|
HISTORY, SOPHIA AND THE RUSSIAN NATION |
|
Theory and Case Studies Combined: Solov'ev the Translator Solov'ev's treatment of the issues rested upon his conception of history, which he conveyed in all his interventions. The three registers that I distinguish have allowed to discern which functions his views on history fulfilled in his discourse. While his theology of history provided the framework for an ethical and religious interpretation of the issue, his philosophy of history allowed him to define persecuted religious minorities as nations with their own right to cultural development (Jewry and Poland) and to place social progress in the foreground (in favour of peasantry, contrary to the ideas of the Old Believers). His sophiology of history was central to all his interventions at a meta-discursive level, in as much as it legitimised his preaching prophet's tone with respect mostly to educated society, but also to the people, the government, the tsar, and the church. The five case studies show to what extent Solov'ev departed from debated issues and a social, political, cultural and economic situation. His contribution stands out because of the fact that he related these issues to his ideals, which can best be understood in terms of a translation. Solov'ev perceived himself as the 'top down' translator of the eternal truth of Christian moral values [given in theology of history] in the most significant issues of contemporary Russian society. Conversely he made an 'upward' translation from ongoing events to theology of history by making a diagnosis in moral terms on the basis of concrete facts. This translation work was also common to the Slavophiles. Solov'ev combined this with a second translation into and from philosophy of history, which represented an intermediary level between concrete events and theology of history. Philosophy of history offered a level of interpretation that was already more speculative than pure actuality, but which only focused on immanent developments. On the basis of the valuation of nations, culture, and social progress that it provided, and that was used mostly by the liberals, Solov'ev further enlightened it from the moral and religious perspective of theology of history and sought to supersede the limitations of both schemes with his sophiology of history. Solov'ev did not provide any argument to support the implicit statement that he was the one competent prophet to tell his own people what was good for them. Whether he derived his knowledge from a special mystical source of inspiration is never unveiled in his publicistika. On the one hand, his focus on the ideal that he wished to achieve made him intrumentalise the issues and to a certain extent turn his back on certain core aspects. From the five points indicated in the synthesis, I conclude a certain detachment from Solov'ev's part to the issues at stake. On the other hand, while at the same time demonstrating his unshakeable conviction that he knew the right path that Russia had to follow, as well as the outcome of history as a whole, his interventions showed his deep concern for the destiny of his own country, and his preoccupation with more unity between the social groups in Russia, in particular between educated society and the peasants (or city and countryside), and between the Orthodox (including the Old Believers), the Catholics (Poles) and the Jews. This persistent ambition to put society at the core of his interventions can be explained not only as part of his own task as a prophet, but also as a reaction to his father, who focused on the role of the state as the main driving force in history. Solov'ev complemented this view and fostered the participation of society as a fully-fledged actor in his country. On a scale that combines a practical approach inspired by a sense of historical urgency to foster cohesion in society as a whole on the one hand, and speculative interpretation on the other, we observe that each case presents a different balance between the two poles. The closest to a practical approach is the famine, followed by the Jewish question, while regarding the tsaricide, the Old Believers, and most importantly the Polish question, speculation and abstraction dominate. But in all cases, the tension between a sense of present crisis and a highly speculative interpretation of events remains unsolved.
|