|
HISTORY, SOPHIA AND THE RUSSIAN NATION |
|
III. The Jewish Question
At the end of the 19th century, the expression 'Jewish question' involved a broad set of issues, raised by the presence of a large Jewish population in Russia, ranging from theological discussions on the differences between Judaism and Christianity, to restrictive government policies and pogroms. [2] Today, it is still part of the debate in Russian thought, as recent literature testifies, notably Aleksandr Solzenicyn's comprehensive interpretation of the history of the Jewish question in Russia, eloquently entitled Dvesti let vemste [Two Hundred Years Together], and the tremendous scholarly work undertaken over the past ten years about the history of Jewry in Russia. [3] In addition, Solov'ev's central essay on the Jewish question has been republished in a recent collection of articles on the issue. [4] In this respect, it is all the more relevant to examine how Solov'ev attempted to find a solution for the nexus of problems related to the presence of Jews on Russian soil. For reasons that I will present below, his commitment was profounder and took much more various shapes than in other interventions. There is particularly good documentation available on the issue thanks to Solov'ev's letters to the Russian Jew Fajvel' Gec (Faivel Goetz, 1853-1931], and the apologetic essays written by the latter on the philosopher. [5] Later scholarship on Solov'ev has unravelled the significance of Solov'ev's views, especially on Judaism, from various angles, and several scholars have examined the role of these views in Solov'ev's work as a whole. [6] Historical studies have situated Solov'ev's views with respect to the debates on the Jewish question and Judaism. [7] While these contributions highlight the complexity of Solov'ev's relationship to Judaism, the Jewry, and the Jewish question, it remains unclear what makes his treatment of the Jewish question unique, within the context of the debates of his contemporaries as well as within his own work. To clarify this point is the aim of this chapter. Based on a combined historical and philosophical approach, my thesis regarding Solov'ev's treatment of the Jewish question is three-fold, and formulated from three general perspectives. First, against the background of the attitude of the government and publicistika towards the Jewish question, Solov'ev played a prominent role that can be ascribed to a combination of factors. These include: i) his unique and provocative leitmotiv 'the Jewish question is not a problem inherent to the Jewry, but to the Christians'; ii) his commitment to set up a manifest against anti-Semitism; and iii) his long-term interest and deep knowledge that made him a specialist in Jewish religious thought, a pioneer in Russian thought in this respect. From a second perspective, internal to his work, I shall make the case that Solov'ev's primary motivation was his questioning of the roots of Christianity in Judaism. He developed a genuine interest in Judaism that prompted him to learn Hebrew in order to read the Old Testament and the Jewish Scripture in the original, as a result of which he became a specialist of Jewish religious thought. Although he was critical of the rejection of Jesus Christ by Judaism, he defended the view of continuity between the two religions. His highly positive valuation of Judaism prompted him to defend the Judaic body of rules about religious and civil life, the Talmud, against the widespread blame placed on it for what was perceived as the Jews' negative sides. It also affected his attitude towards the contemporary representatives of Judaism, namely the Jews living within the Russian empire in his time. In this respect, I retain the fruitful distinction made by Judith Deutsch Kornblatt between two interests that guided Solov'ev, namely theological issues concerning Judaism [iudejstvo] and the national character of ancient and contemporary Jewry [evrejstvo]. [8] However, his approach also bore an instrumental character to the extent that, in Judaism and the Jewry, he sought answers to what he considered Christian issues. In this way he reduced the Jewish question to his own priorities. Thirdly, and in connection with the preceding point, I hold that the driving force of Solov'ev's constant and vivid interest in Judaism and his commitment in favour of rights for the Jewry stems from his conception of history. His claim of continuity and brotherhood between Judaism and Christianity was related to his conviction that sooner or later Christians and Jews would reunite through the Jews' conversion to Christianity, something he considered a historical necessity. He developed this main point equally in the three, theological, philosophical and sophiological registers of history, in contrast with other issues in which he always privileged one or two of them. The three registers even merge in his two claims regarding the Jews, namely the establishment of free theocracy with their help, and granting the Jews full rights. His view evolved from claiming both tasks to narrowing Russia's mission to the latter. Nevertheless, he unwaveringly perceived the Jewish question through the prism of Russian society as a whole. Striving to contribute to a greater cohesion of Russian society, he uttered a highly original claim: the Jews were able to form the cement of that society by developing what Russia still lacked, namely an urban middle-class. This view is perhaps Solov'ev's most refreshing and challenging contribution to the issue. In order to posit these points in a comprehensive argument, I analyse the Jewish question as follows. First, in (1a), I give an account of the policies regarding the Jews, and, in (1b), of the debates in the St. Petersburg and Moscow press between 1881 and 1900. Secondly, in (2a), I turn to Solov'ev to present his publications and commitment to the Jews, in (2b) I analyse them against the background of the policies, and in (2c) I address the debates of his time. Finally, in (2d), I unravel the three registers of history in his texts on the Jewish question. b) The Jewish question 1881-1900: pogroms and policies [9] Towards the end of the 19th century, the Russian empire contained about five million Jews, which formed the largest Jewish community in the world as a result of the partitions of Poland at the end of the 18th century. From 1815 onwards, they were officially constrained to residence in one zone situated in southwest Russia, the Pale of Settlement [certa osedlosti], which more or less corresponded to the part of the Polish empire that Russia had laid its hand upon at the Congress of Vienna. Only an educated minority was allowed to continue to live in St. Petersburg and Moscow. In the 1860s and 1870s, the boom of industrialisation and emancipation of the serfs were at the origin of new measures to further isolate the Jewish population. Mainly the enrichment of a small elite of emancipated Jews, but also their increasingly successful role in public life as doctors, lawyers and journalists, as well as their joining such revolutionary movements as Narodnaja Volja and Cernyj Peredel, provoked the hostility of the public and the government. [10] Notwithstanding the fact that Jewish masses were impoverished as a result of the emancipation of the serfs, 'Jewish exploitation' came to be seen as the greatest threat to peasant prosperity and urban trade, and to the foundations of Russian Christian society as a whole. The government issued increasing measures aimed at isolating the Jews from the native population in their elementary rights of movement, settlement, and education. The primary goal of isolating them from the native population may explain why there was no campaign to convert Jews to Christianity. On the attitude of the church with respect to the Jews, only little information is available, as this is an underdeveloped area of study. It seems that, apart from a few exceptions, the high clergy was mostly conservative, whereas the low clergy was more prone to stand up for the Jews. [11] The year 1881 was marked by two tragic events which considerably hardened the government's attitude towards the Jews. Firstly, the succession to the throne of tsar Alexander III, son of tsar Alexander II who was murdered in March 1881 [see case study I], inaugurated a period of reaction and repression, which was particularly harsh with respect to the Jews. Secondly, in 1881-1883 in south-eastern cities such as Odessa, Rostov-on-the-Don, Kiev, and smaller towns, a series of pogroms, supported by the local population, occurred, causing rapes and death, and considerable material damage, such as the burning down of Jewish shops and houses. [12] The underlying view was that Jews were 'outside the law', and in some cases even that tsar Alexander II had been murdered by Jews, so that attacks on their goods would not only not be punished, but were a fair retribution for what the Jews had caused to Russian society. The initially slow reaction of officials, police and cavalry troops only confirmed this conviction. The Jews reacted to the pogroms with massive emigration and, for a small minority, by conversion to Christianity. [13] Facing these outbursts of violence, and fearing they would extend to other religious minorities, the government decided to take measures to prevent further pogroms. Since the Jews' economic activity seemed to be the immediate cause of popular anger, a project of laws entitled Provisional Rules, adopted in 1882 by the Committee of Ministers, tried to further isolate the Jews and to limit this activity. [14] These rules remained 'provisional' until 1904, when an extension of the Jews' rights was decreed. Despite the will of some government members to work towards civic equality for the Jews, and the creation of the 'Commission Palen' (1883-1888), which together with influential Jewish members of the Commission worked at this goal, the government and public opinion as a whole saw the solution in further limiting the rights of Jews. [15] From 1888 onwards, the government introduced new limitations step by step with each new case. From the end of the 1880s onwards, the reactionary attitude of public opinion and the repressive measures taken by the government intensified. In 1887, the Minister of Education Ivan Deljanov issued a numerus clausus for Jewish students in higher education against the high proportion of Jewish students and the propagation of Marxist ideas among them. [16] Other measures limited the access of Jews to the function of lawyer (1889), forbade Jews from taking part in local government (1890) and in city government (1892), and, most harshly, made expulsions the rule, as was the case for about 20,000 Jews from Moscow in 1892-1893. [17] Pobedonoscev, as advisor to the two tsars and a crucial figure in governmental circles, played a central role and influenced many measures taken in the government regarding Jews. Despite his resolute opposition to the pogroms, he was consistently hostile toward the Jews until his retirement in 1905. [18] The civil status of the Jews stagnated in the Russian empire, which contrasted sharply with their condition in West European countries, where they had acquired full civil rights by the mid-1870s. [19] On the whole, the Jews had a unique status. They were one of the empire's ethnic minorities [inorodcy], yet did not enjoy the latter's right to self-government or exemption from certain fiscal or military obligations. Besides, their area of residence was reduced to the Pale, and even within the Pale did not enjoy the same rights as natives in terms of business and education opportunities. [20] As a matter of fact, the psychological pressure by the press contributed to worsening the condition of the Jews in Russia, which was worse than forty years earlier. Literature is scarce on this issue, which agitated public opinion in the last decades of the Russian empire. I base my analysis on published sources, anthologies, encyclopaedia articles and secondary literature. [21] In the period examined here (1881-1900), two main camps can be distinguished, namely the conservative camp, which was in favour of limiting rights, and the progressive camp, which advocated full rights for the Jews. Both these camps of Russian public opinion included various orientations, which are examined in the first section. Within the conservative camp, an overwhelming majority was explicitly Judeophobic or even anti-Semitic. [22] The progressive camp stood unanimously for giving the Jews full rights, whether from a liberal, religious, or revolutionary perspective. The year 1881 was also a turning point in the debates conducted in the Russian-Jewish community. The attitude of each camp with respect to the pogroms, the repressive policies and the solution advanced to the Jewish question are investigated below. The representatives of the conservative party were almost unanimously in favour of the restrictive measures taken against the Jewish community in Russia. Their mistrust with respect to trade, monetary economy and more generally capitalism prompted them to express anti-capitalism through anti-Semitism; from there it was only a short step to accusing Jews of earning money without working, and to branding them as parasites and exploiters. [23] In their hostility to