'ma 4, p. 8). Two other details, one at the start of Solov'ev's career, and one at the very end, point to the presence of Bohme in his thought. In Filosofskie nacala cel’nogo znanija, Solov'ev strove to develop a 'theosophy', hereby showing a sense of affiliation with Bohme who had revitalised the term to designate his own work. And in Tri razgovora, he calls the alleged author of the' Povest' ob Antikhriste' Pansofij [Pansophius], a name which reminds one of Bohme's work 'Mysterium Pansophicum. 156. Most probably, Bohme or Bohmianism inspired Hegel on this point which became central to his work. 157. Alexandre Koyre, La philosophie de Jacob Boehme, 3rd ed. (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1979), p. 344 [translation mine]. 158. David has convincingly shown this point (p. 60). 159. Koyre 1979, p. 281. On this point. Bohme did not elaborate a conceptual apparatus as Hegel and Schelling would later do by relying heavily on Bohme's thought. 160. David 1962, p. 61. 161. David 1962, p. 61. In the formation of Sophia, however, the peculiar powers of the Trinity are not exerted on prime matter directly, but through the mediation of the Second Person, the Word, which for this purpose becomes three distinctive agents or Words. In as far as the Second Person actually carries out the entire creative action resulting in Sophia, the latter in its primary role as the Body of God is more specifically the body of the 'incarnate' Word, or the 'Body of Christ' (Ibid.). 162. See for instance pp. 248-250. 163. Koyre 1979, p. 212. It is unclear how Bohme connected the abovementioned notion of 'Eternal idea' with that of God's plan for the world. On the one hand. the 'Eternal idea' dictates the creation of Sophia, so cannot be equated to her. On the other hand, what is the 'Eternal idea', if not God's plan for creation as a whole? 164. David 1962, p. 62. n. 71. It is not clear whether Solov'ev borrowed the notion of light from him, which Bohme applied to Divine Sophia, in contrast with (worldly) darkness, or from other sources, such as the Bible, as Madey suggests (Madey 1961, p. 180). Concerning the principle of darkness, Solov'ev may have been more inspired by romanticism, directly or indirectly through Tjutcev [see also footnote 92 of this chapter]. 165. Hereby I oppose David's treatment of Solov'ev's thought, which tends to identify this point as constant in Solov'ev's work. 166. David 1962, pp. 62-3. 167. La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, pp. 260-263. 168. Koyre 1979, p. 425, 431-2. 169. Interestingly, these are two points on which Solov'ev distinguished himself also from Hegel [see chap. III 'Philosophy of History in Solov'ev', subsection 2a], who probably picked up the second point from Bohme. 170. See for instance La Russie et l’Eglise universelle: Sophia incarnated herself in Mary and in Jesus Christ, but only in an individual aspect. Later she incarnated in a collective aspect in Church, The cult of Sophia as Church, is Russia's contribution to the world. Russia's message for the universal unification to come (p. 267). Bulgakov has also emphasised this point ('Vladimir Solov'ev i Anna Smidt', op. cit., p. 70). 171. Bulgakov has convincingly suggested that Bohme's Sophia was rather a ‘metaphysical principle', which actually concealed behind its androgynous character a true 'misogyny'. In contrast, for Solov'ev she vividly appeared in visions and was ornamented with all her feminine attributes and adulated precisely for them (Ibid., pp. 69-70). 172. That the German theosophist contributed to shaping this 19th century view cannot be contested. But two centuries separated the two men’s lives. 173. <Plany i cernoviki>, PSS. 2, p. 177 [italics mine]. 174. <Cernovik o Sellinge>, PSS. 1. pp. 179-181. See commentary pp. 356-358. Some scholars have found support for their thesis of Schelling's influence in a manuscript recently published (1987). However, according to experts in Solov'ev archives, his document is probably not from Solov'ev's own hand (see commentary PSS. 1 p. 356). Further evidence for his admiration of Schelling is his statement that 'the teaching of Baader and the last "positive" philosophy of Schelling represent the attempts of a more real and concrete synthesis of the spiritual and physical elements in the world and in the human being' ('Priroda', p. 262 [italics mine]). 175. His religious philosophy and criticism of rationalism in particular had been enthusiastically received in Russia, often in combination with German romanticism, and reinterpreted by the Slavophiles. On the reception of Schelling in Russia, see A.V. Gulyga, Selling (Moskva: 1984). Among recent publications, see V.F. Pustarnikov (ed.), Filosofija Sellinga v Rossii (Sankt-Peterburg: Izd. Russkogo Khristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta, 1998), p. 482, and D.K. Burlaka (ed.), Selling: Pro et contra (Sankt-Peterburg: Izd. Russkogo Khristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta, 2001). 176. At his doctoral dissertation's defence, Solov'ev admitted a similarity of views with the late Schelling (i.e. his positive philosophy, not his philosophy of identity, which was pantheistic (Pis'ma 2, p. 100). Second, his article 'Idea and individuality in ancient paganism and Judaism' (which may have been a first version of the article on the mythological process written in 1873, and which Solov'ev first tried to publish in Russkij Vestnik) reminded Katkov of Schelling's lectures in Berlin ('Neskol'ko licnykh vospominanij o Katkove', S. 1989 2, p. 626). 