|
HISTORY, SOPHIA AND THE RUSSIAN NATION |
||||||||||||
|
The five case studies above have shown Solov'ev's commitment, either as contemporary intervention on specific episodes (tsaricide and famine), or as enduring concern for recurring issues in Russian society (Jewish question, Polish question, Old Believers). If one were to name one issue that received his greatest preoccupation, however, it would probably be the Jewish question, as is shown by the number of publications as well as the various forms of his commitment. If the case studies are now cross-referenced, it is possible to discern answers to the following questions: i) To what extent was Solov'ev informed on the subject matter that he broached? ii) To what extent can his views be aligned with the ongoing debates? iii) Where can we situate him in these debates'? iv) Who was or were his addressee(s)? v) How were his interventions perceived by his contemporaries? ad i) Solov'ev demonstrated general knowledge on the issues that he discussed. In two cases, however, he proved himself an expert on related matters, namely the Talmud (Jewish question), and agronomy (Famine). On the whole, however, he selected only very few facts as relevant for discussion, scarcely provided analysis, and formulated hasty conclusions. In two cases, he gave an utterly partial, simplistic image of the situation in his time, namely the Old Believers and the Catholic Poles, which suggests that he did not take into account all social. economic, and cultural key developments of these religious minorities. In fact, his method consisted of interpreting the issue by relating it to its higher essence, its meaning from the perspective of his ideals. which explains the frequent reduction of an issue to one or two aspects which he judged as its core, without taking other aspects or factors into account. ad ii) A discrepancy appears when we examine to what extent he participated in the debates. On the one hand, he took part in them directly by offering his own opinion on the central issues raised by public opinion (roots of the revolutionary movement, unification tsar-people, religious and cultural freedom of the religious minorities, cliches regarding the Jews, the Talmud. Polish political independence, attitude of the educated society towards the peasant, and the latter's cultural backwardness). On the other hand, in sharp contrast with his colleagues, he hardly picked up the political, institutional, legal and administrative sides of the issues, about which he most probably was informed, but in which he obviously did not show any particular interest. This applies to the solutions proposed, including those he offered. He instead favoured an ethical and religious interpretation of the issues. ad iii) Although he never fully belonged to a single camp. his views bore common features, in most cases with the liberals (religious and cultural freedom, cultural progress of the peasantry), and with the Slavophiles and progressive religious thinkers (general framework of thought). Interestingly, he also shared points with the people that he criticised most, such as the clerical and nationalist conservatives, the populists, and Lev Tolstoj. The originality of his views consisted not so much in specific points of view, as in the combination of standpoints commonly voiced by opposed camps: abolition of the death penalty and reinforcing the monarchy, defence of religious freedom and hopes of conversion (Jews, Old Believers). The boldness of his tone and practical commitment also stands out (tsaricide, Jewish question, famine), Finally, the connection of all issues with his ideals of church reunion and/or free theocracy made his interpretation unique. Arguably, it was his ideal of church reunion that lies at the basis of his two-fold attitude towards the Old Believers, the Jews and the Catholic Poles, namely a blend of respect for their religion as such, and a hope that sooner or later they would join universal church through conversion to official Orthodoxy in the first case, and to Christianity in the second. He committed himself to several issues. Whether directly or indirectly, from the perspective of free theocracy. If we hold to his own scheme of the institutions and leaders involved in free theocracy, his commitment can be demonstrated as a contribution to the realisation of free theocracy in Russia and his interventions distributed as follows: [1]
ad iv) His addressees were the three institutions which were central in his theocratic ideal, namely the Russian government (Polish and Jewish question, Old Believers) and on one occasion its ruler, the tsar (tsaricide), the Russian Orthodox Church (Old Believers). He addressed, however, unwaveringly Russian educated society (all cases). This included not only exhortations to act, but also criticism of a number of tendencies in Russian public opinion, primarily the conservative nationalists and the populists. Except in the case of the Old Believers, he generally did not address himself directly to the population group in question in the issues, namely the religious minorities and the peasants. At this point, one may wonder why his address to the Russian Orthodox Church was not so prominent, given the central role of the church in his theoretic ideal. Four answers can be advanced. Firstly, he considered it his mission, as a prophet, to address and guide educated society. Secondly, educated society may be identified with the church in the sense of community, yet not in the institutional sense. Thirdly, he addressed them precisely because he regarded them as the progressive element of the nation, contrary to the church, which in his eyes was the conservative element, the preserver of tradition. Fourthly, and most importantly, since the creation of the Holy Synod the church did not exist as an independent, 'addressable' factor in Russia. Solov'ev would first have to make the tsar set the church free, before he could speak to its leader, namely the 'priest'. Solov'ev exclusively addressed Russians with his exhortations. While the tsaricide, the famine and the Old Believers were indeed properly Russian issues, the Polish question also concerned Germany and Austria, and the Jewish question also related to France. He justified this exclusive focus on Russia by implying that he knew Russia's qualities and forces given by Providence. [2] More precisely, he addressed the Russians' conscience: at stake was the 'salvation of the national soul', which started with the 'acceptance of one's own duty.' [3] Since national conscience is 'the same for all', there is only one truth for it, and this truth was expressed by Solov'ev the prophet. In this respect, it was his perception of Russia as a new force capable of embodying eternal Sophia that prompted him to define all the critical issues analysed above in relation to the Russian national mission. In his eyes, Russia was a part of the organism 'humanity', and he strongly felt he was a member of that nation. Despite his universalist views and his supra-national approach present in his ideals of free theocracy and church reunion, he kept thinking from a national perspective. ad v) Solov'ev received support from the editors in whose publications he published. This primarily included the Slavophile Aksakov, and later the liberal Stasjulevic and liberal- populist Gorcev. However, this does not mean that he received widespread approval. As a result of his boldness, his combining various motives of history, as the three registers allow to show, and the fact that he related the issues with his own projects, he was often perceived as a troublemaker by the authorities (tsaricide, Jewish question, famine), a false patriot talking rubbish by conservatives (tsaricide, Old Believers, Jewish question, Polish question), and a utopian by progressive camps (tsaricide, Old Believers, Jewish question, famine). He may well have 'obtained wider recognition through his current affairs writing', as Wozniuk sustains. [4] This probably applies to those two issues which he broached in such a way as to distanciate himself from the Slavophiles in the mid-1880s, namely church reunion and nationalism. But in so far as these five issues are concerned, which deal with all the cases of his concrete social commitment, he was mostly ignored by his contemporaries. _______________ Notes: 1. From Filosofskie nacala cel’nogo znanija, p. 196, ‘Evrejstvo i khristianskij vopros, p. 231 [table in my introduction, p. 12]. 2. ‘Pis’mo v redakciju zurnala Przeglad Polski’, p. 268. 3. ‘Pol’sa i vostocnyj vopros’, p. 68. 4. Wozniuk 2000,
p. xxvii.
|