the Judaic religion, the conservatives found support notably in the work of metropolite of Kiev Illarion (1051-1054/5), who had opposed the Christian system of values to that of the Jews. [24] Generally, the cliche that the Jews were 'deicides', 'enemies of Christ' and 'a threat to the spiritual and physical well-being of the Christian population' was very widespread. [25] The conservatives also found inspiration in recent works of German and French authors. [26] A whole scale of positions was held. The most explicit anti-Semites (Aleksej Suvorin in Novoe Vremja, Ivan Aksakov in Rus ') not only approved of the pogroms as 'fair wrath of the simple folk' against Jewish exploitation, but welcomed all measures isolating the Jews and limiting their activity. [27] Others (Konstantin Istomin's Vera i Razum) held the idea that such upsurges of popular anger were ultimately justified by Jewish exploitation. Istomin advised the Christians 'to force the Jews out by avoiding them and not trading with them.' [28] Stigmatising the Talmud like Aksakov and others had done before him, he saw the only solution in the rejection by the Jews of their own faith. [29] A minority of conservatives was resolutely opposed to pogroms and advocated civil rights, yet without opposing the Pale, as did Dmitrij Certelev in Russkoe Obozrenie. More powerfully, Mikhail Katkov criticised the government's policies as well as Judeophobic cliches in Moskovskie Vedomosti. [30] The progressive camps went one step further than Katkov, and advocated that the Jews be granted full rights. Beyond this shared conviction, however, the liberals, the religious thinkers, and the radicals approached the Jewish question from very different perspectives. In liberal journals (Matvej Stasjulevic's Porjadok, Mikhail Saltykov-Scedrin's Otecestvennye zapiski), the government was called upon to abolish the Pale of Settlement and all measures of isolation. [31] The authors unanimously expressed their indignation with respect to the pogroms, which were only a rough form of the discrimination inherent to the legislation with respect to religious and national minorities. Besides, specialist works by Nikolaj Gradovskij and by Andrej Subbotin, who both used their contacts with the government to try and influence its attitude towards the Jews, emphasised the legal and economic shortcomings of the actual policies. [32] Despite these multiple efforts, the pleading of the liberals did not gain broad public support until 1900. A minority of progressive religious thinkers, including archbishop Nikanor and Lev Tolstoj, formulated a defence of Jews from an exclusively religious perspective. [33] Against the general lack of interest on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church in the lot of the Jews, both advocated the termination of all repression of the rights of Jews, and called for brotherhood between the two communities. [34] In those times of overwhelming violence, they provokingly interpreted the Jewish way of life as morally superior to that of the so- called Christian society. [35] They also attempted to bridge the gulf between the Judaic and the Christian moral teaching by showing the continuity between the two traditions. [36] However, they valued Christianity more highly: while Tolstoj disapproved of the prominent concept of a national mission in [Page 364 MISSING] elite or 'Jewish St. Petersburg.' [43] Secondly, in more radical stance, many young educated Jews from prosperous families (Mark Natanson, and in the emigration Lev Dejc and Pavel Aksel'rod) who had already joined the ranks of the revolutionary circles in the 1870s, attempted to reformulate their goals in combination with the newly imported Marxist views. [44] A slow preparation developed towards the creation of the Bund, the General Jewish Workers' League in Russia and Poland, in 1897. [45] It was estimated that the 'Jews formed from one quarter to one third of all revolutionary parties.' [46] Thirdly, against the expansion of the radical tendency, other Jews distanced themselves from the Russian solutions to the Jewish question and claimed emigration and Palestinophilism, notably in the journal Rassvet [The Dawn, 1879-1883]. [47] The latter aimed at the conquest of territories in Palestine for the Jewish nation and gave rise to Zionism in the 1890s, decades prior to the rise of Zionism in Europe. [48] To summarise, conservatives and partisans of russification on the whole expressed a Judeophobia that focused on religious and economic motives. In contrast, progressive public opinion tended to advocate full rights for the Jews, whether on legal and economic grounds, or on religious grounds, or as part of a revolutionary political programme. The gap between the Jewish community and the Russian population was therefore only bridged by partisans of assimilation or already assimilated Russian Jews. 2. Solov'ev and the Jewish question a) Solov'ev 's commitment in publications and actions Solov'ev initially developed a concern with the Jewish question in the context of his vivid interest in Judaism and its mystical legacy, the Kabbalah. [49] In the early 1880s, he undertook to learn Hebrew with the purpose of reading the Old Testament and other Jewish theological texts in the original language. His interest in Judaism evolved towards commitment for the Jewry in his own country as an integral part of Russian society, which integrated a positive valuation of Judaism. [50] He publicly intervened on Judaism, Jewry and the Jewish question on twelve different occasions. Solov'ev first expressed himself on the historical meaning of Judaism in an as yet unpublished lecture 'Lekcija o vsemirno-istoriceskom znacenii iudejstva' [On the Universal Historical Meaning of Judaism], given in February 1882 within the framework of the Zenskie kursy [Women courses] at St. Petersburg University. [51] Here we already find Solov'ev's three central views fully expressed: namely i) the historical role of Jewry past, present, and future; ii) the qualities that make them the elected people; and iii) the duty of Christians to relate to them in a Christian way. One year later, in 1883, in the lecture 'Tret'ja ree' v pamjat' Dostoevskogo' [Third speech in memory of Oostoevskij], Solov'ev turned Oostoevskij's Judeo-phobic stance upside down and reformulated the latter's view on Christian reconciliation from his own perspective, that is, by implicitly transforming the Jews' 'materialism' into a positive value (point ii), and by explicitly advocating a reconciliation with 'our historical enemies', the Catholics and the Jews (point iii). [52] The publication that established Solov'ev's reputation as a defender of the Jews' cause was his essay eloquently entitled 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros' [Jewry and the Christian question], first published in 1884 in the journal Pravoslavnoe Obozrenie [The Orthodox Review]. [53] This essay consisted of an elaborate version of his first lecture. His point of departure was to posit the Jewish question as a Christian question given the fact that Christians still did not relate to Jews as Christians [po-khristianski] (point iii). Instead of judging them, Christians should try and understand them. For this purpose, Solov'ev demonstrated that the Jews' main qualities (point ii), namely religiosity, individuality, and religious materialism, explained why the Jewry was predestined to give birth to Jesus Christ. [54] Christians and Jews shared the final goal, that of an 'universal theocracy.' [55] However, the excessive status given exclusively to individuality and materialism prompted the Jews to reject Jesus Christ, who precisely demanded that they give up their 'national egoism and worldly strivings.' [56] The only way to show the Jews that they were wrong was to realise the Christian idea, which would prompt their conversion (point iii). Finally, he elaborated on his ideal of free theocracy in Russia, with at its head a king, a priest, and a prophet. For this purpose, the Jews' Old Testament idea of theocracy, with its emphasis on the prophetic element, was an intrinsic component (point i) if combined with the Byzantine (king) and Catholic (priest) experiences of theocracy. These were represented within the Russian empire by the Russian Orthodox tsardom and the Polish Catholic ecclesiastic authority respectively. More concretely, but still from the perspective of Solov'ev theocratic idea, thanks to their qualities, the Jews could contribute to Russian society also by developing an urban middle-class, hereby forming the true cement of society. In 1885, in 'Novozavetnyj Izrail' [New Testament Israel], published in the journal Rus', Solov'ev called for tolerance for the Judeo-Christian sect 'Bethleem', which he perceived as the 'embryonic phenomenon' of a religious rapprochement of Jews towards Christianity. [57] This sect was founded in 1882 in Kisinev by a Jew converted to Christianity, losif Rabinovic, and was forbidden in 1885. Reminding his fellow believers that the Christian credo had also needed time and an entire process of development, Solov'ev called for them to welcome these new believers as brothers, rather then condemning them for their rejection of some aspects of dogma (point iii). [58] One year later, in 1886, Solov'ev presented his interpretation of a much debated issue, the evaluation of the Talmud from a Christian perspective, in his lengthy essay 'Talmud i novejsaja polemiceskaja literatura o nem v Avstrii i Germanii' [The Talmud and the Recent Polemical Literature on it in Austria and Gennany] in Russkaja Mysl'. [59] This article contains an apology of Judaism, of the Jewry as a nation [narod], and of the Talmud. Solov'ev worked towards a rapprochement between Judaism and Christianity from an essentially scholarly historical-theological and ethical point of view. Acquainting the 'ignorant Christian reader' with the true content of the Talmud, he demonstrated the inconsistency of the widespread criticism of the Talmud as professing hate with respect to Christianity and as exalting the Jews' fanaticism and particularism. [60] The argument is built on four main points. Firstly, he addresses the historical development of Jewish thought leading to the writing of the Talmud. Secondly, the content of the Talmud, especially its moral teaching; this, according to Solov'ev, was fundamentally similar to the Christian teaching, and where it contained elements hostile to the Christians (such as loans with interest), Solov'ev countered this by denouncing the discriminating attitude of the pseudo-Christian states with respect to the Jews. Thirdly, a demonstration of the inconsistency of cliches concerning the hostility of Jews and the Talmud. Fourthly, an exhortation of Christians to demonstrate the possibility of realising Christianity de facto as the only way to convince the Jews. [61] Solov'ev had begun to learn Hebrew around 1883. By 1887 he had read the Torah, the historical books, the prophets and the psalms, and added some Jewish phrases to his weekly prayers. [62] This knowledge of Hebrew allowed him to obtain a profound knowledge of the Jewish Scripture, which he integrated into his comprehensive works, the most significant example of which was Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii [The History and Future of Theocracy, 1885-1887]. [63] The Jews were the first to develop theocracy as balanced rule shared between a king, a priest, and a prophet, and to introduce the notion of universal theocracy. [64] Solov'ev used 'the model of the Jews to buttress many of his central arguments' on theocracy, humanity and Divine humanity.' [65] In his unpublished 'Grekhi Rossii' [Russia's Sins] he denounced the situation of the Jews as one of 'Russia's sins.' [66] In 1888, in front of a French audience during his lecture L'idee russe, he displayed a more critical attitude with respect to the history of the Jews. Judaism had found its achievement only in Christianity, irrespective of what the Jews themselves might think. Besides, their destiny, with a glorious beginning and a petty end, reminded him of that of the Russian nation as viewed by his nationalist fellow countrymen. [67] In the same year, in La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, he praised the historical merits of the Jewish people in their preparation of the messianic idea. They had developed the idea of a triune theocracy with harmonious relationship between king, priest, and prophet. They had also contributed to realising this idea, and had developed the function of prophets, not in opposition with the two other powers, but as representatives of national progress. [68] Solov'ev's special concern for Jews and the Jewish condition turned into practical commitment from 1887-8 onwards, when he tried to help Fajvel' Gec obtain permission to publish a journal for the Jews. [69] In the following years, he intensified his commitment. Two texts mark this apogee of Solov'ev's commitment to the improvement of the condition of Jews in Russia. First, in 1890, he and English journalist and Daily Telegraph correspondent in Russia Emil J. Dillon (1854-1934) organised a petition as an official reaction against anti- Semitism in the Russian press. Solov'ev wrote the manifesto entitled 'Protest protiv antisemiticeskogo dvizenija v