177. These are the positions of Trubeckoj, Berdjaev, Mocul’skij, Stremooukhoff 1974, Muller, Copleston (mentioned in Madey 1961 pp. 97-109). This point has been made in S.B. Rocinskij, 'Filosofija tozdestva i metafizika vseedinstva: paralleli i sozvucija', in: Rocinskij 1999, pp. 86-97. A whole range of interpretations have been given as to the role of Schelling in Solov'ev's thought. Sestov concluded that Solov'ev took everything from Schelling, and lost himself in him: Muller, who rather focused on the issues of the essence of philosophy, theory of knowledge, and the problem of the fall, distinguished both. Szylkarski as well as Stremooukhoff pointed to the common sources of their thought (Bohme, the Kabbalah, Gnosticism), whereas Tilliette underlined the indirect influence of Schelling on Solov'ev via the Slavophiles (see M. Garcia Romero, 'Schelling's Reflection on Evil in the "Lectures on Godmanhood'", in: Borisova and Kozyrev 2001, pp. 220-241: pp. 221-222). Only Losev has categorically affirmed that Solov'ev came to views that were similar to Schelling's independently from him and that similarities were nothing but coincidences. Losev, who wrote his monograph on Solov'ev in the 1980s, did not know the manuscript of Sophia (first published in 1991) in which Solov'ev posed himself as Schelling's successor (Losev 2000, pp. 170-171). See also V.V. Lazarev, 'Filosofija VI. Solov'eva i Selling', in: Pustarnikov 1998, pp. 477-499. Unfortunately, Lazarev bases himself on the publication of a manuscript that is most probably not from Solov'ev's hand, which renders a good part of his analysis invalid. 178. Bulgakov is mentioned by Rocinskij 1999, pp. 89-90. See the highly valuable contribution of Paul Valliere, who aims at situating Schelling and Solov'ev in the history of modern religious thought (Valliere 2000b). 179. On this point, I agree with Groys (Groys 1995, p. 37). Schelling posed that the world [Weltamme] does not belong to divine nature, but cannot be excluded from it either. Also the commentators of Solov'ev's complete works have pointed out Schelling's role in the process of construction of Solov'ev's philosophical system (PSS 1, p. 357). 180. Rocinskij 1999, p. 90. 181. Ibid. 182. See entry 'Mirovaja dusa'. op.cit. 183. Dale E. Snow, Schelling and the End of Idealism (New York: State University of New York Press, 1996), pp. 85, 86. 184. Ibid., p.189. 185. Madey, p. 133. 186. F.W.J. Schelling, Philosophie der Offenbarung 1841/2 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1977), p, 185 [my translation]. 187. 'Mifologiceskij process v drevnem jazycestve', p. 36. n. 38. 188. La Sophia, p. 116. 189. Rocinskij, the only scholar who has broached this question explicitly, has convincingly suggested that this distinguished Schelling's concept of World Soul from that of the Russians (Rocinskij 1999, p. 92). 190. According to Solov'ev, these views influenced Katkov ('Slavjanofil'stvo i ego vyrozdenie', p. 482. n. 1). 191. Sutton 1988. p. 76. 192. Schelling may have been influenced by Bohme on this point. On the role of Bohmian thought in Schelling's late works, see R.F. Brown, The Later Philosophy of Schelling: The Influence of Boehme on the Works of 1809-1815 (London & New York: Associated University Presses, 1977). 193. Cf. Snow 1996, p. 86; for Solov'ev, see the section 'The cosmic and historical process' in La Sophia, p. 116ff. Even though he affirmed the possibility of an alternative -- such as in the following statement: This 'pure and undetermined potency; has two possible ways: or to live. separated from God, or to identify herself with Divine Wisdom (La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 254) -- his optimistic attitude tended to make him to see only the second way. 194. As Valliere has masterfully shown, Schelling had with his Potenzlehre brought to the fore a new way of conceptualising the reality of God: 'God has the power to posit something other than himself within his own being' (Valliere 2000b, pp. 121-122). 195. Ibid. 196. Although Solov'ev did not refer to Schelling on this point, commentators agree that he did borrow this definition from the German philosopher (See for ex. Stremooukhoff 1974, p. 68). The formulation of these aspects is taken from Valliere (Valliere 2000b, pp. 121- 122) and Stremooukhoff 1974, pp. 57-58. 197. Filosofskie nacala cel’nogo znanija, pp. 264-268. The same text is nearly exactly reproduced in Kritika otvlecennykh nacal, pp. 278-282 [quote from p. 282]. 198. Kritika otvlecennykh nacal, p. 284. 199. Ibid., pp. 284-286. 200. Ibid., p. 282. 201. Valliere has convincingly shown that Solov'ev adopted the same scheme as Schelling in his philosophy of revelation, and adapted it to the history of religion, and especially to the three movements of the absolute (See Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, which 'is clearly dependent on Philosophie der Offenbarung' (Valliere 2000b, p. 124), but also the 1873 article on the mythological process for a Schellingian influence (discussed by Stremooukhoff 1974, pp. 30, 85). Valliere notably points to the similarity between Schelling's 'living God' and Solov'ev's Bogocelovecestvo, especially with respect to the otherness of God within himself is His humanity. Copleston has also pointed to the Schellingian source of Solov'ev's 'second absolute' (reference given in Valliere 2000b, p. 125). 202. PSS. 2, p. 358, commentary on draft about Schelling.
|