pecati' [Protest against the anti-Semitic movement in the press], and succeeded in collecting more than fifty signatures among Russian writers. [70] This was picked up by the authorities, which immediately forbade it in Russia. It was published in English in the London paper, The Times, anonymously. [71] Solov'ev appealed to the Russian educated society for principles of justice and humanity with respect to the Jews, for the sake of the future of Russia. The Jews deserved respect and full civil rights as a cultural and religious group, and were not responsible for having been compelled (by persecutions) to exclusively monetary activities. Secondly, he wrote a letter to Fajvel' Gec, which was used in the introduction to the latter's apologetic book on the Jewry Slovo podsudimomu! [[Give] the Floor to the Accused!, 1891]. [72] The book was immediately confiscated by the censors and burnt. In this remarkable piece, apart from his usual moral and religious stance, Solov'ev used other weapons to fight anti-Semitism in the press. First, he quoted extensively from Mikhail Katkov because of his status as acknowledged authority among the conservatives, and from Boris Cicerin for his sobriety and his experience in rural areas both populated and not populated by Jews. He also suggested a confrontation with the usual cliches about Jews with factual evidence drawn from statistics about the Pale of Settlement. Secondly, he showed the inconsistency of articles published in the conservative journals and newspapers. The question now arises as to whether he chose, for the coming time, to focus on the controversial issue of Judaism instead of struggling for a proper place for Jewry in Russian society. Whatever may have been the case, publications in the 1890s testify to his status as an expert on Judaism. In 'Evrei, ikh veroucenie i nravoucenie' (1891), published in Severnyj Vestnik, Solov'ev again displayed his knowledge of Judaism and the Talmud in criticising the complete inconsistency of a report published posthumously by S.Ja. Diminskij, who was most likely a high official. [73] Solov'ev took this work, which in his eyes totally lacked knowledge of Jewish texts including the Talmud, as an example of the level of ignorance with respect to Judaism in those circles that had decided to publish the report, apparently taking it for an authoritative work. In addition, Solov'ev wrote the entry 'Kabbala' for the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia. [74] A similar text was published as an introduction to an article written by David Gincburg 'Kabbala, misticeskaja filosofija evreev' [The Kabbalah, the Mystical Philosophy of the Jews]. [75] In his last publication as an expert of Judaism, 'Kogda zili evrejskie proroki?' [When did the Jewish prophets live?] [1896] Solov'ev offered a sharp criticism of a work by French author Ernest Havet entitled La modernite des prophetes. [76] He first pinned down the author's lack of knowledge of Hebrew and lack of scholarly research, and his inconsistent interpretation of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scripture. Then, presenting his own thesis regarding the Old Testament prophets, he stressed the spiritual strength of the Jews, which made it possible for them to survive all catastrophes and persecutions, and which he ascribed to their 'prophetic consciousness.' [77] He concluded that the prophets who first developed this consciousness lived not after the end of the kingdom of Israel, as Havet contended, but before. In 1899, he returned to the founder of the sect 'Bethleem', I.D. Rabinovic, spoke his necrology and wrote some memoirs on this figure, in whose commitment he saw the 'anticipation of the future Judeo- Christian unity.' [78] In 1900, his 'Kratkaja povest' ob Antikhriste' [Short Story about the Antichrist] reserved a privileged role for the Jews as an enlightened community. Although they had followed the Antichrist, they were the first to rise up against him when they saw he was not circumcised. [79] At the end of the story, he made them realize his wish and unite with the Christians. A well-known episode concluded his interest and commitment to the Jewish case: on his deathbed, he asked to be kept awake so that he could pray for the Jews, and recited psalms in Hebrew. [80] Solov'ev perceived the Jewry in Russia as a significant component of Russian society. This position was in complete opposite to the attempts by the government to isolate the Jewish population. He started expressing himself on the Jewish question, orally at least and in private correspondence, during the first wave of pogroms in 1882, and published during the period of intensification of repressive measures against the Jews (1880s). It is not known whether he visited places within the Pale of Settlement himself, but it is reasonable to conclude that he drew his information on the pogroms and government policies both from newspapers and from his Jewish acquaintances. [81] He reacted to the pogroms explicitly on two occasions, though not in published form. Firstly, in his 1882 lecture he broached the Jewish question, which was a testimony of his esteem and recognition of the cultural significance of the Jewish people. The reviewer mentioned that Solov'ev, when asked about his opinion about the pogroms and the Jewish question, pointed to full rights and the intelligentsia's humane relationship with respect to Jewry. [82] Secondly, in 1886, when he was in Zagreb Solov'ev read -- the source remains unknown -- about the pogroms that were occurring in Russia, which distressed him deeply. [83] Complaining that there was no news about the pogroms in the foreign press, he asked Gec to keep him informed. [84] As to his reaction to the policies issued in the 1880s-1890s, this has to be read between the lines, but it does depart from the idea that the Jews form an integral part of Russian society. The Ministry of Education, under Deljanov, issued a circular in July 1887 to restrict the access of Jews to higher education with a numerus clausus. Deeply preoccupied by these developments, Solov'ev asked Gec what he could do, and proposed, within the limits of his means, to publish in Moskovskie Vedomosti, and to publish a work, -- which most probably became La Russie et l’Eglise universelle -- on Russia's political obligations, including giving full rights to the Jews. [85] This shows that he saw his work as his specific weapon against the anti-Jewish policies. More importantly, his 1890 manifesto, despite the title 'Against the anti-Semitic movement in the press', arguably also targeted the government. The precipitation and determination with which the government reacted to it are sufficiently eloquent. Quite possibly, Solov'ev hereby criticised the tendency, encouraged by Pobedonoscev, to publish documents that were critical of the Jews, such as Diminskij's report, which probably served this purpose. [86] More obviously, Solov'ev wrote the manifesto at a time when new discriminative laws with respect to the Jewish population in Russia were in preparation, notably the zemskoe polozenie. In his correspondence, he alluded to 'rumours of new rules for the Jews in Russia. [87] Solov'ev condemned the exclusively repressive measures against Jewry as a collectivity, and their 'special civil situation', and argued that the same obligations to which the Jewish subjects were submitted had to be accompanied by the same rights. He characterised that period as a 'fall of humane ideas, and weakness of the juridical principle.' In other words, together with the people who signed the manifesto, he called on the government to grant the Jews full rights. The gathering of signatures and the publication of the manifesto by Solov'ev, which targeted 'some illusory persecution of Jews in Russia', was immediately stopped by a decree issued by the Minister of the Interior, Ivan Durnovo, who, when hearing about Solov'ev's plan, personally took care to forbid the publication of any 'collective announcement concerning Jews' in the Russian press. [88] This, however, was a unique intervention. On the whole, rather than condemning current events, whether pogroms or repressive measures, or offering practical solutions to the Jewish question, Solov'ev examined the underlying misunderstandings about Jews that in his eyes were the basis of the distorted attitude of the Russian people and government towards Jews. His considerations on the socio-economic position of Jews can be interpreted as a reaction to the Provisional Rules, which precisely strove to limit their economic activity. More importantly perhaps, considering Russian society as a whole, Solov'ev greatly regretted the absence of an urban industrial class. To remedy this situation, he designated the Jews as capable of forming this social class in the future ideal society. [89] Similarly, the Jews could playa role by intensifying their contact with the peasants. These two views, which defined Jews as the possible cement of Russian society, did not take into account the existing animosity between Muscovite merchants and Jews, peasants living in the regions of the Pale of Settlement, and the Jews established there, respectively. [90] However, these considerations, upon which he unfortunately did not elaborate, strike the present-day reader as a brilliant attempt to find for the Jews a concrete place and role in Russian society. His most factual arguments can be found in 'Pis'mo V.S. Solov'eva k avtoru', in which he discusses the cliches related to the social and economic condition and activities of Jews, which portrayed them as exploiters, materialists, and criminals. He suggested a comparative analysis of the regions inhabited and not inhabited by a Jewish population. The Pale of Settlement, by concentrating the Jews on given territories, indeed made such a measure possible. However, the publications issued by the central statistics committee at the Ministry of the Interior did not contain such a comparative analysis. [91] Against the common supposition that Jews exploited the Russian peasants, were responsible for the misery in the countryside, and exalted the animosity of the Russian peasant, So\ov'ev presented counter examples, which showed not only that the latter were often better off in the Pale of Settlement than in other areas, but also that violence on the part of the impoverished peasant community did indeed occur, but in places where there were no Jews. [92] Besides, against the accusation of high criminality among Jews, Solov'ev answered that criminality occurred far more frequently in Christian communities. [93] With these facts Solov'ev strove to demonstrate the inconsistency of persistent cliches regarding the Jews. Did he try to influence the governmental policies by using his contacts with official circles? Although there is no trace of such an initiative on his part, we know that he was acquainted with influential Jews who were members of the Commission Palen, such as Nikolaj Bakst. [94] However, it is unclear whether they met as early as 1883-1888, while the Commission Palen was working on new rules concerning the Jews. Anyway, rather than concentrating on legal aspects, his chief approach to the Jewish question was the focus on the manner in which Jews were portrayed or thought of, the main expression of which he found in the press. c) Solov'ev's treatment of the Jewish question against the background of the debates In this section, I discuss Solov'ev's reaction to the various positions in public opinion indicated above. While it is difficult to evaluate his influence on the discussions, a number of reviews of his texts by people from different camps contribute to situating him within the debates of public opinion. i) The conservatives His main target was the conservative press, which overwhelmingly stigmatised the Jews. He countered this camp in three different ways. Firstly, he argued in most of his publications that Judeophobia was a 'case of the Christians accusing the Jews of their own sins.' [95] Against those who interpreted the Jewish question merely as a justified religious antagonism between Christianity and Judaism, and ascribed it to the religiosity of the Jews, he answered that it was rather the Christians who were guilty of not following the moral principles of their religion in their relationship to the Jews. [96] In this sense, he would have subscribed to the statement made by the specialist of Jewry in imperial Russia John Klier that 'modern Russian Judeophobia infected the values of Orthodox Christianity'. [97] Secondly, he considered the content of the main cliches applied to Jews to be positive attributes, not negative characteristics. [98] Against the reproach that the Jews lived in isolation, refused to mingle with the Russian population, in short, that they claimed exclusivity and individuality, Solov'ev showed that individuality was a positive factor and had allowed the development of a conception of the relationship between God and man in personal terms, as an individual relationship. Further, to those authors who ascribed the Jewish question to the materialism and cupidity of Jews, Solov'ev countered by demonstrating the positive value of an attachment to material goods for the construction of society. His argument also implicitly applied to the views of Dostoevskij, which were clearly dominated by such cliches. [99] Thirdly, against the claim of an unbridgeable gap between Christianity (Bible) and Judaism (Talmud), he offered a positive valuation of the Talmud. By doing so, Solov'ev touched a sensitive spot, since there was a long tradition among Russian Orthodoxy to stigmatise the Talmud as an anti-Christian text. In Solov'ev's eyes, this interpretation was based on misunderstanding and ignorance of the fundamental principles of the Talmud. Against the 'devices of tendentious accusers of the Talmud', for instance Aksakov and Istomin, Solov'ev undertook its apology. He first argued that Christianity has its historical roots in the best elements of the three parties present within Judaism, namely the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Esseans. Second, the moral teaching of the Talmud, based on faith and altruism, was similar to the New Testament. [100] Thirdly, against the usual criticism that the Talmud had neglected supreme ideals and was instead immersed in the study and application of rules, Solov'ev showed that Christianity was as much to blame in this respect for having fallen into the other extreme, namely by distinguishing between religious truth and real life. The Talmud's position was even stronger than that of Christianity since it had reinforced the inner unity of the community throughout the centuries. [101] Fourthly, Solov'ev demonstrated the inconsistency of German and Austrian anti-Semite scholars such as Rohling, who were popular in Russian conservative circles and tried to prove that Jewish codices contained anti-Christian slogans. On the basis of an analysis, he concluded that there were no evil laws in the Talmud. It also contained progressive ideas regarding social justice and liberalism, so that the main reproach made to Jewry as an enemy of contemporary civilisation was also inconsistent. It was absurd to expect from the Jews that they behave better than Christians. They also represented the strong and weak sides of the human kind. To summarise, the Talmud contained no rules professing hate with respect to Christians, as some German and Russian scholars claimed. Solov'ev was fiercely criticised by Istomin for his defence of the Talmud. [102] Against what he saw as Solov'ev's ambition to merge Judaism and Christianity in his theocratic ideal, he opposed Talmudic theocracy, with its exclusive privilege to the Jewish nationality and submission of other peoples, to Christian theocracy, professing universality, freedom, and brotherhood. [103] He defended Rohling against Solov'ev's criticism. [104] On the whole, contrary to Solov'ev's hopes, the Talmud could not possibly evolve, since it had not changed since the time of Kiev metropolite Illarion, whose instructions regarding Jews were still relevant. Fourthly, Solov'ev offered a critical discussion of the data provided by the conservative press in Slovo podsudimomu! He showed how conservative organs such as Novoe Vremja, Grazdanin and Nedelja contradicted each other on the information they presented. Besides, articles on Jews were not based on facts, but generalised on the basis of single examples or incidents and used a cheap psychological explanation of the Jewish character. [105] In spite of these differences, however, there were at least three points of convergence between him and the conservatives, namely the wish that Jews would convert, the critique that the Jews had rejected Jesus Christ, and the use of cliches to characterise Jewry. Firstly, he agreed with Istomin for instance, that in the long run it was desirable that the Jews adopt the Christian faith. Only the means he suggested differed radically from those that the conservatives had in mind. Secondly, he conceded that during the life of Jesus Christ, Jews had failed to subordinate the principle of nationality and materiality to the religious principle, and had not accepted individual sacrifice, or the path of the cross, towards salvation. Thirdly, he criticised the Jews' social and economic place in Russian society on the basis of cliches. For instance, he initially did not reject the fact that Jews were exploiting Russian peasants, or that they were materialistic. He also initially claimed that since Europe was governed by money, the Jews were quite logically masters in Europe. [106] As a matter of fact, he often recuperated the cliches regarding Jews, turning them into a quality in favour of his argument. By this device, he still made use of the same representations as the authors he was criticising, and was therefore perhaps closer to their position that he himself thought. In any case, he was not an unconditional Judaeophile. [107] The moderately conservative journal Russkoe Obozrenie did not mention Solov'ev. But it is perhaps not a coincidence that a publication was printed at the exact time that Solov'ev's manifesto was forbidden, reminding readers of a protest in 1858 signed by the liberal thinkers of the Reform Era, including Solov'ev's father Sergej Solov'ev, to defend the freedom of opinion of two Jewish authors. [108] Even less of a coincidence, Russkoe Obozrenie also mentioned a recent article in the Londonian The Times on the oppression of Jews in Russia, in which we could see an allusion to Solov'ev's protest and its publication in The Times. As for Solov'ev's reaction to the journal's publications, Solov'ev begged his friend the editor Certelev: 'I only ask you not to touch the people of God.' [109] The reaction to Solov'ev's views by an anonymous author in Cerkovno-obscestvennyj vestnik [Church Social Messenger] is significant in understanding the reception of Solov'ev's views on Judaism and the Jewry in church-related circles, which were on the whole conservative- minded. [110] Characteristically, and to his disadvantage, his views were compared to those of philosopher Eduard yon Hartmann. [111] Solov'ev's solution to the Jewish question as presented in 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros', that is, free theocracy, which implied that one part of the Jews would convert to Christianity, was completely unrealistic. The author further rightly argued that the union of Orthodoxy and Catholicism left aside many Protestants, Muslims and pagans living on Russian soil. [112] It also left unanswered the question of what would occur if the Jews refused to unite with Christians, and neglected practical, economic and political issues. The author clearly favoured von Hartmann's solution to the Jewish question, based on an analysis of the economic and political tasks of contemporary Jewry, and argued that a limitation of their rights was necessary, and that the Pale of Settlement was large enough for them. [113] History had shown that the Jews, despite the fact that they received the right to education, were not grateful, as their adherence to revolutionary groups showed. [114] ii) The radicals and the liberals With the liberals and the radicals, Solov'ev shared the unanimous defence of full rights for the Jews. His concurrence with the radicals stopped there however. He denounced the anti-Semitism of some prominent populists in passing. [115] Perhaps his denouncing the cliches of the Jews' materialism was also aimed at the anti-capitalistic anti-Semitism of some radicals. By arguing that the Jews represented the progressive element of Russian society, he also sought to counter the widespread view among radicals that Jewish society was a remnant of an outdated structure. His contact with liberals for his manifesto as well as for the publication of Gec's book (Cicerin and Korolenko) has been established. Interestingly, against the liberal background, Solov'ev's treatment of the Jewish question was not original in three respects. Firstly, we find in many works of the liberals a historical argumentation aimed at legitimising the value of the Jews as a people in its own right. This argumentation starts from the Bible, and accounts for the role of Jews in the history of nations. Secondly, the Jewish question is approached, though not primarily as a Christian question as in Solov'ev, but as a Russian question. Thirdly, it seems to have been a common tendency to take the widespread stigmatisation of the Jews as a starting point, and then to attempt to prove their inconsistency, neutralise them. How did the liberals welcome Solov'ev's views? The fact that some liberals supported his 1890 protest and signed his manifesto was a sign of support of his commitment to improve the life conditions of the Jews. [116] Solov'ev's approach diverges from the liberals', however, by virtue of his religious perspective. The liberals eliminated the religious component of Jewry and the 'spiritual significance' of Judaism 'by portraying it as a legalistic, particularistic or merely political religion.' [117] In this respect, Solov'ev's reflection on the Jewish question and positive appreciation of the Judaic religion as a central feature of Jewry may have been a voluntary reaction to the liberals' unreligious approach. Lack of interest in Solov'ev's model of free theocracy as a solution to the Jewish question in Russia was understandable on the part of people primarily concerned with the political, legal and economic aspects of the issue. An example of this attitude is a review of 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros' published in the liberal-populist journal Russkaja Mysl'. [118] According to this review, Solov'ev occupied a peculiar place in Russian literature by virtue of his 'intelligence, talent and knowledge', despite his lack of scientific method. [119] Regarding the Jewish question, he deplorably developed the strange idea of theocracy, a 'completely useless case', which led him to produce a 'religious-philosophical phantasmagoria.' [120] Russkaja Mysl' did agree one year later to publish Solov'ev's essay on the Talmud, and its editor Gol'cev signed Solov'ev's petition. These factors show that the journal was nevertheless disposed to support Solov'ev's defence of the Jewry. iii) The progressive religious thinkers Solov'ev shared with Nikanor and Tolstoj an approach and concern for ethical principles grounded on religious faith. lie referred explicitly to Nikanor as having inspired him to write his major essay 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros.' The bishop had brilliantly succeeded in demonstrating 'the unity of Judaism and Christianity [...] on the real basis of a spiritual and natural kinship and positive religious interests.' [121] Solov'ev was glad to find support for his views in Nikanor's thought and wished to complement it. As a matter of fact, the bishop's claim of a continuity between the two confessions found a remarkable echo in Solov'ev's works. Both thinkers were also characterised by a comparative approach, and did not hesitate to use it to voice criticism regarding their own society: Solov'ev followed Nikanor when claiming that in Jesus Christ's time, the Pharisees, despite the negative connotation of the word, were far more virtuous than the Russians in his days. [122] Solov'ev also shared with Nikanor the view that the integrating power of Christianity would sooner or later make the Jews turn to Christianity. However, Solov'ev went further and emphasised specific features of Judaism, which indicated that Jews would have a major role to play in future free theocracy. In this respect, his emphasis on prophecy and consistent integration into his worldview is perhaps his most original contribution to the debates on the Jewish question. With Tolstoj, Solov'ev shared practical commitment. He convinced Tolstoj to take part in his manifesto, which undoubtedly was Solov'ev's most militant reaction to anti-Semitism in the press and in measures taken by the government. Correspondence between the two authors allows us to gain an insight in Solov'ev's initiative. When he asked the writer if he would write the text of the manifesto, Tolstoj answered that ifSolov'ev did that, he would certainly express Tolstoj's own 'thought and feelings, because the basis of our disgust [otvrascenie] from the measures of oppression of the Jewish nationality is one and the same: the awareness of a brotherly bond with all the peoples, and all the more with the Jews among whom Jesus Christ was born.' [123] Tolstoj actually delegated this task to Solov'ev because 'there are many topics which preoccupy me [Tolstoj, MC] more than this one, and therefore I could not write anything on this topic which would touch [tronulo] people.' [124] Solov'ev therefore wrote the manifesto, and Tolstoj added his signature. The fact that both saw Judaism as the predecessor of Christianity, had learnt Hebrew, and admired the Jews' application of moral principles in daily life, might also have prompted them to exchange lively discussions, of which, however, there is no trace. On the whole, Tolstoj's aversion, voiced in the 1880s, for many aspects of Judaism and contemporary Jewry probably did not make him a sympathetic partner of discussion for Solov'ev. By contrast, Solov'ev was far more deeply and permanently concerned with the destiny of the Jews in Russia. To summarise, Solov'ev struggled against reductionist and pejorative views of Jews and Judaism that were central in the conservative press. His political claim was most akin to that of the liberals, whereas his approach was similar to that of the progressive religious thinkers. His historical approach, his appeal for full rights for Jews, and his denouncing the inconsistency of cliches about Jews were not original. Solov'ev's contribution lies elsewhere. It consists, firstly, in defining the Jewish question not as a problem of the Jews, but of the Christians. Secondly, in being one of the very few to take risks to initiate a pamphlet to defend his views. Thirdly, in bringing to the fore the aspects of prophecy, prophet, and a positive valuation of theocracy as an answer to the situation of modern times in Russia. As for the various reactions to his treatment of the Jewish question, they show that his theocratic plans were judged to be unrealistic by both a conservative and a progressive author. His denouncement of anti-Semitism found support in liberals and was forbidden by the (conservative) authorities. Finally, his apology of the Talmud was published in the liberal-populist press, whereas it was fiercely rejected by a conservative journal. He therefore found support if not affinity with the liberals, and was the target of a many- fold critique from the conservatives. In the following subsection I attempt to situate his interventions with respect to the group in question, namely the Jews in Russia. iv) The Russian-Jewish press Three major aspects have to be examined finally, namely Solov'ev's contact with the Russian Jewish community, the reception of his treatment of the Jewish question in the Russian-Jewish press, and finally a confrontation of his views with their major debates. In sharp contrast with the religious minorities dealt with in the case-studies, namely the Poles and the Old Believers, Solov'ev had firm contacts with the group concerned. Here, his friendship with Gec from 1879 onwards stands out. Gec was his Hebrew teacher, and they maintained regular correspondence. [125] In addition, Solov'ev actively met with other Russian assimilated Jews such as the St. Petersburg banker and maecenas Goracij Gincburg, with whom he was friends, his son David Gincburg, who possessed one of the largest collection of Jewish manuscripts, Nikolaj Bakst and Ljubov' Gurevic. [126] He also was an honorary member of the 'Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment among the Jews', which Gincburg directed, and which published his essay 'Kogda zili evrejskie proroki?' [127] According to Gec, Solov'ev also read Jewish journals and literature. [128] However, his interest seems to have focused on the Hebrew Scripture, the Talmud, and the Kabbalah. We have no data concerning Solov'ev's potential knowledge of 19th century Jewish thought. [129] When he referred to Jewish thinkers, it was not specifically for their belonging to Judaism, but rather for their contribution to philosophy (Spinoza, Maimon). [130] Surprisingly, he did not write a single line on the famous medieval theologian Maimonides (1135-1204). These factors show that his interest for Judaism was limited to the Ancient and early Christian period. Solov'ev's distance can be noted also with respect to contemporary Jewish debates, in whose discussions on the Talmud, for instance, he did not get involved. Besides, his commitment had limits: he refused to take part in a future committee for the organization of the Jewish emigration. [131] Solov'ev's interventions for the improvement of the Jewish condition generated a vivid reaction in the Russian-Jewish press. [132] At the time of his death, he was mourned as an important figure, and was the object of a commemorative speech by the rabbi of Kiev and by N.1. Bakst and M.I. Kuliser. [133] Moreover, the president of the 'Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment among the Jews' proposed that a portrait of Solov'ev be hung up in Society's library and that a scholarship for students be created in his memory. [134] In the early 20th century, Russian Jewish editors republished his texts on the Jewish question and Judaism. [135] A whole body of literature appeared on his contributions to these issues. [136] Also M.G. Morgulis, a famous Russian Jewish publicist of his time, mentioned Solov'ev as one of the few eminent minds that had reflected thoroughly on the Jewish question. [137] Against the background of the debates in the Russian-Jewish press, two major aspects must be emphasised. Solov'ev's repeated statements about the Jews as people chosen by God, and that, more rarely expressed, but nonetheless highly original, about their possible role as the unifying element of Russian society, testified to his wish that Jews be a central component of Russian society, and were most likely to meet with the agreement of the Jewish moderate camps. However, the fact that he spoke neither about emigration, which he refused to support as a solution, nor about Zionism, which obviously did not enter into his vision of the future, did not make him an all-round discussion partner for Russian Jews. Besides, no elements have been found that point to discussions on the Talmud with Russian Jewish circles. He did not publish in their organs, as did for instance Stasov (Evrejskaja Biblioteka). Finally, the absence of any treatment or even reference from his part to the trial which shook the international (Jewish) community, namely the Dreyfus affair, reinforces the impression that Solov'ev was in fact exclusively preoccupied with the destiny of the Jews in Russia. [138] In connection with Zionism, a pal1icularly delicate question, at least for the Jews if not for Solov'ev, was that of the link between nation and territory. He knew about Zionism, but was not in contact with these people. [139] Did Jews have a right to their own national territory? Solov'ev kept saying that Jews were a nation in their own right, and even the nation par excellence. On the other hand, he eluded the question as to whether a nation could live without a territory. Arguably, for Solov'ev, the Jews had a historical mission for which they did not need a territory, and it was a sign of God that they had ended up in Russia. These factors strongly suggest that Solov'ev essentially addressed the Christian community, not the Jewish one. [140] d) Theology of history, philosophy of history and sophiology of history Solov'ev held that the Jews formed the 'axis of world history.' [141] This statement is symptomatic of his treatment of the Jewish question, in which he sought to value the dynamics between the long-term historical scheme (from 1000 BC until the end of the 19th century) and recent developments in his own country regarding the Jews. He developed this view in all three registers that I distinguish. This is perhaps the case in which the three registers come closest together, up to the point of actually merging. The theological character of history, which is determined by a qualitative difference and a line of dependence between the transcendent God and man, in this case the Jews, is central in so far as it organises the whole framework within which Solov'ev reflected on the Jews. The Old Testament provides historical information on this people: [142] in Ancient times, the Jews were elected as the people of God, and brought forth Jesus Christ. In the present time, God had placed them within the Russian empire. In Solov'ev's eyes, these two factors were decisive in allowing the conception of a further role for the Jews in the future. As a matter of fact, the Jews did remain the people chosen by God. Why? First, God's choice, as such, had to be respected. Further, the Jews continued living according to their religious principles and their life was entirely organised by the observance of the moral rules and rites of their religion. This permeation of religion in daily life had Solov'ev's profound sympathy. In contrast with the official Russian attitude, the Jews were in fact doing better than the Christians. The fact that their life had always been and still was dominated by religion had also strengthened the unity of the Jewish nation. Life organised by religious principles and unity: in these two characteristics of the Jews Solov'ev recognised his own ideal. It would be an illusion to expect the Jews to convert to Christianity now, given the latter's present, lamentable, state, as well as the persecutions that Jews had endured and still were enduring from pseudo-Christian states, Russia in particular. This explains Solov'ev's growing concern about the implications of the Russian anti-Christian attitude towards the Jews. Finally, Solov'ev found in Judaic thought fundamental theological categories: theocracy, prophecy, and messianism. As we shall see, he sought to reinvest these categories with new content, to mould them into his own, not only theological, but also philosophical and sophiological worldview. Solov'ev's fascination for the Jewry was thus echoed in his philosophical conception of history. The Jews had existed since the beginning of history and were not only the oldest nation in the world, but also the truly historical nation and the inventors of the notion of nationhood as an integrating force. [143] Herewith Solov'ev interpreted their sense of nation and Jewish particularity as a morally positive attitude. He emphasised the positive aspects of the Jewry in his time as a community perfectly adapted to modern society, and even more, as its fleuron: he indeed viewed the Jewish intelligentsia as the best part of the educated class. [144] Moreover, not only was the Jewry a modern nation, but it was also precisely with respect to the Jewish question that one could question whether the Russian state was able to behave in an enlightened and progressive manner. In this sense, the Jewish question was a test case for Russia as a modern historical nation. The combination of the theological and the philosophical registers applied to the Jews provokes a tension in Solov'ev's discourse. For instance, if, according to the category of historical nation [philosophy of history], Jewry had already played its role by paving the ground for the coming of Jesus Christ, how could it still qualify for a mission in the future, by virtue of being God's elected people [theology of history]? [145] This tension is not solved. Sophiology of history is also present in Solov'ev's exhortations to Russian society to integrate the Jews within it. Especially his original claim that the Jews were able to playa unifying role as urban middleclass testifies to his concern with the cohesion of Russian society. We also find sophiological elements in Solov'ev's texts on Judaism, notably in his valuation of the Kabbalah. He admired this corpus of Jewish mysticism for its ability to conceive of the world not in dualistic terms, but primarily as a process. Also, the Kabbalistic view that God possessed a feminine Other, Shekhinah, fascinated him, the recipient of Sophia's message. However, it is striking to note that Solov'ev never mentioned his knowledge of Kabbalah when dealing with the Jewish question and matters related to Judaism. Although this might be ascribed to the influence of Gec, who was resolutely opposed to mystical Judaism, a more convincing explanation is that he saw in the Kabbalah not a specifically Jewish view, but a universal heritage. [146] This suggests that his whole approach to Judaism bears an instrumental character. I tend to think that Solov'ev was searching in Judaism for solutions to the problems of conceiving a Christian historical mission in connection with the expectation of Redemption (messianism), establishing a Christian society on earth (theocracy), and last but not least, conceiving of a role for himself in society that took into account his privileged contact with God and Sophia (prophecy). In Judaism Solov'ev found messianism, theocracy and prophecy, which he remoulded according to his own agenda, and which he reformulated as Russian universal messianism, free theocracy and social prophecy. It is, however, beyond the purpose of this study to confront Solov'ev's considerations with the complex and manifold tradition of Jewish thought on messianism, theocracy, and prophecy. [147] In addition, the issue of the Judaic sources Solov'ev read, and how he interpreted them belongs to specialists of Judaism. It seems that he blended Judaic messianic thought with the 19th century philosophical- historical conception of the historic mission of a nation, and applied this to the Russian empire, on whose soil Christian society had to be realised. [148] The sophiological stamp can be seen in the fact that, in the background of the philosopher's commitment, there is the permanent question of the parallel between the Jewish and Russian messianic destinies. [149] Could Russia play the role of the modern nation chosen to realise universal Christianity? A way to integrate its predecessor, Jewry, was to give it a role in the future regime of free theocracy. Without ever referring to the 1st century Jewish writer Flavius Josephus, who coined the term theocracy, he directly borrowed the latter's interpretation of the term, which had become widespread since the 16th century, as the specificity of the Jewish community in contrast with other political regimes. [150] Of theocracy he made free theocracy, to which the Jews would contribute in practical terms by implementing materiality according to religious principles or holy corporeality, which I have identified as a typically sophiological motive. [151] Finally, the category of prophecy received a Solov'evian touch in two respects. Firstly by rooting it in the complex situation of late 19th century Russia when public opinion was developing. without yet having the right to playa role in the decision-making of the government. Was his understanding of prophecy his own solution to this problem? He sought to ground the prophet's role on a simultaneously practical, immanent (PH) and ideal, transcendent (TH) basis by virtue of his connection with Sophia (SH). How Solov'ev reflected on the status of prophet and his interaction with society is shown by the fact that, in his eyes, the ideal principles were given by the Judaic prophets in three ways: they 'anticipated [predvarili] the kingdom of truth', they 'denounced and judged the real state of their people as contrary to this ideal and predicted [predskazyvali] national catastrophes as a necessary consequence of this contradiction'; and 'through their very presence and their activity they indicated in advance [predukazyvali] the solution of this contradiction in a near future, precisely through the acknowledgement by the people of this higher consciousness and their submission to it.' [152] Even though, in contrast with the Jewish model of prophecy, he in no sense received full acknowledgement from the group he was supposed to guide, namely Russian educated society, Solov'ev fulfilled these three functions (anticipating, judging and indicating in advance) with zeal during his whole career as a publicist. Also characteristic was his determination not only to stand up for the Jews as the prophetic people, but also to act in a prophetic way himself with respect to the future reconciliation between Jews and Christians. As this case study has shown, Solov'ev's commitment was unique in four respects. Firstly, he provoked his fellow believers with the claim that the roots of the Jewish question lay in the Christian rather than in the Jewish way of life and values. Secondly, his manifesto courageously targeted the anti-Semitic press and the government's repressive policy, Thirdly, he became an expert on Biblical and Talmudic Judaism, which he integrated into his treatment of the Jewish question, and as a specialist discussed recent foreign publications on Judaism. Fourthly, he integrated the Judaic concepts of messianism, theocracy and prophecy and reformulated them within his own worldview. That his underlying preoccupation was to unravel the roots of Christianity and to profess its duty in the immediate future is now obvious. In this respect, his three-fold conception of history served as a basis for the claim that the Jews were 'the axis of world history.' To what extent did Solov'ev's theocratic design answer the Jewish question as it was posed in Russia the 1880s? At that time, it was a set of political, social, economic, religious an cultural issues, involving acute polemical points such as the Pale of Settlement, juridical rights, access to education, cliches regarding the Jewish mentality, etc. On the one hand, Solov'ev tried to answer what seemed to him the principal question behind all the above: tolerance, freedom, equality as Christian moral duties, as well as, even though in passing, the question of an economical and social role for the Jews in Russia. On the other hand, he used the Judaic heritage and the historical fact of the Jewry living in Russia to promote his own agenda of Russian universal messianism and free theocracy, and to ground his own position as a prophet on a solid conceptual basis. However, Solov'ev did not stick to this theocratic ideal throughout his life. His view of the Russian mission narrowed from universal free theocracy to merely civil rights. With the decline of his faith in the feasibility of theocracy, he began to demand from the Russian government simply that it treat its religious minorities with the respect they deserved. His scholarly approach shows that, rather than examining the Biblical, Talmudic, and Kabbalistic sources for a historical analysis of the concepts of theocracy, messianism, and prophecy, Solov'ev 'bent', as it were, his discoveries in these corpuses of texts into his own view. In this respect, one could doubt whether, despite all his respect for and affinity with the Jewish community, he took their concerns for their own sake. In the end, his treatment of the Jewish question was instrumental and he integrated some aspects of it into his own agenda. The following case study shows how in connecting the Polish question with his project of free theocracy, he included not only Jewry, but also another stateless entity, Poland, in the category of historical nations. _______________ Notes: 1. 'I ne darom Providenie vodvorilo v nasem otecestve samuju bol'suju i samuju krepkuju cast' evrejstva' ('Pis'mo V.S. Solov'eva k avtoru', in: Fajvel' Gec, Slovo podsudimomu' (Sankt-Peterburg: Novosti, 1891), p. xxvii). 2. The expression 'Jewish question' had become widespread, notably with the polemic of Karl Marx with Bauer [Judenfrage] in the 1840s. In the Russian context, it gained acuteness and significance due to the vast size of the Jewish population within the empire, making them the most important Jewish community in the world. 3. A.I. Solzenicyn, Dvesti let vmeste (1795-1995), 2 vols. (Moskva: Russkij put', 2001- 2002). On the relevance of the issue for Russian public opinion nowadays, see also for instance, Sergej Lezov, "'Evrejskij vopros" v russkoj intellektual'noj zizni (1985-1995)', Znamja, 1996, 9, pp. 182-187. Worth mentioning is the reprint of Semen Dubnov et al. (eds.), Evrejskaja Enciklopedija: svod znanij o evrejstve i ego kul 'ture v proslom i v naslojascem, 16 vols., Reprintnoe vosproizvedenie izdanija obscestva dlja naucnykh Evrejskikh izdanij i Izdatel'stva Brokgauz-Efron (Moskva: Terra, 1991). 4. Z.A. Krakhmal'nikova (ed.), Russkaja ideja i evrei: Rokovyj spor: Khristianstvo, antisemitizm, nacionalizm: Shornik statej (Moskva: Nauka, 1994), pp. 16-61. 5. Fajvel' Gec, 'Nekotorye vospominanij ob otnosenii V.S. Solov'eva k evrejam', Voskhod, 1900, 63, pp. 30-35; 79, pp. 18-25. 'Ob otnosenii Vl. S. Solov'eva k evrejskomu voprosu', Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 1901, 56, pp. 159-198. 6. Ludolf Muller, 'Vladimir Solovjev und das Judentum', in: Muller 1951, pp. 125-131; Bernard Dupuy, 'Les Juifs, l'histoire et la fin des temps scion Vladimir Soloviev' (1st publ. 1992), in: de Guibert 1994, pp. 108-141. esp. pp. 120-141; A. Patrasnikov, 'Vladimir Solov'ev o evrejakh', Golos zarubez'ja 3 (Munchen, 1976), pp. 26-35; Jean Halperin, 'Vladimir Solovev a l'ccoute d'Israel: la question chretienne', in: de Guibert 1994, pp. 95- 07: Judith Deutsch Kornblatt, 'Vladimir Solov'ev on Spiritual Nationhood, Russia and the Jews', in Russian Review 56 (1997), 2, pp. 157-177; Evert van der Zweerde, 'Vladimir Solovyov and the Russian-Christian .Jewish question', Journal of Eastern Christian Studies (forthcoming in 2004). 7. Walter G. Moss, 'Vladimir Soloviev and the Jews in Russia', Russian Review 29 (1970), 2, pp. 181-191; V.P. Babincev, Evrejskij vopros' v social'no-filosofskoj mysli rossijskoj imperii (XIX-nacala XX v.) (PhD thesis Belgorod, 1999); Judith Deutsch Kornblatt and Gary Rosenshield, 'Vladimir Solovyov: Confronting Dostoevsky on the Jewish and Christian Questions', Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68 (2000), 1. pp. 69- 98; Hamutal Bar-Yosef: 'The Jewish Reception of Vladimir Solov'ev', in: van den Bercken et al. 2000, pp. 363-392. 8. Kornblatt 1997, p. 158. 9. Important analyses of the governmental attitude to the Jews and of popular anti- Semitism in late imperial Russia have been made over the past decades. I base this survey on three central contributions, which are: Heinz-Dietrich Lowe, Antisemitismus und reaktionare Utopie: Russischer Konservatismus im Kampf gegen den Wandel von Staat und Gesellschaft, 1890-1917 (Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe, 1978); Hans Rogger, Jewish Policies and Right-Wing Politics in Imperial Russia (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986): John Doyle Klier, Imperial Russia's Jewish Question, 1855-1881 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 10. Rogger 1986, p. 18; Lowe 1978. pp. 14-15. On the role of the university as a place of contact between Russians and Jews. see Benjamin Nathans, Beyond the Pale: The Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. 2002), pp. 201-256. 11. Donald W. Treadgold, 'Russian Orthodoxy and Society', in: Robert L. Nichols and Teofanis George Stavrou (eds.), Russian Orthodoxy under the Old Regime (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1978). pp. 21-43: p. 35). 12. After these pogroms, which formed the most severe and extended wave of violence. other pogroms happened recurrently up to the pogrom in Kisinev in 1903. Whether the pogroms were planned and by whom remains unclear. Recent research has questioned the thesis that the pogroms had been planned (see for instance I. Michel Aronson, Troubled Waters: The Origins of the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 1990). Edward H. Judge, Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom (New York: New York University Press, 1992). 13. From 1881-1882 onwards, between 50,000 and 60,000 Jews left the country each year. In 1891, after the expulsion of Jewish craftsmen from Moscow, 110,000 emigrated, and in 1892, 137,000 (Michel Heller, Histoire de la Russie et de son empire (Paris: Flammarion, 1999). p. 847). Emigration can also be understood without the context of the threat of the pogroms. Over 50,0000 Jews had emigrated to the United States in the 1870s (Jonathan Frankel, Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, 1862-1917 (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 50). As for conversions to Christianity, they remained a marginal phenomenon, ranging namely from 500 to 1000 a year (Rogger 1986, p. 35). 14. Jurij Gessen, Istorija evrejskogo naroda v Rossii, 2 vols. (Leningrad: 1927), p. 227. The Provisional Rules aimed at 'limiting the access for Jews to the villages in order to weaken their economic influence on the life of the peasants' and forbade Jews from then on from settling in villages, acquiring real estate outside cities and towns and from exploiting land ('Vremennye pravila 3 maja 1882 goda', Evrejskaja Enciklopedija 5, col. 815-822: col. 815). 15. Ibid., col. 820-822; Gessen 1927, p. 228. The full name of the commission, which was named after its president, count K. Palen, was 'Supreme Commission far the Revision of Laws Concerning the Jews' [Vyssaja kommisija dlja peresmotrara zakonov o evrejakh]. On the Jewish members of the commission (Goracij Gincburg. Nikolaj Bakst), see Gessen 1927, p. 227: Viktor Kel'ner, 'Evrejskij vopros i russkaja intelligencija v konce XIX-nac. XX v.', unpublished paper given at the 6th World congress for Central and East European Studies. Tampere. August 2000; on Bakst, see Solzenicyn 2001, p. 208. 16. The numerus clausus was 1% within the Pale of Settlement, 5% in other provinces. and 3% in Moscow and St. Petersburg (Riasanovsky 1993, p. 397). 17. A special commission chaired by senator and assistant minister V.K. Pleve tried to implement new measures to limit the juridical position of Jews (Rogger 1986, pp. 69-70). On the expulsions, see 'Aleksandr III'. Evrejskaja Enciklopedija I. col. 825-839: col. 838: Gessen 1927, p. 232. 18. Rogger 1986, pp. 66-68. 19. This was the case in France, Germany England, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and the United States (John Kent, 'Religion and Science', in: Ninian Smart, John Clayton, Steven Katz and Patrick Sherry (eds.), Nineteenth Century Religious Thought in the West, vol. 3 (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 1-35: p. 12; Rogger 1986, p. 3). 20. Rogger 1986, pp. 26-28. 21. The sources of information for this section are newspaper and journal materials, collections of publications (mainly: Russkie ljudy o evrejakh (Sankt-Peterburg: tip.-lit. A.M. Vol'f, 1891)), entries from Evrejskaja Enciklopedija, and secondary literature (Frankel 1981, Lowe 1978, Solzenicyn 2001). 22. The distinction between Judeophobia and anti-Semitism may seem irrelevant for the present-day reader. However, one should be cautious in the use of these terms. First. since 1945 we cannot speak of 'anti-Semitism' without that the term be loaded by the terrifying reference to the Holocaust -- a reference which was absent at the end of the 19th century. Second. in the Russian context. there was a distinction between 'domestic Judeophobia' and 'foreign anti-Semitism'. The latter, which developed theoretical constructs about the Talmud. the identification of Jewry as a conspiring or even satanic force. was imported mainly by such conservatives as Ivan Aksakov, Fedor Dostoevskij. Konstantin Pobedonoscev, Vladimir Mescerskij (1839-1914) and Nikolaj Golicyn (1836-1893) from German debates and politics towards the end of the 1870s, and amalgamated with the former (Klier 1995, pp. 407-416; Klier 1999, p. 30). 23. Lowe 1978, p. 27. 24. Rogger 1986, p. 37; Babincev 1999, pp. 62-65. 25. John Klier, 'Traditional Russian Religious Antisemitism: A Useful Concept or a Barrier to Understanding?', The Jewish Quarterly 29 (1999), pp. 29-34: p. 30. 26. In Germany, renewed scholarly interest in Judaism occurred as a consequence of the civil emancipation with authors such as Franz Delitsch and his polemic with overtly anti- semitic writers such as Rohling and Justus. (R.E. Clemens, 'The Study of the Old Testament', in: Smart et al. 1985, pp. 109-142: p. 133). Rohling and the essays of Eduard von Hartmann, which were very hostile toward the Jews, were translated into Russian, the latter by Novoe Vremja (Russkaja Mysl', 1885, 4, p. 13; Stojanov, 'Obrazovannye evrei v svoikh otnosenijakh k khristianstvu', Vera i razum, 1886, 1. pp. 35-72: p. 67). In Germany, the theoretical works on races of Henrich von Treitschke and Eugen During in the 1870s were also influential on the representation of Jews (Klier 1995, p. 411). In France, a rather political anti-Jewish discourse dominated, with Ernest Renan who was the first to connect race theory with anti-Judaism (Histoire du peuple d'Israel (1858), 'Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?' (1882)), followed by Edouard Drumont (La France juive (1886). and of course the well-known Dreyfus trial (1894-1906). 27. On Aleksej Suvorin (1834-1912), see Solzenicyn 2001, p. 31; the entry 'Antisemitizm v Rossii', Evrejskaja Enciklopedija 1, col. 740; E. Dinerstejn, 'A.S. Suvorin i "evrejskij vopros"', Vestnik Evrejskogo Universiteta v Moskve, 1992, 1, pp. 57-74. Quotation from Aksakov in: Moss 1968, p. 130. 28. Ibid., p. 184 [Konstantin Istomin, 1848-1914]. 29. Ibid., p. 184. Istomin devoted a whole publication to a condemnation of the apology of the Talmud by the Russian Jew Priluker (T. Stojanov, 'Obrazovannye evrei v svoikh otnosenijakh k khristianstvu', Vera i razum 1885, 21, pp. 625-645; 22, pp. 694-723; 1886, 1, pp. 35-72). His fierce criticism of the Talmud was exposed in 'Sovremennaja apologija Talmuda i talmudistov', Vera i razum 1888, 14, pp. 79-110: 15, pp. 158-188. In this publication, the second part aimed specifically at Solov'ev. Aksakov had expressed himself against a rapprochement between Christians and Jews as early as the 1860s, arguing that the essence of Judaism, which was presented in the Talmud, was a fundamental negation of Christianity (Lukashevich 1965, pp. 97-101). 30. About these views in the journal of Dmitrij Certelev (1852-1911) Russkoe Obozrenie, 1890, [46] November, p. 403: Ibid., 1890, 3. p. 859. The account about the journal of Mikhail Katkov (1818-1887) is based on the extracts selected in the collection Russkie ljudy o evrejakh (pp. 232-234, 237, 246), which unfortunately does not give the names of the authors. 31. See for instance Russkie ljudi o evrejakh, p. 292. Matvej Stasjulevic (1826-1911) was later the editor of Vestnik Evropy, where writers such as Nikolaj Leskov and Vladimir Korolenko published literary short stories to portray the living conditions of the Jews and awaken the readers' sense of justice. Mikhail Saltykov-Scedrin's (1826-1889) article 'ljul'skoe vejanie' (Otecestvennye zapiski, 1882, 8, signed M.S.) provoked the disapprobation of conservative circles (for a lengthy extract of his article 'ljul'skoe vejanie', see Russkie ljudy o evrejakh, pp. 168- 174); 'Scedrin. N. (Saltykov, Mikhail Evgrafovic), Evrejskaja Enciklopedija 16, col. 141-143. However, it was only at the end of the 1870s that the liberals moved from Judaeophobia to sympathy toward Jews, as John Doyle Klier has convincingly shown (Klier 1995, pp. 370-383). 32. Nikolaj Gradovskij (1829-1907) wrote notably Torgovljo i drugie prava evreev v Rossii v istoriceskom khode :zakonodatel 'nykh mer (1886) and Otnosenija k evrejam v drevnej i sovremennoj Rusi: Motivy istoriko-naciunal 'nye: s tocki zrenija russko-pravoslavnoj (1891). He also was one of the very few Russians, next to V. Stasov and D. Mordovcev) who published, though anonymously, in the Russian-Jewish journal Voskhod (in 1889, signing 'Russkij' ('Gradovskij, Nikolaj Dmitrievic', Evrejskaja Enciklopedija 6, col. 754- 755; Solzenicyn 2001, p. 198). Andrej Subbotin (1852-1906) offered vivid descriptions of the life of Jews in the Pale as well as statistics, published in Ekonomiceskij Zurnal in 1887 ('Subbotin, Andrej Pavlovic', Evrejskaja enciklopedija 14, col. 599-600). 33. In the 1880s, Nikanor [Aleksandr Brovkovic, 1826-1890] was bishop of Kherson and Odessa, a region where outbursts of anti-Semitism and pogroms took place. See Besedy i poucenija Nikanora, episkopa Khersonskogo i Odesskogo, 2nd ed. (Odessa: n.p., 1887), vol. 4; Russkie ljudy o evrejakh, pp. 55-68. The attitude of Lev Tolstoj towards the Jews was positive only in the I890s. About Tolstoj's ambiguous and conflicting relationship to Judaism and the Jewish people, see Harold K. Schefski, 'Toistoi and the Jews', Russian Review 41 (1982), 1, pp. 1-10). For an exclusively positive account or his position, see entry 'Tolstoj, Lev Nikolaevic', Valentin Speranskij, Evrejskaja Enciklopedija 14, col. 903- 905. Gec published excerpts from Tolstoj's correspondence with him (Gec 1891, pp. vii-xiv). 34. This comment on the Russian Orthodox Church is offered in Klier 1995, p. 455. 35. Nikanor confronted Russians with the question 'whether our Christian world has not fallen lower than the Judaic world of the time of Jesus Christ' (Russkie ljudy o evrejakh, p. 57). Tolstoj perceived the Jews' application of the moral teaching in daily life as superior to the attitude of the Christians in his days ('Otkryvki iz pisem grara L.N. Tolstogo k avtoru', in Gec 1891, p. vii) 36. Nikanor: Russkie ljudy o evrejakh, pp. 57-60; 'Poucenie', Pravoslavnoe Obozrenie, maj-ijun' 1884. pp. 3-17: p. 5. Solov'ev referred to this publication [see section 2c], Tolstoj: in Gec 1891, pp. viii-xii. 37. X 38. X 39. X 40. X 41. X 42. X 43. Solov'ev was befriended with both of them. The brightest example to promote Jewish culture in Russian was the ten-volume Evrejskaja Biblioteka. Defenders of moderate assimilation such as M. Morgulis, Nikolaj Bakst, or Leontij Bramson -- with whom Solov'ev was acquainted -- also regularly published in Russian journals, such as Vestnik Evropy, Russkaja Mysl', Moskovskie Vedomosti (Solzenicyn 2001, p. 313). 44. For an account of the Jews' participation in revolutionary movements from the 1860s to the beginning of the 20th century, see Frankel 1981, pp. 5-328. 45. Ibid., pp. 171-257. 46. Pokrovskij quoted in Solzenicyn 2001, p. 237. 47. For an account of these tendencies, except the revolutionary one, within the Russian Jewish community, see: I. Socis, 'Period krizisa: Obscestvennye tecenija v literature 80-kh godov', Evrejskaja Starina, 1916, 1, pp. 46-60. 48. 'Periodiceskaja pecat'', Evrejskaja Enciklopedija 12, esp. col. 436-8. For an analysis of the emergence of Zionism in Russia, see: Ilse (Judith) Yago-Jung, Die nationale Frage in der judischen Arbeiterbewegung i Russland, Polen und Palastina bis 1929 (PhD thesis Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitat, 1976), pp. 222-251. 49. His views on the Kabbalah have been analysed in Part One. chap. IV 'Solov'ev's Sophiology or History.' 50. I share this valuation with Kornblatt 1997, and would like to add that his interest did not appear before 1881, for instance, the Jews play no significant role in his historical survey in Filosofskie nacala cel'nogo znanija (1877). 51. Solov'ev indicated the title, or at least the subject, in the next publication (S. 1989 1, p. 209, n. 2). I base myself on the review published in Russkij Evrej for the content of the lecture (See the small report in Russkij Evrej 1882, 8, p. 301, and a full account in Ibid., 1882, 9, p. 344-346). 52. 'Tret’ja rec' v pamjat' Dostoevskogo', Rus '. 1883, 6. Edition used: S. 1988 2, pp. 307-318: pp. 316-318. 53. 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros', Pravoslavnoe Obozrenie 1884, 8-9. The same year the essay was published as a separate brochure. Edition used: S. 1989 1, pp. 206-256. 54. About the Jews' individuality, he repeated views expressed in earlier works, such as Ctenija o Bogocelovecestve, on the Jews' contribution to universal history through their idea of individuality in the relationship between God and man. 55. Solov'ev's understanding of theocracy is broached in Part One, chap. II 'Solov'ev's Theology or History'. 56. 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros', p. 227. 57. Novozavetnyj Izrail", Rus', 1885, 24-25. Edition used: S. 1989 2. pp. 189-202: p. 202. It remains unclear how exactly Solov'ev published this piece in the journal or Ivan Aksakov (who was known for his hostility to the Jews), except by pointing to their kinship of views on other issues. One can assume that they avoided an explicit discussion or their views on the Jewish question. 58. He quoted from a private conversation with Rabinovic, from his latest sermon, translated from Hebrew, and from his credo, which included a declaration of belief in Jesus Christ the Messiah and in the apostolic church. 59. 'Talmud i novejsaja polemiceskaja literatura o nem v Avstrii i Germanii', Russkaja Mysl', 1886, 8. Edition used: SS. 6, pp. 2-32. Solov'ev initially intended to publish it in Vestnik Evropy, but its editor Stasjulevic refused because the article would not pass religious censorship (Pis'ma 2, p. 138). Gec undertook to translate it into German and publish it abroad (Ibid., p. 141). Whether he published it is unknown. Hearing about the success of his article (through an editor or through the public, this remains unclear), Solov'ev only recommended his friend to be cautious with every publication of his own hand, given the persecution he was enduring by the censorship committees (Ibid., p. 142). 60. Numerous Hebrew terms, explained in footnotes, as well as the long quotations and paraphrases or passages of the Talmud, confirmed his knowledge, and put him in the role of translator of the Jewish tradition for Christians. 61. A tactic which is quite unusual for Solov'ev, was to put this exhortation first into a Jew's mouth, and secondly to conclude with his own words. 62. Pis'ma 2, pp. 135, 144. 63. About this work Solov'ev wrote that it was 'almost completely filled by Jewry [napaolnen evrejstvom]' (Pis 'ma 2, p. 148). 64. With David the King ordering Zadok the Priest and Nathan the Prophet together to consecrate Solomon. passage to a universal theocracy. Nevertheless the Jews kept their national character (Istorija i buduscnost' teokratii, pp. 547-549). 65. Kornblatt 1997, p. 169. These arguments were: humanity connected to spiritual and material worlds; humanity is good, fall is in deed, not in essence. Judaism as the origin of Bogocelovecestvo, and the reconciling power of the prophet (Ibid.). At about the same time. Solov'ev planned to publish an essay on Moses' law entitled 'O zakonodatel'stve Moiseevom', which for unknown reasons was censored (letter to Aleksandr Kireev, Pis 'ma 2, p. 130). 66. On Solov'ev's repeated question what he could do in favour of the Jews, Gec asked Solov'ev to publish a piece on the .Jewish question for the newspaper Novosti, to which Solov'ev agreed. This article. 'Grekhi Rossii' was cancelled by censorship and not published (see case study on the Polish question for a further analysis of this piece). On 'Grekhi Rossii', see also case study IV 'The Polish Question'. 67. L 'idee russe, p. 87. 68. La Russie et l'Eglise universelle, p. 279. 69. Pis'ma 2, pp. 148, 156, 157; Gec 1901, pp. 160-2. Solov'ev wrote two letters of recommendation to the censors Feoktistov and Majkov (Pis'ma 2, p. 148). 70. 'Protest protiv antisemiticeskogo dvizenija v pecati': edition used: S. 1989 2. pp. 281-282. 71. Only the support or Russian writers and Lev Tolstoj was mentioned (Ibid., comment p. 873). 72. Edition used: Gec 1891, pp. xv-xxvii (also included in S. 1989 2. pp. 296-304). Solov'cv's commitment to this book showed from several acts. He wrote to Korolenko and Tolstoj to give their letters for Gec's work Slovo podsudimomu! (Pis 'ma 2, p. 157). He contacted the censor Feoktistov, suggested the title of the book -- whether on his own initiative, or on the basis of an existing working title given by Gec, remains unclear -- which, except for the word 'unpublished' before 'letters' was used in the published text; and Solov'ev himself brought texts to the editor Notovic (Pis 'ma 2, pp. 173-175). O. Notovic was a converted Jew (Klier 1995, p. 455), which might explain his willingness to take the risk of such a publication. 73. Published in Severnyj Vestnik, 1891, 8. Edition used: SS. 6, pp. 374-380. 74. The content of this text has been discussed in the chapter 'Solov'ev's Sophiology of History.' 75. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 1896, 33. Edition used: SS. 12, pp. 332-4. 76. Published in Sbornik v pol'zu evrejskikh skol, Izdanie Obscestva dlja rasprostranenija prosvescenija mezdu evrejami v Rossii (Sankt-Peterburg: tip-lit. A.E. Landau, 1896), pp. 255-277. Edition used: SS. 7. pp. 180-202. 77. Ibid., p. 198. 78. ‘I.D. Rabinovic', SS. 9, pp. 422-423: p. 422. His unfinished memoirs of Rabinovic were probably written parallel to the necrology. 'losif Davidovic Rabinovic, > 5 maja 1889g. [sic]', first published in S. 1989 2, pp. 651-655. Contrary to the date given in the title. Rabinovic died in 1899. 79. Although this point makes a Judeophobic interpretation of Solov'ev's 'Kratkaja povest" impossible, it did not hinder the religious writer Sergej Nilus (1862- 1929) to be deeply inspired by 'Kratkaja povest". Through his publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Nilus reinterpreted Solov'ev's apocalyptic scenario in the form of a Judeo-masonic conspiracy. For a refreshing confrontation of Solov'ev's and Nilus' views, see Michael Hagemeister, 'Vladimir Solov'ev and Sergej Nilus: Apocalypticism and Judeophobia', in: van den Bercken et al. 2000, pp. 287-296. 80. S.N. T'rubeckoj, 'Smert' VI. Solov'eva' (1st publ. 1900), in: D.K. Burlaka (ed.), Vl. S. Solov'ev: pro et contra, vol. 1 (Sankt-Peterburg: Izd. Khristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta. 2000), pp. 207-215: p. 210. 81. From the end of the 1880s onwards, also his contacts with the liberal lawyers Spasovic and Koni. who daily frequented Jewish colleagues at the bar, may have provided him with information about the condition of the Jews (on Spasovic's and Koni's involvment with the problem of the overrepresentation of Jews at the bar, see Nathans 2002, pp. 348-358. 82. Russkij Evrej, op. cit., p. 346. 83. Pis 'ma 2, p. 139. 84. Ibid., p. 140. 85. Ibid., pp. 146-147. 86. In the 1880s and 1890s, similar to his attitude with respect to the Old Believers, Pobedonoscev supported publications criticising the Jews (Byrnes 1968, pp. 208- 209; Rogger 1986, p. 68). Arguably, Solov'ev reacted to such publications by his 'Evrei, ikh veroucenie i nravoucenie', published 1891, thus one year after the manifesto. 87. See S. 1989 2. p. 682, quote from letter of Solov'ev and Dillon to Tolstoj (1890). 88. Ibid., pp. 683-684. 89. 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros', pp. 253. 90. Neither do
they take into account the fact that there was an urban industrial
middle- 91. 'Pis'mo V.S. Solov'eva k avtoru', Gec 1891, p. xix. 92. Ibid., p. xxiv, referring notably to the book of G. Sazonov on Pskov gubernija (Krest 'janskaja zemel'naja sobstvennost' v Porkhovskom uezde (Sankt-Peterburg: n.p., 1890) (S. 1989 2. p. 687), and p. xxv, referring to a letter of Cicerin to Solov’ev. 93. 'Pis'mo V.S. Solov'eva k avtoru', Gec 1891, p. xix. 94. Did he in
1883-1888 personally know other Jewish members of the Commission 95. Kornblatt's
happy formulation applies to several publications of Solov'ev (Kornblatt 96. It is also in this sense that we can understand Solov'ev's own motivation to intervene: 'as a moral duty to purify my conscience', as a Christian, one could add for the sake of clarity ('Pis'mo V.S. Solov'eva k avtoru', Gec 1891, p. xxii). 97. Klier 1999, p. 34. 98. In ‘Lekcija …’, ‘Tret'ja rec' v pamjat Dostoevskogo', 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros'. 99. See Kornblatt 2000 for a sound analysis of Solov'ev's taking distance from Dostoevskij on this point. 100. The ethical discord between Christianity and Judaism only concerned specific religious-metaphysical matters, such as the God-human significance and redemptory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 101. 'Evrei, ikh veroucenie ... ', p. 378. 102. In Stojanov 1888. 103. Stojanov 1888, p. 94. Solov'ev was opposed to this view and argued that 'the best minds of Israel understood the Kingdom of God in spiritual and universal terms' (Valliere 2000 a, p. 197). 104. Stojanov 1888, p. 106. 105. 'Pis'mo V.S. Solov'eva k avtoru', Gec 1891, p. xxiv. 106. 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros', p. 213. 107. Gec. referred to in Bar-Yosef 2000, p. 371. 108. The journal cautiously did not take any position, but reproduced a publication of the newspaper Novosti that reprinted the protest (Russkoe Obozrenie, 1890, [46] November, pp. 405-413). 109. Pis 'ma 2, p. 259. 110. Anonymous, 'Evrejstvo pred sudom filosofii', Cerkovno-Obscestvennyj vestnik, 1885, 92, pp. 2-3; 93, pp. 1-3; 99, pp. 1-3; 100, p. 1-3; 101, pp. 1-3. No information has been found either on the editor and the orientation of this journal, or on its possible affiliation to the Holy Synod (source consulted: Robert H. Davis, '19th century Russian Religious- theological Journals: Structure and Access', St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 33 (1989), 3, pp. 235-259. The journal is mentioned, without further details. 111. This curious association of Solov'ev with von Hartmann, who wrote essays notorious for their hostility toward the Jews, might very well have been caused by Solov'ev's own enthusiastic statements as a youth, not on the German's views on the Jews, but on his philosophy (see Kochetkova 2001, pp. 71-88). 112. 'Evrejstvo pred sudom filosofii', 93, p. 2. 113. Ibid., 101, p. 1. 114. Ibid., p. 3. 115. 'Kto prozrel?’, p. 430, perhaps aiming at I. I. Juzov [Kablic] (commentary p. 698). 116. When Korolenko received the manifesto, 22 people had already signed it, including 11 professors, and public figures like Lev Tolstoj, Viktor Gol'cev, and Pavel Miljukov ('Deklaracija V.S. Solov'eva'. in: Polnoe sobranie socinenij V.G. Korolenko, vol. 9 (Petrograd: Izdanie T-va A.F. Marks, 1914), pp. 257-260: p. 258). As early as 1887, Solov'ev was conscious of the fact that if some action was taken and someone intervened against anti-Semitism, others would follow and that would counterbalance those 'furors' (Pis'ma 2, p. 151). Interestingly, however, Solov'ev was selective in his choice and categorically refused to ask authors working for the opposite camp: when collecting signatures, he refused to approach 'the historian of Novoe Vremja' Vasilij Kljucevskij (Pis'ma 2, p. 159). 117. Valliere 2000a. p. 203. 118. Review on Solov'ev's 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros': Anonymous. - 'Bibliograficeskij otdel: Religija i filosofija', Russkaja Mysl’, 1885, 4, pp. 11-13. 119. Ibid., p. 12. 120. Ibid., pp. 12. 13. 121. ‘Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros’, p. 209. 122. ‘Talmud ...', p. 5 ff. 123. Quoted in Gec 1891, p. iii. Reprinted in Solov'ev, Pis'ma 2, p. 159, n. 1. 124. 'Pis'mo V.S. Solov'eva k avtoru', p. vii. 125. In this correspondence we read mostly about Solov'ev's progression in learning Hebrew, reading original texts and integrating them into his prayers, in sum, to incorporate these texts into his own experience. 126. On Solov'ev's contacts with Gurevic, see case study V 'The Famine of 1891-1892'. On Goracij Gincburg, see entry in Evrejskaja Enciklopedija 6, col. 525-531. On David Gineburg see Ibid., col. 521-532 and Burmistrov 1998, p. 89, n. 231. 127. Gec 1901, p. 197. 128. Ibid., p. 169. 129. The prominent authors Samuel Hirsch (1815-1889) and Salomon Formstecher (1808- 1889) wrote respectively Die Religion der Juden (1842) and Die Religion des Geistes (1841, notably on World Soul). Solov'ev only mentioned Joseph Salvador (1796-1873), a 'Franco-Jewish historian of religion who envisioned a universal. progressivist religion combining features of Judaism, Christianity and other faiths' (Valliere 2000a, p. 195, n. 52). 130. About the latter, Solov'ev wrote an entry in the Brokgauz-Efron encyclopaedia (Salomon Maimon (1753-1800), who lived precisely one century before Solov'ev. He mentioned that 'the autobiography of Maimon is for the cultural history of the Russian- Polish Jews interesting', and is partially translated into Russian, and published at the Evrejskaja Biblioteka (1871-1872). Solov'ev had possibly read it, at any rate he was informed about this publication. 131. Solov'ev argued to Gec that he saw the only fair solution in full civil rights, whereas emigration was a necessity as a temporary and palliative alleviation (Pis'ma 2. pp. 175- 77). This episode shows that Solov'ev was most concerned with contributing to improving the condition of Jews in Russia. 132. A. Flekser. 'Istoriceskaja rol' evrejstva' [on Solov'ev's lecture on Jewish Question in February 1882], Rassvet, 1882, 9; Anonymous [Tverdyj znak]. 'Lekcija prof. V. S. Solov'eva', Russkij Evrej, 1882, 9, pp. 344-346. [announced in Ibidem, 8, p. 301]; Anonymous. [on Solov'ev's lecture]. 'Peterburgskaja Letopis'', Nedel'naja Khronika Voskhoda, 1882, 9, pp. 212-213 [announced in Ibidem, 8. p. 1841. For an analysis of the significance of the Russian Jewish reception of Solov'ev, see Bar-Yosef 2000, who has found the abovementioned material. 133. P.A. Jampol'skij, Slovo, proiznesennoe Kievskim Ravvinom D-rom P. A. Jampol'- skim v molitvennom dome L. I. Brodskaga v Subbotu 14 Oktjabrja 1900 g. posle zaupokojnogo bogosluzenija po pokojnom russkom myslitele-Filosofe Vladimire Sergeevice Solov 'eve (Kiev: Izd. S. lofe i G. ZlatopoJ'skogo. 1900). 134. Gec 1901, p. 197. 135. Several of the following republications were the initiative of Jews: 'Ob antisemiticeskom dvizenii v pecali: neizdannaja stat'ja Vl. S. Solov'eva', Buduscnost' 35 (1901), pp. 684-685: 'Talmud i novejsaja polemiceskaja literatura o nem v Avstrii i v Germanii', Pomosc' evrejam, postradavsim ot neurozaja: Lit.- khudozestvennyj sbornik (Sankt-Peterburg: tip. I. Gol'dberga, 1901): Talmud (Varsava: Pravda, 1906), 2nd ed. 1907; Evrejskij vopros - Khristianskij vopros (Sobranie statej) (Varsava: Izd. Pravda, 1906) [includes excerpts from 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros' as well as the texts 'Grekhi Rossii'. 'Pis'mo V.S. Solov'eva k F. Gecu'. 'Ob antisemiticeskom dvizenii v pecati']: Pis 'ma k F. B. Gecu (Sankt- Peterburg: tip. T-va Obscestvennaja pol'za, 1909): the lollowing text was inserted in a collection containing anti-Jewish articles by Ivan Aksakov, Dostoevskij, Rozanov, Belyj and others, with an anonymous preface written by Pavel Florenskij: 'Pocemu iudejstvo bylo prednaznaceno dlja rozdenija iz nego Bogoceloveka Messij, ili Khrista?', Izrail' v proslom. nastojas'cem i buduscem: Sbornik (Sergiev Posad: Religiozno- filosofskaja Biblioteka, 1915); 'O nacionalizme (Neizdannoe pis'mo), Scit: Literaturnyj Sbornik, L. Andreev, M. Gor'kij and F. Sologub (eds.) (Moskva: T-vo tip. A.I. Mamontova. 1915), p. 152: 'V zemlju obetovannuju (Posv. A. P. Solomonu)', U rek Vavilonskikh: Nacional'no-evrejskaja lirika v mirovoj poezii, L.B. Jaffe (ed.) (Moskva: Izd. Safrut, 1917); Talmud: Ocerk (Moskva: VCIK, 1918): Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros (Berlin: Mysl'. 1921); Talmud i novejsaja polemiceskaja literatura o nem v Avstrii i v Germanii (Berlin: n.p., 1925). 136. N.I. Bakst, 'Pamjati Vladimira S. Solov'eva", Knizki Voskhoda 1900, 11. pp. 335-337; Gec 1900; Gec 1901; Semen Gruzenberg, 'Solov'ev, Vladimir Sergeevic', Evrejskaja Enciklopedija 14. col. 445-447. 137. M.G. Morgulis, Voprosy evrejskoj zizni: Sobranie statej M. G. Morgulisa (Sankt- Peterburg: tip. Landau, 1889), p. 11. 138. Solov'ev did express his deep shock regarding the Dreyfus trial in a letter to Tavernier (E. 1978, p. 340). 139. Source: interview with Nikolaj Kotrelev (14th September 1999). 140. For a critical analysis of Solov'ev's treatment of the issue, see van der Zweerde 2004. 141. 'Talmud ...', p. 18. 142. It was precisely this historical sense that Solov'ev missed in Renan's Histoire d'Israel (Pis 'ma 2, p. 153). This was probably not his only criticism with respect to the French anti-Semite writer. 143. Istorija i buduscnost teokratii. pp. 414-415. 144. Pis 'ma 2. p. 134. 145. See for instance L 'idee russe for his view of Jewry' s glorious beginning and petty end, because they missed their chance to realise a universal mission, in his eyes (pp. 86-87). 146. These two hypotheses are offered in Burmistrov 1998 (pp. 76-77). 147. On the complexity of the Judaic tradition with respect to these terms, see the classic work which presents the many-fold historical development of the messianic idea: Gershom Scholem, 'Zum Verstandnis der messianischen Idee im Judentum', in: Ibid., Judaica I (1st publ. 1963; Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1981), pp. 7-74; James C. VanderKam, 'Messianism and Apocalypticism'. in: John J. Collins (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 1: The origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity (New York: Continuum, 1999), pp. 193-228: Moshe Idel, 'Jewish Apocalypticism: 670-1670", in: Ibid., vol. 2: Apocalypticism in Western History and Culture, pp. 204-237. 148. In Trubeckoj's view, Solov'ev's messianism was too much influenced by Jewish model as it contained too a sharp national component (Trubeckoj 1995 2, p. 493ff). Trubeckoj emphasized the inconsistency between Solov'ev's positive statements on the Jewish past, and his 'superficial' plan for the future role of the Jews. In my eyes, this is an excessive criticism in two respects. Firstly, Solov'ev also criticized the Jews for their past rejection or Jesus Christ. Secondly, their future role in Russia, as reconciling class between the nobility and the people, was anything but superficial. In this respect I share Moss's view (Moss 1968, p. 138). 149. This question has been raised by Kornblatt (1997). 150. For a sharp analysis of the concept or theocracy in its history and treatment in Solov'ev's work, see Marin Terpstra, "'God's Case on Earth": Notes on Theocracy and the Political Theology of Vladimir Solov'ev', in: van den Bercken et al. 2000, pp. 411-429. 151. See 'Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros'. p. 213. 152. 'Kogda zili evrejskie proroki', p. 199. On his distorting the Hebrew concept of prophecy, see Davidson 2000, pp. 668-669.
|